Pushing the Limits
Well, now here's a dilemma. I decided, in a stroke of absolute genius, to make the address of this site www.liberalagenda.blogspot.com in an effort to allow myself to vent on various political events and the continuing eroding of America under the repressive regime of Bush. However, I haven't lived up to that to any real extent. For the most part, I write about the daily minutiae, which is ironic in due to my adamant dislike of said topics, that affect me and my acquaintances. Sure, I post an occasional brief about politics, none recently and very little in sum total, but most of my writing is rather innocuous in nature. In the last few weeks, though, I've been feeling a tad disgusted by the liberal wing of the press, particularly The New York Times, which, as we all know, is the bastion of liberal thought in America and a terrorist organization on par with the Taliban, at least according to the likes of Ann Coulter. Below, I detailed my suspicion that there's a tendency on the producers of this paper to repeat themselves frequently, in fact they did so again today with an article about Robert Johnson. This time I'm not about to spend time venting on that. No, I have a larger concern, a frightening possibility. Is it possible to be too liberal?
I ask this because I'm getting to the point where I can't digest the contents of the paper without a little disgust at their constant rantings and criticisms. Nothing seems to appease their editors, and the daily flogging the Bush Administration receives on the editorial pages is so relentless that it borders on the sadist in nature. In point of fact, it appears that there's absolutely nothing this man can do that will result in, if not praise, at least an objective appraisal. I've come to the realization that the Times has become exactly what they criticize: a group of writers who are on an extended witch-hunt for dirt on a president, which sounds oddly familiar. Deja vu, anyone? Admittedly, the crimes and misdemeanors of this administration are so beyond shady land deals and sexual escapades and involve human life on a grand scale that there's hardly any room for comparison. So, in most instances, the criticism is warranted, but it never seems to cease. The torrent never ends, and it never stops at just Bush; it extends to his cabinet and seems to belabor the point that there's something amiss about their actions.
The straw, though, that broke the camels back, in my case, was their unrelentless assault on Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ. Article after article in today's paper relentlessly thrashes this film for its portrayal of the final hours of Jesus. I saw the film last night, and although it's brutal beyond belief, there's still the matter of fact that it is a film and can be appraised as such. Having said that, I realize that it's also acceptable for critics to dismiss the film as not being particularly well made if that's their assessment. In what may seem to be me wanting to have my cake and eat it to, I do believe that films of this nature are held to different standards. Religious films, by the very nature of their content, appeal to a different audience altogether, and this should be kept in mind when assessing its merits as both a film and a portrayal of a highly religious event.
In my opinion, it's a well made film that, perhaps in some minds portrays certain groups in a poor light, but it also has an artistic side that can be admired. In their minds, however, this is the equivalent of a two hour snuff film that offers little or no redeeming value to the viewer. During the course of the day, I've read many reviews of the film, and I have to confess my mind is reeling from the information. Having read these reviews, and digested their constant criticism of the film for its portrayal of the Jews, I have to wonder how could Gibson have made the film any differently that would have appeased these critics? In short, my own answer is that regardless of how Gibson made the film, there would have been criticism. Why? Well, for the simple fact that it's a religious film, and this being a liberal newspaper, religion is treated, when not with kidgloves for the purpose of not offending anyone, with disdain and criticism.
What really disgusts me, though, is that, regardless of the content of certain "artistic" films, the Times seems to have no problem endorsing, what they believe, is a well-made film. It's got to the point where this entire artistic snobbery charade is becoming more and more tiresome. I'm sick of the fact that there's this notion that if so and so criticizes, likes, endorses, etc. a certain product, then it must be true because it's from a source that's been deemed to be intellectually superior. I'm talking specifically about both the Times and the "untouchable" NPR. I wrote of my dismay over the cancellation of Howard Stern below, and, as I suspected, there's been nothing in way of protest or disgust over censorship or freedom of speech issues. No one, as far as I can tell, in this town has cried foul over the censoring of the airwaves in an attempt to make the world a more family friendly place with wholesome values. Why is this? Because it's Howard Stern, a disgusting, vile man who makes his money by being offensive in every sense of the word. No one cares if his show is cancelled because it's seen as not offering anything redeeming in value. There's no outcry whatsoever. What would happen, though, if NPR got pulled off the air for offensive broadcasts? There'd be rioting in the streets by the intelligentsia. I've heard about their attempts at satire involving Gibson's film, but I haven't heard them, in which case, I can't make any real judgment on them. However, I feel that this type of double-standard is something that needs to be eliminated from the public discourse regarding these types of programs. This isn't easy, as I've mentioned before, as in the paradigm shift. There needs to be some line we can agree on, but I don't see it happening any time soon, especially in these turbulent weeks.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Sadness
In what could possibly be the worst news I've heard in years, it appears that there will be no Howard Stern for me to listen to tomorrow morning. Couple this along with Dubya's antics yesterday, and it's pretty obvious that the fascist regime is taking over. Please tell me that we can end all this in November.
In what could possibly be the worst news I've heard in years, it appears that there will be no Howard Stern for me to listen to tomorrow morning. Couple this along with Dubya's antics yesterday, and it's pretty obvious that the fascist regime is taking over. Please tell me that we can end all this in November.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
A Plague
"Hello."
Blank look with no response.
"Jesus Christ!"
I'll give all my readers two guesses as to which of the above described people is yours truly. If you guessed the one who said "Hello" only to be greeted with a blank stare stare and no audible response only to respond to this with a frustrated curse, you'd be correct. I know I wrote about rudeness in this town below, but this happened to me, again, today in the one locale that I've been cursed to run into unresponsive people on a daily basis, the bike trail. This seems like an odd place to run into people who don't seem to want to have any interaction with fellow humans at all, but it seems to be a Mecca for these types. Every day, I'm down there I'm guaranteed an encounter with some goof who seems incapable of speech. Perhaps they're all mutes, I thought at first, but this seemed highly unlikely. I just think people are assholes, as I've mentioned before, but there has to be something else to it.
It's getting to the point where the only guaranteed conversation I can rely on is:
"Do you go to Pitt?"
"Man, I can't talk to you now."
"No need to be rude."
This is from a mentally deranged lunatic.
As I stated below, my confined orb of reality has been rather small in nature, pretty much for the duration of my life. Having only really lived in three different town, including currently Pittsburgh, I haven't had the types of exposure to various cultures and rural variations in personalities that others have been fortunate to have had. I come from a small town where, for the most part and not to sound too hokey, people are friendly, or they're at least friendly enough to respond to a "hello" when you say it to them. It's not exactly a town where 1. rudeness is expected 2. rudeness is even tolerated to some extent. Here, though, is a different story.
I've been toying with an idea that this town, meaning Pittsburgh, is suffering from an identity crisis. I'm not sure how else to describe it. It's a large city with a lot of people, various people of varying nationalities and cultural traits to be more specific. On the outside there appears to be little or no indication that this mix of people is either more or less inclined to be more or less friendly to their fellow citizens. The crisis stems from my idea that this town, for all its charms and culture, is striving very hard, almost painstakingly so, to be like New York City. It's obvious that there's something to this effect occurring at various levels, and it can be seen in the writing that appears in local papers to the types of events, promotions, and various other aspects that occur throughout this town. Where it's most evident, in my mind, is in the way people treat one another in this town. It's almost as if it's a given, and I don't mean to harp on this point, that people are expected to be rude to one another. Why say "Hello" back to someone when you can just walk by without responding? Why not let the pedestrian walk across the street when they clearly have the walk sign instead of trying to make a turn? Why not treat customers or patrons as nicely as possible in an effort to retain their business and patronage instead of acting as if they're infringing upon your time?
As outlandish as it seems, I do believe there's such a thing as a collective consciousness here at work in the world. It's not as noticeable on a grand scale, but it's much more noticeable on a smaller local level. Here I see this operating in the ways in which people treat one another. Collectively, it's a rudeness that proliferates through this town and is excreted upon the masses and, unfortunately, people who are just trying to be nice and courteous and just plain being human. Something here has to change. Obviously, we're talking about a paradigm shift on such a massive scale that's beyond comprehension. However, it's possible that this town can change for the better. I don't know how, and I know it's a lot more complicated than just having some inane community outreach, group hug, come together and sign songs type of event. It's going to take something huge to shift the paradigm, and I think it's obvious what that thing is going to be. Look at New York City and the events there in the last few years to understand my meaning. It's terrible to contemplate, but it's true, and I really believe this, that entire communities, in this day and age, have to suffer through a cataclysmic event to shift the paradigm. If I'm wrong on this point, prove me wrong.
In closing, in an odd experience that only seems odd in retrospect, I remember walking down the street of my hometown, seeing a new neighbor out on his lawn, speaking to him in much the same way, and not getting a response. Relating this to my mother, I remember vividly that her response was that this new neighbor was from Pittsburgh and he's just not friendly to anyone. Is it too much of a stretch to say that I'm on to something here?
"Hello."
Blank look with no response.
"Jesus Christ!"
I'll give all my readers two guesses as to which of the above described people is yours truly. If you guessed the one who said "Hello" only to be greeted with a blank stare stare and no audible response only to respond to this with a frustrated curse, you'd be correct. I know I wrote about rudeness in this town below, but this happened to me, again, today in the one locale that I've been cursed to run into unresponsive people on a daily basis, the bike trail. This seems like an odd place to run into people who don't seem to want to have any interaction with fellow humans at all, but it seems to be a Mecca for these types. Every day, I'm down there I'm guaranteed an encounter with some goof who seems incapable of speech. Perhaps they're all mutes, I thought at first, but this seemed highly unlikely. I just think people are assholes, as I've mentioned before, but there has to be something else to it.
It's getting to the point where the only guaranteed conversation I can rely on is:
"Do you go to Pitt?"
"Man, I can't talk to you now."
"No need to be rude."
This is from a mentally deranged lunatic.
As I stated below, my confined orb of reality has been rather small in nature, pretty much for the duration of my life. Having only really lived in three different town, including currently Pittsburgh, I haven't had the types of exposure to various cultures and rural variations in personalities that others have been fortunate to have had. I come from a small town where, for the most part and not to sound too hokey, people are friendly, or they're at least friendly enough to respond to a "hello" when you say it to them. It's not exactly a town where 1. rudeness is expected 2. rudeness is even tolerated to some extent. Here, though, is a different story.
I've been toying with an idea that this town, meaning Pittsburgh, is suffering from an identity crisis. I'm not sure how else to describe it. It's a large city with a lot of people, various people of varying nationalities and cultural traits to be more specific. On the outside there appears to be little or no indication that this mix of people is either more or less inclined to be more or less friendly to their fellow citizens. The crisis stems from my idea that this town, for all its charms and culture, is striving very hard, almost painstakingly so, to be like New York City. It's obvious that there's something to this effect occurring at various levels, and it can be seen in the writing that appears in local papers to the types of events, promotions, and various other aspects that occur throughout this town. Where it's most evident, in my mind, is in the way people treat one another in this town. It's almost as if it's a given, and I don't mean to harp on this point, that people are expected to be rude to one another. Why say "Hello" back to someone when you can just walk by without responding? Why not let the pedestrian walk across the street when they clearly have the walk sign instead of trying to make a turn? Why not treat customers or patrons as nicely as possible in an effort to retain their business and patronage instead of acting as if they're infringing upon your time?
As outlandish as it seems, I do believe there's such a thing as a collective consciousness here at work in the world. It's not as noticeable on a grand scale, but it's much more noticeable on a smaller local level. Here I see this operating in the ways in which people treat one another. Collectively, it's a rudeness that proliferates through this town and is excreted upon the masses and, unfortunately, people who are just trying to be nice and courteous and just plain being human. Something here has to change. Obviously, we're talking about a paradigm shift on such a massive scale that's beyond comprehension. However, it's possible that this town can change for the better. I don't know how, and I know it's a lot more complicated than just having some inane community outreach, group hug, come together and sign songs type of event. It's going to take something huge to shift the paradigm, and I think it's obvious what that thing is going to be. Look at New York City and the events there in the last few years to understand my meaning. It's terrible to contemplate, but it's true, and I really believe this, that entire communities, in this day and age, have to suffer through a cataclysmic event to shift the paradigm. If I'm wrong on this point, prove me wrong.
In closing, in an odd experience that only seems odd in retrospect, I remember walking down the street of my hometown, seeing a new neighbor out on his lawn, speaking to him in much the same way, and not getting a response. Relating this to my mother, I remember vividly that her response was that this new neighbor was from Pittsburgh and he's just not friendly to anyone. Is it too much of a stretch to say that I'm on to something here?
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Conspiracy Theory (Yet another Update)
Well, now they've done it and done it with a final emphasis that pretty much pounds the final nail in the coffin. Panera Bread has posted a sign on their doors that due to a tremendously unforeseen, major plumbing problem their restrooms are closed indefinitely. In an effort to keep you, the paying customer, from indulging in their bottomless coffee refills, this company has decided to go the route reserved only those with a certain bent persona, something befitting of an overbearing fascist regime. It's a sickening display from a classless outfit. In the words of an idol of mine, "This aggression will not stand."
Well, now they've done it and done it with a final emphasis that pretty much pounds the final nail in the coffin. Panera Bread has posted a sign on their doors that due to a tremendously unforeseen, major plumbing problem their restrooms are closed indefinitely. In an effort to keep you, the paying customer, from indulging in their bottomless coffee refills, this company has decided to go the route reserved only those with a certain bent persona, something befitting of an overbearing fascist regime. It's a sickening display from a classless outfit. In the words of an idol of mine, "This aggression will not stand."
Rudeness in Winter
I've been on a tear lately with regards to my negativity about this town and its inhabitants. In a few simple words, people here are incredibly rude, rude beyond belief, rude to the point of aggression. I don't know how to explain it, but there seems to be a plethora of people out and about these days, weather notwithstanding, that have little or no regard for their fellow man. The lack of social niceties is obvious to anyone with a shred of common courtesy and decency. What's most troubling, or maybe comforting to some, is that this behavior seems to transcend racial and economic classes. Everyone here is rude, equally. The phrases, "excuse me" and "thank you" are about as nonexistent here as dinosaurs.
It's apparent that there's something amiss when you encounter people in various locales, and the types of personalities encountered remains the same, a disgruntled lot of workers, wanderers, and the other numerous groups of miscontent citizens that populate this town. It doesn't matter where you're at be it the grocery store, a coffeeshop, a diner, a record store, people here specialize in being assholes. Since my bubble world only extends to the city limits, I have to rely on what I've heard, and I've heard, read, and absorbed from numerous sources that New Yorkers are, without a doubt, the rudest people in the country, if not the entire planet. For the most part, I believe these are exaggerations, a stereotype that's been adopted as scripture with some truth, but not all that much. However, I'd have to say that here is where you encounter the rudest people around, or at least in this part of Pennsylvania.
Some would blame this behavior on the weather, but I think there's something else going on. I'm fascinated by watching people, and I truly believe that you can tell by just looking at someone what type of personality you're dealing with. One of the most disturbing traits I've encountered here is, what I call, a "blank look or stare," a variation on what's termed the "thousand yard stare". People just look at you, but they don't see you. If you'd told me that I could, in effect, be invisible around people, I would have called you crazy, but it's a phenomenon that's real, and I see it all the time. It's this look that troubles me more than anything else. That stare produces a sense of fear and unease in me faster than any other implied or overt threat.
Others would blame the economy, and here I have to both agree and disagree. Employees at various businesses are incredibly rude. It's almost as if you're doing them a disservice by frequenting their establishments. I have to say that I'm not alone in this feeling. Benedict has related to me several tales regarding these disgruntled employees and their constant state of discontent and aggravation baffles me to no end. If you're frustrated by your place in life, fine, but isn't it obvious that there's little out there right now? Upward mobility is a dying phrase reserved for only a few people. Being thankful for a steady job seems to be the least some of these people can do in life. I don't understand this at all.
I could go on, but there's really no point. However, to relate one final tale, last night while conversing with Benedict in his car after a trip to the local 24-hour diner, I heard a noise. It sounded like a dog barking, but I couldn't be sure. So, I turn around and look to see someone cross the street behind us. He, this guy, walks along then coughs a cough that clearly indicates that this man is suffering from either the black plague or he's been exposed to some biological contagion. If this isn't odd enough, he stares at us as he's walking, stops, turns around, and gives us the finger. Why? Well, before I could answer that, he does it again, and again until he's out of the light. What can explain this behavior? It's not rudeness, per say, but it's definitely an outward manifestation of some form of anger and rage, and I'm willing to bet that this guy, this drunken schmuck, is as rude as anyone here in Pittsburgh. How do I know this? Well, when 95% of a population subscribes to the ideology of being an asshole all the time, then you're pretty much guaranteed a pretty good chance of labeling correctly the type of person you're dealing with. Chances are he wouldn't say "excuse me" in the grocery store either.
I've been on a tear lately with regards to my negativity about this town and its inhabitants. In a few simple words, people here are incredibly rude, rude beyond belief, rude to the point of aggression. I don't know how to explain it, but there seems to be a plethora of people out and about these days, weather notwithstanding, that have little or no regard for their fellow man. The lack of social niceties is obvious to anyone with a shred of common courtesy and decency. What's most troubling, or maybe comforting to some, is that this behavior seems to transcend racial and economic classes. Everyone here is rude, equally. The phrases, "excuse me" and "thank you" are about as nonexistent here as dinosaurs.
It's apparent that there's something amiss when you encounter people in various locales, and the types of personalities encountered remains the same, a disgruntled lot of workers, wanderers, and the other numerous groups of miscontent citizens that populate this town. It doesn't matter where you're at be it the grocery store, a coffeeshop, a diner, a record store, people here specialize in being assholes. Since my bubble world only extends to the city limits, I have to rely on what I've heard, and I've heard, read, and absorbed from numerous sources that New Yorkers are, without a doubt, the rudest people in the country, if not the entire planet. For the most part, I believe these are exaggerations, a stereotype that's been adopted as scripture with some truth, but not all that much. However, I'd have to say that here is where you encounter the rudest people around, or at least in this part of Pennsylvania.
Some would blame this behavior on the weather, but I think there's something else going on. I'm fascinated by watching people, and I truly believe that you can tell by just looking at someone what type of personality you're dealing with. One of the most disturbing traits I've encountered here is, what I call, a "blank look or stare," a variation on what's termed the "thousand yard stare". People just look at you, but they don't see you. If you'd told me that I could, in effect, be invisible around people, I would have called you crazy, but it's a phenomenon that's real, and I see it all the time. It's this look that troubles me more than anything else. That stare produces a sense of fear and unease in me faster than any other implied or overt threat.
Others would blame the economy, and here I have to both agree and disagree. Employees at various businesses are incredibly rude. It's almost as if you're doing them a disservice by frequenting their establishments. I have to say that I'm not alone in this feeling. Benedict has related to me several tales regarding these disgruntled employees and their constant state of discontent and aggravation baffles me to no end. If you're frustrated by your place in life, fine, but isn't it obvious that there's little out there right now? Upward mobility is a dying phrase reserved for only a few people. Being thankful for a steady job seems to be the least some of these people can do in life. I don't understand this at all.
I could go on, but there's really no point. However, to relate one final tale, last night while conversing with Benedict in his car after a trip to the local 24-hour diner, I heard a noise. It sounded like a dog barking, but I couldn't be sure. So, I turn around and look to see someone cross the street behind us. He, this guy, walks along then coughs a cough that clearly indicates that this man is suffering from either the black plague or he's been exposed to some biological contagion. If this isn't odd enough, he stares at us as he's walking, stops, turns around, and gives us the finger. Why? Well, before I could answer that, he does it again, and again until he's out of the light. What can explain this behavior? It's not rudeness, per say, but it's definitely an outward manifestation of some form of anger and rage, and I'm willing to bet that this guy, this drunken schmuck, is as rude as anyone here in Pittsburgh. How do I know this? Well, when 95% of a population subscribes to the ideology of being an asshole all the time, then you're pretty much guaranteed a pretty good chance of labeling correctly the type of person you're dealing with. Chances are he wouldn't say "excuse me" in the grocery store either.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Rage Against the Screen
In retrospect, I never thought that I'd feel the way I did walking out of the theater. Having just watched the critically acclaimed film, Mystic River, I couldn't help but feel filled with rage and disgust, not at the film, which was well made, but in its ability to, simply put, piss me off. Without revealing too much about the film, let's just say that there aren't very many redeeming characters in this film. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there aren't any sympathetic characters in this film. The protagonist, if you want to call him that, Jimmy Markum, played by Sean Penn, is a despicable human being who, quite literally, gets away with murder, and an unjustified one at that. And the most disturbing thing about it is that it's alright. Nothing is going to happen to him. The world's going to be a swell place, and his wife, Annabeth Markum, played by Laura Linney, in what had to be one of the most disgusting scenes, essentially tells him to forget about it. Along with this, you have the played out neighborhood loyalty trick that seems to play out in a ton of films focusing on specific ethnic or regional neighborhoods. In other words, this film really pissed me off like no other recent film.
This feeling, this disgust and rage, is something that I've felt before when watching films, which led me to consider, again, the role of the media in emotional manipulation. Now, I'm not a huge proponent of the theories that people embrace that blame the media's influence for every misdeed that occurs in this country, but I do think that it does have an increasingly powerful affect that, in someone who is easily influenced, could lead to some sort of behavior modification. That notwithstanding, the point here is that I've become aware of the power films have over people. This, obviously, isn't something new. Film is a pretty powerful medium, and it has the ability to make people experience a wide array of emotions, from sadness to happiness to anger, all in the span of several hours. It's no wonder the propaganda is such a powerful tool when placed in the hands of people with less than noble intentions.
Mystic River, though, put me in mind of another film that I saw that had a similar affect on me. Possibly, this was the film that made me realize that film can make you feel different emotions depending on what's being portrayed on screen. Regardless of how you feel about the historical accuracy of the The Patriot, one character, William Tavington, played by Jason Issacs, is an utter personification of evil. His actions throughout the course of the film are despicable, disgusting, and downright heinous. But these are all done intentionally in an effort by the filmmakers to create a real villain. After seeing the film, I remarked to the friend I watched it with that it's becoming apparent that filmmakers are trying to harder and harder to create villains that are so beyond evil that only the devil himself could prove to be even more evil, and this might be a hard task to accomplish. So, throughout this entire film, all you want to do is see Tavington die. Thankfully, he does, but that leads me to the most disturbing aspect of this: how can a film that's purely fictional produce such hatred in filmgoers, and what, if any, harm is done by doing this?
I don't have any easy answers to this, but I have seen plenty of films with villains that are becoming more and more heinous in their actions that you just want to see them die at all costs. Another example Breakdown features a gang of evil men who kidnap stranded motorists and torture and kill them. Watching this film is difficult, not because it's graphic, but because it's really disturbing. All you want to do is see these men die, horrifically if possible. I don't know which is worse, watching what's happening on the screen or feeling how you feel when you leave the theater.
Maybe I'm overreacting, and I don't want to sound as if I'm calling for censorship, which is the furthest thing in my mind to an ideal situation. I just hate to think that we can be manipulated so easily into believing that seeing this person, in these cases fictional characters, die and have it done on a repeated basis. Propaganda is a powerful tool, and if I had any desire to produce some sort of mass propaganda furthering my own agenda, I'd choose film as my medium. It's scary to think about, but I think it's worthy of consideration the next time you enter the theater or put a film on to watch at home.
In retrospect, I never thought that I'd feel the way I did walking out of the theater. Having just watched the critically acclaimed film, Mystic River, I couldn't help but feel filled with rage and disgust, not at the film, which was well made, but in its ability to, simply put, piss me off. Without revealing too much about the film, let's just say that there aren't very many redeeming characters in this film. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there aren't any sympathetic characters in this film. The protagonist, if you want to call him that, Jimmy Markum, played by Sean Penn, is a despicable human being who, quite literally, gets away with murder, and an unjustified one at that. And the most disturbing thing about it is that it's alright. Nothing is going to happen to him. The world's going to be a swell place, and his wife, Annabeth Markum, played by Laura Linney, in what had to be one of the most disgusting scenes, essentially tells him to forget about it. Along with this, you have the played out neighborhood loyalty trick that seems to play out in a ton of films focusing on specific ethnic or regional neighborhoods. In other words, this film really pissed me off like no other recent film.
This feeling, this disgust and rage, is something that I've felt before when watching films, which led me to consider, again, the role of the media in emotional manipulation. Now, I'm not a huge proponent of the theories that people embrace that blame the media's influence for every misdeed that occurs in this country, but I do think that it does have an increasingly powerful affect that, in someone who is easily influenced, could lead to some sort of behavior modification. That notwithstanding, the point here is that I've become aware of the power films have over people. This, obviously, isn't something new. Film is a pretty powerful medium, and it has the ability to make people experience a wide array of emotions, from sadness to happiness to anger, all in the span of several hours. It's no wonder the propaganda is such a powerful tool when placed in the hands of people with less than noble intentions.
Mystic River, though, put me in mind of another film that I saw that had a similar affect on me. Possibly, this was the film that made me realize that film can make you feel different emotions depending on what's being portrayed on screen. Regardless of how you feel about the historical accuracy of the The Patriot, one character, William Tavington, played by Jason Issacs, is an utter personification of evil. His actions throughout the course of the film are despicable, disgusting, and downright heinous. But these are all done intentionally in an effort by the filmmakers to create a real villain. After seeing the film, I remarked to the friend I watched it with that it's becoming apparent that filmmakers are trying to harder and harder to create villains that are so beyond evil that only the devil himself could prove to be even more evil, and this might be a hard task to accomplish. So, throughout this entire film, all you want to do is see Tavington die. Thankfully, he does, but that leads me to the most disturbing aspect of this: how can a film that's purely fictional produce such hatred in filmgoers, and what, if any, harm is done by doing this?
I don't have any easy answers to this, but I have seen plenty of films with villains that are becoming more and more heinous in their actions that you just want to see them die at all costs. Another example Breakdown features a gang of evil men who kidnap stranded motorists and torture and kill them. Watching this film is difficult, not because it's graphic, but because it's really disturbing. All you want to do is see these men die, horrifically if possible. I don't know which is worse, watching what's happening on the screen or feeling how you feel when you leave the theater.
Maybe I'm overreacting, and I don't want to sound as if I'm calling for censorship, which is the furthest thing in my mind to an ideal situation. I just hate to think that we can be manipulated so easily into believing that seeing this person, in these cases fictional characters, die and have it done on a repeated basis. Propaganda is a powerful tool, and if I had any desire to produce some sort of mass propaganda furthering my own agenda, I'd choose film as my medium. It's scary to think about, but I think it's worthy of consideration the next time you enter the theater or put a film on to watch at home.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
deja vu
I've always been a huge believer in the occurrence of deja vu; I also believe that I, personally, experience it quite often. I'm really not sure how to explain the occurrences, and it seems that, for the most part, they're related to nothing more than a vague feeling that I've seen something before, heard something before, or been in a situation before. Also, for the most part, I never seem to experience the feeling with regards to huge events. Mostly, I'm vaguely aware of what's occurring, and it lasts for little more than a few seconds. Sometimes, however, the feeling lasts for quite awhile, and it becomes a source of frustration due to the fact that I'm not sure that I'm remembering exactly what I already experienced, or if I'm even experiencing anything at all. It's such an odd phenomenon, and I'm sure most people experience it in some form or another quite often, but, for whatever reason, they aren't sure that it's occurring, how often, or even what the odd feeling might be that they're experiencing.
So, it comes as no surprise that this pervasive feeling of deja vu should get engulfed in other aspects of my life, including my reading habits. This past Sunday, I experienced my latest occurrence of this feeling. What happened, and I realize that labeling this deja vu might be a stretch, but I'm at a loss as to how else to label it, is that I was reading The New York Times. I came to an article in the Arts section entitled "The Scream, East of Krakatoa" by Richard Panek. Simply put, this article discusses the connections, or possible connections depending on who you believe, between the Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream" to the eruption of Krakatoa, or, in other words, it discusses how the one event influenced the other. Nothing all that earthshattering, I presumed. What happened when I saw this, though, is that I immediately felt that I'd seen this article before in another form. The problem was that I couldn't quite place where I'd seen it. Was it in a newspaper, a magazine, or a book? I couldn't remember, but I knew I'd seen this article before.
Now, this leads me to the most unfortunate aspect of the story. I wracked my brain for the answer, and I came to the conclusion that, yes, I'd seen this article before, and I was convinced, in ways I hate to admit, that I'd seen it before in a newspaper, but that newspaper was The New York Times, the very same publication that printed this very article. So, how could I prove that? Well it was a simple task; I just looked it up in the National Newspapers Database by Proquest. Concurrently, to both my dismay and ultimate relief, I found the following: (1) a link to the above mentioned article (2) a link to an article entitled "More than a 'Scream': A Blast Felt Round the World" by Leon Jaroff . Without reading the articles, you can see, they both discuss the very same topic. So what?
Well, I think this is a big deal for several reasons, the first of which deals with the notion of repetition in journalism. Surely, one can comb the various popular magazines or newspapers and find similar content between them on numerous occasions. In fact, I do this quite often with all the magazines I subscribe to. For the most part, you can tell which movie star, musician, or author is promoting what when a plethora of articles about said person start appearing in a wide spectrum of titles. It's especially easy to see repetition of either photos, stories, and the like in publications that originate under the same banner but in different forms, see Maxim and Stuff. This type of repetition smacks of laziness or, in some cases, a simple lack of diverse information available to print. However, what's more troubling is that it seems as if the nation's leading newspaper, the aforementioned The New York Times, has been engaging in, what I'd call, "filling a newspaper" with, what is essentially, reprinted materials on a regular basis. I've repeatedly seen articles that sound so similar to previously published articles, sometimes within days of each other, that I sometimes wonder whether I'm reading an old paper. Editorials, news articles, reviews, you name it, but it seems that they've adopted a system where they fill there pages with a lot of stuff that's recycled. All they do is change a byline here, shuffle a few words around, and, presto, you've got a new article that is just different enough to pass off as being a totally different piece of writing. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Why I don't think I'm wrong points back to a debate I've been having with myself as of late. I've been consuming a vast array of books that are (1) critical of our current administration (2) critical of the conservative movement in politics and the media (3) both. What I've noticed happening, though, is that they, meaning the authors of these books, and I, the reader, have reached a saturation point with regards to these subjects. The repetitive feel to all these books puts one in mind of reading the same novel over and over again, a novel in which you know what's going to happen where and how all the issues are resolved before the books finished. To me, and I assume many others, this is a pointless exercise, unless, of course, you're rereading something that (1) you really enjoy (2) demands rereading due to either difficult prose or narrative deconstruction. Regardless, the point being that most people don't reread the same thing over and over without a good reason.
Back to the current administration. What I feel is currently happening to critics of it is that they are unwilling to accept anything that comes out of the mouths of our leaders without the need to criticize. Nothing, and I mean literally nothing, they do can be construed as being the "right" thing to do with our country. What this leads to is a constant set of attacks that are critical of every decision, speech, etc. that accompanies our current leadership. Reading the editorial pages of The New York Times becomes (1) either a test of wills regarding how much negativity you can stand on a daily basis (2) the greatest forum for criticism against the conservatives, Republicans, or anyone on the "right." This type of repetition could drive someone to switch party allegiances very easily, but that's a theory best left for another post.
The final reason I'm disturbed by this utter lack of creativity from the "paper of record" is that I, along with many others, feel that this is the best source for news available. It's the best newspaper printed, and thus shouldn't need to resort to tactics that would be expected of lesser publications. They need not worry about filling up the pages with articles that serve as nothing more than "filler" for that day's edition. I'd say that this is the equivalent to learning that your greatest hero is in fact a terrible person in many ways, but that's a tad dramatic. I will say that it's a disappointment that I wish never occurred, but I know now that it does, and probably more frequently than my sense of deja vu is able to alert me to.
I've always been a huge believer in the occurrence of deja vu; I also believe that I, personally, experience it quite often. I'm really not sure how to explain the occurrences, and it seems that, for the most part, they're related to nothing more than a vague feeling that I've seen something before, heard something before, or been in a situation before. Also, for the most part, I never seem to experience the feeling with regards to huge events. Mostly, I'm vaguely aware of what's occurring, and it lasts for little more than a few seconds. Sometimes, however, the feeling lasts for quite awhile, and it becomes a source of frustration due to the fact that I'm not sure that I'm remembering exactly what I already experienced, or if I'm even experiencing anything at all. It's such an odd phenomenon, and I'm sure most people experience it in some form or another quite often, but, for whatever reason, they aren't sure that it's occurring, how often, or even what the odd feeling might be that they're experiencing.
So, it comes as no surprise that this pervasive feeling of deja vu should get engulfed in other aspects of my life, including my reading habits. This past Sunday, I experienced my latest occurrence of this feeling. What happened, and I realize that labeling this deja vu might be a stretch, but I'm at a loss as to how else to label it, is that I was reading The New York Times. I came to an article in the Arts section entitled "The Scream, East of Krakatoa" by Richard Panek. Simply put, this article discusses the connections, or possible connections depending on who you believe, between the Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream" to the eruption of Krakatoa, or, in other words, it discusses how the one event influenced the other. Nothing all that earthshattering, I presumed. What happened when I saw this, though, is that I immediately felt that I'd seen this article before in another form. The problem was that I couldn't quite place where I'd seen it. Was it in a newspaper, a magazine, or a book? I couldn't remember, but I knew I'd seen this article before.
Now, this leads me to the most unfortunate aspect of the story. I wracked my brain for the answer, and I came to the conclusion that, yes, I'd seen this article before, and I was convinced, in ways I hate to admit, that I'd seen it before in a newspaper, but that newspaper was The New York Times, the very same publication that printed this very article. So, how could I prove that? Well it was a simple task; I just looked it up in the National Newspapers Database by Proquest. Concurrently, to both my dismay and ultimate relief, I found the following: (1) a link to the above mentioned article (2) a link to an article entitled "More than a 'Scream': A Blast Felt Round the World" by Leon Jaroff . Without reading the articles, you can see, they both discuss the very same topic. So what?
Well, I think this is a big deal for several reasons, the first of which deals with the notion of repetition in journalism. Surely, one can comb the various popular magazines or newspapers and find similar content between them on numerous occasions. In fact, I do this quite often with all the magazines I subscribe to. For the most part, you can tell which movie star, musician, or author is promoting what when a plethora of articles about said person start appearing in a wide spectrum of titles. It's especially easy to see repetition of either photos, stories, and the like in publications that originate under the same banner but in different forms, see Maxim and Stuff. This type of repetition smacks of laziness or, in some cases, a simple lack of diverse information available to print. However, what's more troubling is that it seems as if the nation's leading newspaper, the aforementioned The New York Times, has been engaging in, what I'd call, "filling a newspaper" with, what is essentially, reprinted materials on a regular basis. I've repeatedly seen articles that sound so similar to previously published articles, sometimes within days of each other, that I sometimes wonder whether I'm reading an old paper. Editorials, news articles, reviews, you name it, but it seems that they've adopted a system where they fill there pages with a lot of stuff that's recycled. All they do is change a byline here, shuffle a few words around, and, presto, you've got a new article that is just different enough to pass off as being a totally different piece of writing. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Why I don't think I'm wrong points back to a debate I've been having with myself as of late. I've been consuming a vast array of books that are (1) critical of our current administration (2) critical of the conservative movement in politics and the media (3) both. What I've noticed happening, though, is that they, meaning the authors of these books, and I, the reader, have reached a saturation point with regards to these subjects. The repetitive feel to all these books puts one in mind of reading the same novel over and over again, a novel in which you know what's going to happen where and how all the issues are resolved before the books finished. To me, and I assume many others, this is a pointless exercise, unless, of course, you're rereading something that (1) you really enjoy (2) demands rereading due to either difficult prose or narrative deconstruction. Regardless, the point being that most people don't reread the same thing over and over without a good reason.
Back to the current administration. What I feel is currently happening to critics of it is that they are unwilling to accept anything that comes out of the mouths of our leaders without the need to criticize. Nothing, and I mean literally nothing, they do can be construed as being the "right" thing to do with our country. What this leads to is a constant set of attacks that are critical of every decision, speech, etc. that accompanies our current leadership. Reading the editorial pages of The New York Times becomes (1) either a test of wills regarding how much negativity you can stand on a daily basis (2) the greatest forum for criticism against the conservatives, Republicans, or anyone on the "right." This type of repetition could drive someone to switch party allegiances very easily, but that's a theory best left for another post.
The final reason I'm disturbed by this utter lack of creativity from the "paper of record" is that I, along with many others, feel that this is the best source for news available. It's the best newspaper printed, and thus shouldn't need to resort to tactics that would be expected of lesser publications. They need not worry about filling up the pages with articles that serve as nothing more than "filler" for that day's edition. I'd say that this is the equivalent to learning that your greatest hero is in fact a terrible person in many ways, but that's a tad dramatic. I will say that it's a disappointment that I wish never occurred, but I know now that it does, and probably more frequently than my sense of deja vu is able to alert me to.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
It's all My Fault
Okay, I'll fess up and take the blame. I'm the man responsible for the fiasco that occurred this past Sunday during the Super Bowl. The resulting "wardrobe malfunction" can be solely attributed to my doing. I thought that the halftime show of the Super Bowl lacked, how shall we say it, any redeeming value, either entertainment wise of otherwise. In fact, I think the most interesting aspect of these half time theatrics are the other networks and their attempts to lure the audience away from the usual pomp and circumstance that proliferates during the long and dreaded break in the action. So, I figured what could keep an audience of, from what advertisers must assume are predominantly older, impotent males with little or now sense of humor that extends beyond the most foul and base in nature, tuned into a halftime show populated with played out hip-hop acts, an ego-maniacal rap/rock superstar, and an aimless, directionless boy-toy better than the glimpse of a breast, a real, naked breast. It's a brilliant idea, and I'm to blame. It was my idea because that's what it would take to keep me watching this garbage.
p.s. I didn't actually see the pasty covered breast. No, I was watching CNN to see the commercial CBS rejected as being too controversial from Moveon.org . So, let me get this straight, it's okay to see a glimpse of a breast amidst a steamy half time routine, but it's altogether inappropriate to show an ad that is political in nature advocating (1) voting in general (2) getting our current administration out of office? Oh, and did I mention the fact that the other commercials were primarily devoted to sex? If it wasn't multiple treatments for erectile dysfunctions, it was lame beer ads, one with a man getting his pubic hair waxed off, another with a talking monkey implying sexual intercourse with a woman, and a third with horse flatulence searing off the hair of a woman after being ignited? Politics is too controversial, but this detritus isn't?
Okay, I'll fess up and take the blame. I'm the man responsible for the fiasco that occurred this past Sunday during the Super Bowl. The resulting "wardrobe malfunction" can be solely attributed to my doing. I thought that the halftime show of the Super Bowl lacked, how shall we say it, any redeeming value, either entertainment wise of otherwise. In fact, I think the most interesting aspect of these half time theatrics are the other networks and their attempts to lure the audience away from the usual pomp and circumstance that proliferates during the long and dreaded break in the action. So, I figured what could keep an audience of, from what advertisers must assume are predominantly older, impotent males with little or now sense of humor that extends beyond the most foul and base in nature, tuned into a halftime show populated with played out hip-hop acts, an ego-maniacal rap/rock superstar, and an aimless, directionless boy-toy better than the glimpse of a breast, a real, naked breast. It's a brilliant idea, and I'm to blame. It was my idea because that's what it would take to keep me watching this garbage.
p.s. I didn't actually see the pasty covered breast. No, I was watching CNN to see the commercial CBS rejected as being too controversial from Moveon.org . So, let me get this straight, it's okay to see a glimpse of a breast amidst a steamy half time routine, but it's altogether inappropriate to show an ad that is political in nature advocating (1) voting in general (2) getting our current administration out of office? Oh, and did I mention the fact that the other commercials were primarily devoted to sex? If it wasn't multiple treatments for erectile dysfunctions, it was lame beer ads, one with a man getting his pubic hair waxed off, another with a talking monkey implying sexual intercourse with a woman, and a third with horse flatulence searing off the hair of a woman after being ignited? Politics is too controversial, but this detritus isn't?
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
An End to a Series
First off, I think it's appropriate to notify my readers that I'm discontinuing the dictionary series as of today. I can't go on posting words that are of little or no interest to me or to anyone else. The recent spate of words that are, usually, in the noun form have little to offer me to riff on for any substantial amount of space. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I feel like after having seen several terrible words, that it's time to move on and pursue something with more relevance.
What can explain the noticeable lack of interesting words? Today, for example, I have "inadvertency," in one of those terribly short definitions that tells you next to nothing about the word other than being used short example with "..." to indicate where the word would appear in the example. Which leads me to wonder who is looking up these words. Now, I realize that it's entirely possible. and most likely, that these words at the top of the page are not the words being looked at by the users. Having said that, I think a worthy enterprise might be to pursue, at random, the word on the two pages that might have been the object of inquiry. My theory would be that, for the most part, people use dictionaries to look up words that are common but are hard to spell correctly or are common but have meanings that are hard to discern from the context being used. Using this as a backdrop, let's look at the two pages where "inadvertency" appears and try to surmise which word was the actual "word" that needed clarification for one of if not both the above reasons. Among the words appearing on these two pages are the following: inalienable, inaugurate, inbreeding, incarceration, incest, and inch. Knowing that this dictionary is in a law library could lead you to conclude that words such as "inalienable" or "incarceration" could possibly be of interest to a law student. However, it's also a possibility that someone is interested in the dynamics of "inbreeding" and "incest," which kinda go hand in hand, and are, most likely, crimes that could be prosecuted by perspective lawyers. My bet, though, is that the person using these two pages was looking for a definition or a spelling of the former and not the latter.
As interesting as the preceding was, I don't think that this is a worthy pursuit of my time and space on this site. Alas, I don't expect that many people are going to miss my series; I know I won't. So, now what can I write about? What type of series should I pursue? I'm asking you, my two readers, to tell me what I can use here in the library that will allow me to make a continuing series? My suggestion, based on the quote below is to use the copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations to find a different quote each night. How's that sound?
First off, I think it's appropriate to notify my readers that I'm discontinuing the dictionary series as of today. I can't go on posting words that are of little or no interest to me or to anyone else. The recent spate of words that are, usually, in the noun form have little to offer me to riff on for any substantial amount of space. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I feel like after having seen several terrible words, that it's time to move on and pursue something with more relevance.
What can explain the noticeable lack of interesting words? Today, for example, I have "inadvertency," in one of those terribly short definitions that tells you next to nothing about the word other than being used short example with "..." to indicate where the word would appear in the example. Which leads me to wonder who is looking up these words. Now, I realize that it's entirely possible. and most likely, that these words at the top of the page are not the words being looked at by the users. Having said that, I think a worthy enterprise might be to pursue, at random, the word on the two pages that might have been the object of inquiry. My theory would be that, for the most part, people use dictionaries to look up words that are common but are hard to spell correctly or are common but have meanings that are hard to discern from the context being used. Using this as a backdrop, let's look at the two pages where "inadvertency" appears and try to surmise which word was the actual "word" that needed clarification for one of if not both the above reasons. Among the words appearing on these two pages are the following: inalienable, inaugurate, inbreeding, incarceration, incest, and inch. Knowing that this dictionary is in a law library could lead you to conclude that words such as "inalienable" or "incarceration" could possibly be of interest to a law student. However, it's also a possibility that someone is interested in the dynamics of "inbreeding" and "incest," which kinda go hand in hand, and are, most likely, crimes that could be prosecuted by perspective lawyers. My bet, though, is that the person using these two pages was looking for a definition or a spelling of the former and not the latter.
As interesting as the preceding was, I don't think that this is a worthy pursuit of my time and space on this site. Alas, I don't expect that many people are going to miss my series; I know I won't. So, now what can I write about? What type of series should I pursue? I'm asking you, my two readers, to tell me what I can use here in the library that will allow me to make a continuing series? My suggestion, based on the quote below is to use the copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations to find a different quote each night. How's that sound?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)