I’m Not There: Suppositions on a Film Concerning Dylan

14 Reasons To See Todd Haynes’ New Bob Dylan Bio-Pic, I’m Not There:

Because true artistic craft is too often missing from movies. In a year in which I was honestly giving up all hope on film as a meaningful form of art, this film has redeemed it with oblivious and beautiful abandon.

Because when just about every filmmaker right now (in this country anyway) is getting it wrong, Todd Haynes gets it right.

Because postmodern has become a topic of discussion at hipster coffee joints everywhere and now you’ll have another worthy example (besides The Big Lebowski) to cite if and when such a conversation should arise. Or just do what I do and avoid conversation with hipsters all together.

Because Dr H’ doesn’t love too many movies. Dr H’ has never seen a film in the theater twice in one week (Well, not on purpose. The exception being the first Kill Bill, but both times were free of charge and I believe there were extenuating circumstances, that I don’t need to discuss here, for both viewings) and been in awe both times to boot.

Because Cate Blanchett is the best actress in the world!

Because history is important. Churchill once said, “the farther you look back, the further you can see forward,” or something like that.

Because philosophically, culturally, and politically speaking a lot of the same issues Dylan wrote and spoke and sang about are still happening right now. Dylan said, “People today are still living off the table scraps of the sixties. They are still being passed around - the music and the ideas.” How much lasting effect has the ideals and the movements of the 60’s/Vietnam Era actually had? Or do we just pretend?

Because “without music, life would be a mistake.” That’s Nietzsche.

Because Bob Dylan’s music changed your life whether you like it or not, whether you listen to it or not, whether you care to admit it or not.

Because “music produces a kind of pleasure which human nature cannot do without.” Confucius said that. Todd Haynes proves he’s right. Although, I’m not sure Dylan would necessarily use the word “pleasure.” After all, it’s just a word. But I think you get the point.

Because of the questions that are raised about the relationships between art and change, between desire and effect, between care and action.

Because as human beings we should support when an artist does something honest, unique and important. Without supporting meaningful creation, we will consume more than we produce and eventually we will run out.

Because the philosophies and poetry of Dylan is beyond meaningful, whether he’d admit it or not. Dylan said, “I define nothing. Not beauty, not patriotism. I take each thing as it is, without prior rules about what it should be.” Good stuff.

Because maybe, “I’m not there…” But then again, are any of us? I don’t know. But I think this film will help each of us get a little closer. Wherever that may be…

Musings...

I have had many musings in my life and, as those who know me best might suggest, almost as many muses too.

Clarification through definition:

Muse v
1. to think about something in a deep and serious or dreamy and abstracted way
2. to say something in a thoughtful or questioning way (literary)
3. to gaze at somebody or something thoughtfully or abstractedly (literary)

Muse n
1. somebody who is a source of inspiration for an artist, especially a poet
2. the inspiration that supposedly visits, leaves, and suggests things to an artist, especially a poet
3. the particular gift or talent of an artist, especially a poet

Related:

Muse n
a state of deep thought (literary)

Muse n
in Greek mythology, one of the nine daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. The Muses inspired and presided over the different creative arts.

I’m really very excited at the moment about this blog, the conversations that are being sparked into (sometimes fiery) existence and the ideas that percolate in my mind when I hear and read what other people have to say. I’m learning a lot about the issues in which I choose to discuss here and, perhaps more importantly, about the way my mind works and what I believe I believe. For example, for years I have ignored the fact that I am extremely sensitive to criticism. Not only have I ignored this fact; I have lied to myself about it. I convinced myself that sensitivity to criticism was one imperfection I did not have. But I do. But I think I can embrace that part of me as I can my greatest strengths, learn from it and become a better person because of it. Because it is something that I can easily improve upon as long as I recognize it and am brave enough to challenge it.

I believe that it is a great characteristic/ability to be able to formulate an opinion and support that opinion with great abandon (and sometimes stubborn resolve) and yet be open and able to reconstruct that opinion without feeling that you are weak or losing something because of it. This is my excuse for having one of my blogs call for a boycott of marriage until gay marriage is legal while another says that maybe we should leave gay marriage up to each unique state. In retrospect, these are probably both ridiculous notions, but I’m glad I suggested them and equally glad I can question them now.

But the truth is, I wonder if I don’t seek two opposing desires. One, to be steadfast in my opinions at all times and all costs. Two, to be completely open to new ideas and have the humility to admit when I am wrong. I guess I’m looking for an appropriate balance or at least the ability to apply that balance at the appropriate time.

Well, I’m not going to do either of those right now. Instead, I’m just going to say how great it is having an outlet for my ideas and my writing. I write because I need to write in order to understand. I think there may be a misconception about writers. People think that they write about what they already understand. But I think we write about what we know and that’s not the same thing. I could never sift through all of the crazy thoughts inside my head without a way to separate them. This may be specific to me, but somehow I think that real writers write because they have to. Maybe the ‘have to’ isn’t for understanding in all cases, but I think it is in most.

What’s more, it’s really great having people interested in what I write and sometimes comment on what they read as well. I ask for other peoples input because it helps to discuss an idea in order to know whether it’s really worth a shit. Perhaps this is do, in part, to a lack of confidence on my part, but the truth is that my confidence grows with each new thing I write and with each new discussion that unfolds. Because ideas may be born out of an individuals single mind, but they don’t truly become alive until they have a discussion (or some other appropriate outlet) in which to nest. And without the voices that feed that discussion, an idea will never grow to its greatest potential.

Thanks for being there on your side of the computer screen to read and to feed, to learn (I hope) and to teach me a thing or two while you’re at it. You are each, friends and strangers alike (and anyone in between), my most inspirational muse.

The Lasting Importance Of All The President's Men

The 1976 film, All The President’s Men looks at the events of Watergate by focusing on the investigatory work of two Washington Post journalists, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. The work of Woodward and Bernstein changed the course of American politics (and with it the course of American history) while inspiring a generation of investigative journalists. The film version of their story is based on their own book and uses Woodward and Bernstein as the main characters.



All The President’s Men is an important historical record that has easily survived the test of time. In fact, the film is more significant today than at the time in which it was made. In 1976 everyone knew everything there was to know about Watergate (or thought they did). It was the story of the decade and had been shoved down their throats by every media outlet in America for the last four years. Today, most people have forgotten Watergate, were born after it or are indifferent to its lasting significance. What’s more, the accountability of the government has become extremely questionable due in part because the legacy of Watergate has run out. All The President’s Men is a great reminder of this. And there are many frightening similarities between the politics of the Richard Nixon's administration and those of George W. Bush. The most obvious is the partisanship in which the government is currently run (in fact it’s even more partisan now than then) as well as the distrust much of the public feel for its Commander in Chief and his staff.

The difference today, as far as investigative journalism is concerned, is that the press used to be viewed as an important part of the social and political process. It was viewed as the little guy fighting for the rights and freedoms of the people. Now, it is seen as a corporate power, serving its own best interests, first and foremost. There is no regard for the little guy and therefore no respect for the press. Were Watergate to happen today, or a government scandal of equal proportion, I fear that the press would have no positive effect on its uncovering and might even contribute to the cover-up. Modern news and media corporations are concerned with offending as little of their audience as possible while the strength behind Woodward and Bernstein’s work at the Washington Post was that their bosses, editor Ray Bradley in particular, had more faith in them and the importance of their story, than they had fear of the repercussions, from either their readers or the powerful men in which they were trying to take down.

This is why All The President’s Men is such an important historical document. It survives as a reminder of the importance of the first amendment, the power of the press and what the press should be. It also remains an inspirational film for young journalists who want to actively, and at all costs, seek the truth and present that truth unhindered to the American people at whatever cost to government officials and the corporations that control them and the “free press.”

Tom Brady is Good at Football...

But why is that really important?

So, I’m excited. This is my first sports blog. I’m fascinated by sports. I’m fascinated that sports are so popular and so important in this world. Football is the most popular sport in the world: American Football being the most popular in the US and association football or soccer (or futbol but with an accent I don’t know how to do I think) being the most popular everywhere else. But I’m amazed that someone as educated, non-athletic and socially conscious (socially awkward?) as me can spend so much time thinking about sports and particularly about Football (the US variety) and more particularly about Tom Brady and the New England Patriots. Football is not even my favorite sport (that would be basketball) and I’m not even from New England (though I lived there some five years). And yet, I am absorbed in the possibility that they may go undefeated (something only one team has ever done and no team has done since the NFL switched to a 16 game regular season). I read about it constantly on line, watch every game and find myself rooting like a die-hard Boston native for the Pats to win.

Why is this? What part of me is so eager to see this happen? Is it my ego? That I might witness history and will therefore be a part of history? Perhaps. Boredom? Perhaps. Genuine love for the game? I don’t know about that.

And where does the initial obsession come from? From being told that sports are important from a very young age? From actually enjoying playing sports once upon a time? This would lead to vicariously living out every young boy’s (and some girls I’m sure) fantasy to be a professional baller, kicker, jumper, jammer, sticker, tosser, thrower, puncher, putter, pitcher, catcher, caller, hitter, helper, humper, stumper, bumper, hopper, chopper, bopper, topper, tassler, wrastler, blocker, shocker dropper, bell hopper, bomb dropper, puck stopper, belly floppin’ sports guy. But I only ever wanted to play basketball. And I was told I was “the wrong color.” They could have just said I was too short, skinny and slow but honesty has its place too, I guess.

So, what will happened when (I’m feeling optimistic) the Pats go undefeated and win the superbowl? One of two things as I see it. Absolutely nothing. Or…the world will cease to exist as we know it. Democracy will come to Iraq, AIDS will pack it up in Africa and move to Antarctica, the Taliban will become bra-burning feminists and Arnold Schwartznegger will learn how to pronounce California with only four syllables.

So…GO PATS!!! For the future of the world, humankind and linguists everywhere please God guide the Patriots to ten more victories.

Baby Steps

I'm really starting to question whether certain issues, particularly certain social issues, should play a large part in the national government (I'll limit this topic to the USA since that’s what I’m familiar with).

Moral issues like abortion, gay marriage and the death penalty have an enormous influence on both the turnout for presidential elections and ultimately who is elected. I believe that these issues determined the last two US elections. Doesn't our national government have enough to worry about already, what with a war in Iraq, global warming, poverty, foreign policy issues that include: a middle east crisis, Iranian nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Darfur, China and so much more, than to have to be forced to spend so much time on social issues? In the past I have always felt that the President should take a strong stance on big social issues but I'm beginning to wonder, since we live in such a diverse country, if it shouldn't be left up to the individual states.

For example, I believe there should be a national law the requires all states to provide equal marriage rights for everyone, gay or straight, but I'm not sure the national government should make an outright decision for everyone as to what that law should be. If the people of Mississippi or Louisiana or any of the other (I think there have been 26 so far) states want to ban gay marriage, that’s okay (for now) as long as they provide equal rights under the law for all people. I used to believe this was a position left leaning democrats took to play it safe (Howard Dean made this argument when he ran for president) and I resented it, but now I’m starting to agree only because I don’t believe the national government should waste its time trying to please both rural, uneducated (and educated) people in Wyoming as well as intellectual liberals (some not so intellectual) in San Francisco when those people tend to be so different when it comes to certain issues (I know I’m geographically stereotyping but bare with me). I mean the fact that the next President will have (more than likely) a direct impact essentially having the say) on whether or not Roe vs. Wade is overturned seems way off track from what the U.S. President's top priorities (and authority?) should be. I know this is a controversial statement and I am without question pro-life, pro-gay marriage, anti-guns, anti-death penalty but these all seem like issues the President shouldn't have to bother with (as much as he does) and probably shouldn't have to campaign so heavily about. Not with everything else he (hopefully she too) deals with and will be dealing with in the coming years.

Now I'm not saying that there shouldn't be discussion on these issues at the highest level and that we shouldn’t continue to educate people and that some day, hopefully, the majority of the people in every state will see how stupid it was to ban gay marriage (and they’ll overturn it) or that the death penalty is morally wrong (and they’ll overturn that too). But this is just my opinion and that’s just the point. We over here on the left too often feel too superior in our perspectives and, I think, fail to see the whole picture (That picture being of a very diverse, immigrant built, Christian based country with a whole lot of exceptions to very point of view). And isn’t that what we blame Republicans for? We’ve got to start looking at the whole picture and we’ve got to think ahead in baby steps. Because some day I want to meet a farmer or small town Christian (I know I’m stereotyping right now) in rural Texas (still stereotyping) and say “isn’t it great that the last state in the union just amended their constitution to allow gay marriage?” And he (or she) says, “Yes, it is. What a great day for America.” And then I say, “Now we just have to ban guns and then we’ll be on the right track.” And he (or she) says, “This is why we the second amendment should never be changed…” And I say, “I’m listening.”

Baby steps, people. Let’s not forget about the other side because their perspective is just as valid and important as our own.

Searching For Bobby Kennedy...

It’s difficult to get excited about the 2008 election. The only thing I find remotely appealing is that, unless some miracle of Satan occurs (but Jerry Falwell is dead, so I’m not sure there’s much he can do), George W. Bush will not win again and it seems the Republicans will have a tough time replacing him. Still, I find myself in search of a candidate, because it feels like we’re in the midst of a major turning point in this country and what’s potentially exciting about that is getting involved, being an active part of that history. But I am having trouble being remotely inspired by the politicians that are a) running for president and b) stand a chance at winning. I know you’re supposed to vote your conscience (and I’ve tried that, I voted for Nadar in 2000) but wouldn’t it be great to have a candidate that not only reflected your ideals, inspired people to stand up for those ideals and proposed new policy, but was also in the position to be elected?

Dennis Kucinich (in my estimation) says all the right things, has the ideals that most closely reflect my own, seems to be honest in everything he preaches and has no chance at winning the Democratic ticket. At a time in which the media controls the election and money controls the media it seems that it always comes down to two or maybe three candidates in the primaries and, of course, only two in the general election. It seems that this democratic primary will come down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (the Republican primary seems less certain but I’m putting my money on Mike Huckabee to come out of deep right field to challenge Giuliani and maybe Fred Thompson) the two candidates who have greatly out gained every other candidate in terms of both money raised and media attention.

For someone who is not greatly involved in politics but who has an above average (and that’s not saying much) but not astounding knowledge of it, I feel the overwhelming desire to be realistic in this election and support a candidate that has a chance to win. This gives me a choice between two candidates that aren’t saying anything strikingly new about policy and government (Obama and Clinton) and perhaps a long shot (John Edwards) who seems to have the people’s interest at heart (he actually talks about poverty and domestic issues more than he dwells on Iraq) but doesn’t seem to have what it takes to break into the race in a relevant way. I hate to seem like I’m settling my values or ideals by going with a more likely winner but there’s only so much time and energy an individual can devote to an election while trying to sustain his own personal life, ambitions, pursuits, etc. If I could be an active part of a campaign (for example, being paid to campaign so that I might be able to eat, pay rent, etc) then it would be worth devoting myself to the most ideal candidate. But even then it would take a real inspiration to change the (current) devotion of my life and energy, if only for a year, to politics. And still, I am concerned...

So, here’s a good question: When’s the last time we (out here in left field) have had a candidate that can actualize our dearest values and ideals, our hope for the future and our ability to actually win the election? (And actually I’d be interested in any opinions from the right side as well because I often wonder how devoted conservatives really are to Bush and the like. I feel like most conservatives are much more gung-ho about their candidates, thus a decisive advantage). Because I’m not sure there’s been this kind of candidate in my lifetime (at least not on the left side, but both sides please chime in if your opinion differs). In fact, looking back over recent history, the last time I can definitively state that there was a candidate whom inspired and proposed new, progressive and universally relevant ideals as well as had a great shot at winning the presidency was Robert Kennedy in 1968.


Robert Kennedy was the last of the a small group of individuals who rose to the occasion, not in spite of, but in reaction to the challenges of his time, to inspire a nation of people to look outside of their suburban comforts and see that neighbors aren’t just people who live on the same block as you, but those on the far side of the city, across state lines, from region to region and even around the globe. His ideals spanned races and borders and his charisma was not just founded on the way in which he articulated his words and expressed his ideas but in the warmth and human emotion, the integrity he put into them. When Bobby Kennedy spoke (much like JFK and MLK) you not only listened and believed, but you listened with all your heart and believed in a way that gave you hope and inspired you into action. Bobby, like his older brother John, spoke for people to give back to their nation, to give of themselves so that others could be free. His ideas remain relevant today, perhaps because he did not live long enough to do anything about the problems that plagued his generation, still forty years later we are faced with a dumb war, racial inequality, poverty, a divided nation, etc, etc, etc.

I have never felt the same kind compassion or determination or even the same kind of patriotic reverence that Bobby Kennedy had from an American politician in my voting lifetime. Barack Obama has been touted as this candidate or this type of candidate since his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic national convention. There are comparisons to be drawn between Obama and Bobby Kennedy. They were both passionate advocates for troop withdrawal and the end of an unjust war. They both spoke for equality and against poverty, both for the opportunity and potential of this nation. But the way in which Barack Obama frames his positions on the issues says nothing new about how to solve these problems or why his ideals and his solutions are right. Without changing people’s perceptions, without adjusting their consciousness, we cannot inspire them to change the world in which we live. This is what Bobby Kennedy did simply by speaking. I have never felt this from Barack Obama or any Presidential candidate. And if Obama is our best chance at having this kind of candidate, well, then I guess that makes me sad. But I hope that he rises to the occasion. His greatest opponent right now is someone who campaigns to the middle and inspires hate from the conservative side because they fear her liberalism. This has, seemingly, pushed Obama to the middle, perhaps toning down his idealistic vision and, in my opinion, weakening his candidacy in the process. He was touted by the media from early in his campaign as an inspirational candidate because he seemed to be different, to speak different, he seemed to be a refreshing change, but change inspires fear in many Americans and it seems that Obama is afraid of this as well.

Bobby Kennedy was never afraid of change. He embraced it, he endorsed because he knew that without change there is no progress.

And what are we without progress?

I strongly suggest listening to some of RFK's speeches at:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/kennedy/speech.html

"Gross National Product measures neither the health of our children, the quality of their education, nor the joy of their play. It measures neither the beauty of our poetry, nor the strength of our marriages. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It measures neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our wit nor our courage, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything in short, except that which makes life worth living. It can tell us everything about our country, except those things that make us proud to be a part of it.” -RFK

Sometimes...

Sometimes I like to believe in the idea that God created us and that he did so in his image. Because if this is true, then he is just as fucked up and imperfect as you and me. And if that's true, then everything makes a lot more sense.

Thoughts On Marriage

So, I don’t honestly understand the concept of marriage? I’ve had conversations with a lot of friends (married and not) about it but the truth is, I still don’t get it.

First of all, the wedding ceremony… Why and the hell would I want to stand up in front of a bunch of people (most of which I either don’t know or don’t like all that much) and proclaim my love for somebody who (if we’re really this serious) already knows how I feel about her. I am not shy about my feelings. I never have been (despite what one ex lady friend probably thinks). The woman I love will know this far in advance of our supposed nuptial appointment. And this love and the intimacy we share will be about her and I and it has nothing to do with anyone else. Now, I like the idea of a reception, mainly because parties are fun. And it will be a rare opportunity to have all of my friends together all at once, once again. But the fact is, I have been to a lot of weddings and the bride and groom never have time to hang out and celebrate with their friends. Time is split thinly between overbearing family members, friends of overbearing family members and redundant traditions like dances and cakes and speeches, most of which probably weren’t the happy couple’s idea in the first place. And I won’t even get started on the fruitless spending on weddings. I’ll give my on average $28,000 to feed some starving monks in Burma (you may know it as Myanmar but it will always be Burma to me).

Now, as far as the institution itself... Other than financial reasons (ie, tax breaks) I see no logical reason to get married. Does it make your love any more real? No. Does it change the way you feel about each other? No. Does it solidify the commitment you share for each other? Actually, no. Does it force an unnecessary burden upon your relationship that will undeniably come back to haunt you in over fifty percent of the cases? Absolutely.

Most of my friends who are married have noted no difference in their relationship after the ceremony with the exception, perhaps, of the woman learning her new last name (which is a stupid, pointless tradition also). The only thing I have noticed is that it may have made them all a bit more boring. And I attribute this to (subconsciously) structuring their married life based on the way in which they were indoctrinated to perceive it growing up; from their parents and what they saw in media, etc.

So, why do people get married? Other than not knowing better. Other than not even considering another option. I think that people in general feel the need to strive towards a foreseeable goal in all aspects of life. And with relationships, marriage is the ultimate goal. Getting married is like reaching the peak of Mt. Everest, you know if you consider love a mountain you have to climb (maybe I should keep away from these terrible metaphors I use to look at relationships: mountain climbing, boxing match, crossing the monkey bars, etc. I think it may be damaging my positive perception on…oh forget it). Although this may be a psychological element as to why we need marriage, I believe that young people today get married mostly because of tradition. Pressure from family is the main motivator is many, many cases. However, I believe that it is a dying institution that will greatly decline once our parents and our parent’s parents cease to have influence (that’s a nice way to say when they are dead). Marriage percentages have already dropped dramatically since the 70s for example (see Wikipedia, the knower of all things, for stats). Religious propaganda will have heavy influence for years to come but that too, I think, is in decline. But I won’t get into religion right now. Dissecting religion is my Mount Everest and I don’t have my Sherpa with me at the moment.

Now, I may regret this some day when I meet the perfect girl who’s always dreamt of a white wedding in June with thirty thousand guests but here’s how I honestly feel about marriage:

People call it the sanctity of marriage. But the institution itself is not what is sacred. Love is sacred. Commitment is sacred. Devotion is sacred. Everything that is sacred about relationships has nothing to do with marriage. And yet for some reason they are considered irrevocably connected.

It’s just another opportunity to keep people divided. Many heterosexual people claim it as their soul right. Religious people condemn homosexuals. I have news for you, people are born gay. If you believe in God that means God makes homosexuals. Until marriage is accepted by everyone for everyone, I will not support it.

Tax breaks will be available soon(ish) to all couples through civil unions. Knowing the bass ackwards ignorant thinking of too many people in this country marriage itself will never be made legal for each and every person. Which means civil unions (or something similar) will eventually be law in every state (Even Mississippi. Not to pick on Mississippi, but come on, who was I going to say? Tenneessee? Alabama? Doesn’t have the same…ring). So, why not get Civil Unionized, even if you’re not gay. This way you can still have the financial/governmental benefits but do not have to support an institution that is based on double standards and age-old tradition.

Lastly, I think marriage is unnecessary in the modern world. Not only unnecessary, but potentially detrimental. I think everybody with a conscience should boycott marriage until either a) it is allowed for anyone who wishes to have it or b) something equivalent is created for everyone and marriage is denounced by the government and becomes only a church thing.

Your thoughts?

Fake Love & Plastic Jesus

I want to talk about the opening article in Chuck Klosterman’s book, Sex, Drugs & Cocoa Puffs. I will try not to steal too many of his ideas (or present them as my own) but his writing is insightful and hilarious and worth elaborating on. I encourage everyone to read his stuff. It’s pretty amazing. In fact, you can preview Sex, Drugs & Cocoa Puffs at www.powells.com and read the entire first article, which I will now try to sum up.

Klosterman opens Sex, Drugs & Cocoa Puffs with an essay called “This is Emo” about what he calls “fake love,” (probably inspired by me & my ex girlfriend). He states, “The main problem with mass media is that it makes it impossible to fall in love with any acumen of normalcy.” This is because we are overtly influenced by the songs we listen to, the movies and television we watch, and (for a minority of us) the books we read. John Cusack sums it up perfectly in High Fidelity:

“What came first, the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?”

Most art that is distributed through media is also designed as entertainment. Much, if not most, art and entertainment are conceptually based on love and relationships (a love song or love story), but manufactured to meet consumer needs (and demand). Movies, tv shows, songs and even books are too often based on ideals, written with narrow perspectives and carried out by actors, singers or the like (often more concerned with how they look and how much they will make than with realism or truth of human experience). And although the love stories portrayed through art have universal meaning, they do not represent love universally and that’s an important difference to understand. How can they? They are born out of unique individual experiences, created by artists hoping to become celebrities and distributed by businessman hoping to make a buck. Thus, the production and distribution of “fake love,” that is, idealistic, fictionalized accounts of love for the consumption by the masses, is manufactured in order to evoke a feeling that sales, sales its artist and makes a monetary profit.

So, how does this affect life as we live it? As Klosterman says, “Real people are actively trying to live like fake people, so real people are no less fake. Every comparison becomes impractical. This is why the impractical has become totally acceptable; impracticality almost seems cool.” This affects us entirely, including the emotions we think we are supposed to feel and how we’re supposed to express them (this has gotten me into plenty of trouble). When you fall into a relationship both partners in that relationship ultimately measure it against this prospect, the prospect of fake love created and distributed by the media. Klosterman calls this media devolution. He says, “It creates an archetype that eventually dwarfs its origin,” and uses this example: the Woody Allen personality has far greater cultural importance than the man himself. Woody Allen made it hip for sexy women to sleep with nerdy, intellectually witty guys. Although this seems great for guys with wide rimmed glasses and a little wit, it is actually bad. This is sexual misdirection caused by the mass media. “It prompts us to need something deeper than what we want.” And as Klosterman says, wanting to sleep with someone for intellectual reasons is no deeper than sleeping with them because of the car they drive, the clothes they wear or the job they have (and probably hate). And so, in this age of media devolution art and life have become completely interchangeable. In fact, they have become inseparable.

Okay, enough ripping off Klosterman’s ideas. Read him yourself for more insight. It is highly worth it.

This brings me to a question posed by a reader of this very blog: “Why is it that when I try to watch the news all I see is OJ Simpson?”

OJ Simpson can be considered a symptom of many things: power of the celebrity or of the wealthy, the flawed justice system, race relations in America, American obsession with the celebrity (more specifically, the celebrity downfall), and much more I’m sure. What I think Simpson is most a symptom of, however, is the downfall of journalism, which is itself a symptom of the fact that American culture is in decay.

Network television creates programming in order to appease the demands of advertising agencies that create advertisements to appease consumer demand. You can make the leap and say that networks, therefore, create programming to feed consumer demand, but the middleman cannot be ignored. Advertisement agencies have great influence on the type of media content that we consume as Americans. They understand the viewer better than the networks that create the shows because they tell us what to think and what to buy, how to dress and what to eat, what movies to watch and why, etc, etc.
Televisions news as well as newspapers and other news outlets are produced in order to offend as little people as possible. That’s because television/other media outlets (and media consumption) in this country have become a way of life for most people. And most people (certainly most Americans) don’t want their way of life shat on, walked on or disturbed in anyway. This way of life represents modern American culture. It is lazy, it is consumer oriented and it is comfortable. Americans have become too comfortable, too secure with their culture. Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti said, “tradition becomes our security and when the mind is secure it is in decay.” And with it, our values, our capacity and desire to grow and learn (and evolve) and even the very defense mechanisms that keep us safe. This is because modern American comfort is fake.

Let’s look at a recent top news headline from cnn.com: “Oprah asks Justin about Britney.” We all know to whom this refers and most of us know, at least vaguely, what it’s about. Even if you don’t pay attention to pop culture and even if you try hard to avoid celebrity news (as I do, despite what you might think), you still have an idea as to what this is about. Because we all know why pop stars appear on the Oprah show (to jump on couches and gossip but really to enhance their celebrity status) and we all know the questions she tends to ask. And we all know that Justin Timberlake once dated Britney Spears and that Britney Spears is a weirdo. The question is: Why do we give two shits? And why do we label people “weirdoes” when we don’t even know them? Even if you despise celebrity culture and could care less about Britney Spears, when you read a headline with her name in it, you inevitably think, ‘what has she done now?’ This is true for all mega celebrities whose fame has grown not as a result of their accomplishments but as a result of the attention given to them by the media, generally concerning their personal life. Does this sound at all like OJ Simpson?

This is because the media has turned spotlighting celebrities’ personal lives into entertainment. Hollywood Insider & ET are just glorified reality shows. Thus, Britney Spears the artist/musician/entertainer/super-celeb (whatever you’re willing to call her) and Britney Spears the southern blonde virgin/mother of 1, 2, 3 (who can keep count)/human being are inseparable. She may have control over her actions as a person (arguably), seemingly writing her own reality script as she goes, but the media controls how it is edited (what is shown and not shown) and the viewers judge what it means and how her actions define who she really is. This is stereotyping and prejudice at its worst level, a level that is endorsed and embraced by most of our society.

Going back to how art and life have become interchangeable; this simplifies our uniqueness as individuals because we base everything we do, how we act and how we feel, on not only songs, movies, books and television, but on the media’s number one reality show, “The Stupid Celebrity.” But really it’s the stupid, naïve viewer for not realizing the effect of a drug they are not only consuming, but also paying to be produced. The reason OJ Simpson is the only thing you can find on the news right now is because he has just won American Idol (celebrity addition) for the second time and Americans are eager to see what prize he will win this time. I call it the OJ fix, for more reasons than one.

It is my opinion that media does to culture what speed (the drug) does to the teeth. For those of you who are not familiar with the 1994 Green Day song, “Geek Stink Breath,” here’s a recap: “I'm on a mission, I made my decision, To lead a path of self destruction - A slow progression, Killing my complexion, And it's rotting out my teeth - I'm on a roll, No self control, I'm blowing off steam with methamphetamine - Don't know what I want, That's all that I've got, And I'm picking scabs off my face.” Yeah. And that was just one of their B songs!

For those of you not quite deep enough to understand Billy Joe’s complex and philosophical lyrics, I’ll be blunt: Our culture is in decay. It is in decay because our tradition has become irrevocably tied to media and this has given us a false sense of security. We have become too comfortable and every single successful society (empire) in history has fallen when it has become too comfortable. Because it is a false sense of comfort.

It reminds me of the plastic Jesus sitting on the dashboard of your car. Here are some lyrics to the song, as performed by Paul Newman in the 1967 classic Cool Hand Luke, for those of you so deprived: “I don’t care if it rains or freezes, Long as I got my plastic Jesus, Sitting on the dashboard of my car… Comes in colors pink and pleasant, Glows in the dark cause it’s iridescent, Take it with you when you travel far. Get yourself a sweet Madonna, Dressed in rhinestone sittin’ on a, Pedestal of abalone shell… Going ninety I ain’t scary, Cause I got the Virgin Mary, Assuring me, that I won’t go to hell.”

The idea that a plastic replica symbolizing your religion’s comfort (or in this case, safety) is going to save you (literally or spiritually) from a car accident (or going to hell) is as ridiculous a human invention of faith as I can imagine. Paul Newman’s character in Cool Hand Luke spends the entirety of the movie talking to God and questioning his faith and his existence as a unique human being. His unwillingness to conform to the rules society has opposed upon him ultimately lead to his demise. His plastic symbol of faith and comfort are of no help.

Whether it’s fake love, plastic faith or devolved media, our culture has to, once again, stand for something more meaningful. And I don’t mean the occasional great movie that also becomes a hit (Eternal Sunshine). I mean, something significant that appears in daily aspects of our media, outweighs everything else, encourages progressive parents to allow their kids some media influence and teaches unprogressive parents not to use the damn television as a babysitter. I’m talking about media that ignores sensationalism and prejudice of even our wealthiest citizens and promotes embracing love in our relationships as a unique feeling in regards to that relationship in all its beauty and despite its imperfections, and without reference to Phil Collins, Sex and the City or When Harry Met Sally.

Now, I’m not saying that love songs and love stories and all media are all bad. I’m as big a fan of Sleepless in Seattle and “Unchained Melody” as the next guy. But our media outlets have got to start opening up the conversation as to what media is doing to us (is designed to do to us). As long as there is debate there is education and as long as there is education the mind will grow and adapt and defend itself from comfortable security and devolution. So find a new day job Mary Hart and Mark Steines (hosts of Insider or is it ET), the media is coming back to the people!

Famous For Being Famous: The Postmodern Celebrity

Fame used to be a result of some sort of human achievement. Achilles was famous for his god-like ability in battle and his decision to choose everlasting glory over old age. Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were famous for conquering more of the known world than anyone before them. Jesus and Mohammed were famous for the philosophies they preached and the religions their teachings spawned. Francis Drake was famous for circumnavigating the glove; Charles Lindberg for flying across the Atlantic. Clarke Gable for saying “Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn,” Brando for putting cotton balls in his cheeks muttering “It was Barzini all along,” and Marilyn Monroe for, well, being her. Joe Dimaggio was famous for hitting safe for 56 straight games, Jordan for hitting “the shot,” Montana for throwing the pass that was “the catch” and Elway for leading “the drive.” And Tommy Lee, Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton…well, they are famous for being famous.

In the post modern world (that is a world in which most art is product and conscious of the fact that it is product) celebrity status no longer relies on acts of accomplishments, achievements or creations. It is in fact possible to become famous without doing anything at all, including hitting a game winning shot, winning an Oscar (or even appearing in a movie) or contributing to the progress of human existence. All one needs to do to be famous is to be. The contradiction to this is that it is harder than ever to achieve true celebrity status and yet anybody can become famous. The difference is that fame and celebrity are no longer interchangeable. Although all celebrities are famous, not all famous people receive celebrity status. In order to become a celebrity one must draw deep human interest beyond the individual’s accomplishments or what they do for a living, but through how they are perceived by the public and how they behave as a famous person.

Take Tommy Lee for instance. Everybody knows who he is, but what has he accomplished? He’s a rock star, right? Nope. The last album he played on that was popular was Dr. Feelgood nearly twenty years ago and nobody (in their right mind) listens to it anymore. He is famous because his personality and his personal life have become spotlighted by the media, most famously through his marriage to mega-celeb Pamela Anderson and their subsequent homemade porn film. I know what you’re thinking, his fame as a rock star endured throughout the years and remains still. This is not true. The only thing being a rock star ever earned Tommy Lee was, perhaps, a marriage to Pamela Anderson, which led to his reemergence as a celebrity. But let’s face it; he is more famous as a celebrity than he ever was as a “rock star.”

How about Lindsey Lohan? Lindsey Lohan is repeatedly voted one of the most beautiful women in the world (by tabloids and magazines) even though there is nothing uniquely appealing about her physically. She has repeatedly been considered one of the biggest “stars” in the world even though she has never made a good movie (I will give a slight nod to Mean Girls but with little thanks to her), her musical ability is zero and she has contributed nothing, artistic or otherwise, to the betterment of society. Granted she has been in a number of movies that have put her in the public eye but she is more famous for the way in which she distracts from her art and industry than for how she contributes to it. She was never so famous until she began having drug problems, disputes with movie studios and drunken binges on the sunset strip.

Paris Hilton is perhaps the most obvious example of how a person can be made famous out of absolutely nothing but being born into wealth and perhaps in the right place at the right time. She is a true mega-celebrity, bigger than most movie stars, rock stars and sports heroes because her fame does not spawn from her accomplishments but from the fame itself, fueled by her exploits as a dysfunctional human being or rather as a dysfunctional celebrity. She was simply a wealthy name that a good publicist was able to spin into celebrity status not because of her philanthropy or contribution to the art or entertainment spheres but because the lifestyle she chose to live and that she allowed it to be exploited. This has led to parts in bad films and even a record deal, but these accomplishments (if you can call them that) have, if anything, detracted from her celebrity status because they don’t represent the kind of life style that Paris Hilton and other mega-celebrities have made fashionable, hedonistic and frivolous living and a care-free attitude.

So, what causes people of postmodern America to anoint such a high status to such unaccomplished people? Is it the car wreck phenomenon? Slowing down to see other’s misfortunes, enhanced by the fact that we truly enjoy seeing the rich and successful suffer? Perhaps. This would explain why shows like Hollywood Insider and magazines like Star are so successful; they exploit the weaknesses and failures of the people we aspire to be and ultimately look up to but in reality despise. Because do any of us actually look up to these people? We are fascinated by them, but who in their right mind wants to be Paris Hilton or even Britney Spears? Is it the money and fame we want? Or just the lifestyle? But doesn’t this senseless coverage of these individuals’ failures illustrate how worthless a life of fame really is? Maybe, but the problems with human psychology and particularly the American mentality is that we never believe that that can happen to us. We use the repeated failures of Lindsey Lohan (and most other celebrities) to rise above her typecast role as a failed actress/pop star turned drug addict to reassure ourselves that we are better than we really are. Because absolutely no one knows how they would succeed under similar circumstances until they have experienced them fully. It’s like being robbed at gunpoint. We like to think that we’ll either be brave and heroic (punching out the thief and turning his gun on him) or witty and cool (handing the money over but being unfazed, even making a joke in the process), but the fact is that most of us would freeze up; we wouldn’t know what to do; we’d cry like a baby and be emotionally traumatized for some time after.

I blame the entire new celebrity phenomenon on reality television and the postmodern mentality. The inherent problem with the postmodernism is that we think we know everything, think we have all the information we need at all times and think that this is enough, an ample substitute for real life experience. This ultimately bleeds into our perceptions of accomplishments, art and fame. Reality programming is the perfect example of postmodern art because it is keenly aware (it is in its nature to be so) of what it is and why it is and even what it will become. Reality television has bled into the way we lead our lives. We live our lives like characters in The Real World, Big Brother, Project Runway or whatever show suits you best, looking at ourselves from without, as if through the lens of a camera, instead of from within. Thinking we can create who we are on the inside because we can manipulate how we are perceived on the outside is our biggest mistake in the reality tv era.

Meanwhile, our younger, more perceptible children are being indoctrinated by the idea that fame is the most important ambition you can strive for and that individuals like Lohan and Hilton are the best kind of celebrity because they get the most media exposure and are therefore considered the most popular. Popularity doesn’t equal fame (anyone with a fully developed frontal lobe knows that), but this is the notion that is taught and absorbed by our youth and what’s more, the failures and subversive acts that enhance these celebrities' fame are attributed as qualities, not flaws, by the naivety of our society (not just our youth). If fame is so noble and important to human existence (I for one think it is inherently evil), then we should take care to and make the effort to endorse and expose people of accomplishment, people who have great human values and people who contribute positively to the human condition. I would say eliminate fame altogether but it has always been here and seems it always will.

This isn’t to say that many celebrities don’t use their fame for good, because more and more that is becoming a trend. Look at Leonardo Dicaprio's work with the environment (The 11th Hour) or most famously, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s work in Africa. But these positive aspects of modern celebrity are glazed over and lost in the pregnancies, divorces, drug problems, DUIs, and amateur porn films. It’s hard to find meaningful coverage in the media of the positive ways celebrities use their fame and influence. Look at Sean Penn’s work in the aftermath of Katrina. The man was physically pulling people from the flood but this got little attention from the press. The news cameras were too busy getting a close up on the one little white girl in a city of suffering black people. But that’s beside the point. The racism of the media is another issue for another article some other time (just foreshadowing its imminent arrival).

If fame is to ever become a human virtue, something worth teaching our children to aspire to, we must find a way to separate it from the simplistic idea that being famous is important for no other reason than to be famous. Virtues, values and accomplishments must be attached to the people we cover in our media, this includes books, television, movies, magazine, newspapers and most importantly, the Internet.

How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love The Internet

Recently I had the pleasure of cutting the Internet from my life for the majority of the summer. It was an enlightening and fulfilling experience and I highly recommend it. I’d like to share why I decided to take such a drastic measure and why I have welcomed the world wide web, not so open armed, back into my life.

First of all, the Internet is the biggest evil yet to be invented in the technological age, quietly replacing television as the drug of the nation. It is not just a terrible waste of time and distraction from the important things in life and the progress of humanity, but a mask of phoniness cleverly disguised as information outlets and communication tools. In fact, 99% of the information received on the Internet is speculative, opinionated and without citation (keeping with the tradition I won’t bother to cite any statistics in this blog either). Even more frightening is that all of it is controlled. If you want to know something, any simple fact, where do you begin? You “google” what you’re looking for, right? The Google Corporation has complete control over every website that turns up in their search engine and the order in which you receive them. This includes searching for a hot picture of that actress whose movie you just saw, looking for tabs to the new Lincoln Park song (Lincoln Park sucks by the way) and anything else you can imagine needing to know more about. Luckily, Google is not evil. Not so far as we know. Their company motto is “don’t be evil,” after all. Well, that’s reassuring. If GM would just adopt that motto perhaps they would stop making and marketing detrimental vehicles like the Hummer. If you own a Hummer please do not read my blog. Please have a drink and take a drive.

Tools used to communicate on the Internet create one dimensional and phony relationships that only distract from real human interaction, interaction that can actually deepen friendships and associations that may actually contribute to the betterment of this world. Internet profiles are thin transparencies of who we really are. Myspace “friends” are not real friends and should not be considered such unless your relationship goes beyond posting comments, reading blogs and looking at each other’s pictures. Describing who you are in a few words, posting pictures of what you did this weekend, and listing the movies and music you like are no substitute for real dialogue and physical interaction. Nor are blogs. Blogs about who you are and what you’re up to are a waste of time, yours and the readers. If you’re going to blog, blog about something worthwhile. Write something with some thought and a message. I’ll learn much more about you based on what you write about and the way in which you write it and I might just get something out of it too. I’m not saying that this is all we have, but the way we’re headed this is all we’ll have in the not too distant future. No more meeting the next love of your life at a party, through a mutual friend or in some serendipitous way at the grocery store or library. Nope, Internet dating will be the only way to make dates and even friends. And do you really want your first impression of someone to be your myspace profile? Oh, and by the way…when describing who you are and what you like don’t list music. “I really love music!” Everyone loves music you asshole. That’s like saying you like breathing or sleeping when you’re tired.

But my hatred of the Internet and subsequent decision to cut in out of my life only starts with sketchy information sources and myspace, friendster, facebook and any other bullshit ways to develop and keep a community of friends. How much time does the average person spend online each day? In fact, how could you find this simple bit of information without the Internet? I had no idea how to survive without the Internet. Not just for useless trivia but for everyday functions. For example, I think I’ll go see a movie today. I wonder what’s playing? I wonder what time? During my vacation from the Internet I had to dig deep, to a decade or so ago, and remember something called the phonebook, the yellow pages to be specific. Look under ‘t’ for theaters (‘m’ for movie theaters in some books), find the theater of choice and give them a call. To my surprise, theaters still have recorded messages telling you everything you ever wanted to know about seeing a movie at their theater. Simple. Easy. Easier and more dependable than going online. And believe it or not, faster. And most importantly you actually use your brain to do it.

The phonebook is also good for looking up area codes and zip codes for mailing letters, I discovered. And by letters I mean the old fashion kind, graphite on paper, words drawn with the simple twist of a wrist. What a beautiful thing handwriting letters used to be (and could still be). It’s SO MUCH more personal. And when you do it, you take your time, you think about what you’re writing and why. Not to mention the sensation of receiving a letter, cutting into the envelope to discover its contents and then reading through it, sometimes deciphering your friends chicken scratch like it’s a foreign language. Afterwards, you have a physical souvenir to do with as you wish. I have shoeboxes full of letters from the pre-internet era. I think I received exactly one in the last few years. Pathetic. Shooting me an email or a myspace message doesn’t show you care the way writing a letter does.

The average American (with internet access at home and at work) spends 3.7 hours per day at work using the Internet for personal activities and 5.9 hours at home doing work related activities. Wow, so the Internet is distracting from our workday and that work is being taken out of our personal lives, and then some. And you know that the time spent “working” online when you’re not at work leads to even more time online wasting time. This has got to be managed. And by “wasting time” I mean engaging in web activity that does not serve the betterment of society. I won’t say outright that it does not serve the betterment of an individual’s personal life, my self-righteousness should have some sort of ceiling, but I will hint at that hypothesis.

The Internet is an addiction; an addiction to a drug that most people are not aware is harmful. It’s like cigarettes fifty years ago when ads used to say, “Nine out of ten doctors prefer Menthol Kools to Camel Lights.” Fifty years from now it will be common knowledge that over-use of the internet leads to all sorts of crisis, maybe not cancer and heart disease, but perhaps to increased divorce rates, lower IQs and depression, and probably to increased cholesterol (leading to heart disease), arthritis and stigmatism as well.

That said, I have obviously decided to allow the Internet into my life once again. Living without it was like taking a shower for the first time after a long camping trip. Coming home and not immediately checking my email or myspace made me feel naked at first but after a short time the desire was washed away to a feeling of great relief. My mind was cleared and I began to examine all that the internet is, good and bad. You’ve heard some of the bad, but the Internet can be a great communication tool and information source if used in moderation, with consciousness and not as a substitute for the more meaningful aspects of life. How else could I share, for free, these thoughts with potentially millions of people? It will probably only be a few but instant access to even a single person is an invaluable a resource.

So, here I am embracing the great evil of our time in hope that it, like most people, will rise above its faults and weaknesses to contribute to the betterment of society and the peaceful progress of the human race. Take what you will from my words here and discard the rest. If something stings that’s reason enough to give it some thought and to please post your thoughts. Your comments are welcomed and encouraged with as much brutal honesty as you feel responding to my posts as I have felt writing them.

I don’t intend this blog to be musings of my everyday, about my personal life, but important thoughts and questions regarding the issues of our time and philosophies of us as people on the same rock in the same universe. Expect posts on marriage, gay marriage, politics, war, peace, love, hate, faith, religion, money, fame, the good/bad internet and much, much more. Expect the occasional short story, film or book review and rants and raves and preaching about God knows what will come into my head. But remember always to not only question everything I say (as you would everything else you read or hear anywhere, especially on the internet) but to also engage in discussion. Believe in what feels right in the best parts of your heart and soul and the deepest, most untapped parts of your mind and I will too and together we will begin to piece together this jigsaw puzzle we all call “life.”

I leave you with the words of the great Walt Whitman, one of our greatest gifts, whose words and wisdom remain to guide and inspire and teach us,

"This year…This is what you shall do: Love the earth and sun and animals, despise riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others. Hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take your hat off to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families…read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words, but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body."

Sincerely,

Dr. H’