Dr. Harrington ('h&-'ri[ng]-g&-tän)

First Poem in Some Years

2009-06-20T13:38:00.000-07:00

My vocabulary
is not large enough
to impress her
She wears words on her sleeve
like a conman wears diamond studded cuff links
(and) i’m not even sure what a cuff link is/does
I cut my sleeves off at the shoulder
and let the bare skin of my forearms do my talking
Pale with irony
dry in eczemas humor
spotted like her leopard skin blouse
you know the one she never tells anyone about
tucked hidden between jars of (____)
behind bullet proof glass
“i adore you”
…
“like light chases moths”
Oh wait, or is it the moth that chase the light?

Like A Moth

2009-04-07T00:20:00.001-07:00

I am like a moth, always looking for the light, and when I find it I shall beat myself against it until it takes me...

I Vow...

2009-03-04T15:33:00.000-08:00

I have been grappling with the concept of taking a vow much in my life these days. Two questions tend to dominate this thought process: 1) What does it truly mean to take a vow? 2) Do I have the will to make such a commitment and remain true to it?

These questions have taken me to research. I will share more of my findings soon, both in my material research as well as the results of my thought process, but for now I wanted to share one movement I have come across:

http://itakethevow.com/

And I ask the questions: What is the power of making a global vow? Can this seemingly simple gesture inherently lead to action, justice and ultimately peace?

Capital Punishment: The Weakest Link

2008-12-10T16:50:00.000-08:00

My position on the death penalty is simple: The State should not murder people. The government should be the ultimate role model for its citizens. You cannot quell violence with violence; violence breeds violence. We have learned this time and again throughout history. Murdering even a murderer is a subtle, psychological endorsement of murder. It is a justification to the act of murder (and violence)—not a deterrent—which allows the human mind room to create its own rules, its own justification, even if only in the act of passion.

Society as a whole has decided that killing a fellow human being, in any context, is wrong, if not evil, and deserves judgment and suitable punishment. We have created different degrees of killing by which to measure and categorize the act in order to apply the appropriate punishment as justice. But isn’t murder still always murder? Either it is an act of self-defense, an unintended accident (generally a result of negligence) or what we universally regard as murder with intent or malice aforethought. It is this murder of intent that has been dissected and categorized in a puzzling way. Either murder is the most natural act in this world—every other species kills, even themselves when necessary—or it is an act of insanity.

From Webster’s, “Insanity” is defined as: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility.

Either way, does it justify murder as a solution to ending murder? You cannot apply degrees to insanity. And doesn’t insanity deserve treatment and rehabilitation? Isn’t that what we have universally come to believe? Why do we deem some murderers ‘temporarily insane,’ others terminally insane and others simply malicious or evil? And why do we distinguish between the appropriate treatment of this insanity? Why do we deem some murders not insane at all? By a generally universally accepted definition, murder is in itself an act of insanity. Therefore, whether a person plans the murder of many people over many years…Or acts in the moment of so called ‘blind passion,’ this person should be treated to the extent of society until they are cured of this, their mental illness. This may take a day for some or a lifetime for others; indeed, some may never be cured. A murderer may spend the rest of his or her life in prison (or in an insane asylum or rehabilitation clinic) trying to come to terms with their mental defect, but why should the person be killed? I believe that killing some murderers and not others is applying a double standard, which again is something that modern society has generally come to regard as wrong.

According to Amnesty International:

• 59 countries (approximately 67 percent of the global population) still maintain the death penalty in both law and practice.
• 90 countries have abolished it completely.
• 10 retain it, but only for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war).
• 35 countries maintain laws permitting the use of the death penalty for ordinary crimes, but have allowed the death penalty to fall into disuse for at least 10 years.

Of the 59 countries that retain capital punishment most are developing nations and either countries with an Islamic majority, dictatorships or mass poverty and crime. The only two exceptions to this: The United States & Japan. Population wise, the vast majority of that 67% comes from the China, India and the United States.

Generally, the most progressive nations in the world have abolished the death penalty: all of the EU, Australia and Canada to name a few. And these nations have less murder per capita than their counterparts like the United States. Why? Because murder inspires murder. Michael Moore points out in his film Bowling For Columbine the connection, time and time again, between acts of government killing (war and air strikes) and acts of individual homicide (school shootings and domestic violence). The only difference between the government killing an individual who has killed another individual, and the murder that person committed in order to supposedly deserve this punishment, is that the government is supposed to be a body of clear judgment acting for humanity and justice. The government should not be susceptible to human flaws, mental illness and insanity. This is why we have checks and balances.

Sure, the government is the voice and will of the people. And in the US, for example, according to recent Gallup polling approximately 67% of the population supports the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. I wonder if this isn’t because US culture is rooted in a strict religious tradition that justifies eye-for-an-eye retribution, manifest destiny that led to the genocide of an entire people so that we could expand and of course fear, fear that brought us to the new world, fear that drove us across the plains, fear that to this day has allowed the unwarranted invasion and occupation of a country that did us no harm. We have to let go of our fears. We have to apologize for the murder that has resulted from them.

The heart of the US constitution believes that it must grow, change and progress with the evolution of its people and culture while remaining true to the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It also states that it must remain separate from the church. As soon as we as a people rise above the fear of religion, fear of our past, fear of each other, and fear of the change we so desperately need to continue striving for that utopian vision that is at the heart of democracy, then perhaps we can abolish institutions that no longer serve a just and sustainable purpose, but have come to prohibit it.

The voices of leadership, responsibility and, above all, humanity must act as the moral conscious of the people for which they speak. They must ask the important questions that we elect them to ask for us and speak for those in society that would not without them have a voice of influence of any kind—the homeless, immigrants fresh off the boat or across the border, impoverished families, the sick and the elderly, criminals and misfits, vagabonds and missionaries, the middle class and even the rich and anyone in between, and yes, even murderers. We are all links in the chain of humanity, even the dangerously insane. We are only as strong as that weakest link.

Post Election Thoughts

2008-11-05T12:55:00.000-08:00

A whole heck of a lot to talk about. Here are a few bullet points:

The Good:

Obama, Obama, Obama! Yes! And in overwhelming fashion. 9, count ‘em 9 Bush states from four years ago go Obama. Even Indiana. This is a good beginning, but only the beginning.

Obama’s Acceptance Speech. Not that all of his speeches aren’t good, but this one was exactly what it needed to be. Not the somber quality and the humility and the ability to reach out to those whose votes he did not earn.

Michigan: Not only did they overwhelming support Obama, they also, legalized medical marijuana and voted to allow stem cell research.

Failure of ridiculous anti-abortion related measures all over the country. Including an overwhelming vote in Colorado not to define “the moment conception” as the start of human life.

Washington joins fellow northwestern state Oregon in allowing doctor-assisted suicide.

There will be, some day, eventually…a speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Way to finally get on the bandwagon that Europe and Japan have been riding for some time.

A gain in both houses of congress. Including, possibly—pending a recount—a comedian from Minnesota. What’s next, an action star as Governor or a professional wrestler…oh, yeah. Never underestimate the power of fame, for better or worse. This time, however, I think it to be the better.

The Bad:

Same sex marriage not to the likings of Floridians, Arizonans and, yes, even Californians. Even California? Really? Say it ain’t so! When will people wake up? When will people realize that this is a civil rights issue no different then suffrage or segregation? I can not believe that California of all places will have an amendment to its constitution that limits the rights of people. It is completely and totally unacceptable for the so-called most progressive state in the union, for any state in the nation. But California had established itself has a progressive leader of a sometimes slow to change nation. This is a major set-back.

Looks like no magic 60 for Dems in the Senate. Even a convicted felon in Alaska (old man Stevens) seems to have held on to his seat. And we all know who the Governor is that will have the task to appoint his replacement when he is forced to resign in the not too distant future (for those of you who don’t know it is Sarah “Pitbull” Palin)…I wonder if she has the tenacity to appoint herself...wouldn’t that be something. Also, looks like my good old home state of Oregon may have decided to keep a man who spent 1.2 million dollars on a pair of golf clubs in the Senate. Not that you can judge a man on just one simple fact but it is somewhat indicative of what a disconnected jerk he can be. Update: This race has been called for the Dem Jeff Merkley after all.

The Ugly:

Arkansas bans same sex couples from adopting children. Makes me want to dig a fork in the back of my neck as an American.

The Interesting:

Nebraska votes to end affirmative action. Colorado does not.

I think that about says it all. There are no certainties. There are no easy answers. There is much, much work to be done.

Religulous

2008-10-15T13:53:00.000-07:00

Bill Maher brings the belief that unconditional faith in religion is a form of mental illness to his new documentary, Religulous. This is a funny film, an important film and a poorly executed and fatally flawed attempt to examine the oldest, most important and currently the most powerful aspect of human culture.

Maher’s first mistake is that he takes on an enormous task with too little focus. There are approximately 22 major organized religions (with members numbering over half a million) in the world (all with various sects and branches) and countless smaller religions and spirituals practices and Maher examines basically just three: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. He mentions Scientology and goes into some of the sects of Christianity, but does not even attempt to look at eastern religions, which is probably a good thing because he spreads himself thin enough as is. Unfortunately, because he sets the film up as a non-specific look at religion, he inadvertently limits himself to a narrow point of view.

His main claim is that people (but not all people) have evolved intellectually past the need for religion, particularly those religions based in ancient myths and traditions. He blames these three religious superpowers (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) for most of the blood-shed and violence in the world, certainly as of late, but throughout history as well. Unfortunately, Maher is only preaching to the choir and his methods are little more than cheap tricks that will only enrage those who are not already religious skeptics, atheists or agnostics and probably only inspire deeply religious people to be more rooted in their sometimes blind devotions.

Maher and his director Larry Charles (of Borat) use a technique popularized by Sacha Baron Cohen: basically they let the ignorance of their subjects trap, insult and make fun of themselves. This method is in poor taste, only mildly affective in making a meaningful point and ethically questionable as an artist, journalist or sociologist, which ever of these, if any, Maher is claiming to be in this film. He seems to be claiming to be all three while playing the ignorant, innocent skeptic at the same time.

Early in the film, Maher seems genuine in his assertion that he is “just asking questions” and that his perspective on the subject of religion is “I don’t know.” That would be a fine place to begin if it didn’t so quickly become clear that Bill Maher actually believes that these people whom he interviews are in fact either ignorant, mentally insane or simple scam artists. He doesn’t believe in the possibility of any of the myths these religions claim, the power of faith or the need human beings may need for structured religious beliefs and practices to be an important part of human culture and development. His quick lack of open-mindedness immediately undermines his credibility as a journalist (and even as an objective artist) in the film. He proceeds to let subject after subject make fun of him or herself because Maher doesn’t want to seem disrespectful, even though most of his follow-up questions are set-ups for making them look stupid (Exposing ignorance? Yes. But in what context? For what purpose?). He questions their beliefs with no desire to learn from them—only to undermine them with what he believes is his superior intelligence. Not surprisingly, he avoids truly great and intelligent religious leaders like the Dalai Lama, for example, because he would be way out of his league. He sticks with simple followers, because he knows he will always have the upper hand. Isn’t this is in gross distaste?

Perhaps the most questionable part of Maher’s exploration is that he completely ignores all the good that comes from religion and faith (two terms which he seems to use interchangeably with no regard for the fact that these are often two separate entities). Maher does a good job pointing out the ridiculous nature of some of religious myths (Jonah being swallowed by the whale or Moses communicating with god through a burning bush) but he does not interview people who use these stories as metaphors for positive teaching and living, only people who believe them as fact (there is an exception or two to this but he doesn’t allow these individuals to share the importance of still teaching these stories). He also ignores the positive affect the rituals of religion (communion, prayer, meditation) may have on the human mind and behavior of people. He writes off these positives as acts of mental illness of an insane or ignorant mind. If he at least acknowledged some of the positives that can come from faith and religion—foundations of hope, inspiration and charity—then perhaps his assertion that religion does much more harm than good (which is probably true) would hold more water. Alas, again he undermines the potential power of his film and the possibility of his insights and explorations effecting positive change.

Maher claims that a large minority of people in the United States (and the world entire) are either atheist or agnostic and that this group of individuals is larger than any other minority group in the country. He asks us to rise up and make our voices heard to stop the senseless blood-shed, violence and the division that results from religion. Well, yes I agree. We should. But we should do so by trying to understand why religion is so important to most people of the world in a way that isn’t so divisive as Maher’s approach, where teaching and learning are of mutual exchange.

Education is a path to true freedom but it has to be mutual. A well-educated atheist or agnostic can learn much from a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc (well educated or not) and vice-versa. But you’ve got to be open minded, willing to fully engage, give and take ideas and above all respect each other and each other’s beliefs. This conversation and exchange of ideas and knowledge is the way to root out dangerous extremists and fundamentalist religions. If you think, as a minority in this country and certainly in this world, that non-believers can just rise up and kill god like a coup of some third world dictator, you are sadly mistaken. Because one thing most of these religions believe remains to be true: god is still All Powerful, because that power lies in the belief of the people who worship him and their undying faith. Faith can be changed and faith can be altered, but it can never be killed or simply overthrown, because it is faith itself that is the strength and the will that binds humanity together; and it always will be, whether it represents bowing to an imaginary super-being somewhere in the stars or reaching out our hands to our human neighbors and trusting in the fortitude and love of their grasp as we pull and tow each other along in this life…

See Religulous. Because I believe that the heart of Bill Maher’s film is true, even if his method and execution is flawed. There is much to be learned and taught from/to each of us. If we have faith in each other…

Project Next Top Messiah (or how reality television saves the world)

2008-07-25T02:17:00.000-07:00

The Treatment:

We’ve mechanized shows that produce our top chefs, designers, singers, dancers, models and even barbers. Now it’s time that we got real and put into works the reality television mechanism that will produce America’s next top prophet, the true idol of the heavens come back to earth, the true king of popular religion, in Project Next Top Messiah (PNTM).

In PNTM, thousands will audition to be one of a handful selected to compete on the most competitive, as well as the most prophetable (hee-hee), reality tv show to ever hit the airwaves. Our panel of supreme judges, from all walks of religious life (mostly Jews), will narrow the list to approximately twenty finalists who will earn trips to the holiest of holy lands, Salt Lake City, Utah to compete in front of a live studio audience of millions upon millions to see if they have what it takes to guide the future of humanity in a new spiritual direction. Will that mean apocalypse and an instant stairway to heaven? Or perhaps a new set of gospels, moral and religious codes by which to govern society as well as live as individuals (and by individuals I mean sheep who do as is written and as they are told)? Only the next top messiah can say for sure.

Like any great and holy reality show, each episode will consist of challenges and performances by which viewers, in true democratic process, will base the most important vote of their lives (each wrong vote may result in eternal damnation). The first challenge will be a simple carpentry task in episode one. Although, contestants may come from all walks of life, from reverends to construction workers to business moguls and maybe even a homeless man, this simple task will help weed out the unworthy, unholy posers, because you know the next messiah will be a natural carpenter.

As the season progresses, challenges and demonstrations of holy worthiness will grow in difficulty. Contestants will be asked to preach gospels, collect followers and even apostles, and of course, to perform miracles (walking on water, turning wine into water, raising the dead, plague of frogs, the usual messiah stuff). Now, simple illusions may suffice in the earlier episodes, but eventually the American public will turn wise to anything that isn’t authentic miracle making. Chris Angel and faith healers like Steve Martin’s character from Leap of Faith (What a great movie btw. Meatloaf? He can act? Yup!) may make it past the first few episodes, but they will be proven as false prophets before the end of the season mark my words. Cause Americans know a fraud, a liar, a cheat when they see one. George W. Bush anybody? Okay, scratch what I said about Americans not being retarded.

Instead of eliminating players or simply voting them off, failed prophets will be crucified. They won’t literally be crucified of course, but this is the term that will be used as extra religious flair to keep the show popping. However, it is quite possible that in the final episode, the contestant crowned Next Top Messiah will in fact be crucified. But this will be left up to the Jews, per usual.

You may think that the longevity of this show is limited because once you have a messiah you can’t have another one, right? Wrong! NOTE: THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS CLASSIFIED AND EXTRA DOUBLE TOP SECRET. DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU CANNONT KEEP YOU MOUTH WATER TIGHT (You know, like a frog’s butt). Because we all know that it is the Anti-Christ who comes back first. Thus, the so-called Top Messiah from season one will in fact turn out to be THE ANTI-CHRIST. Therefore, a second season will be needed to find the TRUE MESSIAH. And once he (or maybe she, but come on…a female messiah? We couldn’t even elect Hillary to the Democratic nomination and you think we’re going to pick a female Messiah…) is selected he will do battle with the Anti-Christ in order to save the earth from certain, undeniable doom or whatever.

Furthermore (in Hollywood terms that means sequels which means $$$) international, or at least inter-religious, shows will be run as well. This way each dominant religion can produce its own messiah and/or prophet and/or whatever those backwards heathens from across the seas want to call him, or maybe, possibly her (but let’s face it, chances are a female Christian messiah is the best we got and that ain’t looking good). So, once we have a Muslim messiah, a Buddhist messiah, a Hindu messiah, a Pagan messiah, and a Scientologist messiah (TBD whether or not the Jews get a messiah. They have a tendency to deny that their messiah has returned and my guess is they will do the same thing again) to go with our Christian messiah, they will all compete on All Star Project Next Top Messiah. On ASPNTM, the world will vote (because globalization rules) and one true messiah, the messiah of the messiahs will be chosen. We’ll call him Messiah to the second power (or messiah squared). Messiah2 will then preach a new world gospel, the gospel of gospels or gospel2. The entire world will convert to this religion and be happily ever after. No really, think of it, no more holy wars, no more senseless murder, no more annoying young people in black suits and ties pounding on your door telling you to move to Utah (Utah? Really? Utah?) or old people passing out cheap magazines with cheesie, poorly written stories and no funny pages or celebrity gossip (Watchtower? The only way I’m watching a tower is if Britney Spears is on the top with a sniper rifle getting her just revenge).

This, my friends, is how reality television will save the world. And did I mention, make the producers of said show a ridiculous amount of money in the process. Because let’s face it, everybody loves Jesus and everybody loves an underdog and what bigger an underdog than THE NEXT TOP MESSIAH…okay, maybe that doesn’t make sense, but you get the point.

The Angel and The One

2008-07-08T19:48:00.000-07:00

The new Weezer album of all things has got me thinking. The last line of the last song on the regular edition of the album: “WE ARE the angels and WE ARE the ones that are praying.” God is in all of us. God IS all of us. It’s up to US to answer our own prayers and those of each other.

It’s time we stopped putting each other up on pedestals without believing that we too can rise so high. It’s time we stopped rising so high without reaching out our hand to take others with us. You too can be Gandhi. Together we can, not only change the world, but reverse the fucking rotation of the earth.

Remember, never forget, we are all in this together. Whether it’s a girlfriend that’s starting to get on your nerves, your husband who has been getting on your nerves for a dozen years now, a teenager running wild or an overbearing parent, you were brought together, if only for a time, to love and to support each other.

And above all, to pray to and to listen and to answer those prayers with all the passion of Christ, Muhammad and The Incredible Hulk combined. Because if it was in them, it’s in you as well.

Peace, Shalom

Walls

2008-06-14T13:33:00.000-07:00

“Walls” can act as metaphors for many things. You can talk about the walls we put up to protect ourselves psychologically or the walls we have to climb in order to progress in life. I want to talk about the walls we inevitably run into in our progression of how we see the world, that is, how open we are to new ideas and other points of view.

It seems to me that it is inevitable that we, no matter how open minded we think ourselves to be, reach a place in our lives or come head to head with an issue that we just can’t see past. This is true for individuals and this is true for society/countries/cultures as a whole. I think the U.S. hit this point or ran into this wall sometime ago and maybe only now are we, as a whole, beginning to break it down, climb over it, see past it or however you want say it.

Even the most seemingly liberal people run into this wall and I fear most never break it down. They are no different than the most conservative “right wing nut” or “backwards redneck” that can’t break out of their “traditional” ways of thinking. It’s not about being liberal or conservative. It’s about being progressive and both red and blue voters, right and left thinkers can be progressive and have an open enough point of view to listen to new ideas, to forget on almost a daily basis all they have been taught to know as the truth, and for at least a moment in every argument or discussion, see things from the other’s point of view. It’s arrogance of opinion and a sense of superiority that often keeps this wall standing strong in front of us, perhaps all around us. And this can be liberal arrogance or conservative arrogance, but when it comes down to it, they are both the same thing because both are rooted in the same kind of stubborn ignorance.

I consider myself a very liberal person. But some of my favorite moments are when I sit back and let a gun loving cab driver or Bush loving graduate from Indiana (I mention those two specifically because they are interactions I have actually had) rant their opinion with as much passion as any tree hugger in all of Berkeley campus. And when their rant is done, they shut up and listen to my own rant with as much respect as I gave them. Even if in the end of the conversation neither of us has seemed to inch any closer to the other, I know that progress, true progress has been made because there wasn’t that wall between us, the wall that seems to too often keep us all apart. Or if their was at first, we at least broke it down for a moment, or removed just one brick, just enough to make a peek hole to the other side.

I think sometimes we forget that WE are all in this together. WE are on the same team. In fact, there are no teams. There are no sides to take. Not really. WE ARE ALL THE SAME. So why build walls on invisible borders that only exist as an existential means to divide us?

Post Oscar Thought(s)

2008-02-26T14:22:00.000-08:00

So…one quick thought on the Oscar ceremony this year. Traditionally, the last three Oscars presented are Best Actress, Best Actor and Best Picture and in that order. This year, Best Actress was moved to the middle of the show. As far as I know, this was done in order to spread out the big awards, to put a popular award in the middle of the show. But doesn’t this, on some level, lessen the importance of the award? It would be totally different if the Best Actor award was moved as well or if Hollywood wasn’t notoriously disproportionate in gender representation. Now, I don’t believe that there was any intentional sexism involved in the decision to move the award, but in a country that is blatantly disproportional in gender equality and an industry that is particularly disproportional, in a town that claims to be so liberal and progressive, it seems like this was an insensitive and thoughtless choice, and in my opinion the wrong choice, to put the Best Actress award in the middle of the ceremony. Helen Mirren got it right on the red carpet when she pointed out that there are not very many good roles in Hollywood movies for women. In fact, in comparison to the roles for men, this is a gross understatement. Tradition aside, there is a psychology behind the order in which the awards are presented: the most important awards are saved for last. Traditionally, Best Actress goes first and then Best Actor which on a subconscious and psychological level (at the very least) indicates that the Best Actor award is more prestigious than that of Best Actress. Some may argue that setting the Best Actress award apart from the rest makes it special, but not when both tradition and psychology are taken into account and compared to the male version of the award which went just before best picture, the most prestigious award in movies (or so it is generally regarded).

Then there’s the argument for getting rid of the gender divides completely and having only a best performance catergory. I won’t get into that. I will give this link:

http://jezebel.com/360915/do-the-oscars-really-need-a-best-actress-category

Or this more in-depth article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/26/oscars.gender

And I will say that I think tradition is important to a lot of people and may be a strong enough of an argument against this. But it would send an interesting message if the Oscars decided that a performance is a performance and an actor is and actor and it has nothing to do with gender.

In closing, I don’t feel that moving the Best Actress award was intentional or blatant discrimination on part of the Academy. I know some people involved in the show and on the contrary they are genuinely good, progressive people. And in fact, I think the industry and the Oscars have come a long way since the first awards ceremony in which the only female winner was Janet Gaynor for Best Actress. I mean three women were nominated for best original screenplay this year, another for adapted screenplay and one of them won. But a woman has still never won best director (not surprising considering women only direct about 6% of Hollywood films) and I think only three have even been nominated. And most other roles in film (Cinematography, editing, producing, etc) are still dominated by men. So, we’re not quite there, but heading, maybe, slowly in the right direction… It’s just too bad that it’s in baby steps when there is really the potential and possibility for a much faster path to change. And if Hollywood could find that path, couldn’t they, of all industries out there, inspire the rest of the world to find it as well?

The Oscars

2008-02-14T12:50:00.000-08:00

Well, it’s that time of the year and the writer’s strike fell short of derailing this year’s Oscar ceremony so, or so it seems, the show will go on as they say. As someone who follows the Oscars pretty closely every year—if all the while complaining about how terrible the awards really are—I figure I should give my two cents.

First, I went back over the best picture nominees in recent and not so recent years and had to go all the way back to the 1977 ceremony before I found a group of nominees better that this years crop. I rated each years nominees by assigning +1 points to really good or unique nominees (Pulp Fiction) +2 points to classics (Goodfellas) -1 to bad nominees (Crash) -2 to really bad nominees (Titanic) and no points either way to solid nominees, neither here nor there (Good Will Hunting). Granted there were a few films I haven’t seen amongst the many nominees of the last thirty years, but I figure if I haven’t seen it (or worst, haven’t heard of it) it must not be worth any points. I did not take into consideration the best picture winners as this year does not yet have a winner. Although, if Atonement wins I may have to revise this article because that would be on par with Titanic winning in 1998 and would taint this year completely.

To compare, this is how I rated this year’s nominees: There Will Be Blood +2, No Country For Old Men +2, Juno +1, Michael Clayton +1, Atonement -2 = 4. Most years between ’77 and ’08 received a total of 0 or 1. There were a few 3s (mostly early eighties, late 70s) and a few in the negative (mostly in the last 10 years). 1977 featured three of the greatest films of all time: All The President’s Men +2, Network +2, Taxi Driver +2, plus an underrated bio-pic about Woody Guthrie (Bound for Glory +1) and Rocky got a respectable 0.

Obviously we know a lot more about the films of the past than we do about the current nominees but I have a strong feeling that my +2s from this year will be remembered thirty years from now. In addition, I respect the nomination of Juno, which is the kind of film that rarely gets academy recognition. I’ve always felt if the Academy wasn’t ever going to honor comedies, which I consider just as an important film genre as any other, than they should give them their own category. I don’t know how Michael Clayton will survive time. I thank it’s a great film but probably won’t hold up over time in the same way The Verdict has, and they are very similar films. But it could and in thirty years perhaps it will warrant a +1 or even +2. Atonement is one of the worst critically successful films I have seen in a long time. If it wins best picture (like it did the globes – they usually have better taste) it will be the worst best picture winner since Titanic, worse than Crash, Chicago and even Shakespeare in Love (although I must admit I really liked this film at the time). Why it got nominated when such great films were available like I’m Not There (the best film in years), Into the Wild and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, I can only attribute to the fact that the academy is really old and period dramas are like candy for old people.

Notable snubs: I’m Not There: I didn’t expect too many nominees for this little seen and somewhat inaccessible film, but at the very least it deserved screenplay and editing nominations. Into The Wild: Enchantment gets three best song nominations, THREE, and Eddie Vedder gets ZERO. Not to mention no adapted script or best director for Sean Penn. Emile Hirsch wasn’t bad either but I can’t complain about that. No Simpsons Movie for best animated…Yeah, it’s not as good as their early years but come on, it’s the Simpsons for God’s sake. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days: No best foreign language nod. Was this not eligible or something? The most well reviewed film of the year amongst so many greats. And, of course, Paul Dano, no supporting actor nod. He held his own with Paul Dano for God's sake.

Predictions: Who Will Win/Who Should Win:

Best Picture
Michael Clayton/Juno
Why? Because Michael Clayton is the industry favorite, because No Country and Blood are too gritty for the Academy, because Atonement is terrible, and because a film like Juno has never been honored before.

Best Director
Joel & Ethan for No Country/Julian Schnabel for Diving Bell & The Butterfly
Why? Because the Coens do something very slick and somewhat brave and they are very over do, because Blood hasn’t gotten the same attention as No Country, because Gilroy and Reitman are out of their league and because Diving Bell is the most unique and imaginative film in years.

Best Actor
Daniel Day Lewis/Daniel Day Lewis
Why? Because he’s Daniel Day Lewis and the rest don’t hold a candle.

Best Actress
Julie Christie/Marion Cotillard
Why? Because Christie has been around a long, long time (hasn’t won since ’66) and is actually quite good, because Page is too young, because no one saw The Savages, because Cate comes later and because Marion Cotillard truly kills the toughest part of the bunch.

Supporting Actor
Javier Bardem/Tom Wilkinson
Why? Because of that hairdo (and he’s really good), because the old guys will split the life-time achievement vote, because Phillip Seymour just won a couple years ago and because Wilkinson is over-do and is really very good.

Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett/Cate Blanchett
Because she’s Cate Blanchett and if you saw I’m Not There you couldn’t in your right mind vote for anybody else, because it’s been so long since it came out that Amy Ryan is Gone Baby Gone, because Ruby Dee is too old and Soirse Ronan is too young and neither is any good, because Tilda Swinton deserves an Oscar but not for this and because Cate Blanchett is the best actress in the world.

Original Screenplay
Diablo Cody for Juno/Diablo Cody for Juno
Why? Because this film won’t get any other recognition.

Adapted Screenplay
The Coens for No Country/Ronald Harwood for Diving Bell
Why? Because after all of the critical acclaim No Country will get honored more than any other film despite no best picture win, because nobody cares about Away From Her aside from Julie Christie’s performance, because Atonement is terrible, because the writing in There Will Be Blood is overshadowed by the performances and because the literary poetry of Diving Bell transfers to the screen like a lover’s whisper in your ear.

Best Cinematography
Seamus McGarvey for Atonement/Janusz Kaminski for Diving Bell
Why? Because of that ten-minute shot that proved how much money they spent, because Deakins will split the vote with himself, because There Will Be Blood has been completely overshadowed by No Country and because the Cinematography of Diving Bell engages (and emotionally manipulates) the viewer unlike any film I have ever seen.

Best Foreign Language Film
Die Falscher/Die Falscher
Why? Because I haven’t seen a single one of these films or heard much about them.

Best Documentary Feature
No End In Sight/No End In Sight
Why? Because it’s a great revelation about what caused the greatest cluster-fuck of our time.

Hollywood Job Hunt: Part One of One or More

2008-02-11T22:05:00.000-08:00

I’ve decided to log my incessant and seemingly hopeless attempt to get a job. First of all, looking for work in Los Angeles is one of worst experiences of my life so far. Granted, I have not experienced apartheid in Africa, guerilla warfare in Columbia or frozen homeless winters in Moscow, but I imagine this is on par.

A little back-story to begin with. I haven’t actually worked since June of last year. That’s not entirely true; I worked for two and one half weeks on re-shoots (I believe the preferred term is “Additional Photography”) for this years much beloved holiday musical sensation, “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story.” However, two and one half weeks as a PA in this town amounts to very, very little even though we did have a couple very long days. Long nights at Sony aren’t so bad as long as you have beer (we did) and the tenacity to drink it without fear of consequences (we did). I knew that this would probably be the last film job in my life, or certainly for some time to come, so I feared nothing. Which isn’t to say I didn’t do my job and didn’t do it well, but the truth is, in this town, in most positions on a film you can give about sixty percent effort and be just fine (assuming you’re not a complete moron. A complete idiot might have to give 70 – 75%). There are exceptions of course, but let’s face it, being a PA is one of the most brainless jobs I can think of. It’s on par with the guy who cleans jizz off of the walls of the VIP room in seedy (and sometimes fancy) strip clubs. Although, PAs usually have to clean up shit, not jizz, and it’s not off the walls but off of your own self. As a PA in Hollywood, (or anywhere they make films?) you get shat on by everyone.

And here’s the kicker…here I am looking for work in the industry. Anything I can find really, including PA work. I am so completely overqualified to be a PA, it’s ridiculous. And yet, I somehow manage to lower my self-esteem just enough to think it’s all I can get, all I am worth. I moved to the west coast as an experienced AD on independent films and I haven’t AD’d once since I arrived. Partly because I decided I didn’t want to be an AD for a living (they say the life expectancy of a career AD is about 54 years old and I’ve seen enough evidence to support that claim), and party because I fell into a PA job, the money was better than I had ever made, it took little to no effort and most of the time you’re just goofing off and killing time anyway (hm…maybe this is why I can’t find work). The problem is, as a PA, you are made to think you are not good enough to do anything but PA. In fact, you are made to think you aren’t even good enough to PA and that at any moment you will be fired. Or at least degraded enough to want to quit.

This is the problem with Hollywood: everyone thinks that egos are what gets movies made. When really it’s wallets and a lot of hard work. But the wallets do not reward the hard work in a proportionally appropriate way. This is called corporate capitalism. The Hollywood movie industry is capitalism at it’s very worst, mainly because it exploits honest and positive human dreams and corrupts them with greed, ego and eventually leads them to hopeless despair.

So, why am I looking for a job in this industry? To pass the time. To pay the bills. As Jim Morrison once said, “To break on through to the other side.” Why else? Los Angeles is a trap. They lure you here by dangling carrots in front of your face and you end up chasing that carrot like a mule until you have exhausted all hopes, dreams and ambitions and collapse to death, face down in the sand, lost in the desert. When you realize this, it is too late. You are trapped. And for those of us fortunate enough to realize this in time to escape, we also come to the unfortunate realization that we are still dependent upon that from which we are fleeing, in order to break free.

Which is why I am completely incapable at the moment of finding a job. This town is like a dog or a bee. It senses fear (and despair). But it also senses when you want out and has a huge fear of its own—a fear of abandonment. It will do whatever it takes to keep you here. Sometimes that means dangling more carrots in front of you, and sometimes it means giving you nothing, just enough to live, but not enough to afford an escape. Keeps you strong enough to crawl, but too weak to run away.

So, how does one find a job in the LA film industry when the last thing they really want to do is work in the LA film industry? First, you pretend that you want nothing less than to work in the LA film industry. This is where you find out how good of an actor you really are. Don’t forget, this town can sense untruthfulness like Holden Caulfield senses phoniness. And it’s bread into each and every person that may hire you. They may not even know why, but if they sense the tiniest bit of hesitation in your desire to be a part of the mechanism, they will forward your resume straight to the trash bin.

Second, it’s all about who you know (that should probably be “whom you know” but…). You can reply to as many Craig’s List ads as you possibly can, but the LA vultures fear change and are socially paranoid when it comes to hiring new people. They’ll hire an incompetent PA they know, but whom they can tolerate, before they’ll hire an unknown. It doesn’t matter how much experience you have. In fact, experience is worth nothing in comparison to knowing somebody. Experience is intimidating, because the more experiences you have the less they will be able to control you, the less you will stand by and let them shit on you. I’ve resorted to sending a blank page as my resume and writing as a cover letter, “I have no idea what I’m doing, have never done this before, but I will bathe in your urine if that’s what you tell me to, no questions asked.”

Finally, you should probably be a girl. Particularly if you’re trying to be anyone’s assistant. And an attractive one to boot. This is kind of a stereotype, a bit of a cliché, but it’s absolutely true in every circumstance everywhere with no exceptions. It’s like checking one of the minority boxes under the race question when applying to colleges—it just works. Unfortunately, it’s a bit tricky in my case to get a job as a woman (I being a man). Mainly because I have bad ankles and don’t do well in high heels (yeah, I thought that was funny too). I am a skinny guy, which is good in many ways (that’s a hint at all the anorexic women in this town and how our society puts an unhealthy emphasis on thin women but you get the point), but not when it comes to producing the appropriate amount of cleavage. I have learned to except the inevitable fact, I do not have big enough breasts to get a decent job or promotion in Hollywood. It was a sad realization to come to. The flip side of this is, of course, that many, many Hollywood big shots are in fact, gay men. But I’ve never done well with gay men. I don’t think I come across as homophobic exactly, because I actually prefer gay people to straight people sometimes; it’s all a part of my plan to be as individualistic as possible, to avoid trends at all costs. Unfortunately, it’s become popular to be gay or metrosexual, and so goes my plan. But I think I come off as either completely not gay or as a really stuck-up gay, maybe even a self-loathing gay. I’m not sure why this is, but whenever I hang out in overtly gay bars (which I often do), I may get a few looks, but I do not get a lot of verbal attention. Maybe they sense my straightness but I somehow doubt that because I’ve been mistaken for gay too many times (it’s either the mustache or the tight leather pants, not sure which). Maybe I’m subconsciously trying to communicate telepathically that I am straight in hopes to avoid any confusion, but I’m not sure about that because often I am seeking out a complement. I want to be flattered. Women certainly aren’t flattering me with a plethora of complements and attention, that’s for sure.

Okay, well back to the job hunt. I guess I haven’t actually talked much about the details of that. The rejections, the ignored emails even from people I’ve worked with before, that I know well, that know I need work, that I know need PAs. I guess personality goes further than I expected, and perhaps mine is too honest for some, certainly too honest for the cogs in the LA machine who only want their egos lubed and stroked ever so gently. Los Angeles is a big city, but Hollywood is a tiny industry, much too small for someone as derogatory and self-serving as me. Wait a minute…if that’s true, shouldn’t I fit right in?

A Not So Unreasonable Proposal To Change The Way We Pick Our President

2008-01-22T00:22:00.000-08:00

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
-George Bernard Shaw

The entirety of the third act of An Unreasonable Man, the recent documentary about Ralph Nader, is focused on the controversy surrounding Nader’s bids for the presidency in 2000 (as a Green Party candidate) and in 2004 (as an independent). The controversy is endless but most democrats feel as if Nader cost them the 2000 election.

The democratic field of candidates for their party’s nomination for president this year has been narrowed to seemingly 2 ¾ (Edwards gets ½ and Kucinich gets a ¼ shout out) . It seems that Edwards has been forced to fight for debate time just as all of the previous candidates had to do up until bowing out of the race (or being forced out of the debates as with Kucinich). With two clear front runners for the democratic tickets and a third candidate holding on by a thread, I can’t help but think of what Edwards ½ candidate effect will be on the upcoming South Carolina primary, an election that could send the winner into Florida and super duper February 5th with a distinct lead.

Although I don’t think it is entirely clear who Edwards will more likely draw votes from, most don’t believe he has a chance to win the democratic ticket even if he does well in the state he won four years ago. I would like to see all Edwards supporters, even the ones on the cusp, be allowed to fully support him, but also have a chance to support a more likely winner, the one who might be also be their second choice.

Think of an MVP (baseball, basketball, football, etc) ballot by the associated press of sports writers. They vote, not only for their top choice, but also their second and third choices as well. A first place vote would get three points, a second place would get two and a third place would get one. Why can’t this be the case for choosing politicians as well? I would love to cast my first place vote completely with my conscious and then a second place shout out to an almost as deserving of a candidate and then a third place shout out to someone who doesn’t have a chance (or, in turn, against my least favorite candidate). This way, we can avoid Edwards voters feeling like he doesn’t have a chance, wanting their vote to count and jumping on either the Obama or Hilary bandwagon at the last minute. If they love Edwards but are scared of Clinton, they can still Vote Obama second and Kucinich third and leave her off altogether. Or vice-versa of course. And of course this will help, and would have helped, lesser-known candidates like Dennis Kucinich and some of the dropouts earlier in the election as well.

This scenario can extend to the general election as well and would be great for third parties. Third party supporters could safely vote their conscious. For example, in 2000 as well as 2004, Ralph Nader supporters could safely vote for him with their first place vote and vote against Bush with their second place vote (or against Bush with their first and for their conscious with their second but my priorities favor the former scenario) & then make a statement vote with their third (for example, voting Leonard Peltier or writing in Howard Dean). I’m talking from a progressive perspective, but this works for Republicans too. Don’t forget about ’92 and ’96 with the Perot factor… Just think, we could have had back to back to back to back Bush terms if the Perot factor were limited. Or, Clinton, Gore, Clinton, Gore (Tipper Gore anybody?).

Okay, I may have killed my own argument with those last two scenarios, but seriously, if it’s good enough for picking a great American sports hero, it must be good enough to pick a president. I mean if you had the choice between having dinner with: Andrew Jackson or Bo Jackson, Andrew Johnson or Magic Johnson, Willie Mckinley or Willie Mays, Tom Jefferson or Tom Brady, Hank Aaron or Aaron Burr (I guess Burr was only a VP. And he killed a man in a duel. Which in my opinion is better dinner conversation than 50 touchdowns or 755 home runs. So scratch that one.)??? Admit it, most Americans would pick the latter in every case.

Things I Think I Think

2008-01-07T23:28:00.000-08:00

I stole this title from a sportswriter, so what, want to fight about it? Here are some quick thoughts since I haven’t posted in a while.

I think I’m jumping on the Barack Obama bandwagon and I think you should too. He says the right things (mostly), but more than that he makes people believe in those things, makes them believe that change is possible and maybe even want to get off the couch and be a part of it. Check out his Iowa victory speech. Some media outlets have blown in out of proportion (of course) but they’re not that far off when they call it “Kennedy-esque.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc

I think he makes me want to believe in this country again.

I think that Barack Obama voting for the border fence, was a bonehead mistake and he should admit it as such.

I think Hilary is going down. All the way down, down to Chinatown. And rightly so. Does anybody actually want the history books to read Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? I mean, our great, great grandchildren will think we were boring, unimaginative, indecisive people.

I think watching the Republicans debate is a great reminder of how important it is to change directions this year. I mean, these guys are INSANE. Rudy Giuliani actually said that Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with American foreign policy! And don’t get me started on Mitt Romney. For Mitt please refer to:

www.anyonebutromneyin08.blogspot.com

I think if you vote Republican, please, please, please vote for Ron Paul. He might be as crazy as the rest of them but at least he’s not going to start world war III.

I think thieves who break car windows and not take anything are really half-assing the job. I mean, if it was really worth ruining my day, if you were really so desperate, you would have cleaned me out and not been scared away so easily. Piss-poor attempt at being a crook, really pathetic!

I think it’s easy to be cynical. And difficult to remember how to spell that word. Took me three tries and then I needed a spell check. Now, if I only had a word tool that could so easily fix my outlook on life once in a while.

I think it’s hard to be optimistic. But I think it’s worth it in the long run. That’s the silly thing about faith, you never really find out if it was worth it because it’s not something with a clear end-result.

I think Spanish should be a required language starting in elementary school in the U.S. and Chinese should be offered as early as middle school. Trigonometry might not be that important as an eleventh grader, but being able to communicate with a vastly changing world is for everyone.

I think study abroad should be required at a high school level for all Americans.

I think if the Chinese don’t clean up the pollution in Beijing wicked fast there should be a massive boycott of the summer Olympics.

I think CNN (and the like) should spend more time on what’s going on in Kenya, Pakistan, Somalia and Bhutan (to name a few) and less time on missing hikers and Britney Spears (for the love of God, leave the poor woman alone!!!).

I think I have this to say regarding the writer’s strike: get over it you greedy, selfish white men (not that there aren’t greedy, selfish minorities involved as well because, of course, there are. But they are still the minority even amongst Hollywood’s elite). Some of us need to work. This is not just about writers and studio execs. This is about grips and gaffers, best boys and leadmen, directors assistants, camera assistants, all sorts of assistants, hair and make-up artists, set decorators and costume designers and a whole industry of union workers who work too hard and get paid too much. Except for the poor, underappreciated (to say the least) PAs. Think of the production assistants. For the love of Good God Tom Cruise, think of the PAs.

I think, no seriously, we may all be aliens (I certainly am) but scientology is f-ing stupid. It’s the biggest scam set on mankind since Jesus rose from the grave and ascended to heaven (without us, jerk!).

I think it is my life’s goal to get a photo with the Dalai Lama with both of us dropping the shocker.

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

2007-11-23T22:58:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-11-13T00:01:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-10T15:12:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-11-05T14:27:00.001-08:00

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

2007-10-22T13:07:00.000-07:00

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...

2007-10-05T21:52:00.000-07:00

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...

2007-10-01T22:20:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-21T10:38:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-15T03:22:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-12T17:24:00.000-07:00

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’