Wouldn't the whole thing be easier if "closing the loop" didn't involve sending the hitmen back to their younger selves? You have a small army of assassins--just send Bruce Willis off to his younger self's Looper buddy. No interfamilial (as it were) recognition, no one getting all sentimental about their mortality, business runs smoothly. Bingo bango.
I hope my future self is listening. (I am, buddy!)
Friday, February 27, 2015
Oblivion
The Tom Cruise sci-fi vehicle was different than what the eight foot tall posters billed it to be, but in a good way.
I can't help wondering, though...the first Tom Cruise clone we meet is Technician 49, who bumps into (with his fists, I mean) the second clone, Technician 52. In theory, then, there are at least fifty other clones wandering the Earth, each pining for his lost love (in the form of Olga Kurylenko). At some point in the future, do these 50 (or more!) descend on poor Olga, each hoping to re-consummate the interrupted marriage?
'Cause if so, Olga's paradise just got a bit hellish.
I can't help wondering, though...the first Tom Cruise clone we meet is Technician 49, who bumps into (with his fists, I mean) the second clone, Technician 52. In theory, then, there are at least fifty other clones wandering the Earth, each pining for his lost love (in the form of Olga Kurylenko). At some point in the future, do these 50 (or more!) descend on poor Olga, each hoping to re-consummate the interrupted marriage?
'Cause if so, Olga's paradise just got a bit hellish.
An Ex-Sherrif In Town
This staunch opponent of Obamacare (and a states' rights loonie) is apparently willing to risk death for his principles. Good on him. Wish there were more like him.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
What's A Little Waterboarding Between Friends?
Because I'm feeling slightly combative this morning.
I wish we could get a certain Mr. Cheney to give us three groans for our Constitution, since he so amiably plied them out of so many others in the name of that very document.
I wish we could get a certain Mr. Cheney to give us three groans for our Constitution, since he so amiably plied them out of so many others in the name of that very document.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Substitute Penises Go Bang
In the wake of the latest mass shooting, this one at UC Santa Barbara, I've had three thoughts. One, I think we've finally jumped the shark on the gun-as-phallis metaphor that rears its ugly, ahem, head after each one of these incidents. This shooting was quite literally perpetrated by a virgin upset by his own virginity. Because he could not shoot his load he took a gun in hand and shot....yeah, exactly. The substitution is so unabashedly Freudian that it's a little breathtaking. It is also thoroughly pathetic in its artlessness.
Two, one of the victims' fathers got me thinking about the NRA again. Now, the NRA has a right to exist, as does any organization who works to defend part or all of our Constitution. The NRA has the same right to exist as, say, the ACLU, that constant bugbear of the right. But here's where I get lost: if the ACLU behaved the way the NRA behaves then they would be forcefully pushing for laws allowing people to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Moreover, they would stage a rally and show up en masse in a town where citizens were crushed to death in an attempt to flee after someone yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. There really is no awful, gun-related situation to which the NRA is not willing to add that final "fuck you."
Three, the gun cult in this country is a death cult. They worship a tool whose only purpose is killing, and their most fervent supplications are reserved for the subset of these tools built specifically for killing other people. Note, I exempt hunters who eat their kill from this--not that I would ever feel good about killing another animal--and I exempt those people who own guns legitimately for home defense--not that I ever would since chances are more likely it will be used by family against family. (And how do I define "legitimate"? Well, is there a part of you that secretly wishes for a burglar to break into your house so you can empty a few rounds into another human being with no legal repercussions? No? Then you're cool.) Essentially, gun cultists defend their right to Life and Liberty by claiming a right to end yours.
Amanda Marcotte helped put a lot of the psychopathy driving our gun debate in perspective for me, and just like with the Santa Barbara shooter, it's all about thwarted desires.
Two, one of the victims' fathers got me thinking about the NRA again. Now, the NRA has a right to exist, as does any organization who works to defend part or all of our Constitution. The NRA has the same right to exist as, say, the ACLU, that constant bugbear of the right. But here's where I get lost: if the ACLU behaved the way the NRA behaves then they would be forcefully pushing for laws allowing people to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Moreover, they would stage a rally and show up en masse in a town where citizens were crushed to death in an attempt to flee after someone yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. There really is no awful, gun-related situation to which the NRA is not willing to add that final "fuck you."
Three, the gun cult in this country is a death cult. They worship a tool whose only purpose is killing, and their most fervent supplications are reserved for the subset of these tools built specifically for killing other people. Note, I exempt hunters who eat their kill from this--not that I would ever feel good about killing another animal--and I exempt those people who own guns legitimately for home defense--not that I ever would since chances are more likely it will be used by family against family. (And how do I define "legitimate"? Well, is there a part of you that secretly wishes for a burglar to break into your house so you can empty a few rounds into another human being with no legal repercussions? No? Then you're cool.) Essentially, gun cultists defend their right to Life and Liberty by claiming a right to end yours.
Amanda Marcotte helped put a lot of the psychopathy driving our gun debate in perspective for me, and just like with the Santa Barbara shooter, it's all about thwarted desires.
Friday, August 9, 2013
In Memoria
I can't be the only one who looked at this story about the possibility of false memories and thought, "this would be an awesome way to enjoy a movie."
Monday, August 5, 2013
The Wolverine: A One Sentence Review Plus Some Other Explanatory Sentences
My review:
I admit, I didn't mind the thing so much while sitting through it, but much like the poison and cancer the movie showcases, it's been eating at me since. And since I have the coffin already open and prepped, allow me to present, in no particular order, the nails I will use to close it (I would warn that spoilers follow, but then the whole damn thing is pretty spoiled):
--Like it or not, and some don't, it has long been orthodoxy that the adamantium bonded to his bones would kill Wolverine if he were deprived of his healing factor. In this movie, he is deprived of his healing factor. But instead of sepsis, he goes on to enjoy some homemade tempura.
--Further, a Wolverine without a healing factor who nevertheless decides to extend and retract his claws would do nothing but bleed from the six gaping knife wounds in his hands and ruin his dress pants. But no, Wolvie's dress pants survive just fine. Apart from the bullets.
--The one thing you should know about Japanese culture is that they value family honor above all else. No, literally, that's the one thing this film has to say about Japanese culture.
--Who is the white girl mutant named Viper? Does she want to be rich? In charge? Is she enthusiastically serving the main villain out of loyalty? Why is she even in Japan? Also, if shedding her skin lets her shake off an arrow to the back and the blunt force trauma of the three-story fall that follows said arrow, then how is she killed by a second sizable blow to the head? Does she only have one get-out-of-skin-free card?
--On that note, I submit a Moratorium Request: no more assuming that if a mutant has one power--say, Viper's poison, just to grab an example from the ether--that this mutant also has 1) super-strength, 2) expert martial arts training, and/or 3) physical invulnerability. Last I checked, ingesting poison and ingesting an arrow with your spine are two completely unrelated bodily processes.
--Following on this, the bug Wolvie finds playing with his heart and dampening his healing factor is of the same variety as the two or three shown swimming around Yashida when we first meet him and his then oncologist, Viper, and something tells me that actively suppressing a cancer patient's immune system is not terribly Hippocratic. So...the bugs were not dampening Yashida's natural healing too? They only have adverse affects on gaijin? Buehller?
--As for Yashida's intentions, man alive, what a waste. We first see him in a WWII prison camp in Nagasaki and he's freeing American POWs so they can escape the coming nuclear holocaust. So, good guy. The rest of the movie features him as some super techno-savvy Tony Stark of Nipon only interested in living forever. Not living forever so he can complete his life's work that would otherwise be left unfinished when he succumbed to cancer. Nope, nothing so noble, just "living forever." Even though he has a suit that's keeping him alive just fine. (Cough, Tony Stark, cough. Further digression: best iron lung EVAR.) Okay, I see that the survival instinct that makes him turn away from seppuku and leap into a pit with Logan is the same instinct that guides his quest for immortality, but then that means his selflessly saving the POWs was...a simplistically moral writerly device to allow our hero Logan to save him in good conscience? Why, that's not at all cynical screenwriting. How much more interesting would the question be if the "gift" of a normal human life (and death) offered to Logan by the older, dying Yashida was done out of genuine compassion, rather than as a pretext for more sinister ends?
--Asian Hawkeye is just as gripping a character as his American counterpart.
--Apparently, Wolverine's healing factor is located in the bone of his claws. Good to know.
--Sorry, but adamantium does not cut adamantium, even if the bit doing the cutting has been heated first. Especially if it's been heated first.
--Much like half of the people in the movie, dead Jean Grey comes off as uncharacteristically selfish, wanting nothing but for Logan to stop trying to help people (!), finally give up the ghost, and join her in death...all to keep her from being lonely. This is not who Jean Grey actually was (outside the grip of the Phoenix Force), it is the mutant ghost of Over-Attached Girlfriend.
--I lied before: the film knows two things about Japanese culture, the second being that all Japanese women speak in humble monotones--even the ones with swords--and just as a bird's song is used to attract a mate, the humblest monotone of them all snags the man.
--When your most sympathetic character is a CGI she-bear whose shining moment is pissing on a tree somewhere in the vicinity of our hero before meeting her untimely end just ten minutes into the movie, you, dear action flick, are in deep doo-doo.
High Points:
--The train fight was cool.
--My theater only charges $5.
I give it one claw.
"At some point, the writers and director of The Wolverine became so bored and/or disillusioned with mauling one of Marvel's most badass, yet multi-dimensional characters that they decided they would rather be making Iron Man 4: Bushido Burns Hot."
I admit, I didn't mind the thing so much while sitting through it, but much like the poison and cancer the movie showcases, it's been eating at me since. And since I have the coffin already open and prepped, allow me to present, in no particular order, the nails I will use to close it (I would warn that spoilers follow, but then the whole damn thing is pretty spoiled):
--Like it or not, and some don't, it has long been orthodoxy that the adamantium bonded to his bones would kill Wolverine if he were deprived of his healing factor. In this movie, he is deprived of his healing factor. But instead of sepsis, he goes on to enjoy some homemade tempura.
--Further, a Wolverine without a healing factor who nevertheless decides to extend and retract his claws would do nothing but bleed from the six gaping knife wounds in his hands and ruin his dress pants. But no, Wolvie's dress pants survive just fine. Apart from the bullets.
--The one thing you should know about Japanese culture is that they value family honor above all else. No, literally, that's the one thing this film has to say about Japanese culture.
--Who is the white girl mutant named Viper? Does she want to be rich? In charge? Is she enthusiastically serving the main villain out of loyalty? Why is she even in Japan? Also, if shedding her skin lets her shake off an arrow to the back and the blunt force trauma of the three-story fall that follows said arrow, then how is she killed by a second sizable blow to the head? Does she only have one get-out-of-skin-free card?
--On that note, I submit a Moratorium Request: no more assuming that if a mutant has one power--say, Viper's poison, just to grab an example from the ether--that this mutant also has 1) super-strength, 2) expert martial arts training, and/or 3) physical invulnerability. Last I checked, ingesting poison and ingesting an arrow with your spine are two completely unrelated bodily processes.
--Following on this, the bug Wolvie finds playing with his heart and dampening his healing factor is of the same variety as the two or three shown swimming around Yashida when we first meet him and his then oncologist, Viper, and something tells me that actively suppressing a cancer patient's immune system is not terribly Hippocratic. So...the bugs were not dampening Yashida's natural healing too? They only have adverse affects on gaijin? Buehller?
--As for Yashida's intentions, man alive, what a waste. We first see him in a WWII prison camp in Nagasaki and he's freeing American POWs so they can escape the coming nuclear holocaust. So, good guy. The rest of the movie features him as some super techno-savvy Tony Stark of Nipon only interested in living forever. Not living forever so he can complete his life's work that would otherwise be left unfinished when he succumbed to cancer. Nope, nothing so noble, just "living forever." Even though he has a suit that's keeping him alive just fine. (Cough, Tony Stark, cough. Further digression: best iron lung EVAR.) Okay, I see that the survival instinct that makes him turn away from seppuku and leap into a pit with Logan is the same instinct that guides his quest for immortality, but then that means his selflessly saving the POWs was...a simplistically moral writerly device to allow our hero Logan to save him in good conscience? Why, that's not at all cynical screenwriting. How much more interesting would the question be if the "gift" of a normal human life (and death) offered to Logan by the older, dying Yashida was done out of genuine compassion, rather than as a pretext for more sinister ends?
--Asian Hawkeye is just as gripping a character as his American counterpart.
--Apparently, Wolverine's healing factor is located in the bone of his claws. Good to know.
--Sorry, but adamantium does not cut adamantium, even if the bit doing the cutting has been heated first. Especially if it's been heated first.
--Much like half of the people in the movie, dead Jean Grey comes off as uncharacteristically selfish, wanting nothing but for Logan to stop trying to help people (!), finally give up the ghost, and join her in death...all to keep her from being lonely. This is not who Jean Grey actually was (outside the grip of the Phoenix Force), it is the mutant ghost of Over-Attached Girlfriend.
--I lied before: the film knows two things about Japanese culture, the second being that all Japanese women speak in humble monotones--even the ones with swords--and just as a bird's song is used to attract a mate, the humblest monotone of them all snags the man.
--When your most sympathetic character is a CGI she-bear whose shining moment is pissing on a tree somewhere in the vicinity of our hero before meeting her untimely end just ten minutes into the movie, you, dear action flick, are in deep doo-doo.
High Points:
--The train fight was cool.
--My theater only charges $5.
I give it one claw.
A Call To Violence
The larger point here is not incorrect: religion is not some special spur to violence that, if removed, would leave a world of blissed-out unicorn rainbows in its wake. There are many things that move people to violence--competition for land, resources, mates, etc. Hell, if you extrapolate "resources" outward to a state level you have the only real reason anyone starts a war. After all, nationalism is derived from pride, and pride is a feeling of being owed something, whether that's a tribute, taxes, or deference (and deference is often what leads to real world gains via trade negotiations, say, or military showdowns). To be satisfied, nationalism demands something it can touch.
No, the reason people like me find religiously-inspired violence so nonsensical is because, of all the tangible things humans kill other humans in order to claim--better access to food and water; a woman; a parking spot--God is the one thing that does not exist.
No, the reason people like me find religiously-inspired violence so nonsensical is because, of all the tangible things humans kill other humans in order to claim--better access to food and water; a woman; a parking spot--God is the one thing that does not exist.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Neglect?
Charlie Pierce points us toward the fact that a new beast is slouching toward the brains of right-wingers to be born.
As odd as I find the idea that this President, who has a fleet of drones at his disposal and who has used those drones to kill American citizens, that he would resort to the slow drip of denying health care to his political opponents as a form of assassination, as odd as that idea is, I couldn't help but chuckle at Bachmann's and Paul's quotes fretting over this whole thing when they didn't want the health care coverage extended anyway.
"With the implementation of Obamacare at hand...could there potential (sic) be political implications regarding health care--access to health care, denial of health care." --Michele Bachmann
Shorter Michele: I didn't want the food to begin with, but don't dare try to limit the portions!
As odd as I find the idea that this President, who has a fleet of drones at his disposal and who has used those drones to kill American citizens, that he would resort to the slow drip of denying health care to his political opponents as a form of assassination, as odd as that idea is, I couldn't help but chuckle at Bachmann's and Paul's quotes fretting over this whole thing when they didn't want the health care coverage extended anyway.
"With the implementation of Obamacare at hand...could there potential (sic) be political implications regarding health care--access to health care, denial of health care." --Michele Bachmann
Shorter Michele: I didn't want the food to begin with, but don't dare try to limit the portions!
Friday, May 24, 2013
Why Stop There?
I keep up with quite a few atheist writers and several atheist blogs. (In all fairness, to some degree I write an atheist blog.) What they--we--all seem to have in common is a sneering dismissal of religious beliefs in all their manifestations.
That is not a bad thing.
Believing in things that aren't true can be very dangerous, especially when large swaths of people are taught to believe that...oh I don't know, climate change is a hoax (or worse, the path to the Rapture), or...oh, I don't know, God wants you to kill the infidels. These kinds of unfounded beliefs should be mocked, discredited, pushed to the fringes, and then mercifully ignored (except for further casual mockery)--ideally before the ocean reaches your doorstep or meat cleaver wielding lunatics decide to visit the local V.A.
It's a noble goal, this tearing of other people's veils, and in our day and age it literally has the power to save the world (let no pretenders tell you otherwise), but lord knows pursuing it properly can eat up a lot of time and mental energy.
And yet, I'm very confused as to why all the atheist writers I read tend to stop there.
It strikes me as hardhearted and fundamentally anti-humanistic to tear down the Bible's claim as the literal Word of God without also acknowledging that it is an absolutely stunning literary achievement. (If that sounds questionable to you, Erich Auerbach will put a fatherly hand on your shoulder and explain why you should step out of the echo chamber post-haste to let your ears stop ringing.)
Like any monumental work of literature, it has things to teach us about being human. Rightfully lampooning the idea that the sky is filled with water or that the world is 6,000 years old without then helping people to marvel at the weird, nihilistic genius of the Book of Job or the psychedelic explosions of poetry in Revelations is to miss the forest for the trees. (I might even threaten my godless street cred by admitting that Jesus makes for a very enthralling protagonist.) It would be like getting caught up debunking the existence of the Cyclops and failing to enjoy Odysseus' wit in escaping the monster's cave.
Many lament the "shrillness" of the current atheist movement. I don't mind it. Anyone who ignores a truth because it was bluntly stated is someone who was not in the market for truth to begin with, and so not someone I consider a fellow traveler anyway. But I do worry for the "souls" of my fellow atheists out there, the ones whose righteous animus toward wrong thinking poisons their ability to draw pleasure from one of mankind's greatest written works.
The most pointed charge our critics level at us is equating atheism with emptiness, and if we focus only on dismantling their erroneous belief system it can often appear (appear, I say) that they are right. I think the proper response is to go further than just twitting them for mistaking mythology as fact by then enjoying their "holy" book for the sublimely human piece of art it really is. Because how maddening would they find that and how much richer would our lives be for it?
Win-win.
That is not a bad thing.
Believing in things that aren't true can be very dangerous, especially when large swaths of people are taught to believe that...oh I don't know, climate change is a hoax (or worse, the path to the Rapture), or...oh, I don't know, God wants you to kill the infidels. These kinds of unfounded beliefs should be mocked, discredited, pushed to the fringes, and then mercifully ignored (except for further casual mockery)--ideally before the ocean reaches your doorstep or meat cleaver wielding lunatics decide to visit the local V.A.
It's a noble goal, this tearing of other people's veils, and in our day and age it literally has the power to save the world (let no pretenders tell you otherwise), but lord knows pursuing it properly can eat up a lot of time and mental energy.
And yet, I'm very confused as to why all the atheist writers I read tend to stop there.
It strikes me as hardhearted and fundamentally anti-humanistic to tear down the Bible's claim as the literal Word of God without also acknowledging that it is an absolutely stunning literary achievement. (If that sounds questionable to you, Erich Auerbach will put a fatherly hand on your shoulder and explain why you should step out of the echo chamber post-haste to let your ears stop ringing.)
Like any monumental work of literature, it has things to teach us about being human. Rightfully lampooning the idea that the sky is filled with water or that the world is 6,000 years old without then helping people to marvel at the weird, nihilistic genius of the Book of Job or the psychedelic explosions of poetry in Revelations is to miss the forest for the trees. (I might even threaten my godless street cred by admitting that Jesus makes for a very enthralling protagonist.) It would be like getting caught up debunking the existence of the Cyclops and failing to enjoy Odysseus' wit in escaping the monster's cave.
Many lament the "shrillness" of the current atheist movement. I don't mind it. Anyone who ignores a truth because it was bluntly stated is someone who was not in the market for truth to begin with, and so not someone I consider a fellow traveler anyway. But I do worry for the "souls" of my fellow atheists out there, the ones whose righteous animus toward wrong thinking poisons their ability to draw pleasure from one of mankind's greatest written works.
The most pointed charge our critics level at us is equating atheism with emptiness, and if we focus only on dismantling their erroneous belief system it can often appear (appear, I say) that they are right. I think the proper response is to go further than just twitting them for mistaking mythology as fact by then enjoying their "holy" book for the sublimely human piece of art it really is. Because how maddening would they find that and how much richer would our lives be for it?
Win-win.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Remembrance Of Things Past
There's a lot of blogjuice pulsing through the veins of the politically-oriented New Media right now, seeing as ten years ago a terrible president took us to war for dubious reasons.
This post is not about that.
Rather, it's a personal reflection. Ten years ago, I was a temp at a non-profit, not long out of school, hoping to break into NY theater, and mired in a thoroughly awful relationship. Now...I'm a temp at a non-profit, looking to go back to school, trying to break out of NY theater, and married to the love of my life.
Buy me an Encyclopedia Britannica, cause them are some mighty fine bookends...
This post is not about that.
Rather, it's a personal reflection. Ten years ago, I was a temp at a non-profit, not long out of school, hoping to break into NY theater, and mired in a thoroughly awful relationship. Now...I'm a temp at a non-profit, looking to go back to school, trying to break out of NY theater, and married to the love of my life.
Buy me an Encyclopedia Britannica, cause them are some mighty fine bookends...
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?
I'm very relieved that Congress finally re-authorized the Violence Against Women Act. After its expiration, I had to resort to punching puppies just to keep my calluses from disappearing.
...
What?
...
What?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Primal Forces
I can't help but think that the modern Republican Party embodies the same human passions that burned down the library of Alexandria and robbed the world of countless artistic and intellectual treasures.
Gross over-simplification? Maybe. Maybe....
Gross over-simplification? Maybe. Maybe....
Monday, December 24, 2012
Now Maybe?
Can we please talk about this now? Like, an adult discussion?
What bothers me most about this recent spate is that these disturbed individuals (who are nonetheless given access to an instrument that is nothing short of a key to the life and death of their neighbors) are taking their vengeance on strangers and innocents.
Your boss fires you so you kill him, that I get--as wrong as it is, obviously. Your boss fires you so you shoot up a grocery store or whatever? Sorry, you've completely lost me.
And going so far as to set a trap for people who not only have done you no harm but are actively trying to help you? As a final statement to a world you've given up on...you're doing it so wrong it makes me wish your awful, confused, too short life had been shorter and even worse.
What bothers me most about this recent spate is that these disturbed individuals (who are nonetheless given access to an instrument that is nothing short of a key to the life and death of their neighbors) are taking their vengeance on strangers and innocents.
Your boss fires you so you kill him, that I get--as wrong as it is, obviously. Your boss fires you so you shoot up a grocery store or whatever? Sorry, you've completely lost me.
And going so far as to set a trap for people who not only have done you no harm but are actively trying to help you? As a final statement to a world you've given up on...you're doing it so wrong it makes me wish your awful, confused, too short life had been shorter and even worse.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Picking Through The (Delicious) Ashes
This article detailing the failings of the Romney campaign leading up to the 2012 election is, to me, like french fries wrapped in strips of bacon that were cooked in grease heated by Hendrix licks.
Yet, in the midst of all the Romney staffers' squinting guiltily in the bright glare of 20/20 hindsight--"we should have highlighted his character! we should have spent more on our ground game! oh, oh!"--one thing that people seem to have forgotten is...Romney was a terrible nominee for the current Republican Party.
Let's revisit the two biggies. First, Romney's a Mormon, a religion which, up until they knew they were stuck with him, most Republicans considered about as Christian as the Branch Davidians. In a party that is, if not built on, at least leaning drunkenly for support on, the Christianist factions at work in the modern U.S., this is a problem.
Second, not only was he the governor of a blue state (not a firing offense in and of itself) but his signature achievement, the health care law, had to be forgotten--Orwell-style--lest it remind the base that Romney paved the way for the Affordable Care Act, the legislative achievement of Obama's that made Republican's froth at the mouth because it was...an achievement...of Obama's. Having your own nominee exude faint whiffs of the very thing that sends your peeps into an irrational, inchoate rage is not--pardon the expression--starting in the black.
So, you strip away Romney's faith and his signature achievement in public service, and all you're left with is a rich white guy. And while this alone is apparently enough to make you the standard-bearer of the modern Republican Party, it is no longer enough, thankfully, to make you the leader of the free world.
Yet, in the midst of all the Romney staffers' squinting guiltily in the bright glare of 20/20 hindsight--"we should have highlighted his character! we should have spent more on our ground game! oh, oh!"--one thing that people seem to have forgotten is...Romney was a terrible nominee for the current Republican Party.
Let's revisit the two biggies. First, Romney's a Mormon, a religion which, up until they knew they were stuck with him, most Republicans considered about as Christian as the Branch Davidians. In a party that is, if not built on, at least leaning drunkenly for support on, the Christianist factions at work in the modern U.S., this is a problem.
Second, not only was he the governor of a blue state (not a firing offense in and of itself) but his signature achievement, the health care law, had to be forgotten--Orwell-style--lest it remind the base that Romney paved the way for the Affordable Care Act, the legislative achievement of Obama's that made Republican's froth at the mouth because it was...an achievement...of Obama's. Having your own nominee exude faint whiffs of the very thing that sends your peeps into an irrational, inchoate rage is not--pardon the expression--starting in the black.
So, you strip away Romney's faith and his signature achievement in public service, and all you're left with is a rich white guy. And while this alone is apparently enough to make you the standard-bearer of the modern Republican Party, it is no longer enough, thankfully, to make you the leader of the free world.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
I Feel Fine
Today was the apocalypse...again. This time, the doomsday warnings came dressed as jaguars, rather than sporting yarmulkes, because the end of the world is nothing if not multicultural.
Yet, while the earth still turns, heedless of the now two times it was supposed to keel over and call it quits (third time's the charm?), and the tug of time draws us ever forward despite the deep grooves our kicking heels have left in the floor behind us, my inner philosopher and hobby aphorist is compelled to reflect sagely that every day is the end of the world as we know it.
Deep, man.
Yet, while the earth still turns, heedless of the now two times it was supposed to keel over and call it quits (third time's the charm?), and the tug of time draws us ever forward despite the deep grooves our kicking heels have left in the floor behind us, my inner philosopher and hobby aphorist is compelled to reflect sagely that every day is the end of the world as we know it.
Deep, man.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
"Guns Chasten Speech"
This NYT opinion is the most clearly stated rebuttal of the rhetoric flying around that we are free because of our guns. This never made much sense to me; it didn't strike me as wrong, per se, just superfluous to the debate. Well, it turns out I just needed a guiding hand from Mr. DeBrabander: we are free in spite of our guns.
And that is the exact effect that guns have on our discourse too. The fact that said guido is indeed a thug does not change based on his proximity to a prosecutor's turned back. What changes is the prosecutor's willingness to openly state the truth when confronted with violent consequences. He has been silenced by an implied threat. The same way he likely would be if someone he had a dispute with were carrying a gun.
The NRA likes to say that an armed society is a polite society. But that's just a polite way of saying a self-censored society. These are not the same thing.
The idea that a populace armed with civilian (or even sub-military grade) weaponry could stave off the most powerful military in all of history has always seemed...farfetched to me. And not just to me. Someone else was feeling demotivated:
But back to free speech and the limits placed on it by public carry permits. It reminds me of a lunch I once had with an old friend. He's of Italian stock, and had friends who had gone into organized crime. He himself is a writer, but he still carried around some of that "old neighborhood" swagger. For whatever reason, we found ourselves discussing RICO prosecutors, and how they must view the mafia as a bunch of thugs. After conceding that they are indeed thugs, a cloud of pride crossed my friend's face. "Yeah," he said dismissively, "but those lawyers wouldn't say that if a guido was standing right behind them." No, they probably wouldn't--anymore than anyone else would--because they know that chances are they'd end up as the red sauce on top of some kid's spaghetti-all-covered-with-cheese.
And that is the exact effect that guns have on our discourse too. The fact that said guido is indeed a thug does not change based on his proximity to a prosecutor's turned back. What changes is the prosecutor's willingness to openly state the truth when confronted with violent consequences. He has been silenced by an implied threat. The same way he likely would be if someone he had a dispute with were carrying a gun.
The NRA likes to say that an armed society is a polite society. But that's just a polite way of saying a self-censored society. These are not the same thing.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Yes, This Would Clearly Work...
There are suggestions now flying around that we prevent future school shootings by arming the teachers. These suggestions, naturally, are coming from the same people who can't trust teachers not to turn their neckless little darlings into raging atheist polygamist pinko tax lovers.
My attempt to tease apart the tangle of cognitive dissonance on display here never made it past incoherent blubbering, but this person managed to say what needs to be said:
My attempt to tease apart the tangle of cognitive dissonance on display here never made it past incoherent blubbering, but this person managed to say what needs to be said:
So I’m a teacher. According to conservative orthodoxy, I’m a parasite on the public’s dime who is only interested in indoctrinating the precious children of America into communism or atheism or whatever. I can’t be trusted to have any control over the curriculum I teach. I can’t be trusted to fairly and impartially evaluate my students, let alone my colleagues. I can’t be trusted to have collective bargaining rights. I can’t be trusted to have an objective view of governmental policy when it comes to my own profession.
But they’ll trust me to keep a gun in a room filled with children.
Even the cynicism-producing neurons of my prefrontal cortex can’t wrap themselves around this kind of stupid bullshit.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Will We Ever Talk About This?
There's been a shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut. An elementary school.
Of course, if only we as a society weren't so anti-gun (snort) and had allowed those children to pack heat then none of this would have happened, amirite?
Also, too, fuck you, Jay Carney. Now is exactly when we should talk about these things.
UPDATE: It turns out that the perennial blossom of potted douche standing proudly on the front porch of right blogistan, Instapundit, accidentally beat me to my punchline by almost an hour. You think you can make this up, but the gun nuts prove you can't.
Also, too, there seems to be some fellow feeling about telling Jay Carney to fuck off.
Of course, if only we as a society weren't so anti-gun (snort) and had allowed those children to pack heat then none of this would have happened, amirite?
Also, too, fuck you, Jay Carney. Now is exactly when we should talk about these things.
UPDATE: It turns out that the perennial blossom of potted douche standing proudly on the front porch of right blogistan, Instapundit, accidentally beat me to my punchline by almost an hour. You think you can make this up, but the gun nuts prove you can't.
Also, too, there seems to be some fellow feeling about telling Jay Carney to fuck off.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
A Night Of Bond-ing
I saw Skyfall tonight. It was a decent installment--not quite as intelligent as Daniel Craig's last two Bond movies, but enjoyable nonetheless. A few spoilers, er, thoughts:
--I continue to enjoy the opening montages wherein the main plot points of the film are set out, if one knows how to decode them. For instance, there are the images of stone arches which forecast the fight in the sewer, the Chinese dragons which intimate Bond's fateful trip to Macau, and the storm of slowly descending, flaming sperm which clearly presage his tryst with a former Macanese sex slave.
--I appreciate that the villain's motivation had nothing to do with conquering the world. I maintain that that was the most satisfying part of Casino Royale (where Le Chifre's prime concern is market manipulation and avoiding the edge of an African warlord's machete) and the least satisfying part of the otherwise compelling Quantum of Solace. The world is too big, too abstract, which makes seeking to possess it not menacing but campy. That's why it's so often used in conjunction with comic book baddies; comic books trade in melodrama. This is not a suitable row to hoe for any franchise looking to call itself "gritty."
--That said, may we please place a moratorium post-haste on the villain being a former agent/teammate/co-worker/squash partner of the good guy(s)? It's not just that someone else has already done this angle better, it's that another Bond movie has already done this angle better. See: Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye. I mean, c'mon people, it's not like you're lifting something from the George Lazenby era; Goldeneye was out barely thirteen years ago.
--And speaking of moratoriums, let's throw a heavy rug over the trope that the villain, while supposedly languishing in the hero's clutches, actually "meant to get caught! omg!!!1!!" Let's especially consign to the Dustbin of Anemic Writerly Devices using one of the good guys to blurt this aloud while turning in place amid the bodies of nameless guards and the general bedlam surrounding the villain's escape. This gimmick was the weakest point of the otherwise masterful Dark Knight Returns, and if Heath Ledger's Joker couldn't make it a believable-sounding plan then you can't either.
--Thanks to the final scene, we finally have an answer to Bond's dysfunctional relationships with women: while giving Vesper Lynd clear pride of place in his overflowing gynecic menagerie, 007's ain true love has apparently only ever been M. At least, she's the only woman he has ever shed an actual tear for. (His reconciliation to the idea that Vesper's affection was indeed real, and not another spy game, is the terse statement "Congratulations, you were right...about Vesper" uttered almost monotone to M at the end of Quantum. No waterworks there.) Dunno about you, but I'd also suffer from a myriad of psychosexual maladjustments if Dame Judi Dench was my paragon of the feminine.
--Sadly, it seems my favorite fan theory, that "James Bond" is actually a code name given to successive agents over the course of the last 50 years, is false. The grave markers at Bond's auld Scottish home clearly give his family name as "Bond," and I highly doubt the parental units buried beneath were a full 1/5th of their era's double-0 branch. This revelation was both surprising and sad, especially since Javier Bardem's character makes a point of forcing the issue, with his insistence that M call him by his real name, not his MI6 moniker. Having "Bond" as a code name answered so much and so nicely, as far as continuity goes; it's a shame to see it discarded. Besides, isn't it dangerous for an assassin to be handing out his real name? I know mom and pop are pushing up thistles, but surely there are other loved ones and acquaintances that would be put in danger by the practice?
--Lastly, I mentioned above that this go-round is "not quite as intelligent" as the last two Craig installments. Casino and Quantum were both defined by Bond's coldblooded devotion to his given mission; he either bent the people around him to the ends of this mission or he discharged them (and often a bullet at the same time). Skyfall doesn't have this same kind of rigor. For example, in the previous two movies, Bond's choice of lovers was strategic, i.e., the seductions moved him closer to his goal. (Vesper Lynd was interesting in that she fell outside the pattern, which made their relationship seem to be genuinely emotional.) The sexual conquests in Skyfall (three in the first 45 minutes, no less!) are, rather, perfunctory: here's a beautiful woman in the same room as James frickin' Bond, what d'you think is gonna happen (bwoh-chicka-bwoh-bwoh)? Me, I prefer my Bond to be a calculating killer who just happens to be on the side of the angels over a James Bond who's basically a kind of AXE Body Spray in a special edition MI6 bottle.
That said, it was a nice ride, especially on an iMax screen. Go see!
--I continue to enjoy the opening montages wherein the main plot points of the film are set out, if one knows how to decode them. For instance, there are the images of stone arches which forecast the fight in the sewer, the Chinese dragons which intimate Bond's fateful trip to Macau, and the storm of slowly descending, flaming sperm which clearly presage his tryst with a former Macanese sex slave.
--I appreciate that the villain's motivation had nothing to do with conquering the world. I maintain that that was the most satisfying part of Casino Royale (where Le Chifre's prime concern is market manipulation and avoiding the edge of an African warlord's machete) and the least satisfying part of the otherwise compelling Quantum of Solace. The world is too big, too abstract, which makes seeking to possess it not menacing but campy. That's why it's so often used in conjunction with comic book baddies; comic books trade in melodrama. This is not a suitable row to hoe for any franchise looking to call itself "gritty."
--That said, may we please place a moratorium post-haste on the villain being a former agent/teammate/co-worker/squash partner of the good guy(s)? It's not just that someone else has already done this angle better, it's that another Bond movie has already done this angle better. See: Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye. I mean, c'mon people, it's not like you're lifting something from the George Lazenby era; Goldeneye was out barely thirteen years ago.
--And speaking of moratoriums, let's throw a heavy rug over the trope that the villain, while supposedly languishing in the hero's clutches, actually "meant to get caught! omg!!!1!!" Let's especially consign to the Dustbin of Anemic Writerly Devices using one of the good guys to blurt this aloud while turning in place amid the bodies of nameless guards and the general bedlam surrounding the villain's escape. This gimmick was the weakest point of the otherwise masterful Dark Knight Returns, and if Heath Ledger's Joker couldn't make it a believable-sounding plan then you can't either.
--Thanks to the final scene, we finally have an answer to Bond's dysfunctional relationships with women: while giving Vesper Lynd clear pride of place in his overflowing gynecic menagerie, 007's ain true love has apparently only ever been M. At least, she's the only woman he has ever shed an actual tear for. (His reconciliation to the idea that Vesper's affection was indeed real, and not another spy game, is the terse statement "Congratulations, you were right...about Vesper" uttered almost monotone to M at the end of Quantum. No waterworks there.) Dunno about you, but I'd also suffer from a myriad of psychosexual maladjustments if Dame Judi Dench was my paragon of the feminine.
--Sadly, it seems my favorite fan theory, that "James Bond" is actually a code name given to successive agents over the course of the last 50 years, is false. The grave markers at Bond's auld Scottish home clearly give his family name as "Bond," and I highly doubt the parental units buried beneath were a full 1/5th of their era's double-0 branch. This revelation was both surprising and sad, especially since Javier Bardem's character makes a point of forcing the issue, with his insistence that M call him by his real name, not his MI6 moniker. Having "Bond" as a code name answered so much and so nicely, as far as continuity goes; it's a shame to see it discarded. Besides, isn't it dangerous for an assassin to be handing out his real name? I know mom and pop are pushing up thistles, but surely there are other loved ones and acquaintances that would be put in danger by the practice?
--Lastly, I mentioned above that this go-round is "not quite as intelligent" as the last two Craig installments. Casino and Quantum were both defined by Bond's coldblooded devotion to his given mission; he either bent the people around him to the ends of this mission or he discharged them (and often a bullet at the same time). Skyfall doesn't have this same kind of rigor. For example, in the previous two movies, Bond's choice of lovers was strategic, i.e., the seductions moved him closer to his goal. (Vesper Lynd was interesting in that she fell outside the pattern, which made their relationship seem to be genuinely emotional.) The sexual conquests in Skyfall (three in the first 45 minutes, no less!) are, rather, perfunctory: here's a beautiful woman in the same room as James frickin' Bond, what d'you think is gonna happen (bwoh-chicka-bwoh-bwoh)? Me, I prefer my Bond to be a calculating killer who just happens to be on the side of the angels over a James Bond who's basically a kind of AXE Body Spray in a special edition MI6 bottle.
That said, it was a nice ride, especially on an iMax screen. Go see!
Sunday, December 9, 2012
An American (Taliban)'s Heritage
A story from a few days out is that entirely-sane-why-are-you-asking Sen. Jim DeMint (R--Seriously-quit-asking) is leaving the Senate to be a high muckety-muck at the Heritage Foundation. There seems to be much hullabaloo on the right about whether this new non-governmental mucketiness is good or bad for the conservative movement. I have no idea about that, since I think anything short of an anti-psychotic administered forcefully to the buttocks of the Republican party strikes me as bad for the conservative movement.
However, this bit in The New Yorker jumped out at me (via Balloon Juice):
This is the succinct summation of what motivates the American theocratic movement (or the "American Taliban", as the DailyKos so pithily sneers): unless God is the driving force of government, government is the enemy of God.
I understand the current speculation that DeMint is off to Heritage to level up to the role of Republican kingmaker, and maybe that will prove to be more dangerous in the long run to our secular government, but for the short term, not having such a fundamentally un-American voice on the floor of our Senate can be nothing but a relief.
And on a side note, He's not much of an Almighty if he can be shrunk as easily as a cotton shirt by the mundane proceedings of a representative democracy, is He? If I were a religious nut, I'd devote a smidge of hullabaloo to that little theological pickle first.
However, this bit in The New Yorker jumped out at me (via Balloon Juice):
Last year, he indicated that his belief in small government is rooted in the theory that there is a fixed and limited amount of space that can be occupied by the government and the deity combined. The size of the public sector and the size of the Almighty are inversely proportional to each other. It's an iron law, a zero-sum game: "I've said it often and I believe it--the bigger government gets, the smaller God gets."
This is the succinct summation of what motivates the American theocratic movement (or the "American Taliban", as the DailyKos so pithily sneers): unless God is the driving force of government, government is the enemy of God.
I understand the current speculation that DeMint is off to Heritage to level up to the role of Republican kingmaker, and maybe that will prove to be more dangerous in the long run to our secular government, but for the short term, not having such a fundamentally un-American voice on the floor of our Senate can be nothing but a relief.
And on a side note, He's not much of an Almighty if he can be shrunk as easily as a cotton shirt by the mundane proceedings of a representative democracy, is He? If I were a religious nut, I'd devote a smidge of hullabaloo to that little theological pickle first.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Outgunned
A nut in Arizona has decided to discriminate against Obama voters by refusing to sell them guns.
Right-o. Um, explain to me again why the right wing is so terrified of liberals "coming for their guns" when apparently all you have to do is turn us away with an ad in the local paper?
Right-o. Um, explain to me again why the right wing is so terrified of liberals "coming for their guns" when apparently all you have to do is turn us away with an ad in the local paper?
Friday, November 16, 2012
Twinkie-Dee, Twinkie-Dum
The B.C.T.W.&G.M.I. Union at the Hostess plants have found a novel way of fighting the obesity epidemic.
I think whichever unions are responsible for Cool Ranch Doritos and those unfairly delicious Bowl Noodle Soups should really think about renegotiating their contracts next...
I think whichever unions are responsible for Cool Ranch Doritos and those unfairly delicious Bowl Noodle Soups should really think about renegotiating their contracts next...
Gaza Doom
(The title is a riff on the dwarven kingdom of Khazad-dum from LOTR...and is probably in very poor taste, which is why I went with it.)
Re: the burgeoning conflict between Israel and Gaza, I have no more sympathy for the parties involved in a war rooted in religion than I would for those engaged in a race war. Find something less silly to fight about.
Re: the burgeoning conflict between Israel and Gaza, I have no more sympathy for the parties involved in a war rooted in religion than I would for those engaged in a race war. Find something less silly to fight about.
Father Dearest
With Mitt Romney's defeat, may we finally place a moratorium on candidates for high office running because of their daddy issues? (I'm looking at you, John Quincy!) But c'mon, Romney, George W., even "Dreams From My Father" Obam-er. It's overdone. Let it drop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)