My 2 Sense

Asshole of the Year...

2010-02-05T07:12:00.000-08:00

Do you know who this is? I realize there is so much time left in the year for a bigger asshole to appear, but I think this guy has to be in the running. Thomas Gerard Tancredo, formerly a Republican representative from Colorado. One of the most staunch anti-immigration conservatives in the land, he once sponsored a bill called the Mass Immigration Reduction Act which would have put a moratorium on immigration. I don't know if he understands economics, sociology, or any other discipline committed to actually understanding social processes, but to stop the flow of immigration (while being impossible anyway) would be disastrous for a nation that is aging and has a replacement fertility rate which means a much smaller native employment pool. Not too mention the degrees Americans inordinately receive (30% of Americans will earn a bachelor's degree, which is significantly higher than every other country in the world) fosters an attitude that shuns menial, physical, or other types of labor sectors that immigrants often populate heavily.

As the first speaker at the Tea Bagger's Coconut Bangers Ball, he had this lovely quote to offer us: "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama." During a townhall meeting in Iowa a few years ago, when asked how we could stop terrorism, he replied that the only thing "he could think of" was threatening or bombing Mecca and Medina.

That a guy like this even exists speaks to the unfortunate political landscape the the U.S. has fostered.

Things That May Only Interest Me

2010-01-22T14:12:00.000-08:00

I realize I have been negligent of this blog, but frankly sometimes work must come first. Here are some links to amuse, scare, and keep you awake on a dreary (in Cali) Friday afternoon.

How fast can humans actually run? Is there a limit...evidently, we could potentially get to 40 mph.

Do you get migraines? Do you suffer from depression? There may be a genetic link which means taking drugs or lamenting your existence are unnecessary. In other words, just live with it and take five advil!

It appears that smoking kills, but quitting at any point -- even after getting cancer -- radically improve your life span! Evidently, people who quit smoking after getting lung cancer more than double their chances of living at least five years longer (Here). This is very good news, even if one shouldn't really smoke in the first place; or, for that matter, wait until they contract a terminal illness to quit.

I knew it! Sitting too much can be deadly! Office life be damned...sitting is correlated to fatness, heart disease, and death.

In other news, American public and courts are still trying to wrap their heads around the fact that being gay is rooted in biological causes and not environmental conditions (being a lesbian is a bit more complicated and cloudy). During the Prop 8 hearings an expert witness testified that being gay is not a choice. The fact that there has to be testimony suggests this is disputed scientific knowledge, when it is not. This would be like the courts asking an astronaut to come in and testify that the Earth is flat or that Budweiser is beer.

10 years ago, I laughed about the fact that America would never legalize marijuana let alone decriminlize it. California proved me wrong. And, what's more the state's courts are routinely preventing city councils and law enforcement agencies from stopping the people's voice from being hear. California legislators recently altered the law to limit the number of plants someone with a prescription could grow and how much they could legally have for personal use...the courts rejected this, saying that people can have as much weed as they can smoke, grow as much weed as their house can hold, and get as high as they want to. Stay classy California!

I leave you with this study: erectile dysfunction predicts heart disease. Better use it while you got it, otherwise that's not all that's going to stop working!!

Look Out...Health Care is Going Out the Window

2010-01-19T07:52:00.000-08:00

I am not sure how this happened? Well, actually I am. Recall a post I had about Obama months ago where I asked, among other things, was Obama struggling because he was trying to be too weak and bipartisan or the election itself was a sham and reflected a sentiment against the GOP and not necessarily towards more regulation? The Tea Baggers certainly made the latter seem more important than the former, but their protest was shrouded in latent racial hostilities. Did you know, for example, Obama has had 60% of his proposals to slash government spending approved? This is a much greater % than his predecessors. You would never know that because of TARP, which has also been gradually recouping the banks' "loans."

But, now with the health care bill -- which was going to be a bit stronger after the compromise and not as shitty as the Senate version -- in a precarious position, I fear the worst. If Mass., a typically democratic state, elects that schmuck Brown and he uses his power to put the filibuster on, there is going to be some ugly politicking with few gains to be made by the Dems. How did it get to this? Was there no person strong enough to run for that seat? Why did a Kennedy not step up to the plate? If he gets elected, the Dems will have to use some arcane rules to get their ways, unless the Senate accepts the House bill, which would be good because it has a public option, but bad because it would put more Senate seats in danger. At this point, though, Nelson, Reid, and a few others look like they are going down anyway. If one is indeed a public servant and he/she saw the writing on the wall, wouldn't he or she want to go out with memorable legislation?

All of this stems from Obama's unwillingness to be combative. A great quality, no doubt; but, a sign of weakness in the face of staunch GOP opposition. There is no easy solution for him. He inherited a seriously fucked up thing and a slim majority with some very center-right Dems helping secure that majority. His mandate was ambiguous, founded on sand castles of hope and never truly seized by Obama. Busy dealing with the plummeting economy (and, based on some indicators, doing as good a job as possible), Obama went head first into the Health care debate. Perhaps hedging his bets on 2010 in 2009 and assuming the outcome of the election was in doubt early on (hey, he could have looked at the seats up for grabs and made decent predictions), decided to do this now before his mandate's consequences were spent. I don't know. But, I do know this is it for him if he cannot get the health care thing passed; and, it will put a serious strain on an already strained economy and the next generation's burden.

Top 120 Movies Continued, (49-41)

2009-12-25T08:26:00.000-08:00

This set stands out as great movies any director would kill to make, but unfortunately, they made movies that transcend these movies. In other words, these movies are movies lesser actors/directors/producers wish they could even sniff, yet these movies do not match the best of work of these directors.

49. Saving Private Ryan. One of the best war movies you'll ever see; and the saddest. Spielberg begins the movie with an intense 30+ minute recreation of the intense moments of WWII when marines stormed the beaches at Utah and Omaha. Faced with entrenched machine gun turrets, the vast majority of soldiers were marched to their death before reaching land. The strategy, as was evident also in the first World War, was to simply outlast the opponents man power and ammunition. In a mechanized style of warfare, this may be the only real strategy aside from the use of very powerful weapons. Spielberg uses this intro as his only real nod to the standard Platoon/Full Metal Jacket war genres; balls out, intense, and violent. Spielberg, however, transcends these genres with his cinematography, the hallmark that will define his career. But, what he is really setting us up is that war, no matter how justified, is really just a waste of time, money, resources, and lives. And, the wanton expenditure of the most precious resources a society has seems to be senselessly tossed about.

The real story, of course, takes place after the beachhead is established. Tom Hanks, a school teacher at home, yet a captain in battle, is instructed to go find one Pvt. Ryan. All of Ryan's brothers have been killed in the war, and the army decides that it would be a disservice to not send one of the brothers home to his mother. Hanks chooses his best men, and they set out across the Rhine land in search of a needle in a haystack. The movie revolves around the humanness of Hanks, who is thrust into a position of authority because of his education back home, yet is ambivalent about leading these troops...taking their lives into his hands. He is a good commander; quick on his feet; but, he is a very sad person. The rest of the movie is classic Spielberg. In some ways, I would compare his work to a Chinese landscape artist: broad, powerful brushstrokes; the placement of objects like mountains and waterfalls disproportionately large in relation to people. He takes serious subjects, recognizes the most powerful forces that people find their biographies embedded within, and weaves a story of how these people become aware of the forces, try to circumvent the forces, and how the success they find is always balanced very carefully with the loss, the horror, and the sometimes meaninglessness of it all.

48.Star Wars IV-VI. How do you rank something as epic as this trilogy? I couldn't decide. It is certainly not the best set of movies in the world, but has there ever been a set of movies that defined a whole generation? Moreover, it launched Harrison Ford's career that led to some unbelievable performances. I suggest watching them all in order again, in one sitting (with some breaks for pizza).

47. The Will Be Blood. This movie lands here for Daniel Day-Lewis and a performance of a lifetime. Or not. I feel he was better in another movie, which will be revealed below. But, wow...can you not feel the power of his character. Can you not feel the greed oozing out of his pores. The darkness of this movie does the book justice, as well as the themes Upton Sinclair stood for. The oil industry in contemporary America is one of the most dangerous, most powerful, most careless, and most reprehensible. Power and energy go hand in hand, and Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) embodies the lust for power, wealth and prestige that drove the growth, expansion, and entrenchment of the oil industry. This is Day-Lewis' Cast Away. To be sure, there are other actors who all do a marvelous job, but this movie is a one-man show. A tour de force, if you will. Plainview consumes each scene as if he is this poor prospector who struck black gold by sheer luck, and whose cunning and clever mind fit perfectly with his lack of scruples.

46. No Country for Old Men. Dark. Empty. Vacuous. Eroded. Simple. These adjectives fit this movie's landscape, its main antagonist, and its message. The movie, an adaptation by phenomenally underrated author Cormac McCarthy, is not the masterpiece of the Coen's catalg, but it certainly deserves high praise. As in all of their movies, the matter-of-factness of violence and the very real problems of suffering as well as meaning are painted vividly on a uniquely American canvas. Undergirding each character's actions is the question, why? Why are we motivated to act good or bad? There are rarely any clear protagonists in the Coen brothers films, but rather a cast of flawed individuals whose flaws cannot be weighed against each other. Javier Bardem's character who would seem to be the most sinister of all of the characters because his violent acts seem random and have no real reasoning behind them gradually becomes portrayed as having principles that guide his actions; a point the Coen brothers suggest is all any person can have. That is, meaning is constructed by people; actions are judged by the meanings we construct; and while the audience may want to believe there are universal rights and wrongs, each character understands their position in the universe and acts based on a set of principles of their own making, which are inherently flawed. At the end, which was considerably long and unnecessary to some extent, Tommy Lee Jones who plays a sheriff who seems to be more of an unwilling witness to the bizarre twists and turns of the human heart than a player in the game summarizes what we have learned: nothing. Are the Coen's suggesting we do not learn from past experiences and actions, that senseless violence is simply an extreme reflection of senseless everyday behavior, or that we are really alone in our own subjective worlds with only illusions of objectivity?

45. Monty Python's Life of Brian. Underrated? Absolutely. The problem with this movie, in relation to their masterpiece the Holy Grail!, is that it requires some serious historical and biblical knowledge to make it as funny as it really is. Not to blow my horn, but this is a time period I do study and the jokes are even funnier because of this (kind of like the difference between having worked in an office or never working in an office and then watching Office Space. Clearly it is funny for both sets of people; but, the context becomes even more funny for those who have worked in offices).

The movie takes place around the beginning of the Common Era (or the point where the Christian calendar flips and goes from BC to AD) in ancient Israel under Roman rule. False prophets are everywhere; the iron hand of Roman rule is a running theme (the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front!?!); and, the absurdly disgusting conditions of urban life are put on display for comedic purposes. Brian, a half-Jew, half-Roman, experiences a series of events that lead to some people thinking he is the messiah, despite his desire to not be. It is a spoof on the story of Christ not meant to offend, but meant to present a different story of religious beginnings. I think it is very funny, but it might not make much sense to most people given the "dated" humor.

44. The Deer Hunter. Watch this movie if only because Meryl Streep is unreal. Christopher Walken and Robert De Niro round out an all-star cast that netted this movie the 1977 Best Film Oscar. Classic 70's film: long, elaborate, and highly detailed settings draw the viewer into an intensely sad and dramatic plot, that is intensified by the acting. Unfortunately, Hollywood refuses to produce movies like this nowadays (The Pianist represents one exception), but man, the 70's were filled with them. If you have patience and an attention span, and admire the art of filmmaking, then watch this movie.

43. Spaceballs. Mel Brooks!!! Does it pass the name test? President Skroob/Yogurt (Mel Brooks); Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis); Lone Starr (Bill Pullman); Barf (John Candy); Princess Vespa; Colonel Sandurz; Prince Valium; Major Asshole; Snotty; Pizza the Hut. The only thing stopping this movie from being Brooks' best is the fact that he made Blazing Saddles and Young Frankestein...both of which were enhanced by the genius of Gene Wilder (the most underrated comedian...perhaps because he retired so early and is never in the public light?). I love this movie. It is rewartachable...filled with great one-liners...and some memorable performances by the cast.

42. Talledega Nights. I hated this movie in the cinema. I watched it again...and couldn't stop watching it. It is so damn good. It would be higher if Will Farrell hadn't made Anchorman which might be the best comedy since National Lampoon's Vacation or Fletch. Name test: Ricky Bobby; Carl Naughton Jr.; Lucious Washington; Terry Cheveaux; Walker and Texas Ranger (the names Ricky gives his kids); Jean Girard; Larry Denitt Jr. What, not funny...Farrell thought real hard about these names to give a sense of realism, and it worked. Comedies don't always need hilarious names, but they need names that took some thought; names with surnames.

The real winner here is the pairing of Farrell with John C. O'Reilly, which would be reprised awesomely in Step Brothers. O'Reilly, like Farrell, just looks funny. His mustache; his height; his goofy body shape; and then the delivery of his lines. These two were meant to be a tag team. Then, there is the performance by Sacha Baron Cohen, who plays the Frenchmen who seeks the best competition. The scene in the bar when we first meet Girard is classic. It leads to the unraveling of Ricky Bobby's life, which culminates in Carl Naughton moving into his house one day to be with Bobby's wife and not seeing anything wrong with it.

41. Swingers. The single greatest breakup movie (for a guy) ever. Nothing like watching someone more pathetic than yourself (Jon Favreau) as well as seeing how important good friends are to your recovery. Jon Favreau wrote and directed this movie, managing to capture two very antithetical elements: the seemingly timeless nature of the L.A. night scene and Hollywood world, with the very dated mid-90s "swing" resurgance that is long since passed (the Derby, which is the nightclub Mikey meets Heather Graham in and swing dances with just closed down a few months ago). The swanky and classy LA-ness mixed with the sleazy, pretention. Favreau really captures it nicely...LA really is a strange mixture of new smashing into, integrating with, recombining, and struggling to understand the old.

Vince Vaughn's was the real winner as his career was launched as the kind of sleazy, but ultimately warmhearted likable guy. His comedy depends on his vocal delivery and his sense of irony. He places the best friend of Mikey who's own lifestyle is filled with hookups, a carefree attitude towards most things, and a generally positive disposition. Of these three, he only imposes the latter one on Mikey, who wants real relationships, is serious about his craft, and is generally pessimistic. Ron Livingston (of Office Space acclaim) has a sneaky good performance as Mikey's good, but naive, friend from NYC. This movie is great in so many ways. It will make you laugh; make you want to hit Vegas; and give you a really good sense of what LA is like for good and for bad...

Update on Health Care

2009-12-24T13:05:00.000-08:00

Here is a link to a reasonably written article on health care that warns against seeing this bill from any angle other than its historical importance. Here.

Question of the Day: What Happened to John McCain?

2009-12-24T06:53:00.000-08:00

I'll be the first to admit this isn't a fair picture, but I am not so sure McCain deserves anything resembling fair. I loved this guy in 2000. In fact, I remember dreaming about a McCain vs. Bill Bradley presidential match up. Both obvious outsiders of their respective political parties; both with fresh sounding ideas; and both with a little counter-establishment vibe. Bush destroyed McCain in South Carolina during the primaries, relying on a strategy of questioning his military record (sound familiar?). A man who had spent something like 4 years in a POW camp in Vietnam was being questioned by a guy who signed up for the National Guard, yet according to records was rarely in attendance (and, remember, Dick Cheney avoided it by being an aide to Nixon). Considering these facts you would think McCain would have been embarrassed to be in the same party with someone who low-balled him so badly and unfairly. But, he stayed. Fine; he had done bipartisan before.

Fast forward to now. McCain was for cutting medicare in the past, then the health bill appeared and was going to trim medicare and he was suddenly against touching it. He acted near at the end of the election as if he was ready to embrace a position of power: Obama clearly saw him as a worthy ally and opponent, someone who Obama could reach out to from the other side, while cementing McCain's bipartisan legacy. Instead, we have Mitch McConnell (Sen from Kentucky-R) defending McCain on the floor of the Senate, despite some serious past animosities. I feel bad, sort of. McCain could not be Bob Dole and fade away from political life and briefly revive his career by doing some Super Bowl Viagra ads; nor could be be Al Gore and go to Harvard for a year to teach, grow a beard, and then make an award winning documentary; nor could he be Ross Perot and just return to his Texas mansion. He stayed like Kerry. Kerry was weak to begin with, so he is just as much a non-entity as he was before he won the democratic nod four years ago.

Where did the 2000 McCain go? In some ways, he reminds me of a baseball player. We talk about players' individual seasons like fine wines. Guys may have peaks over multiple seasons, or be consistent throughout their careers, or even have multiple peaks over a career. But, the greatest players have individually great seasons (the super-duper stars have more than one of these). Barry Bonds' 2001-4 seasons (yes, everyone) were transcendent. Or, Pedro Martinez 1999 season. You get the point. Now, those two players had so many great seasons, and their careers will eventually be etched in bronze at Cooperstown, they do not provide good analogy. Because McCain was a middling infielder who showed bursts of occasional power at the plate, but was always a bust. Then, it all came together...all five tools were on display in 2000, until Bush beat him out for the MVP trophy. The following eight years were filled with random highlights reminding us of the brilliance his 1999-2000 season produced, but never again approached greatness; as if he injured himself and never regained confidence. Now, he relies of steroids to even play at a replacement-player MLB level...McCain, what happened?

Yea for Health Care?

2009-12-24T06:37:00.000-08:00

The Senate passed their version of health care this morning...5 AM my time, which meant I woke up to a pleasant surprise. You know it must be helping Americans out to some extent when the GOP attorney generals plan on suing to analyze the constitutionality of telling Americans they must have health care and then providing them with potentially cheap alternatives!!! Really!?! I should sue them because it is mandatory to have a driver's license which costs me money every five years to renew; the constitution says nothing about the government's right to regulate my operation of a motor vehicle. Or, more germane (and so much more ironic): why does every child, until the age of 16, have to go to school. Public school (or the alternatives) is compulsory. I should contact my GOP representatives and ask them to review the constitutionality of that one. Oh yeah, and the state provides (in the "public option") a cheaper alternative to the more expensive private and prep schools. Which, by the way, are not hurting due to the competition with the more robust and affordable public option.

What do I not like? I do not like the weakness of the Senate and the lack of a public option. What is strange to me is this: the democrats won a majority across the board. This was the public voting for some change. Instead of embracing the larger vision Obama presented that won him so much support, they hedged, allowed the GOP to reshape the narrative over the summer, which painted them into a corner (especially those in precarious seats). The public either (a) recoiled in fear of a socialist takeover, (b) recoiled in disgust at the lameness, lack of vision, and lack of balls exhibited by the vast majority of democratic senators, or (c) recoiled in fear over (b) and over the crazy teabaggers whose inane arguments were dominating the airwaves and making (b) even worse! I am going with (c) on this one.

My second thought is this (and it will be a run-on sentence). If the economy keeps stabilizing, and health care is passed through congress and not by Obama personally ramming it through, and, Obama passes the next stimulus meant to reward job creation and benefit normal people, and the Wall Street legislation does indeed regulate them more efficaciously...could we not call that a successful first year? Also, the surge in Afghanistan may end up being a very good decision as it was in Iraq, and may help prepare for a real withdrawal in both war zones. We live in a strange time, my friends. A time where judgments are passed so quickly and rescinded almost as quickly. Obama is not going to be Roosevelt; he was not as prepared as Roosevelt. Obama is going to do something that impacts the American people, and I think it will be either benign or positive, because he does not seem committed to destroying the universe much like Bush and Cheney were.

Debunking Free Market Myth #3

2009-12-23T06:40:00.000-08:00

Government run things are bad. Somewhere along the line, we got into the mode of thinking that the government cannot run anything efficiently. Well, this is true; anyone who works for (or has worked for) a corporation that is larger than 200 employees knows bureaucracy inevitably becomes irrational as it gets larger and more complex. So, yes...the government cannot run things efficiently and will likely be wasteful in many respects.

Does this mean government run things are bad? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. The post office, for example, is a government run service. It is neither a good or bad service. My mail tends to make it out and arrive nearly every time; the mailman never misses a pickup since I can remember; the cost is relatively low considering the alternatives; and most importantly, this large cheap service has not put the kibosh on capitalist competition: FedEx and UPS are quite strong, and there are a million little companies like DHL that specialize in delivery. So, it is really difficult to use this line of argument.

Here is why government run operations become bad. Reason 1: they hire out. The Republicans, trying to implement a market model for war, decided to hire contractors at the beginning of the Iraq war for driving, security, etc. Of course, not following the market model, they avoided a true bidding system and essentially gave sweetheart deals to their close friends (Halliburton anyone?). The result was (a) corruption and a serious loss of government money, (b) no oversight in a foreign country, and (c) the same inefficiencies with even less accountability.

Reason 2: lobbyists. Its one thing to decide to lower costs for senior citizens on their prescription drugs; its a whole other thing to pass legislation meant to provide this lower cost by having a government agency buy the drugs at a high price, with no bidding, from select pharmaceutical companies. You cannot have a government run program that lacks autonomy from economic influences at that level and expect it to do what it is supposed to do.

Reason 3: lack of vision. The health care bill, albeit an important bill that can be amended in the future, is going to watered down so much that it might not even do what it was originally meant to do: lower costs. A true public option is the key, says the CBO (the non-partisan accounting agency that analyzes bills), to promoting competition, ensuring low prices, and keeping insurance companies in check. We will likely get a kicker in the final bill that triggers a public option in five years if the nothing changes, but why wait? No one, except those getting money from the insurance or health industry, likes insurance companies...ask yourself, do you like the way you have been paying absurd prices for car, health, or any other insurance? Or, if you've made a claim, the company treats you terribly as they attempt to not pay you a sliver of what you have paid them? Of course not! So, why don't we just get the punishment over with and move on?

Why are government services good? First, they are not about profit. Health and education, especially, should never be "for profit" services. I am fine with private options (e.g., personal doctors, private schools), but I am not fine with public schools having to secure funding when the state decides the money we are spending on stupid wars is more important than educating our youth. Second, despite the bogeyman conspiracy theorists and the Rush's of the world, most government services are well intentioned. Medicare, social security, and welfare all are meant to provide a safety net to people in society; a society that could not exist without all of its members contributing. Why should a person work 40 years for a shitty company who reaps profits from his blood and sweat, and then retire and have no protection from the society he just served for so long? Why should a child be born into poverty -- not choosing this life -- and not have equal opportunities to succeed as those born into affluence? These programs are meant to help people out (60% of Americans will use government money in welfare or unemployment benefits once in the lives...so, it isn't just crack whores trying to be free riders on the system). Third, the alternatives are terrible. California deregulated its energy years ago and started buying from random people (thanks Enron!). What we got out of that was this: rolling brown outs meant to threaten the population and government into higher costs, higher costs from corporations trying to squeeze us, and a basic need (heat, electricity) turned into a commodity whose cost affected people's budgets. The market is not always a free market; monopolies exist (Microsoft; insurance; airlines; gasoline; media), not in the purest sense of a single dominant company, but in the sense of oligarchies. Governments should and do force companies to play fairly. In the gilded age (the 1880's-early 1900's), the people we called the Captains of Industry were simply monopolists who made so much money off the sweat of non-union labor at a fraction of the cost of wages. They were ruthless, cruel, and have become revered because they donated a proportion of their money (Carnegie anyone) making them seem good. Let's face it: free market is code for exploitation, unregulated business ethics, and making shitloads of money and running. How many examples do people need before we realize that a pure economic theory doesn't work in the real world, much like gravity doesn't act the same in practice as it does in a vacuum (hey, throw a cannonball and a feather out of a window, they should both land at the same time). Here are some reminders: the Savings and Loan disaster in the late 80s; Bernie Madoff; Enron and Tyco; the Captains of Industry; the Great Depression; the railroads; the money it costs to put your bag on an airplane combined with the decline of service on every airline; carpetbaggers during the early 1800s; slavery.

All "isms" are what they are: ideologies which orient our attitudes and actions in ways that make sense of the world, events, behavior, etc. They are rarely true in an objective empirical sense, but they do guide us. Socialism, in its purest form, is good; when humans implement it, it has the potential to be very bad (Nazism); Capitalism in its purest form is good; when humans implement it, it often goes awry. The government, for better or for worse, is the corporation "for the people," and should try to at least speak for those of us who cannot do much against the large machinary of capitalist bureaucracy. I prefer no "isms." Take what works and integrate it; isms produce dogma, self-righteousness, and resistance to compromise. Orthodoxy is rigid, and often collapses in the face of environmental changes.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-12-14T07:02:00.001-08:00

Everything we do in life is based on fear, especially love. - Mel Brooks

Your Quote for the Day

2009-12-12T08:14:00.000-08:00

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. - Plato

Your Quote for the Day/Night

2009-12-10T19:34:00.000-08:00

An employee will go home and ask his neighbor, "Hey, did you get an award?" "No man. I mean I slave all day and no one notices." Next thing you know, he smells something funny from his neighbor's house. Neighbor hanged himself due to lack of recognition. - Michael Scott (The Office)

Debunking the Free Market Myth #2

2009-12-10T19:30:00.000-08:00

Myth #2: Free markets are imperative to innovation. My favorite line from pro-market people is that socialism prevents innovation, whereas free markets and capitalism generate innovation. Now, before we go further it should be noted that markets do have a positive effect on innovation, predominantly technological innovation. This presents two very different questions we need to address: do free markets facilitate more, less, or non-significant amounts of new innovation. Two, is technological innovation all its cracked up to be?

There are two sets of logic at work here, one implicit and the other explicit. Adam Smith proposed that the division of labor that rapidly intensifies in capitalist economies (i.e., factories divvy up tasks to increase production, efficiency, and control human error as best as possible, while also differentiating vertically -- management -- to facilitate control, coordination, and communication across employees) also drives innovation in technology. The reason: people who work at the same job, doing the same tasks are bound to simplify them, know them best, and begin to find shortcuts that lead to time-saving innovations. The explicit argument is this: market-based incentives (i.e., wealth, fame, power) motivate people to innovate, which ultimately benefits them while benefiting everyone. This logic returns to the old "rational-man" model presented in the first myth earlier, and assumes pure self-interest is the best panacea to society's ills.

I don't know about you, but I have worked in offices, restaurants, retail, and other places...I don't recall any employees I personally or impersonally knew innovating. Perhaps it is because of a lack of incentives, as any time-saving or increase in productivity will only benefit the owner of the company or means of production. Marx also pointed out that people who are separated from the entire process of production -- that is the creative side of producing, the productive side, and seeing the finished product -- experience high levels of alienation, which is just a heady word for dampened motivation. Moreover, the person does not see their work, their company, or their employees as anything other than means to their own extra-work satisfaction: job = salary; company = necessary evil; co-workers = enemies, or friends against the man.

On the other hand, market-based incentives may produce global motivation to innovate. Yes, and no. First off, turn on your TV at any hour of the day and you will find products for three easy shipments of 19.99 that were invented to simplify some aspect of life or maximize another. This is not progress in my opinion; though, there are people filling their lives and apartments with crap right now. Secondly, how do you explain the wheel? Or penicillin? Or space travel? All three of these present innovations of import that lacked capitalist motivation, even if one could argue that money and fame were secondary or tertiary motivations. The wheel: necessity is the mother of innovation; penicillin: the pursuit of science is filled with competing interests, but it was an accident borne out of the search for knowledge; and space travel: it was a political attempt at proxy warfare against the Russians, while also meant to boost nationalism and patriotism. As Marx noted, people are naturally creative animals; we will innovate regardless of the money involved because we enjoy it, because we look to solve problems, because we like to simplify life, and because it does produce benefits to us and our groups. One might point to the rapid advances in technology as indicative of the superiority of capitalism in driving innovation, but this ignores two important facets. The first, is technological innovation all its cracked up to be will be tackled below. The second: how do we define time, history, and pace. If we look at the long view, since the plows invention followed closely by the emergence of writing some 5,000 years ago, technological innovation has moved very rapidly in relation to the 3 million years plus that humans lived in hunter/gatherer societies; another way is to look 12,000 years or so ago when humans became sedentary...again, technological advance has been rapid in relation to the slow, gradual socio-cultural evolution of humans. The point is, certain forces drive innovation outside of self-interest. Population growth and density; resource scarcity; centralized and consolidated forces of control/coordination; and improved means of production/distribution. Indeed, we are focused much more intently on the last of these five forces, but the first two are just as relevant across time and space. More people mean more ideas and more people to bounce those ideas off of; density leads to new problems of production, distribution, and coordinating space; centralization/consolidation make dividing labor up, resolving conflicts that arise, and fostering a larger integrative identity beyond the family and religious possible; and you know what improvements in productive and distributive forces leads to. These are general, ubiquitous characteristics. Capitalism harnesses them as well as any economic system, save for those intent on destroying its citizens.

How we harness it varies though. Capitalism, as its proponents correctly assert, does so through economic innovation, whereas political, religious, educational, scientific, legal, or kin-based innovations are also possible and have been used. None seem better than the others; they both present unique challenges and consequences when implemented. Capitalism is really good at producing choice while intensely limiting it: rather than treat people globally as citizens, kinsmen, or part of a larger moral community, or atomizes people and objectifies them as consumers. This is bad; it is our modern malaise.

Thus, we can look at part two: is technology good. Yes and no. More food, more efficient farming and production, medicine, more leisure, etc. are all positives to a certain extent. But, no...absurdly myopic focusing on materialism is never good. Self-interest becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the mantra of the rational-man model becomes accepted by all. Then, people treat each other as if they are means to their own satisfaction; corporations see people as means to their collective goals; and, in the end, morality and ethics become buzz words that are not to get in the way of the machine. Having more stuff leads to the need and desire for more stuff...plain and simple. I dare you to dispute that. And, if you think having and desiring more material things, you should see my students, talk to them, read their papers, analyze their thoughts, and consider their futures...then get back to me.

Moreover, call me cold or call me prescient. Improving people's lives is one thing, prolonging them with little birth control regulation means growing the Earth's population to catastrophic rates. Having people live longer, but get sicker more often taxes the entire society and its infrastructure. Prolonging the life of children born terminally ill, regardless of what your religion tells you, does not shore up a society's long-term survivability. I don't think people get how close to the precipice modern society is, but you can only tempt the forces of nature for so long before she will strike (no society is invincible...look it up; its an historical fact). I am not calling for death squads, or eugenic programs: I am calling for a rational discourse that actually tries to plan out the future of this country and world in such a way that we balance, even if they are a bit skewed in our favor, our needs and the Earth's. We could plausibly do it; but, constant material innovation might not be the answer. There is, for instance, a finite number of silicone chips; a finite amount of iron; a finite amount of fresh water; a finite amount of fossil fuels. Each new person will use some of this finite number. So, in other words, imagine I have five friends over. We order two pizzas with eight slices each. We each get three slices, with two left over. For every person I invite over, the number and size of slices decreases. At some point, their is a crisis as the number and size of slices cannot meet their function: feeding and satiating us. This is a reality that population size has an effect on. We cannot simply genetically modify the pizza every time to increase slices and sizes.

Debunking the Free Market Myth #1

2009-12-09T06:50:00.002-08:00

The fight against health care and Obama's administration has been carefully defined by the right as a narrative of free market versus socialist tactics, or more implicitly, everything American versus either benign pseudo-European socialism or at worst, authoritarian socialism of the fascist ilk. But, I find it ingenuous and nonsensical to not look at Obama's efforts, the country's needs, and the economic structure through a more nuanced, socio-historical lens that avoids the empty platitudes of politicking. Moreover, when one is confronted by an agitator, or someone arguing based on historical eternals or faulty logic, you need to be equipped. Let's look at some of the myths.

Myth #1: In the past, markets were freer. Be dealing with this myth first, I am essentially destroying my entire blog below; if I can handle this one, then every other is simply a corollary and therefore debunked. Anyway, have there ever been truly free markets? If by free, we are referring to the "invisible hand" of supply and demand that underscored Adam Smith's vision of capitalism, then the answer is a resounding no. One of the things my students, and nearly all humans do -- which was at the heart of Marx's argument -- is assume the social structure that they are born into has always been and will always be. Part of this is intellectual laziness: not taking the time to learn about past societies or massive historical changes. However, the lion's share of blame likely can be found in our neuro-anatomy. Think about it in this way: you grow up with yourself, and while you know you have changed as a person over the last however many years, the changes have been imperceptible. So much so, that you likely have found yourself evaluating how you have gotten where you are today. Maybe you see a "turning-point" moment and highlight it as the day things changed, but can we really be sure? In thirty years, will that moment still be seen the same way? Well, this analogy can be applied to our conception of social structure. And, learning history does not suffice. One must gain historical consciousness: they must make the facts they are learning breath with life. As the famed Roman historian Livy once said, "The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind."

Back to our myth. Were there ever truly free markets? Not really. Before states and writing existed, it appears as if the form of economic subsistence was mostly derived from the household in hunting and gathering techniques. There were no markets. With chiefdoms came some early market-like notions: relatively long-distance trade emerged, but mostly for prestige goods from one chief to another and vice versa. With the rise of states some 5,000 years ago, state-sponsored long-distance trade occurred. Merchants were endowed with goods, they would take the entire risk born of traveling, sell their wares to other merchants, aristocracy, or nobles, and return with new goods for the king and some profit for themselves. The key, though, is the vast majority of people in these early urban states were super poor. They weren't farmers because they lived in cities; and not everyone was a good craftsman or artisan. They were laborers, beggars, or servants. They had no disposable income. The bazaars that did exist catered mostly to bartering and trading as money was not yet as standardized and diffuse as it would become later.

Again, this history lesson is a bit off of the myth, which is really about classic America: a golden age of veritable free market entrepreneurship. Is this true? Again, no. Markets were freer in a sense in the 18th and 19th centuries. Less government regulation, but also much greater risk. Snake oil, one of my favorite products, is a perfect example for an entire economic system. People were free to sell what they wanted, and they worked very hard to create a market. There was no FDA to review whether the product was safe or even effective; there was no agency that put pressure on you to be honest in your business practices and truthful in your claims. So, in a sense, the market did regulate itself, but at a disadvantage to the average person who had little time or education (or wikipedia) to discover whether snake oil was healthy, efficacious, or useless; he market then was still tilted against the working class. Thus, the arguments then were like today: corporations and the capitalist class deserve free markets. By the time capitalism and the industrial age took off, post-Civil War America, it looked nothing like the GOP wants it to be and the tea baggers think it was. Just go back and look at the Supreme Court decisions from about 1870-1930...they are unbelievably lopsided towards defending the rights of corporations; the 14th amendment, enacted to protect the protect individuals especially newly "freed" black slaves was used by corporations to protect themselves against the claims of individuals. Moreover, the so-called gilded age coincided with the rise of the "captains of industry" like Carnegie and Rockefeller, who also looked like the monopoly fellow and acted like him too. They were cruel, nefarious, cunning, and not unlike the oil barron that Daniel Day-Lewis played in There Will be Blood. They hated workers and saw them as expendable, fighting against workplace regulations that led to the death, dismemberment, illness, and malaise of uncounted numbers of people who helped build this country. Like the GOP today, they were hypocrites: from one side of the mouth they supported the working white American class in public, while hiring immigrants whenever possible because they were cheaper, harder workers, and expendable. They bought congress....look it up. The most corrupt period in legislative history in the US was during the "gilded" age. The markets were anything but free. The Horatio Alger myth of people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps distorted the objective reality: few people experienced mobility then, few experience it now. Demand could be shaped with cunning and creative advertising campaigns; this is also a fact. Think about this....why would a corporation spend 1-2 billion dollars on a thirty second Super Bowl ad if it had no impact on people's buying habits? That is irrational and everything economic models of capitalism would rally against. The early Sears and Roebuck catalogs provided strong indications that people's tastes, preferences, and desires could be shaped by advertisers. Was the market free? Yes, because the government continued to not care. That is, the practices of the capitalist class sunk the economy into the Great Depression and it was clear the old ways were unstable. What followed was the Warren court which salvaged the Bill of Rights as a document of the citizen and not the corporation; the restructuring of the American economy and government such that we didn't have to follow Germany's, Italy's, Spain's or any other European nation's strong moves towards socialism. We could have capitalism, and relatively free markets, while also protecting people...What a novel idea!!!!

One final note: go read Adam Smith. His theory was essentially this: where merchants, tradesmen, and owners of capital were unregulated, the nations wealth would grow. A sort of trickle-down economics pre-Reagan. You have to put his words into a certain socio-historical context (the late eighteenth century). First, England likely taxed and regulated inter- and intra-national trade. Second, he recognized in his book that completely free trade could and probably should never happened. Third, the question that often is ignored by modern GOPers/free-market advocates because modern economics has institutionalized its (wrong) answer is: what ensures that the market will regulate itself and people will do what it is right and not do things like monopolize, sell bad wares, etc? His answer is self-interest. If everyone follows their own self-interest than the economy will run smoothly. People won't buy things they don't need, are made terribly, or they can find cheaper; people won't sell things that will bankrupt them, that will harm people and come back to financially haunt them, etc. It is called the "rational-man" model and it is the basic assumption of human agency that underlies modern US action and interaction. Sociology, anthropology, and many other social sciences have long demonstrated empirically that people don't act this way. (1) Not every person has access to all the relevant knowledge in order to make the best decision in pursuing their self-interest; (2) socialization and social pressures go a long way in shaping our self-interest, often in ways counter-intuitive or against what would objectively be in our best interests; (3) corporations, like the car companies, do use rational calculus...but not for the benefit of the many: when a defect that kills people is discovered they weigh the cost of recall and repair vis-a-vis the number of likely lawsuits they will get; (4) irrationalities dominate market actions: gas spikes lead to people hoarding gasoline, brief fads and fashions created by TV, celebrities, and other media spark intensified purchasing, planned obsolescence precludes consumers from making good purchasing decisions, and people often think with their heart, their sexual organs, or other non-cerebral aspects of their body, which advertisers use to their advantage. So, the answer is no: markets are not free, never have been, and never will be. In theory yes, in practice absolutely not.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-12-09T06:35:00.001-08:00

As the poet said, 'Only God can make a tree' -- probably because it's so hard to figure out how to get the bark on. - Woody Allen

Your Quote for the Day

2009-12-08T07:57:00.001-08:00

Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike. - Teddy Roosevelt

Top 120 Movies Continued, (59-50)

2009-12-07T13:38:00.000-08:00

This next set are on the cusp of greatness, but don't quite cross the threshold. In some ways, I am simply quibbling of good, great, and superb...but, someone needs to make these distinctions.

59. Beetlejuice. Michael Keaton; Wynona Rider; Catherine O'Hara; Alec Baldwin; Geena Davis; Tim Burton. What else do I have to say? Burton, who can sometimes go awry with that much talent and his propensity towards strangeness, sticks it out in a pseudo-comedy with some fantasmagoric undertones. Not sure what to say about this movie, as it lacks subtext that makes it a "deep" movie...But, it is entertaining, and Michael Keaton (who has basically dropped off the planet) delivers a phenomenal performance.

58. The Naked Gun. What happened to comedies with older men and women? The days of Rodney Dangerfield and Leslie Nielsen are gone. The creation of demographic targeting has led to younger comedians dominating, and teens becoming less and less able to get adult humor and therefore American Pie like movies proliferating. The Naked Gun was classic. The "name" test? Frank Drebin (Nielsen); Vincent Ludwig (the late Ricardo Mantalban); Nordberg (the criminal O.J.); Pahpsmir (the evil bad guy hiring Ludwig). The plot? Awesome! Drebin is a gun-happy idiot cop who once shot a bunch of actors re-enacting Caesar in the park because he thought they were stabbing a guy. His job: to protect the queen of England, while also busting the drug dealers who put Nordberg in the hospital. Memorable scenes? How about when he breaks into Ludwig's office and destroys everything? Or the baseball scene when he is the umpire? Or any scene with Mantalban? Re-watchability? You bet. The one-liners are classic, the plot doesn't take over the humor, and the actors all embrace their roles nicely.

57. Full Metal Jacket. Two movies in one. The first is the best drill sergeant crushes army recruits movies ever. Kubrick was known for perfection and realism, and he does not fail to deliver. Using real life former drill sergeant R. Lee Emery (who is a super crazy gun nut on the History channel), Kubrick gives as close to a real presentation of what basic training is like (or as far as I can tell). We see everything, to a certain extent, through the eyes of Matthew Modine (Pvt. Joker) who is never fully committed to the army and it is not certain whether he wants to really be there or not. In the second half of the movie, or the second movie as it may be, Joker becomes a journalist in Vietnam but is thrust into action. The second half is as violent as intense as any war movie, but the first movie is the fascinating one.

An overweight soldier Pvt. Pyle (played excellently by Vincent D'Onofrio) wants so badly to fit in, but he becomes Emery's target of derision because he is overweight, sneaking chocolate bars, and is everything the army is not about. At first the others soldiers care, but his transgression begin to affect the other soldiers in negative ways, and the sanction him themselves. This can only end terribly, but it is so powerful. The human mind is fragile.

56. Darjeeling Limited. Wes Anderson's movies are either brilliant or terribly dry. I cannot decide. Like the Coen brothers and Scorsese, Anderson has certain repeat actors who seem to understand his goals and, aside from Life Aquatic, tend to work well towards meeting them. I was tempted to put the Royal Tennebaums here, because that movie is really a good movie (especcially after the second viewing), and I know Rushmore has cult status, but I liked this most recent movie because he used some older actors and some newer ones (specifically Adrian Brody). The movie revolves around three rich brothers who all have serious daddy issues -- as in they could never get out from under his shadow, as demonstrated by their carrying around his matched luggage -- and considerable neuroses and their "journey" to make sense of their anomie and their intra-familial issues. Anderson does not like to reconcile the tensions in Hollywood ways, which I like; nor does he like to give heavy handed messages like Kubrick. Instead, like the Coen brothers, he delights in character studies that are a bit unconventional, but not quite as unconventional as the Coen brothers.

Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Brody are all great; as are Anjelica Huston and Bill Murray as bit players. The plot is fascinating. But, I think what sells me is the cinematography. Every shot is carefully constructed; beautiful when necessary, claustrophobic in other shots.

55. Bananas. Yes, yes...another Woody Allen movie. This one features a very young Allen, neurotic as always, trying to woo a young activist whose primary concern is with a Latin nation which is on the verge of revolution. Allen fails, of course, and decides to go to the island to win her over. In the process, he accidentally joins the revolution and when its leader is deemed insane, he becomes the de facto leader. The movie is purely absurd and while we have all become desensitized to his humor, you must keep in mind this was one of his first comedies ever. If you view it through that lens, the movie retains its pricelessness.

54. Groundhog's Day. Harold Ramis' last great movie (though some may argue Analyze That was great....). Everyone likes this movie. It was near the end of the first iteration of Bill Murray before he recreated himself. Funny, clever, and intriguing to the point where you could re-watch it; especially on a cold, wintery day.

53. High Fidelity. The second greatest breakup movie for men. Not only is the music awesome, but it was a breath of fresh air for Cusack, his career, and his return to relevance. A decade (the 90's) of crap and nonsense culminated in a great movie about a guy with a perfect girl who dumps him because he doesn't know how good he has it. He yells out the window she is not even in the top five of breakups in his life. The device for the movie, of course, is top 5 lists as Cusack is the owner of a vinyl shop with Jack Black and Ted Louiso (Dick) and they engage in music snobbery whenever possible. Cusack goes through the list as the movie goes forward, recognizing that Laura (his ex) indeed makes this list and he was an idiot for letting this one go. I am not sure what is better, the terrible girlfriends he dated in the past (Catherine Zeta-Jones takes the cake for hilarity, audacity, and conceit) or Tim Robbins character Ian!

52. Raising Arizona. The only Nicholas Cage movie worth watching...ever. An early Coen brothers flick with all of their usual flair, but with the early attempts at honing their comedic styles. Jon Goodman, as always, is great as is Holly Hunter. The "name" test? H.I. McDonnough; Edwina McDonnough; Nathan Arizona; Gale and Evelle Snoats (Goodman and William Forsythe respectively). The plot is great, but in standard Coen fashion, the whole movie pushes the meaninglessness of life without escaping to nihilism or existentialism. We see a window into the typical idiocy, benign nonsensical nature of normal people -- whose normalcy pushes their comedic value through the roof.

51. Pink Floyd's The Wall. Yeah, I put a music movie on the list...and, yeah, it's this high. Conceptually, there will never be a band like Pink Floyd. Their uncanny ability to tap into the human psyche and lay bare the malignancy of existence is unmatched. The Wall delivers an amazing amalgamation of music, film (with a great performance by former Rat Scabies lead man and current Live 8 head man Bob Geldof as Pink Floyd), and animation (thanks to Gerald Scarfe's ahead of their time drawings). The film is part autobiographical catharsis by front man and lyric writer Roger Waters, part critique of the music industry and arena rock, part critique of the banal evil that befalls every rock band over time, part critique of the fans of rock bands, and finally, a general statement about the way the world devours the human soul.

In the beginning, we find a burned out Geldof sitting in a hotel room with a lit but unashed cigarette. The story quickly takes us back to the beginning. As a child, Roger Waters lost his father in World War II before he even knew him...the way war and government destroy the lives of women and children is explored and considered the first "brick" in the wall. The second brick comes from the modern public school system which pushes all shaped blocks into square pegs. The use of cattle cars with children wearing uniform masks being led to a meat grinder reveals Waters' understanding of the education system and its lack of interest in individualism, creativity, or autonomy. The movie shifts point of view to the rock band and the alienated artist. Having achieved fame at the cost of his marriage, the metaphorical Pink Floyd descends into his own hell. The final bricks are put in place as he grows further and further from his fans, his wife who is cheating on him, his past, and his own band. The second half begins with Pink behind a wall...he has a serious breakdown, but is still pushed to go on stage. The machine has deemed his personal feelings unimportant when considered in terms of concert revenues, album sales, and merchandise. He is pushed so far and so hard, he becomes a tyrant of sorts, demanding more from his fans than is reasonable. At the end, he puts himself on trial; finding he is guilty of alienating others, he is forced to tear down the wall. But, in the end, we see children fishing through the rubble, presumably to begin building their own personal walls.

50. Sweet and Lowdown. Sean Penn + a mute Samantha Morton + Woody Allen = Genius. An underrated and perhaps ignored movie in Allen's catalog, Sweet and Lowdown is a fictional biography told in documentary style of a 20s/30s jazz guitarist named Emmit Ray who was only surpassed by the very real Spanish gypsy Django Reinhardt (whose music is, incidentally, used throughout). Penn plays the classic artist whose real life is an utter failure, whose only real love is his art, and whose plans are grander than his ability to implement them. He is a drinker, a gambler, a lowlife, yet we cannot help but feel sorry for him. Allen invites real jazz critics and radio personalities to help tell the story, which like any great mythological legend has holes, inconsistencies, and often competing versions (the ending has three different versions). Uma Thurman's character is excellent, but Morton's mute laundress is the best, earning her an Oscar nod (Penn was nominated as well). I think this, and I am being honest, is one of his top 10 movies and deserving of more attention. It was lost in the strange late 90s period for Allen and buried because of the weaker movies at the turn of the millennium (see Curse of the Jade Scorpion).

Your Quote for the Day

2009-12-07T07:23:00.001-08:00

I see a red door and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
I have to turn my head until my darkness goes

I see a line of cars and they're all painted black
With flowers and my love both never to come back
I see people turn their heads and quickly look away
Like a new born baby it just happens every day

I look inside myself and see my heart is black
I see my red door and must have it painted black
Maybe then I'll fade away and not have to face the facts
It's not easy facin' up when your whole world is black

No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue
I could not foresee this thing happening to you

If I look hard enough into the settin' sun
My love will laugh with me before the mornin' comes

Mick Jaggar

Go Monkeys!!

2009-12-05T08:08:00.000-08:00

It has become increasingly obvious that people have an innate, biological ability to recognize peoples they know vis-a-vis those they don't. Monkeys, for example, recognize other monkeys they know in pictures presented to them. This is important because it tells us more about why humans are so tribal and defensive over their social group's boundaries.

MIA

2009-12-03T07:27:00.000-08:00

So, the holidays and work and school have drained my batteries. The countdown from movie number 120 to movie number 1 has also preoccupied my time on the blog. But, this morning is as good a morning to give you some ramblings and tangential meanderings.

I rarely talk about sports here, in fact never. But, I am a big sports nut; for my teams, anyway. Nevertheless, you would have to have been living under a rock to not hear about Tiger Woods plowing into a fire hydrant and a tree, passing out at the wheel, having his wife break the back window of his car out to rescue him, and then Tiger canceling four straight police interviews only to be charged with some petty misdemeanor. What happened here? Was he cheating on his wife? Obviously. Was there a domestic dispute? Clearly. Was he drunk? Not likely. What can we glean from this incident. A couple of things. First of all, being a golfer certainly gives you a cushion for erratic behavior, especially the first time. If this was a basketball player with an equally clean record, the news would be on him like flies on a rib roast. Second, it raises strange questions about the PGA, advertisers, and the way capitalism works. None of the endorsements said anything negative, but expressed their support of Tiger; the PGA, sensing a "no news is bad news" approach has remained quiet because the charges were minor and the fact that one of their players has a personality beyond being a piece of cardboard is always marketable. Again, in the NBA or NFL, this would be blown way out of proportion. I'm just saying.

In other news, Palin's book has officially hit the number 1 spot on the NY Times bestseller list. Further evidence that one should not put much weight into opinion polls because the general American populace would sooner buy snake oil from a talking panda than anything thoughtful, intelligent, or critical.

Perhaps the biggest news, though, has been the troop increase in Afghanistan. My reaction: its about time. We essentially fought a quasi-legitimate war based on being attacked, and within three years, rerouted the war efforts to a place that didn't attack us. The result has been a quagmire that nobody has even paid attention to. In the meantime, the people we were fighting have gradually fortified their position around the Pakistan border because of nearly seven years of neglect. If you have a Republican friend who gets off on Dick Cheney's attacks, you should tell him/her to blow it out of their arse because it was those schmucks that got us here. In my opinion, neither war should be happening, but the Afghanistan war appears more relevant in terms of our immediate security goals. I don't believe the timetable Obama laid out will matter much, because in three years it will be reassessed anyway. But, we should pull out a large number of forces from Iraq at this point to offset the burden this is going to place on our military.

On a related note, I cannot remember a sitting president being attacked this vehemently and with this much vitriol in my life. Clinton was not liked, and the Republican forces united to uncover scandal after scandal. He was a morally flawed human, like most of us, so his skeletons were unfortunately too many to the point where even the specter of a bone was enough to get people salivating. But, I don't remember Dan Quayle, or James Baker, or Ford, or anyone who had a high ranking pummeling him. Nor do I recall Gore, Carter, or anyone attacking Dubya. Why is this not discussed? Have we really reached a point where it is ok to just question everything the president does before his mid-way point is even reached. He is elected for 4 years. He has the right to try to do everything he feels he was elected to do. Attacking him on policy is legitimate, and dissent is fine, but the level and intensity is strangely incongruous with precedent. Last month I wrote about my concerns with Obama: he was moving too slowly, too deliberately, and lacking any sense of emotion which the people do like. I also noted this might work out in the end and we should be patient. It is really the 24-hour news cycle coupled with the disinformation rampant on the internet, and the fact that every opinion seems to count today that has led to this strange situation. The best we can hope for is job creation and GDP expansion in the next three or four quarters such that the 2010 nails the coffin on the GOP for another four years.

Top 120 Movies, Continued (69-60)

2009-11-29T08:26:00.000-08:00

This next installment consists of great dramas, primarily with absurdly phenomenal singular performances either by one actor (e.g., Cool Hand Luke) or by two or more actors (A Few Good Men) that overshadowed the fact that the movies would suck in the hands of mere mortals (except for Clerks...will explain below). There is no question these movies have other intangibles beyond the individual actors amazing skill, but seriously...put Nicholas Cage in any one of these movies and it blows.

69. Cool Hand Luke. Raise your hand if (a) you've never heard of this movie or (b) you've heard of it, but never watched it. "What we've got here is, failure to communicate." Paul Newman's best. You can have the Hustler and The Color of Money, I will take this movie. It epitomizes the cool, unflappable tough guy before the metrosexual revolution destroyed masculinity. Newman plays a vet who is deep in the throes of anomie. He ends up in prison; his choice. And, among the men in prison he feels whole again. From one total institution to the next. He becomes a symbol of hope, determination, and freedom to a bunch of people who have lost all three. He is Christ-like...the movie is so good, you will kick yourself for waiting this long.

68. A Few Good Men. Should be higher up, right? Absolute career-defining job by Tom Cruise; a Barry Bonds-like 2001 season by Jack Nicholson who returns from the dreaded late 80's/early 90's swinging for the fences; a nearly standable job by Demi Moore; underrated perforamances by Kevin Bacon and Kevin Pollack (one of my all-time favorite Robert Horry/Derek Fisher like actors); and a surprising good job by Keifer Sutherland (so good, but overshadowed by everyone else, you forgot he was there!). Most of you have seen it, so all I will say is watch it again...if only for the courtroom scenes. This movie may be a 10 out of 10 in the re-watchable category. TNT puts it on like 100 times a year, and I will watch it from start to finish, or any other time...it gets this rating, perhaps, only because Tom Cruise is in it.

66. The Truman Show. Another career defining/altering movie. A better version of Ed TV which also was prescient in anticipating the reality TV craze of the 2000s, The Truman Show is a almost believeable 'what if' that finds Jim Carrey being adopted by a television corporation, a studio set large enough to be seen from space being constructed to film Carrey's birth, first steps, acne years, marriage, etc., and a whole cast of extras hired to fill the spaces in this make believe world. An entire life created for TV; ironically, people feel attached to him because they know him better than he may know himself. Everything, though, is carefully crafted from the girl who was chosen to 'bump' into him and eventually marry him, to the beer his best friend drinks while sitting on the dock. Maniacal, yet fantastic; cynical, yet so much of a mirror reflecting our real lives and our inordinate obsession with gossip and now reality TV. A serious role for a funny guy, but not like the death of Robin Williams.

65. What's Eating Gilbert Grape? Johnny Depp and Juliette Lewis (so absurdly underrated) dominate a movie that could not exist without them (much like Depp's performance in Bennie and Joon). Lucky for us, DiCraprio couldn't ruin the movie because he plays a retarded younger brother; a role perfect for him. This movie is touching, soft, and a beautiful moment in film.

64. Clerks. The only other Kevin Smith movie to make the list, but not entirely fitting of the others in this grouping. Smith shot this film on the cheap in a convenience store he worked at. His friends are the actors. And while the dialogue is really the selling point of this movie as well as his unique Seinfeld-ian ability to see the irony in the ordinary aspects of everyday life, the acting doesn't detract from the movie. If anything, the New Jersey-ness of the main character Dante adds to the realism of the whole thing. For example, Dante makes mundane, inane questions such as "are the contractors the Empire hires to build the death star in Star Wars to blame for their own decisions or innocent parties simply making a buck" matter to the viewer. As a person who has worked as a clerk at a liquor store, the laughs take on double meanings. But, at the end of the day, the dialogue is witty and intelligent, and will stand up on its own.

63. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Don't expect the Holy Grail Indiana Jones to make this list. I personally wasn't fooled by the addition of Sean Connery to beef up the sagging series. I am also not fooled by the detractors of the second installment, The Temple of Doom, who prefer the first and the third over the second. Nonsense I say. Let's think about the movie from a cinematographical perspective first: the opening scene...Indy is poisoned, shot at, attacked, chases the antidote across the floor of a club with patrons running for their lives, cuts a huge gong off the ceiling and runs with it to avoid getting shot, jumps out of a window into a car. Ten minutes later, he is on a crashing plane where he jumps out onto an inflatable raft and shoots down the Himalayas only to find himself in an India village. Awesome. The scene where they are eating bugs and eels is great; the scene where Bradshaw has to put her hands in the hole full of bugs is as intensely tactile as any scene in the others. And while the Nazis are good as evil doers, the slave driving evil Indians are just as good for the moral effect. Topping them is the pulling out of the heart and the temporary evil Indy. This movie has it all. Imagine Nicholas Cage as Indiana Jones...we basically have that in National Treasure (a shitty movie!)

62. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Except it does not beat the first one. The opening scene made every kid want to be an archaeologist. The Egyptian bazaar; the tomb of the ark with the snakes; the bar in the crazy Nepalese mountains where we meet Karen Allen (Animal House; and who may be the single cutest-in-a-70s-sense actress who never went anywhere) and watch her beat a bunch of eskimos at a drinking game; the weird Nazi guy with the portable coathanger; the French rival archaeologist; the scene where the Ark is opened and their faces melt off; and fight scene with the bald German and the airplane out of control. Any action movie would kill for that much action without losing the talent that Harrison Ford delivers. This movie was so awesome, people forget how good it really was. But, no one...and I mean no one...could do it but Harrison Ford coming off of Hans Solo. Don't believe me? Go rent Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull...it blew.

61. The Pianist. Adrian Brody, the holocaust, and music. Three things that should tell you to have a box of tissues right next to you. I don't want to even ruin the plot or the movie, because if it wasn't for a series of unreal movies ahead of it, this movie would warrant a higher number. It isn't even the best holocaust movie on the list! But, Brody stands on an island in this movie, putting in a performance equal to or better than Hanks in Castaway. Both men are on an island; one literal, the other figurative. With Brody's performance ranking higher in my opinion.

60. American Beauty. Kevin Spacey; Annette Benning. Superstar performances. Throw in a compelling story with pretty good support acting and you have a good recipe. A dark drama about the meaning of American life, or more precisely, the loss of the meaning of life behind the trivalities we fill it with to hide the fact that we are alienated from the parts that make us human. If any movie captures Guatama Buddha's realization that all life is suffering, it would be American Beauty. Moreover, this movie captures the sociological significance of triads. Every plot twist, subplot, or character arc is immersed in a relationship, a third person brought in to either relieve the tension, to mediate, or to divide and conquer. The movie is fueled by the complexities born out of one-on-one relationships altered by the dynamics of third-parties. Spacey-Benning, and the King; Spacey's kid, her friend, and Spacy; his kid, the neighbor boy, and Spacey; the neighbor, his dad, and Spacy; hell both families are triads! Look for that when you watch it again, as it is a primer on social dynamics and organization.

Back to the premise of suffering. Every character is sad, looking for release from the cycle of rebirths. Spacey finds it in a buddhist sense: the world is illusory, so why continue to abide by the illusion. His daughter thinks she finds it in love, and perhaps if we could watch on, she would; he boyfriend finds it in love too...or so he thinks. The others are doomed. Mira Sorvino finds it in the attention that Spacey gives her, but it is narcissim and emptiness that fills her; Benning in her career aspirations, which turn out to lack all human qualities (which, incidentally, she lacks to); Chris Cooley, the neighbor, finds it in military discipline, conservative ideology, and patriarchal authority. All of which turn out to be fronts for his real identity. Thus, we have two options: world rejection (as exemplified by Spacey) or love...the movie seems to make a clear choice, or does it?

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-28T07:06:00.001-08:00

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. - Aristotle

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-25T06:08:00.000-08:00

I'm tired of hearing about money, money, money, money, money. I just want to play the game, drink Pepsi, wear Reebok. - Shaq

Top 120 Movies, Continued

2009-11-24T16:45:00.000-08:00

All of these movies are all comedies that are great, worthy movies. But, they are lacking that very last oomph that the most brilliant comedies have. Some of these might make you say, "What!?! How could Casino be lower than these?" Well, let's face it...this is my list, and I think comedies have long been devalued, so I am ready to give them their due.

79. Trainspotting. A great book by Scottish author Irving Welsh (whose books, by the way are really good, but dark and in Scottish slang). The movie was Ewan McGregor's first real role, and he was brilliant in it. Essentially a movie about heroin, getting off of heroin, and getting back on to it. It is dark, but funny in an English movie sense. If you've never seen it, hit it up.

78. Hot Fuzz. If you don't know Simon Pegg's movies yet, you are severely out of the loop. Pegg is British, I think, and has done two excellent movies: Hot Fuzz and a great zombie parody, Shaun of the Dead. Hot Fuzz is superior for a number of reasons. First, Pegg gives a great British perspective on the American cop genre, mixing and matching every cliche to a point of absurdity. Pegg (Nicholas Angel) is a big city London cop who's arrest record is amazing; so good, the rest of the London force hates him because they make them look bad and are gradually taking work away from them. His punishment: transfer to some small village which has won the best village of the year award annually. Something strange is going on, but everyone assures him it is simply a big city cop bored and trying to make more out of nothing. As all of Pegg's movies do, it devolves rapidly into insanity and brilliant funniness.

77. 40-Year Old Virgin. A great movie that does not get ruined by a shitty love story or a strong first half, weak second half disease (see Wedding Crashers). Not a good name movie, as we never learn anyone's last name beyond Carell's character (Andy Stitzer). However, the supporting cast is awesome. Seth Rogen (who should stick to supporting roles), Paul Rudd (brilliant as a sidekick), Romany Malco, Jane Lynch (from Best in Show), and every other small bit part is so key to this movie's success. The love story is good, but really the memorable scenes are incidental: the speed dating skit, the poker game where Andy talks about sandbag boobs, nearly every electronic stores scene, the bar and using your peripherals, and my favoriate, the ride home with Leslie Mann where she sideswipes a car, has him blow into the breathelizer to start her car, and then throws up on him...always makes me laugh so hard.

76. The Jerk. I will just say this now: I think Steve Martin is good, but overrated in the pantheon of great 70s-80s comedians. Some swear by his movies, and I think The Jerk is good, but I am not prepared to put him in the Chevy Chase early 80s/Bill Murray pantheon. As Navin R. Johnson, Martin inexplicably grows up in a big, southern, poor black family and thinks he is black...except he is so white. He travels to the city where he happens to invent something absurd, makes it rich, but is still a poor person, and then loses all his money. Some great laughs along the way. A solid performance, but nothing that transcends the genre. In my opinion, he is much better in ensembles like Parenthood or Three Amigos.

75. Slap Shot. Mr. Paul Newman...in a hockey movie...a sport no one watches unfortunately. Reeking of the 70s, machoness, and mysogyny it is really a last of its kind. The end of an era. Newman plays Reggie 'Reg' Dunlop an aging coach-player who has lost his chances in the NHL and plays on the Chiefs in a minor league. Full of mostly has-beens and never-weres, Ned Braden is a youngster on the road to the NHL. Except, Braden doesn't seem to want to be there. The team is on the brink of being folded, and Dunlop senses this could be it for him and a whole bunch of other guys. He decides to start emphasize toughness and fighting over skill and scoring -- and, they do start winning, but that is never the point. Mid-season, the Chiefs acquire three brothers each one year apart and wearing super thick black glasses. They use tinfoil on their knuckles, travel with toy trucks and race cars, and have no respect for the game itself. But, they are mean and tough and love Dunlop's plan. If you are easily offended by non-P.C. stuff, this is not your movie...but it is good.

Check out some of the names: Dave 'Killer' Carlson; the Hansen brothers (more on this in a second); Denis Lemieux; Tim 'Dr. Hook' McCracken; Ogie Ogilthorpe; Tommy Hanrahan; Dickie Dunn.

74. Mallrats. Every decade needs a movie or two to capture the ugliness yet nostalgia of a decade. The 80s had John Hughes and his running commentary, but likely peaked with The Breakfast Club. Well, Mallrats is this movie -- though, Clerks in some ways is even more dated. The thing that makes this movie great is that it emphasizes the shift in teenage patterns. In the 80s, every great movie revolved around high school and the problems kids faced in school, with dating, with dances, with drugs...etc. By the 90's the US economy had facilitated the shift from teens as students to teens as consumers. Not that they weren't buying things before, but the massive expansion in the 80s and then 90s brought wealth in unprecedented amounts to a larger chunk of America; coupled with the mushrooming of malls, the advent of the CD and MTV's incessant pushing of music, and Tim Burton's Batman revolutionizing the connection between movies and consumer goods, teenagers became a targeted demographic as never before. Mallrats captures this, as the setting for teenage comedy shifted from the school to the mall (though #70 was a precursor of this). Aside from the sociological implications, some witty dialogue (as always from Smith); good acting by Jason Lee, Shannon Daugherty, Ben Affleck (who is only good as the complete asshole supporting actor guy), and Joey Lauren Adams; and a bright, light, and clean story. Maybe being a teen of the early 90's makes me like this more than it deserves, but it really does connect to the hours I spent wandering the mall aimlessly, buying over priced CDs at Camelot and Sam Goody, and just people watching all day.

73. Blazing Saddles. Mel Brooks' classic cowboy tale. Gene Wilder in full form (has any other actor's strange, early retirement had more of an effect than Wilder's? I miss that guy). A basic story attacking racial discrimination in the workforce, but a farce of epic proportions. Great names: Lili Von Shtupp (the amazing, underrated Madeline Kahn); Hedley Lamarr; Taggart; and Mongo. Phenomenal acting. And, classic Brooks' punchlines delivered in ways only capable of Brooks himself (who plays the altercocker mayor).

72. Dazed and Confused. Another pick because it is my blog. I crave this movie. It is so awesome, so much fun, so nostalgic that I cannot even begin to speak to its merits. Let's see. It has an absurd soundtrack for the greatest rock era ever; so good, it required two cds to cover the entire soundtrack. Second, it has the great coming of age that we all know about: junior high to high school; but, before the PC police, hazing was much more intense and socially acceptable with little involvement by the police. Third, it has some great characters who demonstrate the rare moments (but real in my experience) where drugs, music, and the particular points in time bring together all walks of high school life. You have Ron (who knew that was his name) Slater, the resident pot head, hanging with Randall 'Pink' Floyd the star quarterback; you have Floyd and Pickford, who is the pot dealer/cool guy -- and his awesome stoner girlfriend played by Milla Jovovich; Floyd and his close friend also on the football team, Don Dawson who is sort of into the pot heads, but much closer to Pink and the football team. You have the girl cliques that kind of run together, with Parker Posey stealing the show as the uber-bitch (Darla). You have the football guys who are a little uneasy with the stoners, but really just love getting drunk and having a good time (Benny O'Donnell and Melvin Spivey, afro and all). You have the asshole football player who has failed and is repeating and ultimately gets his comeupance (O'Bannon played by Affleck). You have the graduated dirtbag/cool guy who preys on high school chicks, David Wooderson (Matthew McConaughey). You got the nerds who are friends with Pink and get invited to the big bash (Adam Goldberg steals the show). And, you got the super uncomfortable on screen, which is fitting for his role, soon-to-be ninth grader who Pink befriends, Mitch Kramer. You got all that?

The movie revolves around the last day of school with the primary players becoming seniors and some bit players becoming freshman. The beauty of this movie is that we all remember that last day of school so well; summer is here, no more teachers...no more homework. From there, Pickford's parents find out he was going to throw a big party because they were leaving town; they stay and the rest of the movie is the search for a place to party. So good. So classic. So simple.

71. Brazil. Perhaps the least recognizable of the movies on this list, and one of the most difficult to watch because it is dark, deep, and humerous in a twisted way. Running with the Orwellian 1984 theme, Brazil imagines a futuristic world in which bureaucracy highlights the irrationality of rationality to a tee. The selling points? Terry Gilliam (Monty Python; 12 Monkeys; Time Bandits; Fear and Loathing) directs this movie. If that is not enough, then I am not sure what will suffice. Robert DeNiro appears in perhaps his strangest role; but Jonathan Pryce (Kiera Knightley's father in Pirates of the Carribean) gives a strong performance as the classic 1984/Brave New World character: discontent with modernity, seemingly the only or one of the few aware of the darkness surrounding him, and powerless to do much about it. A beautiful woman, who is cleverly tied into the running plot of bureaucratic mismanagement, is his salvation. Or so he thinks. The movie is long and plodding at times, and you may not believe me when I say it is comedic. But, I think it is a masterpiece; a sociological innovation.

70. Fast Times at Ridgemont High."Aloha, my name is Mr. Hand." This movie cannot do anything but make you laugh. The cast is absurd: a young Sean Penn (as Jeff Spicoli); Forest Whitaker (Charles Johnson); Jennifer Jason Leigh (Stacy Hamilton); Judge Reinhold (Brad Hamilton). The other names of interest: Mark 'Rat' Rattner; Mike Damone; Mr. Hand. And, who can forget Phoebe Cates whose diving in and coming out of the pool scene that ends with Reinhold in the bathroom getting caught in perhaps the most embarrassing way any teen male could ever be caught.

Let's see...where do we begin? How about the job Brad has where he has to where the pirate suit? Or, the VW bus that Spicoli et al. roll up in, open the door with smoke billowing out, and fall out of? Or every scene with Spicoli and Mr. Hand? Or the mall scenes, where Damone (who scalps concert tickets to some seriously dated bands) hangs out at the movie theater where Rattner is a ticket stub tearer? Or, the crappy faux diner that Phoebe and Jason Leigh work at? Or the funny naivete in sex that Phoebe (who pretends to be experienced) feeds to Stacy? Or the older guy taking out the younger girl and trying to get in her pants scene? Or the guy fumbling with the bra? Every single coming of age cliche is here, but the movie puts it all together! And, its re-watchability is definitely above a 5 out of 10, closing in on a 7. I love this movie!

Morning Cup 'O' Joe

2009-11-24T07:18:00.000-08:00

Strangely, I have been silent the last few days on matters of importance beside my countdown from the 120th greatest movie you should watch to the first...why? There have certainly been stories to address: the Senate health care vote for debate; the stretching of the truth in Palin's new book; the impending decision on Afghanistan; the fact that Allen Iverson's 3,000 useless Grizzlies jerseys are being sent to Tanzania to be distributed amongst the people (instantly making AI the biggest basketball star in Tanzania); and the recent stink made by the Catholic bishops about preventing Catholic politicians from taking communion if they are pro-choice.

But today, I would like to consider Global Warming, because I just finished reading a nonsensical article about how scientists have been 'cooking the books' (no pun intended) to make it seem as if there will be a rapid increase in temperature near the end of the 20th century. I am not sure whether he is right or wrong, or whether the hacked emails expressing doubt or discussing ways to fudge the data are genuine or not, but this is besides the point. It does not take a scientist to recognize things are out of whack and that humans leave massive ecological footprints, some of which can be slowed down to prevent massive harm.

Case in point: hunters and gatherers, some 13,000+ years ago, routinely exhausted the food supply in their area to the point where the foods lowest on their list of preferences (and yes, they could list what they liked and yes the best foods were typically the sweetest and fattiest available...like, savanna McDonald's) were all that remained. At that point they would pick up and move to the next spot on their seasonal/migrational rotation. Now, humans then were probably in the order of 1 to 4 million total spread out of the entire Earth. Fast forward 13,000 years and there are almost 7 billion. I had McDonald's the other day, and it always strikes me when I eat fast food just how bad things really are: for every egg mcmuffin sold, and how many do you think are sold daily, one egg must be consumed. If there are ten people eating, two or three chickens can suffice; if there are ten people ordering a mcmuffin every ten minutes at one McDonalds aggregated over 4 to 5,000 nationwide, you get my drift. We are living beyond the Earth's means, and while genetic engineering of food to increase its output seems plausible, I am not sure if I am ready to be the guinea pig for a science experiment (e.g., think about how the use of fluorocarbons, Styrofoam, and thalidomide worked out!).

Ok, this was just about the absurd need to eat food. How about waste? If 10 people eat an animal and throw its carcass out, scavengers finish off some of it and then it decomposes. If 350 million people are eating McDonalds which likely slaughters 100s of cattle every day, where do they go? And, when you concentrate thousands of cows, pigs, or chickens in a small, dense environment, the shit is condensed, so is the methane, and the water tables below are screwed. Just look at any early urban environment in Egypt, China, or Mesopotamia before sanitation was invented...Every item you buy comes with an inordinate amount of packaging that you toss away, right? That shit does not decompose. Every time you start your car and drive it, fossil fuels are gone and carbon monoxide is let out into the air.

How can anyone begin to assume, just with this anecdotal evidence, that humans are not impacting their environment in adverse ways? The evidence is overwhelming. In Los Angeles, and its neighboring counties Riverside and San Bernardino where three or four of the top ten most smoggy cities are, asthma rates are through the roof for children; this data is correlated to other polluted cities like Houston and their children's asthma rates. When I look up and cannot see the stars, buildings from 1000 feet, or the moon my common sense kicks in a says, wow this must have some effect on our ecological system because everything is connected. But, I suppose some don't use common sense. How about the fact that the polar ice caps will be completely melted within 30 years, only being frozen during certain months of the year? Well, it could be a natural warming cycle you might argue...but, we do now, with no fancy statistical techniques needed, that since fossil fuels first started being used for railroads, temperatures have gone up in relation to the amount of fossil fuels being burned. Not iron clad by any means, but certainly enough to tell me we should do something.

The age old historical question my students always ask is: why do people only respond during crises to their environment when foresight could have saved them? I tell them the famous Easter Island story to try and analogize to the US. There were competing chiefdoms on the Easter Islands who had decided that their prestige battle could no longer be fought by throwing bigger and bigger feasts -- (in the Pacific Northwest, Native American chiefs, like Polynesian chiefs, would collect food from their subjects all year just so they could give more stuff away at pot-latches than their rivals could...this brought them prestige, even if it brougt them 'poverty'). A drought set in that was puzzling to the chiefs, and the duel solution meant to please the gods and bring them prestige was to build those famous statues that still sit on the beaches and edges of the island. A veritable 'arms race' ensued to build the biggest statues and accrue the most prestige. Unfortunately, this simple decision sealed their fate. The stone to build the statues existed in the center of the island. Having no cranes or trucks, they faced the dilemma of moving them from the middle to the periphery. The solution came from cutting trees and rolling these massive stones to the edges. Unintentionally, they cut down the entire forest, killed their food source whose resource niche was lost in the deforestation of the island, and extinguished their own existence after a brief bout of cannibalism. No, I like to think we have learned from societies like theirs mistakes. But, my students are correct in assuming we haven't. Because ideological notions of what is and isn't happening, and beliefs in evidence vary, and interests are vested to oppose something like environmental engineering (most notably by those destroying the Earth), people only act when they are truly forced to. Unfortunately, those opposed to action are never around when things reach their worst.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-24T06:46:00.001-08:00

What ordinary men are directly aware of and what they try to do are bounded by the private orbits in which they live; their visions and their powers are limited. - C. Wright Mills

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-23T06:20:00.000-08:00

What else can human nature be than a trait of the primary group? Surely not an attribute of the separate individual--supposing there were any such thing--since its characteristics, such as affection, ambition, vanity, and resentment, are inconceivable apart from society. If it belongs, then, to man in association, what kind or degree of association is required to develop it? Evidently nothing elaborate, because elaborate phases of society are transient and diverse, while human nature is comparatively stable and universal. In short the family and neighborhood life is essential to its genesis and nothing more is - Charles Cooley

Top 120 Movies Continued

2009-11-22T16:43:00.000-08:00

89. Immortal Beloved. A movie about Beethoven. Delicate, powerful, and a rare specimen as "biopics" tend to play poorly in my opinion. The biggest problem is the overestimation of individual people's worth. But, this movie was done well. Gary Oldman does a great job as Beethoven, and the most powerful scene occurs when he walks out to "hear" his Ninth Symphony being performed...amazing the man was so talented but could never hear his own masterpiece.

88. Raging Bull. Enter Robert DeNiro. A phenomenal actor who has done better for himself than Al Pacino, the closest actor in talent. Unfortunately, they have both headed the same direction: towards playing themselves over and over again. Anyway, this is a great Scorsese flick done in black and white about Jake La Motta a former boxer and his life. Little known aside, the real La Motta co-wrote the screenplay. Which is pretty cool. Anyway, this movie continues a great relationship between Scorsese and DeNiro, in which it netted DeNiro a much deserved Oscar for his performance. Unfortunately, it rates this low on the list because it is a tough movie to re-watch over and over, because it is slow at times and lacks a ton of action.

87. Natural Born Killers. If Tarantino had directed this movie, as he regrets now, it would have been even better in my opinion. But, hey, we can have everything we want, right? Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis are superb in a movie that was prescient about the decadence US society gradually descending towards. Good music, good cinematography, and good direction add to the Tarantino script. The movie embraces madness and violence in comedic, yet dark ways. Unlike the Coen brothers who have built a career demonstrating the senselessness and comedic or ironic nature of real violence, this movie shows the happier side of violence, from the killers' perspective. It also asks the Coen brother's question about the meaning of life where violence and suffering are normal, but has very different methods of answering it. Take, as a perfect example, the scene with Rodney Dangerfield as Juliette Lewis' dad. The blurring of lines between television and life are never approached any better than there.

86. The Rope. The only Hitchcock movie on here, and perhaps an unknown and surprising movie for many of you. I like Birds and, especially, Rear Window, but the Rope as a film is awesome. First off, the whole movie takes place in a single apartment.intensifying the already claustrophobic feel Hitchcock tends to bring. In fact, the movie is nearly all shot in the living room. Second, like a rope, the film starts and does not stop until the very end. In other words, aside from changing the reel in the camera, Hitchcock uses one camera and the action does not stop once. When characters move rooms, the camera moves with them...but, not like a handheld camera because the goal is not to feel like you are there, but that you are a voyeur. The film starts with a couple of upper class college guys who are suffer from ennui due to their money and lack of unique thrills. Killing somebody seems to be the answer: a thrill money cannot buy, that is beyond anything they have seen or felt, and a challenge in world where everything has already been handed to them. To enhance the challenge, they hide the body in a chest in the living room that they cover with a linen and put the food on. The "leader' is supremely confident they will succeed and even engages is discussion with some of the guests regarding the morality of killing. The other guys are not too sure. Anyway, the movie goes on, guests arrive -- including the dead guys fiancee and her parents...you can see why there is amazing tension and why this movie deserves to be on this list and watched by all. I won't ruin it, but you gotta watch it.

85. Misery. Keeping with thrillers and tense movies, how about Kathy Bates and James Caan in a great Steven King novel? Caan, an author, gets into an accident in the snowy woods of New England when Bates finds him and takes care of him. She, of course, is his number 1 fan. The new book he is writing is not up to her standards as a character is killed off that she doesn't want to be killed off. She wants him to rewrite. The scene where she mangles his legs to keep him from running or leaving is unreal. So normal it feels like it could happen to anyone. Bates won an Oscar for her role and Caan may have deserved one too.

84. Zelig. Woody Allen strikes again. This is a black and white flick and again a creative way of telling a story. It is documentary style, with Zelig being a guy who does not appear to have any personality of his own. Allen doctored old footage (before computers) so that Zelig seems to appear all over the place (i.e., in Germany at a Nazi rally next to Hitler), and he seems to change his persona wherever he goes and whoever he is with. Mia Farrow places a psychiatrist committed to digging into his psyche to find out who Zelig really is and relieve him of the overwhelming need to be liked by everyone and to fit in. This movie is great on so many levels, especially if you like Woody Allen. But, even if he is not your favorite, it is not standard Allen fare, so it may cross over to something more your style.

83. Ray. I hate Jaime Foxx. He cannot sing that well; his music is junk; and he normally appears in terrible movies with other terrible actors. But, I must hand it to him. The only other biopic you'll see on this list, but deservedly so. Ray chronicles the rise of Ray Charles and his life. Foxx spent 6 months before Ray died in real life, learning to play piano and sing from Charles himself. He would glue his eyes shut for days at a time to learn what it felt like to be blind. Needless to say, Foxx is supremely convincing and as with any movie well acted, you are convinced that he is Ray by the end. Sad at times, the movie never goes overboard with telling the story. And, I forgot how good Charles music was and how revolutionary it was at the time.

82. Blades of Glory. Will Ferrell. Jon Heder. Will Arnett. Amy Poehler. And, does it pass the names test? You bet. Ferrell as Chazz Michaels Michaels; Heder as Jimmy MacElroy; Arnett and Poehler as Stranz and Fairchild Van Waldenberg; Craig T Nelson as Coach. All classic names, especially Ferrell. Not his best, and probably bordering on the point where his shtick is getting old, Ferrell's farce about ice skating is awesome. The scene after he is fired and doing shows on ice as a wizard, but he is completely hammered are awesome. And, the Van Waldenberg's steal the show with their quasi-incestuous innuendo. I love this movie because it makes me laugh.

81. Zoolander. I debated about this movie, because it is good, almost great...but I have always had my reservations. Does it pass the "name" test? Derek Zoolander; Hansel (Owen Wilson); Mugatu (Ferrell); Matilda Jeffries; Maury Ballstein; Olga the Masseuse (Andy Dick is always a good addition). Not the top names, but clear thought. What are the secondary criteria? Memorable scenes? Absolutely. When Derek, Matilda, and Hansel hang out at his house and take a bunch of hallucinogens; or, the Dance Off; or the Break Dance fight; or the four models having a gasoline fight. A few others also stand out, but you get the point. Memorable lines? Where Will Ferrell is, this criterion is always filled. Cameos? David Bowie; Christian Slater; Natalie Portman; Gary Shandling; etc. So, in the face of overwhelming evidence, this movie does stand stronger than I would have first expected. Personally, I rarely re-watch it, but I am willing to concede it is indeed re-watchable and it is well liked beyond just being a comedy.

80. Casino. You will not see the Departed on this list because the ending sucked. And, I can promise you Goodfellas is here, but much higher up. Casino is like The Godfather meets Goodfellas, but too long. Great performances all around: Sharon Stone; DeNiro; and Joe Pesci to name three, but don't ignore James Wood or Kevin Pollack. Here is why I place it so high, despite it being a classically great movie: it is a standard Scorsese flick that does everything really well, but nothing stands out aside from the acting...but, most of his movies manage to squeeze the best out of his actors, especially with alum like Pesci and DeNiro. So why is it any better than his other ones? It isn't. Like Woody Allen who produces so many movies, we are spoiled and his average flicks would be many other directors masterpieces, Scorsese produces a ton of really good movies, but I am not comfortable just putting them all in the top 50 or 20. There are too many other really good flicks to see. So, watch Casino. Enjoy. Relish Stone in a non-over-sexed role...and remember how good DeNiro was.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-20T06:20:00.000-08:00

Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand. - From Brave New World

Top 120 Movies, Continued

2009-11-19T20:21:00.000-08:00

We have reached the first installment in top 100! These movies are on the cusp of greatness for various reasons. I love all 10 of them, and strongly urge you to check 'em out.

99. Finding Neverland. Is it me, or is Johnny Depp really one of the best character actors in the history of humankind? For those that do not know, this movie is about the writer of Peter Pan, James Matthew Barrie, and his search for inspiration. Of course, his life is dull and tiresome as he deals with being in the middle class of Victorian England; he yearns for his own freedom from the constraints put on him by genteel society. His wife, a status seeker looking for upward social mobility, only makes things worse for him. He is the true artist...yearning for what he doesn't have, while having it pretty good.

He meets a family, sans father, and immediately takes to them. He has no ill intentions towards the widow, but Victorian society cannot understand his obsession with spending time as a surrogate dad/friend to the children and the widow. A rare movie that I would recommend that tugs at the heart strings in predictable Hollywood fashion. I suppose Depp saves the movie, though Kate Winslet pulls her weight.

98. Spies Like Us. Yes!! The first Chevy Chase flick...and Dan Aykroyd. The name test: Chevy as Emmett Fitz-Hume; Aykroyd as Austin Millbarge. Two great fake CIA names! The cast is awesome, with some very memorable scenes. First, the scene where Fitz-Hume and Millbarge meet: taking an exam to move up in the government ranks, Millbarge the anal, studious test taker finds himself late and sitting next to Fitz-Hume the slacker. Fitz-Hume has arrived with an eye-patch, a fake broken arm, and cheat sheets in every orifice and hiding spot possible. (Frank Oz, the voice of Kermit and Yoda is the test proctor). Fitz-Hume, realizing he cannot pass it, fakes a heart attack while Millbarge tries to save him thinking he really is in trouble.

Other classics. Every scene with the General, played by Tom Hatten is awesome. His seriousness is key to good comedy as everything else is incongruous he is playing the standard cold war general. The scene where Fitz-Hume and Millbarge meet the doctors in Afghanistan...Doctor, Doctor...Doctor, Doctor...awesome. And, I laugh everytime they go into training. Not Chase or Aykroyds best, but so good.

97. The Neverending Story. What do I have to say about this movie that you do not already know? In the childrens-fantasy-yet-adult category, a story that is eternally great. I refuse to ruin it for those who have never seen it, or rehash what those who have already know. Watch it.

96. Melinda and Melinda. Woody Allen at his cleverest. A strange cast, with Will Ferrell being the only person aside from Amanda Peet of real note. Set in a restaurant, some good screen writer/director friends are hanging out debating the classic Allen (stolen from Ernest Borgnine and, of course, the Greeks) question: are all stories really comedies and tragedies depending upon the perspective? Of course, all movies and stories must decide this at some point, but what if the same story was told from both angles? Allen proceeds to have both storytellers at the table build a story about a girl named Melinda; one a comedy, the other a tragedy. But, in standard Allen fashion, by the end, the viewer is still unsure which is the comedy and which is the tragedy. In life, what is ironic can often be construed either way. An overlooked Allen movie, and a great vehicle for Ferrell to not be funny. Many of Allen's life long themes are here, but the stories and the creative way he spins them dominate the movie hiding the redundancies that are the primary source of his bad movies failing.

95. Gran Turino. Clint Eastwood's most recent installment. I know it is said often, but think about this. A guy goes from being the lead character with no name in a trilogy of westerns, then follows this up with alternating westerns and vigilante cop movies, then some terrible comedy efforts (Every Which Way But Loose). Out of the murkiness of the '80s, he writes/directs/stars in The Unforgiven, one of the greatest movies ever made and he hasn't looked back since. I do not think Million Dollar Baby deserved the acclaim, but still, his career arc is unreal. Gran Turino uncoincidentally takes place in Detroit, MI, where Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) has lived nearly his whole life. Representative of the working class in the entire US, Kowalski's name speaks of early twentieth century immigrant parents (likely from Poland), again pointing to the historical trajectory of an immigrant people and their success through hard work. He stands for everything lost among the heterogeneity of a highly diverse and complex American society; his beautifully kept Gran Turino represents the lost halycon days of US manufacturing might, of the craftsmanship that the US was once known for, and at the same time, the disappearance of an entire sector of the economy and with it the jobs, livelihood, and security of the entire working class.

Exacerbating this are two intersecting trends. On the one hand, Kowalski's children are soft, white collar types who have little time for their father, nor do they understand his choice to remain in the city of Detroit. Of course, he is Korean war vet who was likely the patriarchal version of father -- lacking close ties with his kids and lacking emotions. At the same time, the neighborhood he raised his kids in has become Hmong (a Chinese ethnic group found in Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and Burma). He is separated emotionally from his children, physically from his wife (whose dead), symbolically and ethnically from his neighbors. The ultimate irony is that he spends so much time denigrating the Hmong only to find that the kid he befriends has every bit of a work ethic as he did, and acts like any Eastern/Southern European immigrant every acted. The affinity he finds with this kid, as painfully opposed to his own kids, is amazing and so out of place as the neighborhood and everything else around him seems to be decaying. Sad ending...sort of; good movie...definitely.

94. The Three Amigos. The name test. Lucky Day (Steve Martin); Dusty Bottoms (Chevy Chase); Ned Nederlander (Martin Short); El Guapo (the enemy); Jefe (his right hand man); the German (enemy); Harry Flugleman (studio exec played by Joe Mantegna). Awesome all around. Especially the bad guys. This movies humor is not as sharp as some of the solo projects the all-stars did, but damn, who denies the Singing Bush and the Invisible Swordsman wasn't the funniest thing? Or, what about when they break into the studio with Steve Martin doing the best bird calls..."Hey you...look up here...look up here!" Brilliant.

And, in great eighties fashion, the enemies were absurd stereotypes of Mexicans and Germans. While un-P.C., stereotypes go a real long way in comedy. Comedy is the irony behind incongruent elements of social life, and stereotypes are always paradoxical (the lazy Mexican always put up against the hard working, four job having Mexican...no one can win!). This is a delightful movie, and I think that word delightful was invented simply for this movie.

93. The Man on the Moon. Jim Carrey being a real actor...hard to believe, but true. Moreover, Courtney Love off drugs and actually convincingly good for a few minutes. A little too long, but a great story about Andy Kaufmann that does little to settle the real debate: was he insane, a genius, accidently funny, or a guy with a good schtick? Kaufmann is a mystery, and Carrey's portrayal (especially when one can watch Kaufmann's old SNL routines on DVD finally) is dead-on. Perhaps even underrated. I liked it because it was a good character study that actually enveloped Carrey's usual larger than screen, larger than role acting. No rubber face or crazy movement; just Kaufmann. Just the dark, confused slash impish grin and eyes.I actually think this movie changed Carrey's career for the best.

92. The Mighty Aphrodite. What, another Woody Allen flick? Yes...it's my list, so too bad. This movie is great on so many levels, and it is great because Allen used a different style to tell a somewhat familiar story of his: smart, older man meets naive, nearly stupid girl; attempts to raise her up. The key to the movie is the use of old Greek device of having a chorus tell part of the story, narrate to the audience, and provide some unique space in the story. Mira Sorvino won an Oscar for her role and deservedly so. She really plays the Hooker with the Heart of Gold perfectly.

91. Pirates of the Caribbean. The rare Hollywood blockbuster makes this list. Harkening back to the ol' swashbuckiling flicks of yore, Depp revives (forget the sequels...they were terrible) a great genre that every little boy grew up loving. What makes this movie great is that it combines a really good story, with superb acting from Depp and Geoffrey Rush (who, by the way was in a great movie called Shine that was about a pianist who was a savant, but totally crushed by real life...not making the list, but worth a check out). Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly are good, but the supporting cast is much better. Jonathan Pryce (from Brazil) was great as the gov'nor, Lee Arnberg and British Office alum Mackenzie Crook as the two supporting pirates, and Jack Davenport as Norrington were all great at playing their roles.

Key to this movie was the way that no one took it too seriously. Russell Crowe, in every movie he makes, is so serious that he ruins the movie. Master in Commander is a great example of his nonsense. Depp brings his strange idiosyncratic behaviors culled from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and adds some cool Blackbeard stuff. I swear, when I watch it I can just make out that coconut smell you get on the ride at Disneyland as you turn the corner from the restaurant.

90. Tombstone. Aside from the cheesy scene where Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) walks across the water and no one can shoot him, this is a badass movie. Val Kilmer is perfect as Doc Holiday..."I'll be your huckleberry." Johnny Ringo, Ike, and Sam Eliot all stand out. The Shootout at the O.K. Corrall is awesome; the dialogue is memorable and quotable; and regardless of what you think, Russell is a macho mofo and Kilmer is the coolest dude in the west. Watch this...over and over and over again. You know you wish you were Earp or Holiday. The question I have to ask is, if you identify with one of them ove rthe other, what does that say?

Top 120 Movies Continued

2009-11-19T16:03:00.000-08:00

This next set of movies are all great flicks, but are flawed in one way or the next. Ultimately, there are key criteria making a movie truly great. For a comedy, for instance, it has to be re-watchable over and over...like Caddyshack. Where the lines are truly epic, the performances timeless, and the story doesn't get in the way too much (e.g., no love story to water the jokes down!). Dramas are similar, but they require universal themes that touch the soul and the mind over and over. It is really hard to think Titanic does anything other than play to the most worn out Hollywood themes...alas...More important for Dramas, though, is their realism. I want to identify with the characters to the bitter end. I don't want victory where it is inappropriate or unlikely; I don't want defeat simply to tug at my heart strings; I don't want happily ever after when real circumstances would prevent it. I want pure, realistic outcomes. The ending destroys more dramas than anything else.

109. Major League. Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger, Corbin Bernsen, Rene Russo, and the immortal Bob Uecker calling play-by-play. And who can forget pre-steroid era Wesley Snipes as Willy "Mays" Hayes? A great comedy by any standards with all of the classic sports cliches. Underdog, left for dead, finds a common focus and emotional center to rally to become winners. The best parts of this movie, though, are the fact we never learn whether they win the championship because we only see them win the one game playoff against the dreaded Yankees to go to the playoffs. How many memorable events though were in this movie? Willie Mays Hayes waking up during spring training and finding his bed having been moved to the parking lot because he wasn't invited; jumping the fence and winning a speed race he got into late. Or, any scene with the big slugger Cerrano from some unknown Carribean nation where voodoo was practiced juxtaposed against the aging, crafty left hander who was a hardcore Christian. What puts this flick, unfortunately, at the upper range of movies, is its overall weakness in dialogue, lack of large amounts of memorable lines, and a misuse of a really good cast. Don't get me wrong, good comedy, but no where near the best.

108. Austin Powers. Oh no, not this movie this high! Yes, this movie this high. Watch it again. It does not stand up against the passage of time. Why? Well, he had to go and make two more which were funny, but essentially redid some of the best jokes to the point where the first one lost its greatness. Of course, Dr. Evil steals the show, but the uneveness across the sequels effects the other characters. For instance, the Rob Lowe version of Number 2 is way better than the older version; Mini Me is great in the second one, but terrible in the third; Austin's love interest is better as Elizabeth Hurley who is more like a Bond girl than Heather Graham or...Beyonce (what the hell were they thinking!?!). But, it was a good movie and a good comedy and really is the pinnacle of Mike Myer's humor.

107. Born on the 4th of July. When I started compiling this list, a few actors were not going to make the cut no matter what. Nicholas Cage...like Zoolander, he has only one look; Russell Crowe (overrated and terrible); Leo DiCraprio (super overrated and boring); any of the numerous blond actresses always doing period pieces and really just the same girl with different eye color and hip width (see Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Blanchett, Kate Hudson); any singer, rapper, or "artist" turned actor (sorry Ice Cube and J-Lo); Robert Redford and that class of boring old actors who do stupid romance movies; Matt Damon (I can only think of Team America when I think of him); and Denzel (not because I dislike him, but because I couldn't think of a great movie he was in aside from Training Day, and that was way more hyped than it should be.

The other name I thought of...Tom Cruise. I hate Tom Cruise. But, surprisingly he is on this list two or three times, because just when he does a string of shit movies meant to sell him, he ends up in a great role. This movie, Born of the 4th of July is that type of movie. Unwatchable a second time because of its length, intensity, and pace, this flick is worth a look. Classic Oliver Stone without the conspiracy. Rather, he handles a serious subject relevant today: what do we do with vets and why don't we treat them better? Check it out.

106. The Exorcist. Who doesn't like this movie? Scared me when I was a kid. Scared me when I watched it this last Halloween. Well written; well acted; lacking the absurdity that accompanies movies like this. I don't even know if there is subtext because it is so entertaining.

105. Gangs of New York. Wait, didn't I say Leo DiCraprio was not on the list? Well, this movie was great despite him because of Daniel Day-Lewis. The best actor of our time with the least amount of play (retiring for so long didn't help). Great period piece that should have won the Oscar because it was well directed, well acted, and beautifully shot. Better yet, it captured the real conflict between classes that was so explicit in old New York City both in visual terms and in the way the north was drafting for the Civil War. Scorsese is overrated, in my opinion, but movies like this are so good and so powerful, and so sweet, that I deny the statement I just made. Unwatchable over and over because it is long, and it does drag, and really, Leo DiCraprio paired with Cameron Diaz (another terrible actress) kinda makes me sick.

104. Boogie Nights. Awesome movie for about 1:45, then it becomes unfocused, unwatchable, and a mishmosh of fact, fiction, and nonsense. How awesome is the scene at Jack Horner's (Burt Reynold) house when Dirk Diggler (Marky Mark) meets Reed Rothchild (John C. Reilly)? Two things stand out. First, every great comedy or movie bordering on comedy requires great character names. A movie with bad character names is going to not be funny. Case in point: would you rather see a movie that had characters named John Beckwith, Jeremy Grey, Claire Cleary, and Zachary 'Sack' Lodge, or one with Horner, Diggler, Rothchild, Amber Waves, Buck Swope, Little Bill, The Colonel James, and Scotty J? The obvious choice is the latter, right? And, if you think it was easy for the writers of Boogie Nights to come up with good names because it was a faux porno, think again. The running theme in comedies will be names; I guarantee 99% of the time, good names = good comedy.

Ok, on to the movie. Here is the deal. It is too long, like most of these movies. Great beginning, great arc, and then it falls flat once Dirk and porn face the VHS revolution of the '80s. The characters are all really good, especially a surprising role by Julianne Moore (one of the best and most underrated actress of our generation). Don Cheadle cuts his teeth here as does Luiz Guzman (a really funny guy) as the token minority porn actors. The whole premise is great and cheesy in a classy way.

103. Scream. John Carpenter may be the best horror genius, but I would argue Wes Craven is 1A. The People Under the Stairs and the Nightmare on Elm Street series (save for #2) were classic horror movies, with the former being truly frightening in a real way. Scream, though, is his masterpiece. A scary movie that is aware of itself and the whole genre. An insiders look at a genre that is often considered silly and often left for dead, but which keeps coming back every 5 to 10 years with a vengeance. The actors are ok...classic teens in a movie waiting to die. The plot twists are great. And, the self-reflexive script is phenomenal. A must see even for those who do not like horror.

102. The Wrestler. Welcome back Mickey Rourke. What a good movie, huh? I loved this the minute I saw it. The opening scene with him finding his trailer locked and having to sleep like a dirt bag in his van. As a kid growing up watching wrestling, I was always aware of those lower circuit "off-broadway" wrestling leagues, but here was the rock bottom. But, you had to feel for his character. Wrestling was his trade, but like any other person who loses what they once had that made them successful, yet knows nothing else (or cannot even imagine anything else), his story was tragic in a human way. The scenes as a deli clerk are so perfect, as he walks down the hall to meet the customers as if he is walking out of the locker room to throngs of waiting fans...yet, the disparity between wrestling and cutting deli meat is so distinct. Again, not a re-watchable movie because it doesn't have that extra special something, but so very good.

101. About Schmidt. Enter the man...Jack Nicholson. Where do we even begin? In some ways it is sad to see him aging and playing roles that seem to fit his real life problems (e.g., The Pledge and Bucket List). But, he is so good in this movie I can ignore it. Essentially, he plays a guy who has worked his whole life as an insurance salesman in Kansas (I think), and we enter into his life just as he is retiring after 40 years. He has to adjust to being home with his wife all the time, which is unnerving. And, to make things worse, his only child -- a girl -- is getting married to some strange dude who he hates because he is hippie-ish dorky. His wife dies nearly immediately after he retires...and, he is suddenly thrust into a state of anomie -- or directionless, normless, lawlessness. No one to talk to, his daughter living in Portland and having had little of a relationship with him, Jack looks to make peace with his existence and perhaps live more than he had been. Kathy Bates plays the mother-in-law to be (and does so awesomely), and that guy from WKRP in Cincinnati who was also the teacher in Head of the Class plays the father-in-law to be who is divorced from Bates. Very funny interactions with these people, and the contrasts between the middle of America and the Northwest are brilliantly exaggerated. Why can you not re-watch it? Well, you can. But, it is a very sad and empty movie in the sense that you feel only Jack's pain as he seems so lost. The movie never reconciles this, which is one of its strong features, so don't expect to walk out of it feeling great. It is on this list because Jack has done way better, and this type of sadness while a good emotion at times, is too painful to warrant higher mention.

100. Say Anything. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. John Cusak! I love that guy too. This movie sums up the '80s in so many ways. He is a borderline loser/nerd (standard 80's Cusak); his dreams and hopes are realistic, but his means to reaching them seem impossible. He is the classic nice guy who finishes last, but unlike some cliched movies, he seems genuine in his portrayal. As if Cusak really is that guy in real life...And, if you can name a more awesome scene than the one where Lloyd Dobler (Cusak...and also a great character name) blasts Peter Gabriel's In Your Eyes out of a boombox in his overcoat as he tries to win back his ex-girlfriend. Iconic? Indeed. A great movie all around. re-watchable, but not quite a classic in the top 100 sense of the word.

Top 120 Greatest Movies Of All-Time

2009-11-19T09:08:00.000-08:00

It is time to settle debates...all of them. I realize many people like movies. But, do you like the right ones? Are you really going to the right flicks or are you just another Titanic lover with little taste in movies? Did you root for Shakespeare in Love when Saving Private Ryan was a superior movie in acting, direction, story, and quality? Well, I am going to give you my top 100 in order of worst to best (and worst means superior to the crap beneath it). You might be asking yourself, though, why does Emile like movies when he rants about celebrities. I like good stories, convincing portrayals, and unique and thought-provoking ideas. That means I don't like Avatar already, or any thing with Jennifer Lopez, or anything that follows the nonsensical formulas of Hollywood. I hate Nicholas Cage (save for a very early flick which is on the list), because he is like Ben Stiller in Zoolander: he has only one look! Thus, to save you from having to think about these things, I am gonna count down with reasons for each choice. Comedies are in because the worst crime ever committed by the film industry was to underestimate, deny oscars to, and generally ignore comedic performances. I would say, not to spoil this, that the performances in Caddyshack by the four main characters are equal to any thespian on broadway...the point: they are truly convincing in their roles, fully embracing, and when you watch them, the actors embody the characters beyond what most of the Gwenyth Paltrow's and Leo DiCraprio's can do. More over writing a great comedy is not easy as demonstrated by the large number of American Pies and Harold and Kumars versus great comedies; it takes a very special genius to write a great piece of satire, to get a director who can truly do it right without being cheesy, and a cast who understand the way it works.

So, feel free to comment, disagree, agree, criticize...whatever...but, I strongly urge you to watch them in the order I present them as the beauty of film will crescendo! So without further ado, here are the first 10:

120. Casablanca. I am not going to pull punches here: I am not a big fan of classic movies because I think (a) too many modern movies are superior, (b) old movies tend to be much cheesier than the best of today, and (c) the dialogue typically is crappy. Just like sports (except for baseball) where athletes today are far superior because of incessant weightlifting, nutrition, and supplements, movies today are just better. It takes time for something to be perfected. So, I start the list with two classics worth watching because they are good movies. Casablanca, the standard Humphrey Bogart movies is not a bad movie. The scenes in the bar are good, but the ending is pretty damn cheesy. If you had never watched movies before, or seen anything with production value, I can understand why this movie would have been considered so epic. But, please...watch it. Enjoy it.

119. Citizen Kane. Now, this is a great movie. I will not even dispute it or attack it, because the story is good, the acting is good, the dialogue is good...and while the editing is that annoying 50's editing, the film absolutely stands up. It is really a critique of the unyielding lust for more and more and more. On the one hand, the most important and powerful people are never satisfied to sit on their laurels. On the other hand, the constant quest for more, for bigger, for better, for newer leads one to their Xanadu...or their lonely fortress. Perhaps an illusion, or perhaps a real psychological and physical state. Regardless, the ending is classic, important, relevant, and beautiful in its simplicity and its power. If you don't watch anything else on this list, watch this.

118. Alien. The epic Sigourney Weaver flick that not only included the only known woman in the history of society named Sigourney, but it undoubtedly launched a period of bald-headed women who looked good. But, you had to be fighting against evil to truly pull that look off, so Britney, my apologies but cracking up is not a good enough reason. In all seriousness, this movie has an important subtext that challenges the modern version of capitalism. Weaver works for the "Company," hauling ore from planet to planet when her ship gets a strange SOS signal. She and a small crew board a ship upon which they find a very dead alien...because of which Ripley (Weaver) realizes its time to go. She is talked out of it by the science officer, and shit gets out of control. Underlying the entire movie it the lack of ethics displayed by the modern corporation, and more importantly, its true lack of concern for its own employees and perhaps all human life outside of consumers. Ripley and the crew are merely pawns used to acquire a specimen of alien to perhaps harness as a military weapon or for its technologically advanced exoskeleton. It becomes fairly obvious that the mining operation had darker implications. I give this movie 4 out of 5 in general, but I promise you it is worth a watch. Really well acted; dark plot; and deep thoughts.

117. Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Sticking with our horror flick run, I nominate this movie as one of the most important horror movies ever, and clearly one you should watch. Filmed in 1973, before the slasher flick genre, this movie maintains a strong sense of realism and true horror as it tackles the truly human problems associated with economic change in capitalist societies. The switch from human labor to the mechanization of factories that had already been occurring for years, but which became much quicker in the '70s, was having unimaginable effects on the most vulnerable peoples in the U.S. The working class, always on the precipice of poverty and starvation, was losing their once valued positions in the American economy. No one seemed to care, because the professional class, the middle-upper class, and other high end classes were protected through wealth (investments; housing equity; etc.). Even today, the most vulnerable group aside from what we call the "underclass," or those peoples who practically don't exist in our government collected statistics, is the working class who no longer get benefits, pensions, or job security. And re-educating a relatively uneducated class is nearly impossible. Anyway...this movie takes place in Texas during the recession of the early '70s when a group of hippie teenagers are driving. They end up stopping near an abandoned house and hanging out there for a bit, when the shit hits the fan. I won't tell you anymore about the movie, but let me quickly discuss the family.

The killers are crazy in any sense of the word. Literally, they represent the mechanization of the cattle slaughtering industry which put tons of people out of work (they mention this a few times I believe, but in passing). The patriarch of the family, or grandpa, is dead...but, kind of alive. He represents the old "contract" between capital and labor. Where a man could earn a living and feed his family...the American dream is on its death knell. The family is run by a matriarch, which represents the fact that families had come to need a woman's efforts equal to her husbands just to survive. The older brother was a sheriff, but a crazy, corrupt, blood thirsty sheriff. Working a job entirely unsuited to his makeup, he abused his authority. Finally, "Leatherface," was insane. No doubts about it. But, why did he wear other people's skin? Was it the shame of being unemployed? Unable to find honest work? Was it because the mechanization of labor had not only dehumanized the work force, but the workers themselves, and the only sense of humanity left was to wear others' masks? You might see this as just a slasher flick, but believe me, it runs much deeper with subtext that is still very relevant today.

116. Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Uh oh! My generations' purists are going to be up in alarm over the placement of their beloved movie this high up. Well, get over it. If you do watch these in the order I present them, this will (a) fit nicely after the macabre it follows and (b) will be delightfully playful, if vacuous. I suppose its "low" ranking derives from the improbability of the entire plot: could anyone possibly do what Ferris and his friends do in Chicago in an eight hour or less period? Not likely, right? So, we are left with a relatively good comedy that will tug at the nostalgic feelings of skipping school, playing sick, or just being a teenager and not digging the fact that everything seemed predestined and constraining. His best friend is the superego to Ferris' id. The dilemma we all faced: how much was too much? How do we become an adult when we still want to have fun? Heck, how do we become an adult when social forces like mandatory education have not allowed us to explore being a teen?

115. Love and Death. Ahhh...the first Woody Allen flick of what will be a long line of Allen flicks. For all of you haters of Woody, too bad. His biggest mistake has been to release a movie a year (which is incredible on many levels) because we have all taken for granted his brilliance. The problem is when he peaks, like in Annie Hall, he is untouchable except for, perhaps, Spielberg or Scorsese. When he flops, it isn't a bad movie, but it isn't much to write home about. His typical output, though, is good, benign, witty, but often redundant in his use of 40 year old running jokes. Love and Death is an underestimated farce...the last of his great 70s comedies. It is really nothing more than a vehicle for Diane Keaton and Woody to play with deep, penetrating dialogue in ironic, sarcastic, and absurd ways. A period piece taking place in Russia during the invasion of Napoleon, Woody Allen is the youngest of a set of brothers who go off to fight in the war, while he resists because he is a pacifist/neurotic -- surprise, huh? The humor is based off of his unrequited love for his cousin (Keaton), which eventually becomes requited but with disastrous consequences. This quote, which is an excellent quote, sums the movie up in classic Allen fashion: "To love is to suffer. To avoid suffering one must not love. But then one suffers from not loving. Therefore, to love is to suffer; not to love is to suffer; to suffer is to suffer. To be happy is to love. To be happy, then, is to suffer, but suffering makes one unhappy. Therefore, to be unhappy, one must love or love to suffer or suffer from too much happiness." Be warned: it is a lighthearted movie, with some depth, but truly just fun.

114. JFK. Maybe this movie would be higher if it wasn't so damn Oliver Stone-long. A great conspiratorial type movie, with very, very good acting. Kevin Costner, in a surprising dynamic role, plays a lawyer trying to piece together the murder, and keeps finding it is much more complex then he anticipated. I have little else to say, other than political buffs, historical junkies, and those who like good performances should watch this.

113. Broken Flowers. It is always strange to see someone transition from doing one type of role/acting to another. Bill Murray, who I love as a comedian, made this transition in the more popular Lost in Translation...which will not be on this list because I really think Scarlett is not very good, and I think this movie is better and so are his other flicks. An obscure movie, Broken Flowers is about an older life-long bachelor trying to piece together the meaning of life (loosely based on Don Juan). He goes on a wild goose chase, which I am sure you can grasp the meaning of, in search of his elusive youth. His ex-girlfriends are all supremely talented actresses in their roles, and Murray plays the perfect older guy going through a mid-life crisis, but staying calm. The music is exceptional, and while I rarely push music as a key to selling a flick, the music is excellent...and about as obscure as the movie itself. I will admit you may not like it the first time, but as with the other movies on this list, I will always let you know when a movie may need repeated viewings. The ending, which may appear anti-climactic, could not have happened any other way; it bucks Hollywood nonsensical trends towards unrealistic endings, and gives us the most real, true ending to a story that almost drives you crazy.

112. Pan's Labyrinth. The only foreign flick on the list...and a good one to boot. From a Spanish director, this is the classic "Children's Fantasy which is Actually Much Darker, Scarier, and Adult." Great movie! Takes place during the resistance of Franco's fascist regime, I believe during the Spanish Civil War, but I admit my Spanish history is limited. A child is locked in this violent, horrible adult world, when she discovers a half-demon, half-bull type of creature who tells her she is really a princess and must perform these tasks to return. Filled with children 'coming-of-age' tales, imaginary flights of fantasy, and very dark events. It is a great movie for so many reasons.

111. The Outlaw Josie Wales. I will not push too may Westerns as they tend to be played out. But, I will not lie: the whole vigilante brings justice theme fires me up. This is, in my opinion, the best of Clint Eastwood's old westerns. Not the Leone spaghetti westerns with the Man With No Name, but better and less cheesy. Nothing to say about this because it is predictable, formulaic, and awesome! If you like a good outsider brings justice the old biblical way, this one is for you.

110. Castaway. I dislike most long movies. Castaway was really, really long. But, who else could have pulled it off, right? The plot was unique, fascinating, and under most circumstances would have failed to work. Tom Hanks, though, does succeed very well. The ending leaves much to be desired, but the build up is so great and the slow pace is necessary to really chronicle the evolution Hanks underwent on the island. If you've never seen it, watch this movie. It is really a good movie, with a good heart, and some superb acting. It is not a top 100 movie, but I cannot deny its power. And, I will add, the use of silence is so much better than the din of shitty dialogue that Hollywood produces regularly.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-19T06:25:00.001-08:00

It disturbs me no more to find men base, unjust, or selfish than to see apes mischievous, wolves savage, or the vulture ravenous. - Jean Paul Sartre

Stupid People Alert

2009-11-18T09:00:00.000-08:00

Why do people think the end of the world is coming? Here are 10 prior moments of "revelations-like" prediction, among many.

Reason #1 to doubt "end-of-the-world (EOTW) predictions: The social construction of time. Are we in the year 2009, or 5376 as the Jewish calendar states? Who knows? Who cares...The point is that time is invented, so any round numbers like 2000 or 1900 seem ominous to a human brain selected for seeing patterns (this article in Scientific American will give you a deeper idea of what I am talking about). Moreover, when the so-called Y2K thing was getting closer and those nutty millenialists started taking about the Christian Bible's "Revelations" (which many biblical experts believe originally was in the front of the Christian Bible, not in the back, thus throwing a loop in chronology of the four horsemen), other experts started noting that 2001 would really be 2000 years after Jesus' supposed death and would be the real time when revelations would come true. I suppose none of this matters to people, because they think numbers mean something more than they do. The calendar was really just a means to keep track of harvests, rainy seasons, times to pray (holi(y)-days) for rain and good harvests, and to try and predict the future (like when a flood was going to hit). The Mayans, I am sure, did not follow the Christian calendar as they would have had no contact with the Western world when they were flourishing as a civilization, thus, their predictions can not be meaningfully interpreted within the context of our system of time!

Reason #2 to doubt EOTW predictions: Um...hello...we don't need to predict some supranatural force will reign fire and brimstone or that some force from outside the Earth's atmosphere will reign down on us like a meteor that potentially wiped out the dinosaurs. We are killing ourselves and ecologists are getting better at giving us real dates (within a few decades) of human-made disasters. Who needs the clouds of smoke generated by a massive volcano which would throw the Earth into a mini-ice age for two to ten years and destroy our ability to farm, when we are releasing enough toxins into the air to do that for us...except, we will enter a long hot age which will destroy crops by making everything arid. Or, perhaps the ice caps in the poles melting within 30 years (a good estimate, and perhaps too conservative), leading to ocean levels rising up to 2 feet every summer. Or, the fact that 90% of Americans have deadly chemicals (found in their urine) which come from plastics and other toxins released in the water systems, found in fish, and contaminating every piece of processed food you buy? Or the fact we pump cows full of steroids to increase their output, perhaps causing girls to reach puberty faster, children to get autism more often, and other side effects likely unknown? Why does a space ship or other forces of doom have to kill us?

Reason #3: It has always failed before. The sun always rises in the East, sets in the West. That's a fact. Water contains 2 parts oxygen, 1 part hydrogen...that's a fact. Some forces destroying the Earth for no reason, or because we have sinned, or because of any reason is nonsense. Moreover, thinking you can predict it because you read some tea leaves, god talked to you, or because you see signs of the devil everywhere you look is even more insane. Anyone who reads the paper, follows the news, or pays attention at any time period probably thinks everything is really bad. Worse than before. But, go read newspapers from the '60s or the '80s and you will see a similar confluence of bad shit happening and people thinking the end is near.

Reason #4: Stupid people are behind these manias. It is clear that only a dum-dum would believe Nostradamus' predictions. Have you ever read one of his quattros? They are so ambiguous that it would take some serious contemplation and good imagination to make sense of them in real time. Or, those nutty cults that appear every decade, prophesy the end of the world, and then commit suicide. Nothing happens. We laugh about it nervously. Then, we go about our business. The real four horsemen of doom are war, pestilence, disease, and famine. You want to prevent a meltdown? Put a stop to these as best as you can.

I appeal to you to not go this movie 2012 because it is going to only embolden Hollywood to keep churning out nonsense. It is bad enough that Hollywood insults our intelligence by producing movies that are completely unrealistic beyond a shadow of a doubt. Read a book instead. Or, read the prophecy. Whatever you do, don't degrade your own intelligence.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-18T06:17:00.000-08:00

I always turn to the sports pages first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures. - Earl Warren

Some News for the Morning

2009-11-17T06:52:00.000-08:00

A new study revealed that coed dorms are the awesomest place ever! Binge drinking was 2.5 times more likely (42% versus 18%); sex was more likely; and the watching of pornography increased. I am surprised this would come as a shock to anyone, especially the researchers or university administration. I lived in a coed dorm. It was great. Girls and boys intermingled all the time. Perhaps what exacerbated everything was the winter, which would frequently lock us in for days at a time, with nothing to do but interact. The solution? More global warming. Let's get the winters shortened so college kids stop drinking and having sex!

You may be eating cloned beef soon. Evidently, they eat less and produce more. Sounds too good to be true? Well, we'll just wait and see what happens next.

In a strange irony, something only Marx's "false consciousness" could explain, white women love the GOP (as do poor white people!). A group that just ended its insurance covering abortions, that has a guy like Rush Limbaugh who has ridiculed and demonized feminism, and a group with (I believe) 2 women senators and 12 house of representatives draws women. I think all the talk about security mixed with calling democrats pansies, pussies, and wusses pumps some women up. I call it the Neanderthal model.

I have long said I call out both political parties, though any reader would probably recognize my vehement opposition to the GOP thus far. Well, here you go conservatives: Robert Byrd is what is wrong with the Senate. He is 91 frickin years old!! I hated when they let Strom Thurmund go till he was 100, and I hate it now. Not that older people cannot be smart, functional, and even sharp; but, really, 56 years of governing? My grandmother is in her mid-80's and still has her faculties. But, I wouldn't trust her to vote on serious legislation for the rest of the country. Seriously. Term limits, no. Age maximums, yes. And don't accuse me of ageism because no one has a problem with a minimum age limit on entrance to the Senate or Presidency? So, why can't we just say 85 or 80, or even 90 is the max?

Musings on Palin (and Further Adventures on Stats)

2009-11-17T06:32:00.000-08:00

Good article on the loony from Alaska who may just make 2012 an interesting election. One thing in this article that supports my running discontent with stats: 37% of the US thinks she is qualified. Now, this number is believable because it is an opinion number (which, ultimately, all are). It is more revealing to me that more than 2/3 of the electorate think a person with a two years of governorship experience, a failed campaign that she contributed to by going "rogue" and ignoring the discipline McCain was preaching, a beauty queen, and a woman who makes questionable choices as do her children would be ready for the presidency.

People, these are your neighbors. Next time you are at the grocery store, 1 out of every 3, or more likely 3 our of every 9 people in that line with you believe she could be a president (of course, 8 out of 10 Americans believe in angels, so that should tell you something). This stat proves my point inversely: those people also have opinions about other serious matters, like bombing Iran, whether Iraq and Al Qaeda were tied together, whether abortion should be legal, whether dinosaurs existed before humans, whether the earth is 5,000 or billions of years old...why should I care what they have to say? Their vote should be limited to American Idol where they can do no harm.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-17T06:18:00.000-08:00

Man cannot be free if he does not know that he is subject to necessity, because his freedom is always won in his never wholly successful attempts to liberate himself from necessity...Economic growth may one day turn out to be a curse rather than a good, and under no conditions can it either lead into freedom or constitute a proof for its existence. - Hannah Arendt

A Rant on Celebritism

2009-11-16T18:54:00.000-08:00

I think I have had my fill of the American obsession with no-talent ass clowns. Perhaps it is because I am near the entertainment mecca, but I am sick and tired of hearing about, reading about, being told about, or even knowing about the worst human beings alive. No, I am not talking about mass murders; at least they have an ethos, and are relatively intelligent. I am talking about the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, Britney, Lindsay, the douche bag Perez Hilton who is a parasite off of them, TMZ, E entertainment, and the entire support network.

We are not only the richest nation on the planet, but we produce the most useless resources known to human kind. Just like the cars we make lack complete quality, the celebrities we produce lack anything redeeming. I suppose the plebians have always been enamored with the aristocracy, but I think things are getting to a new level of decadence. Rather than educating ourselves politically, fighting for true financial sanity, for human rights, for stopping two ridiculously costly wars, for health care, for environmental sanity...we spend our time reading US and People magazine. I am currently looking for a job as a professor; working in California would be ideal, as would working in any major Western state. The problem you ask? The citizens, if you can even call them that, are so busy watching the shittiest crap on television, they aren't even aware that they are being raped by the government, the corporations who get tax breaks for staying in a community or relocating to a community while not creating jobs, yet destroying the environment and tearing communities apart when they move, and by lobbyists who continue to influence politics in ways that are not rational and do not benefit anyone but small constituencies. California, for example, is in the midst of a budget crises predicated on a few intersecting things:

(1) The electorate is full of people more interested in what celebrities wear, or what parties are happening and who is there, to actually do anything useful. Every year, a ton of propositions make the ballet and people just vote blindly. They constantly increase spending, while fighting the increase of taxes...except sales tax which hurts the poor more than anyone else because it is a level tax that all people have to pay. Meanwhile, property taxes are frozen at 1977 levels, corporations do not feed into the pot, and rich people have so many loopholes that nearly half of the schools are crumbling.

(2) The national education problem. At some point around 1980, with the hail to the chief entrance of Reagan, we decided education should be a business and the market should regulate it just like everything else. Stupid idea. Education is a right, not a privilege. Unfortunately, since 1996, the tuition at the University of California (all of them) has increased nearly 96%, while the State and Community college system have followed suit. Nobody cares. There are no jobs for me because Lamar Odom's marriage to a Kardashian is more important than voting, protesting, or doing anything else. Meanwhile, the taxes the electorate refuses to raise is being transferred to underprivileged college students who can either not afford to go or just settle for intense amounts of debt. Of course, nearly all college students in the US are now saddled with debt because tuition's rise when state budgets cut money from education can transfer it to stupid things like building more and more prisons, keeping people on death row, fighting a losing drug war, fighting any war, funding more weapons, and "securing" the border. The next generation is going to basically be retarded when it comes to writing, reading, and arithmetic. But, alas.

(3) The gas/electric companies great raping of the 2000's. Thanks to Grey Davis, and his predecessor and nearly everyone before him, untenable power agreements were made that essentially bankrupted the state. When he tried to fix it by raising car registration taxes, the electorate voted him out. Good job! We voted in a former steroid user who couldn't manage a paperbag.

(4) Populism! Yea populism! Nothing like being able to just vote people in and out whenever we feel like. Nothing like term limits that keep the government constantly turning over and giving way to ideological warfare. Nothing like people hiring poor people to stand on college campuses and in front of stores to get signatures for insane propositions which no one ever reads! Yea!!

This all is rooted in the infantile obsession we have with the most useless human beings in society. They do not entertain us. Madonna entertains. On the one hand, they make us pine for the nouveau leisure class. Think about it. There is no other society where people just acted recklessly, amorally, and with a complete eye towards pure, unadulterated hedonistic materialism other than ours. Sure, every society had crazy sex games. But, people like Paris Hilton would be selected against. They would not be allowed to reproduce because they did nothing for anyone else, let alone for the benefit of humankind. Alas, we celebrate these people's lives because we secretly wish we could do nothing and be famous. On the other hand, these people secretly disgust us. They revolt us. This is what I don't understand. Their uselessness, while often implicit, is really there on display. And we know it. We dislike them. We want them to fail because it reminds us where the moral boundaries of society should be.

Yet, we support them. We give them what they want, fame...prestige...status...validation that they are beautiful, and awesome, and worthwhile humans. Things their parents could never give them because they were too busy working, or partying across the globe and having them raised by nannies, or addicted to drugs, alcohol or other substances. They are a reflection of their shitty parents who failed at raising them. They are a product of endless amounts of money, never hearing the word no, and the dangerous of shallowness. You want irony. We should drop them out of planes onto our enemies...call 'em smart bombs.

Evolution Strikes Again...

2009-11-16T15:51:00.000-08:00

Check out the evolution of a new species of finch! Go Evolution!!

Wine Country

2009-11-16T08:41:00.000-08:00

Wine country was great...if you have never gone, you should go. Santa Barbara may not have the name of Napa, but the Dutch-ness of the area is pretty cool. Which brings me to the word or concept of the week: collective effervescence. Long hailed in my classes as the coolest sociological idea ever, effervescence is the bubbly, excited, ephemeral yet lasting feeling of group life. Emile Durkheim, the hero of this site and a French sociologist at the turn of the previous century, coined this term when he was considering what made people act voluntarily or conform to the basic normative structure of a society or in altruistic ways with close kin or really good friends.

In essence, we all know what it is like to be alive and deal with the drone of everyday life, right? Nearly all decisions, interactions, and thoughts in our head are self-interested or instrumental (means-->ends). The work world, going to the store to pickup something for dinner or shampoo or something like that, dealing with co-workers, dealing with strangers on the subway or bus, dealing with people on the highway in their little worlds with their music blaring, text messaging, putting on their makeup...everything is self-interested because there is little "moral" (nor religious, but a deeper word for social) bindings between most people - that is, we are Americans, and that is about the furthest most social ties go. How do you feel after work? After a week of work? Drained, right? Your batteries are expended.

Well, Durkheim reasoned that all groups (and a group could be two people in love with each other or just friends) have highly sanctified rituals ranging from how they greet each other to how they enjoy each other's company. A ritual, by the way, is three things: synchronized behavior, shared common focus (on some type of physical, social, or intellectual object), and shared emotional focus. In the process of being in a group and participating in its ritual, emotions which are exchanged normally and make interactions feel good or bad (you notice the bad most often when an interaction with another person turns sour and you get that butterfly feeling in your gut telling you something is wrong), become intensified to the point where you lose your self-interest temporally, or for as long as the interaction has occurred. Political rallies, religious ceremonies, concerts are all examples of large scale moments of collective effervescence, though going out to dinner on your anniversary or meeting up once a year with old college buddies can do the same.

The group recharges our batteries. For hours, days, or weeks afterwards we feels the buzz of the group. When we hear the music of our band or reminisce with someone about a great time in the past, we rekindle the faint emotions of the past and prime ourselves to feel them again. The wine trip was a good bonding time. It created a situation where emotions were heightened, by the fourth winery behaviors were synchronized, and the focus of our actions and attitudes was shared. The result: good feelings, continued buzz, and recharged batteries. Humans are emotional creatures in more ways than we realize. Relationships collapse when effervescence is no longer generated either because of a lack of effort or because of other factors. We need to engage in social rituals regularly with our significant others, otherwise we risk the unraveling of social fabric. The nation, albeit loosely connected, needs these things too; the intensified polarization of people along party lines has made this a difficult proposition. We are a house divided because we never come together and affirm the social order!

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-16T06:16:00.001-08:00

Conclusions prematurely drawn from social experiences daily occurring around us, are difficult to displace by clear proofs that elsewhere wide social experiences point to opposite conclusions - Herbert Spencer

Last Thoughts for the Day

2009-11-14T07:00:00.000-08:00

In vino veritas...Off to Santa Barbara wine country...and, believe me, I am not drinking any fucking merlot. Take the time, if you haven't already, to read some of my prior posts. I realize things have been spotty, but as I said below, life sometimes catches up. But, if all goes well, more posts should be coming. I also don't want to just post for the sake of posting. Though, I am considering adding some sports meanderings. And, I am planning a bi-weekly delineation of the various religious systems, their dominant cosmologies, and their historical development. Something for myself to keep track of and maybe some new nuggets of facts for you.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-13T06:13:00.001-08:00

A man who makes a beast of himself, is trying to kill the pain of being human. - Hunter S. Thompson

Ants are Pretty Cool

2009-11-12T16:24:00.000-08:00

Some researchers found that certain types of ants express "rescue" behavior when one of their nestmates are in danger. They simulated a collapsed tunnel, while secretly tying an ant with a nylon thread to prevent it from moving. Another ant frantically dug the ant out, and rather than simply pull at the trapped cousin's legs or head, it proceeded to work on the thread to free it. The same response was not elicited with non-kin (something pretty standard in the animal kingdom).

How Do You Say...Ironic?

2009-11-12T16:13:00.000-08:00

Guess what? The Republican National Committee, who have a plank in their political platform that refers to abortion as "a fundamental assault on innocent human life," have a health care plan that allows for abortion. Check this article out.

My first question is how did this go unnoticed for so long? My second question is did anyone under this insurance use it for an abortion? I love hypocrisy because it is delicious.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-12T07:22:00.000-08:00

A great value of antiquity lies in the fact that its writings are the only ones that modern men still read with exactness.- Friedrich Nietzsche

Lesson for the Week (Esoteric Nonsense to Impress Your Friends With)

2009-11-11T06:48:00.000-08:00

Eschatology (es-kuh-tol-uh-jee): Any doctrines or system of belief that deals with final matters such as mortality, second comings, heaven/hell, etc. Nearly every religious system, more so than any other system, deals if not directly than in some fashion with the most pressing psychological problem that all homo sapiens sapiens experience: their own mortality. In fact, one could plausibly argue that as our brains grew bigger (an evolutionary process that appears to have stopped around 50,000 years ago meaning that our ancestors from that period on had the same cognitive functions as us), we became increasingly aware of our own mortality as well as our significant others' mortality. This is a frightening thought. Dogs and cats, for example, appear to "know" at the very end. They find a quiet place to pass on.

Humans, though, from a young age become cognizant of their impending fate when grandma or great-grandpa die; a younger sibling dies and everyone else reacts intensely; or a family pet dies. From there, the detached intellectual questions emerge: what is death? where do they go? An astute child may pose the eschatological question: what happens when we die and why do we have to die? Bam! Religion emerges because there are no natural answers to this question that satisfy. Cancer, for example, is a reason why we die, but not an explanation of why we have to die. The supranatural or transmundane world, filled with spirits we can exchange earthly goods with for things like immortality and salvation become real dealings. That is, just like you want to get a can of beans, you go to the supermarket and transfer monies for beans, when you want something intangible, or otherwise difficult to procure given the society's current state of technological advance, you must find a much more powerful partner.

This simple axiom, presents us with a key process of religious change...and, especially, changes in eschatological thought. As humans settle down (12,000 to 10,000 before the present...B.P.) for good, they innovate more and more to deal with concrete problems like resource scarcity compounded by population increase. Hence the steady move towards intensifying agriculture through the plow and the use of animal-power. In the process, the things people sought from the supranatural change as well, and consequentially, so do the doctrines concerning the end. For example, the more science or proto-science does in terms of controlling the environment, the more religion recedes from the mundane problems of subsistence and shifts its focus to things like death, meaning/purpose, and salvation (not simply the Christian version...). Religious intellectual (and that is by no means oxymoronic) efforts are transferred from predicting floods or rain to matters of the soul. It is hard to convince people, as a priest or rabbi, you offer them anything useful if scientists or other non-religious role-players offer you the something with a higher "success" ratio. Thus, we turn to matters of eschatology, the one frontier of the human world and psyche seemingly impenetrable by other institutions.

Will religion disappear? Some who read this page are likely anti-religion, and I profess to not be for or against you. Religion, in itself, is a fascinating subject on many planes to me. What I can same, beyond a doubt, is religion will never disappear because of eschaological and soteriological (suh-teer-ee-ol-uh-jee) doctrines. (Soteriology are doctrines concerning the actual process of salvation. Whether it is escaping the rebirth cycle of karma-samsara in Buddhist, Hindu, or Jainist doctrine, passing on to the Kingdom of Heaven in Christianity, or reuniting with the "One," it all pertains to the release from suffering however a religion defines it.) Thus, I can tell you why your child died in a car accident (drunk), how they died (they fractured their skull and the steering wheel produced internal bleeding), but I cannot tell you why they were taken at a young age, why good people have to suffer while evil people seem to do fine, and what it all means. Religions can. The ultimate questions in life are unapproachable by science, because a true evolutionist must believe that (a) evolution has no direction...it is random; (b) human life is improbable; and (c) there is no telic (ultimate goal) for the human race...we socially construct meaning as we see fit. Not very comforting, huh?

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-11T06:24:00.000-08:00

I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts. - William Clinton

Dueche Bag of the Year

2009-11-10T15:26:00.000-08:00

Do you recognize this man? If you are a serious political nerd, a student of Berkeley's law school, or a newshound you might. This is John Yoo, a key lawyer and architect of the Bush's doctrine on torture (2001-3). This man, evidently, thought the president may have the constitutional right to torture enemy combatants, and he could hold the indefinitely. In a 2002 memo, he noted that prisoners could be beaten and it not be considered torture as long as the pain cause did not equal "organ failure, bodily impairment, or death."

He was even a key player in the arrest and detainment of an American citizen aboard a Navy brig with no lawyer and no rights because he was accused of hatching a terrorist plot. Which, perhaps he did, but the constitution is pretty explicit in the Bill of Rights section on the rights of all American citizens regardless of their crimes. Evidently, conservative lawyers (like Scalia) who sit around and preach against judicial activism are just as guilty as their liberal brethren. The irony, I suppose, is that the liberal justices are always trying to protect and uphold those pesky human rights while conservatives are all about killing people, torturing them, and taking the rights of minorities away. Yea!

Well, it turns out that Juan Padilla, the guy held on the Navy ship, won a court case that makes it legal to sue Mr. Yoo. The beauty of the lawsuit? Padilla, who is in jail for 17 years, is seeking $1 in damages plus legal fees. Awesome. Mr. Yoo, you should be ashamed of yourself and you should be disbarred for being a stupid schmuck.

Some Morning Thoughts From the Bottom of the Coffee Mug

2009-11-10T06:46:00.000-08:00

For those who have been coming here somewhat regularly, you may have noticed a significant drop off in activity over the course of the last few days. For this, I am sorry; real life trumps my cyberlife. But, I feel a strong week coming your way. For now, here are some things I have been thinking or wondering about:

Should the Dems just go all in? They were elected, theoretically, to change the course the Republicans had set for 12 years. Instead, they have become unnerved by the Tea Baggers, the Palins of the world, and their own shadows. Why does liberalism have no backbone?

Why do scholars/academics think we are in a "post" anything society? Post-structural; post-industrial; post-modern. None of these seem that fitting, because modernity itself is such an ambiguous label for a society, and while I agree the predominant American industries have changed tremendously, there is nothing really that different about our class structure or our economic system.

Herbert Spencer, who lends us our quote for the day below, provides a perfect sociological statement: a great person, or any person for that matter, is nothing more or less than their social and historical context. A Buddha, for instance, cannot be Buddha in India c. 800 BCE. The conditions weren't right. If this is true, and I believe the data overwhelming support it, why do people insist on being unique snowflakes even in the face of objective evidence contrary to their position?

I have been thinking a lot, because of the classes I teach, about the Women's Liberation Movement and its success vis-a-vis failure. Well, on the plus sides women have much more control over their bodies, their career trajectories, and their life chances and opportunities. All of this is good. But, have they really come all the way? Men still overwhelming occupy seats in Congress; men still dominate the MBA programs in the US and, perhaps spuriously, the vast majority of CEO positions; men still dominate the military high command; men still make about 25 cents more for the same labor with the same degree/education. But, more concerning than this, is the way sexuality has been packaged and sold to younger women. The "Britney Spears" model, as I have labeled it, is a sort of false ideology. On the one hand, it offers "sexual freedom" to women through dressing slutty, emphasizing their sexuality over other aspects of their identity, and pushes looks over talent. Now, women have nearly always been treated this way by society, and I will not deny my own ideology when I say women do embody the essence of beauty. But, women have worked hard to get a seat at the table, and I am not sure if this model of womanness is the right path. I am not a puritan by any means, but when did it become acceptable for teenage girls to wear thongs to highschool?

What capitalism does so effectively is package and sell ideas with material objects. Selling sex is cliche, but is true. What really seems to be happening is the sale of "freedom" through sexual expression, material possession, and objectification; this is not freedom, but actually a more constraining cage. Women who have internalized the Britney Spears model are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and reproduce misogyny on levels previously normal. And capitalism, which has no morality because business is business, is willing to sell it if it means bigger profit margins.

On a lighter note, I just learned that dogs are capable of learning up to 500 words. It appears that any animal with a brain is capable of far greater things that we previously afforded them. Very strange indeed...

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-10T06:29:00.000-08:00

Even were we to grant the absurd supposition that the genesis of the great man does not depend on the antecedents furnished by the society he is born in, there would still be the quite-sufficient facts that he is powerless in the absence of material and mental accumulations which his society inherits from the past, and that he is powerless in the absence of the co-existing population, character, intelligence, and social arrangements. Given a Shakespeare, and what dramas could he have written without the multitudinous traditions of civilized life -- without the various experiences which, descending to him from the past, gave wealth to his thought, and without the language which a hundred generations had developed and enriched by use? - Herbert Spencer

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-09T06:47:00.000-08:00

Do you wish to be great? Then begin by being. Do you desire to construct a vast and lofty fabric? Think first about the foundations of humility. The higher your structure is to be, the deeper must be its foundation. - Saint Augustine

Signs of Sanity

2009-11-08T07:31:00.000-08:00

Occasionally, sanity prevails and candid, honest appraisals of the situation bubble up from the rhetoric. Joe Cao, the sole Republican representative who voted yes on the Health Care bill offered the most refreshingly real answers to really serious questions. Asked why he voted on the bill, he noted that many in his district are poor and in need of health care (he won a typically democratic seat when William Jefferson was indicted on a number of counts of fraud, et al.). And, he hinted at the fact that nobody really knows what is the right or wrong thing to do here, because politics and solving big problems require "leaps of faith."

Only time will tell, that is if the Senate successfully passes a bill, if this works. Action is often better than inaction, but like my perspective on gay marriage (see a prior post), I am willing to take a wait-and-see approach. Likely nothing bad will happen, and with any legislation, loopholes can be fixed, new legislation can be amended in light of new information, and nothing truly is irreversible. Bigger deficits are not good, but neither are uninsured peoples, uncapped and rising health care costs, and insurance companies in general. Vested interests are anathema to the democratic process.

Finally, I don't know how excited to be. Last night I felt like we took a huge step towards providing a stronger social safety net, though this morning sober practicality has led me to wonder just what we are doing. As a humanist, I know this is the right path; as an evolutionist I wonder if we should let nature take its course; and as a sociologist I know the middle choice is indefensible given the way resources are unequally distributed, and not simply because some work harder than others. Let's hope we get this right, because we are running out of time.

Survey

2009-11-08T06:55:00.000-08:00

To your left, you will see a survey asking you what you like about the blog thus far. I am trying to get a sense what will keep people coming back...Please answer if you can, and thanks!

Update on Health Care: Morning Thoughts

2009-11-07T21:07:00.000-08:00

In a rare sign of sanity, the House passed Health Care...it still needs approval in the Senate and then some sort of reconciliation together...Let's all "pray" that the Senate stays sane.

Update: Regardless of what happens now, Pelosi has proven a capable House leader; despite my own reservations about her ideological position, I commend her for getting it done. And, don't think this was as close as it seemed. The Democrats, in their bargaining, likely assured a number of unsafe conservative Dems a "No" vote as long as they could bass the bill. The maneuver is political and meant to try and strengthen their incumbency. Notice the one Republican defector came from a very liberal area, which indicates the larger political dimensions of this vote.

As for the Tea Baggers, Republicans, and naysayers...I quote the great John Adams, 2nd President: "Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society." Let's move on. Keeping people from losing their health care because of "preexisting conditions" is archaic; keeping a regional monopoly over insurance providers is so nineteenth century capitalism; and not providing a gov't option, the very option that provides the Armed services and congress with health care, is absurd.

Say It Ain't So, Cliff...

2009-11-05T17:52:00.000-08:00

Resident barfly, Cliff Clavin (John Ratzenberger in real life) showed up at the Tea Bagger protest, and had this to say about the Health Care plan: "These are Woodstock Democrats," he said at the rally. "We have to remember where their philosophy comes from. It doesn't come from America. It comes from overseas. It comes from socialism. And socialism is a philosophy of failure." So what is the logic of his argument? Woodstock Democrats adopted an overseas philosophy, which is bad. Overseas, they are socialists; and socialism is a failed doctrine.

Little do these Tea Baggers and their leaders realize, but their grasp of history, philosophy, and everything else other than douchebaggery is entirely flawed. . Democracy, the politic philosophy that Tea Baggers love was adopted from none other then Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, who just so happens to be French...which means our political system also comes from "overseas". Montesquieu wrote The Spirit of Laws arguing for the first time in writing that the three branches of government (the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislature) should be separated from each other to act as a series of checks and balances.

But, Cliff was talking about socialism, which is technically an economic system. Well how about free market capitalism? It first emerged in Italy during the 14th century (also a country overseas), but was really discussed and elaborated upon by...drum roll please...Adam Smith. Who is Scottish. A country also overseas. His Wealth of Nations explained in detail how the division of labor benefited productivity, famously how the "invisible hand" of supply and demand would regulate the market, and how government interference was bad. He is still taught in colleges by the way. I am left speechless when people stand up and spout nonsense and other people listen and then believe them. Where is our historical consciousness?

Cheers is dead to me because of your inability Cliff to put together a better argument other than "those damn hippies!" Americans are mutts...like our language, we typically pick and choose, combine and recombine our social systems...The only thing the Tea Baggers seem to be good at is showing up on time to protests about nothing really that important.

Can We Escape the Madness

2009-11-05T13:57:00.000-08:00

The Tea Baggers have descended once again on Washington to decry the expansion of government and the deficit. Ironically, perhaps, the government expanded both physically and in terms of a massive deficit under the white president George Bush, but there were few cries of foul play. Maybe it was because he was fighting two wars to "protect" America while Obama et al. are trying to provide health coverage for those nasty poor people. Why don't they just work for a living!?! Really, we would rather bomb the brown people then give our tax dollars to strengthening America. I wish we could openly and honestly ask the question: what type of society do we want to live in?

Bullshit award co-winner of the week, House minority leader John Boehner made the erroneous claim that there is a rebellion occurring because 10,000 Tea Baggers showed up to DC on such short notice. Hey Boehner, I got some news for you, way more than that showed up to protest Prop 8's passage in California on even shorter notice. Of course, Boehner proceeded to fire the crowd up by quoting the Constitution...er, the Declaration of Independence, but whose keeping track? Such patriots we have who don't know the difference between the two documents! Not surprisingly, John Boehner's biggest career campaign donor...hold on...here it comes...INSURANCE companies!!!!! To a tune of $937,306

Our other co-winner of the coveted Bullshit award: Michele Bachmann, the captain and steward of this ship of fools. Her crusade against all things liberal is well known: she hopes to "defund" the liberals, and today led the Tea Bagger's protest noting they should bring their cameras, not pitchforks, and visit their House delegates. She, perhaps not ironically, has taken $207,450 from Insurance companies, her fourth biggest donor.

Looks like our Bullshit winners have a lot to lose if Health Care is passed. Their best friends are in trouble, and all the money in the world ain't saving them. The irony behind this whole discussion is this: we are talking about health care. Health care. Health care. We are talking about health care (Oh, and they are also against climate/environmental changes, which is absurd). This is what people are against!?! Giving other people universal care? Hell, all these unemployed people with no benefits should be for this proposal! Don't the Tea Baggers have jobs? I mean Boehner and Bachmann have the best health care the tax payers can buy, why can't I?

Further Proof There Is No God

2009-11-05T09:29:00.000-08:00

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-05T06:28:00.001-08:00

I have made it a rule of my life to trust a man long after other people gave him up, but I don't see how I can ever trust any human being again. - Ulysses S. Grant

Post-Election Results: What Does It Mean?

2009-11-04T06:24:00.000-08:00

What happened last night? Losing in Virginia was particularly tough given the way Obama took it just one year ago. The Dems failed to energize their base, and the Independents evidently revolted. But, what does it mean?

Here is my first take. The only race with national implications happened in NY23 (I hate media politic-speak) where uber-conservative candidate Doug Hoffman and the far right pushed the original Republican choice out of the race saying she was really a liberal. Well, in a precinct that has been characterized as pretty conservative (and has been Republican since the Civil War and has not sent a Democrat to Congress in nearly a century) and with a candidate in Hoffman who theoretically represented this angry base (much more so than gubernatorial candidates McDonnell and and Christie), the Democrats won. In other words, the one race which really turned on Health Care, environmental regulations, the war in Afghanistan -- or, what could most closely resemble a referendum on Obama -- was a Dem victory. That is, the Democrats added one more vote to their overwhelming House majority.

Governors, in case you forgot, do not vote. And, based on the last few years it is also plausible they do little to nothing: Pawlenty of Minnesota is never home and always campaigning; Sanford from SC has been flying to Argentina quote a bit; Schwarzeneggar is basically useless. Palin quit and saved us the nonsense, while Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) seems to genuinely care about his job. Spin the elections however you like, but keep in mind the Democrats one another seat. It also may serve as a repudiation of the intensification of conservatization of the GOP. Of course, off-elections typically tell us little to nothing about the next year.

Some other articles that might shed light on your early morning political deliberations: (Here); (Here)

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-04T06:02:00.000-08:00

Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises; for never intending to go beyond promises; it costs nothing. - Edmund Burke

Some Afternoon Links

2009-11-03T15:16:00.000-08:00

- The Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to preside over an interracial marriage saying he believed they harmed children raised in mixed families has resigned. (Yea!)

- Another example of a society making terrible decisions based on a general lack of total knowledge...a malaise all societies suffer from. About 1,500 years ago, the South American civilization called the Nasca mysteriously disappeared. Looks like they cut down too many of their own trees...killing off their food supply. Lessons to be learned.

- Maybe Olympia Snowe read some of my recent posts, because she just took a shot at soon-to-be 2012 presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty for suggesting moderate Republicans must heed the conservative base and back down. Maybe this conservative thing will backfire...

- It looks like Maine may be the first state to actually vote for gay marriage

- Never been a big fan of the Germans, what with the Holocaust and all...but, German Chancellor (sounds like a Star Wars character) Angela Merkel is pushing for climate change legislation and action.

Rest In Peace: Claude Levi-Strauss

2009-11-03T15:05:00.000-08:00

- RIP Dr. Claude Levi-Strauss whose great works include The Elementary Structures of Kinship and Structural Anthropology. He will be remembered as a pioneer in his field of anthropology, a luminous thinker, and one of the few 'old guard' that was still alive. Give my regards to Emile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss. (Here)

Ten Non-9/11 Events (This Decade) That Permanently Shaped Our Lives

2009-11-03T10:17:00.000-08:00

10. George Bush's Election and Re-Election: I have no idea where his presidency will rank in the annals of American history, but his legacy will definitely haunt us for a very, very long time. I truly am critical of all politicians, and while I tend to side with Democrats more, I am not afraid to call out their bullshit. Bush, however, deserves a discrete category of bullshit because what he did was far and away worse than what any other Republican, Democrat, or Whig has ever done...ever.

Let's see: turned a massive surplus into a massive deficit; cut taxes for the rich and others whilst fighting two wars halfway across the world, thus expending tons of valuable human and material resources and making the deficit even worse and fucking our children and children's children while also hastening the decline of America (run-on sentences can sometimes be fun); creating No Child Left Behind and contributing to making my student's even stupider while also promoting a service-based system of teaching and further encouraging the entitlement issues of this generation; having Dick Cheney as his VP, Rumsfield as his Defense Sec., and Powell as his puppet Secretary of State; continued to erode EPA standards, weakened enforcement of carbon emissions also hastening global warming (see # 5); rigged Medicare prescription drug bidding to favor Pharmaceutical companies; rigged Iraqi rebuilding bidding to favor Haliburton and other close bedfellows and ultimately watched a bunch of money disappear through corruption; fucked up Katrina...really, really badly; alienated every ally except Australia, Britain, and Luxembourg; was perhaps the worst public speaker of all times and may have been the least educated president we have ever elected; made Richard Nixon look like a puppy dog; declared some American citizens did not have access to habeas corpus and then proceeded to detain them on Navy ships without access to a lawyer or trial; built Guantanamo Bay and hamstrung future presidents abilities to deal with these prisoners; presided over a state with more executions than any other; ran the Texas Rangers into the ground; ran an oil company into the ground; was a C student at Yale, taking a spot away from some poor person more deserving.

Thanks GWB for being you. And thank you Americans for electing this twit, once. And thank you Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas for electing the idiot the first time through unconstitutional means. And thank you Gore for being about as exciting as a piece of wood and distancing yourself from a charismatic and likable guy. And finally, thanks Kerry for using botox, windsurfing, being a vet but reacting too slow to the Swiftboat attack, and looking like a fudgsicle melting in the sunlight.

9. The Iraqi War: You all know why the war in Iraq will impact us forever. Besides estimates that we will be there for years to come, the death toll on both sides, the amount of money and other resources expended, and the fact that we screwed our own foreign policy up by allowing the idiot above to conduct a preemptive war. Here is why I am mad. First, when we invaded them we failed to secure the infrastructure. The result was the looting of museums. But, you might say, who cares!?!

Well, Iraq or, as it once was called, Mesopotamia is the birthplace of writing, urban civilization and empire-building. 5,000 years ago, in Uruk or southern Iraq today near the Euphrates river, humans began to write two-dimensionally in clay with reeds. These peoples are not far from who we are today seeing as how Abraham came from Ur, another city on the Euphrates; the Judeo-Chrisitan-Islamic religions derive some of their mythology, ethical precepts, and general world view from the Mesopotamian religions; and, quite frankly, our alphabet owes a lot to these people. So much of the artifacts that were housed in museums, the results of archaeologists tireless excavation, are gone because of Bush et al.

Second, our bombing runs ignored the fact that much of ancient Mesopotamia is still under the desert. We likely destroyed numerous antiquities in our careless destruction of Iraq. I mean, we were bombing dams, electrical grids, and other key urban structures, what makes us less likely to destroy non-urban targets.

Third, no country has ever successfully invade Iraq/Mesopotamia and occupied it for very long. The Arab people are a hardy bunch much like the American people. No one likes foreign occupiers, especially those who mistreat the natives. Abu Ghraib was likely one case of a much larger and problematic orientation towards the Iraqi people...

8. The Infamous Nipple Incident: Why is this important? Why did it make such an impact on me? Well, here is the deal. Freud once said that we are driven by two things: aggression and sex. Society's job is to control out id by internalizing a superego which acts as our moral compass or conscience. In earlier times, sex and death (or aggression) were fundamental dimensions of human existence. They were inseparable from life itself. They were natural. With the rise of the state, violence became a regulated sphere of social life -- probably for the best. With the rise of world religions, new conceptions of sin, ethical imperatives, and soteriologies, sex became regulated -- e.g., orgiastic rituals were no longer acceptable religious rites. Stay with me here...

Finally, capitalism arrives on the scene and sex and aggression are commodified, packaged goods, tightly controlled by corporations, the Church, and the State. Reckless abandon, pure sensuality, and true emotions are dangerous to stability. We are not quite Brave New World where everything is government sanctioned; pornography on the internet is still uncontrollable and there are random acts of violence. Nevertheless, the question we must ask is: why, during an extremely violent sporting event which peddles sexuality through cheerleaders and through advertisement for beer, cologne, clothing, and anything else, does a nipple create such a stir that the FCC steps in and now the Superbowl is not televised live, but on a 5-second delay?

Here is the answer. Sex sells. But, it is accepted by the public only in a nicely packaged form. Tightly controlled, appealing to standardized stereotypes of sex roles, sexuality, and eroticism. Two girls fighting over a Miller Lite and a guy in a fountain at an outdoor restaurant plays to our base desires, but carefully and in very typical ways. The violence on the field is also highly regulated. Football may have the most rules of any sport; out-of-bounds is highly salient; legal v. illegal is also quite obvious; and the events unfold in very rigid timed segments. The nipple, on the other hand, was unplanned; it was spontaneous; it was out of the control of the broadcast.

It made an impact because it clearly highlighted who we are as Americans, and what we fear the most. It reminded us of our puritan roots. Our desire to sublimate our most sensual and erotic feelings. It is the same fear that manifests itself when we see Gay Pride parades and unbridled sexuality on display; or, the dirty feelings we experience when we go to strip clubs; or that feeling you get at the Hustler store. All of us have nipples; most of us have suckled from the nipple at some point in our childhood; and, all of us enjoy nipples today. Why the fuss over a piece of anatomy...?

7. The Rise of Craziness...and its Acceptability: Disclaimer: I hate pop music. I hate pop "musicians." And I hate pop culture.

Now that we have that straight, why is this so important. Well, actresses and celebrities have always been reckless. But, with the level of media amplified in the 2000s, these people not only were celebrated and reviled at the same time for their behavior, they were given a stage grander than people fighting for peace, or trying to end global poverty or hunger. Why? Because they shave their heads and show their cooch? Because they get coked up, drive a brand new mercedes into a stop sign? Because they get pregnant, have a child, get divorced, and then go bat shit? What is so cool about that? I realize their are teaching lessons in these people's misbehavior, but that we even give them the spotlight is very telling.

E! entertainment is perhaps the biggest culprit here. They package this crap. But, people are willing to eat it all up. And for what? Some catchy pop hooks? So we can compare our morality to their immorality? Or, so we can worship our stars, but secretly wish and wait for them to crack?

I don't know. I do know this phenomenon is a bad one for our society. Rome too became morally decrepit near as it decayed. Decadence is tantalizing and seductive. The rise and spread of the absurd is upon us and I fear for the intelligence, capability, and strength of the next generation.

6. The Rise of Talentless, Horrible, Human Beings...And Their Acceptance...: Somewhere in the reality television craze, we have begun to idolize talentless ass-clowns like the "octomom," Jon and Kate, and my favorite Paris Hilton. Our vanity is reflected in their stardom. Who are these people? My neighbors. Ordinary idiots with cameras thrust in their face and our decision to purchase what they are selling. It is really a bad case of the Emperor has no clothes. But, for some reason we stare. And I am not sold on the "I can't pull my eyes away from a train wreck" excuse. Their success is a symptom of a larger malaise; an American obsession with normal people becoming successful (at least in most cases, though Hilton is unique and will get some time below) for no reason at all. It keeps giving all of us hope that we too will make it. A friend of mine, who worked at a liquor store with me, used to call the lotto "tax for the stupid". Why? Because it was a waste of money and only showed people's inability to stop humping the American dream. Statistics will reveal objective truth: 95% of all Americans will never move beyond the socioeconomic position they were born into...mobility is a myth...but, the American dream is so alluring.

What bothers me most, however, is the way we put these people on TV with little regard for the well-being of their children, who are the real victims of this. Our society has stopped caring about children. From the massive debt we are handing them to the decision to produce violent video games, violent television. Or the peddling of goods and services to teens while objectifying them. Or the sale of sex to them. We are destroying them slowly with the hormones we pump into cows that speed up the puberty process.

And, Paris Hilton, you deserve the Super Idiot Award. You aren't very attractive, but you are rich. You cannot act, sing, or dance, but you are rich. You are not very smart, but you are rich. Thanks for reinforcing, again, the fact that money is all you need to get attention and become a superstar. Your existence wastes precious resources better spent on people who work for a living; who toil their lives to make in their lifetimes what you make in a year; and who actually are talented.

5. The Seriousness of Global Warming: There may be no calamity more intense facing the human species. The Artic Circle will be completely melted within 30 years (during the summer months), raising water levels upwards of 2 feet; by the end of the century, the temperature will have risen about 7 degrees, and the glaciers all over the Earth are melting and threatening the water supplies of a lot of people. This is all very bad news. All the Priuses in the world will not save us if we don't cap emissions, use green energy, and start thinking smarter here. But, we are like our animal brethren: terrible at managing our environment.

4. Palin, the Right, and the Conservativization of America: Love them or hate them; love her or hate her. Palin changed the political calculus in serious ways. Before her, McCain was the best they could offer; Romney, a tired Guiliani, and Fred Thompson (really!?!) were the second-runners up. Palin unleashed a torrent of hidden anger and resentment from a segment of the population that lay dormant for a long time. Who are they tea party people? These hardline right-wingers? These Glenn Becks? Limbaugh's radio show has always had strong ratings indicating they were there the whole time. Listening, biding their time, growing angrier. And then, Palin opened the flood gates. Obama merely is the symbol of their hatred: a black man, a liberal, a northerner, an urbanite, and an intellectual. Everything the populist right hates.

But, my friends, don't think these people are going away. They have only begun to defile themselves. Polls indicate America is becoming more and more conservative, except in the few liberal bastions that sit on the coasts. Prepare for strange politics in the next few years. I am not predicting anything, because I have lived long enough to know things change in politics in a heartbeat...but, the outlook is not so pretty.

Palin will not go anywhere, but new one's like her will arise. What will happen? I suggested a moderate third-party, but that's unlikely. I suppose the moderate GOPers will either toe the line or be ousted from politics. The left will only harden and a new political civil war will be fought. Or, it might just be politics as usual. Either way, like the New Left in the 60s, the "neo" right of the Palin-era is upon us.

3. Massachusetts, San Francisco, and Same-Sex Marriage: The decision by courts and mayors and, likely, the populous in many places, to allow same-sex marriage is landmark for a few reasons. First, when I was younger -- like in the early 1990s -- being gay was not ok at all. I had no gay friends, though I suspect some were closeted. Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (regardless of your feelings on it) broke the gates open. In 15 short years, we have gone from gay not being ok, to gay being kind of ok, to the door being wide open, marriage becoming gradually accepted and soon gay adoption being understood as ok as well. Studies of course indicate two parents, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, are better than one; children of same-sex parents do not turn out gay because being gay is a matter of biology and genetics and not environment; and that loving parents and committed spouses transcend orientation.

What I think is most interesting, as a sociologist, is that we have no idea whether this will end well or terribly. The same arguments against gay marriage were bandied about against interracial marriage 50 years ago: it will destroy the institution of marriage; it is against god's will; etc. We see how that turned out...just fine. I assume things will also end benignly because in the grand scheme it makes little difference who marries who...as long as they are happy, healthy, and contributing members to society. I suppose the real irony is that the groups most opposed to gay marriage also tend to have the highest rates of premarital sex, teen pregnancy, divorce, and infidelity. I suppose the old don't throw stones at glass houses applies.

2. Obama as (Black) President: It would have been too easy to put this number 1, though it certainly deserves it. I would rather end this list cynically to fit my M.O. Obama's election was inspiring for so many reasons. And, what the right doesn't get is that it will not be strictly about his performance vis-a-vis McCain's potential performance; it is about the fact that we all witnessed something that a year and a half ago none of us assumed could ever happen. A black man is president. It took 100 years to go from being slaves to actually having some civil rights; it took another 40 plus years of struggle to get those rights to mean something; and now there is a black president. I am proud to be American, but ashamed at the right's attack on him. He has not done everything he promised, and he is definitely more left than he made himself out to be, but he should be given a chance to do something in his first term. I am all for dissent, but not ad hominem attacks. To question his integrity is absurd. Especially considering the transgressions of his predecessor.

Regardless of how this turns out, Americans can never go back to the old days or pre-Obama years. We have evolved. And, well, thank god because stagnation is the best medicine for destruction.

1. The Patriot Act: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Nor, the Patriot Act, Mark my words, though, this one will change America for the worse...it already has. Things we never thought or imagined could happen have. American citizens robbed of habeas corpus and detained indefinitely; wire tapping sans court approval; libraries being asked and sometimes forced to hand over reading lists; and the growing acceptance of security over rights. James Madison once said, "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." He also remarked,"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

By no means am I saying we are headed one way or the other. But, most of the things we took for granted have been challenged. Being a democracy is a difficult task. Accepting freedom with less security goes against some of our base instincts. As a people, however, we will have to decide which is most important to us: being a beacon of light to other subjugated peoples or joining them by subordinating ourselves to our masters.

Some Early Thoughts....

2009-11-03T06:46:00.001-08:00

So, I am teaching a course on religion and I have tried hard to avoid the notions of "truth" and "faith." They are clearly untestable propositions and, in my experience, do nothing to open the minds of my students. Rather, they lead to old arguments and tired debates about whose religion is more right. Unavoidably, perhaps, the questions have sunk into my students and by way of them, myself. What is truth? What is "god?" Why is science exalted over religion, because its success rate is so much higher and visible? And most importantly, as a scientist and a skeptic, how do I construct meaning?

Here is the thing, meaning derives from social constructions. As George Herbert Mead pointed out, society is nothing more than sets of symbols with shared meanings that facilitate cooperation. To be sure, large societies consist of large sets of symbols; some very abstract and general and therefore allowing people to consider themselves part of a nation or even humanity, whereas others are much more narrow and particular and facilitate interaction with family, ethnic or racial categories, gender, or even occupation. Knowing this does not take the fun out of being human because one could still legitimately take part and embrace social interaction. But, I have to question the depth of experience for the scientific person. Especially when it comes to religion and science. On the one hand, the two are not naturally antithetical. God could realistically be conceived of as creating the process of evolution and even contributing to what appear as "random" mutations. On the other hand, believing in evolution and science fully forces one to posit a cosmogony that strips humans of a unique place in the grand scheme.

Moreover, if life is truly random, then an afterlife, ethics or morality, a path, or anything with a transcendent connotation becomes implausible. And, where purpose is lost so is meaning. One could descend into Nihilism, but this is pointless. But, how does someone construct meaning? I have a few students who are not questioning their faith, but which church they feel is best for them. Their unflinching belief is refreshing in some ways because they have such strong meaning attached to the universe. Myself? I feel moved by human scenes. The types of scenes that tap into the deeply rooted primal ability to sympathize with others. I see pain or hurt on the face of someone in a convincing movie, or in the news, and I feel connected to humans.

For most of the day, I can reduce these feelings to socialization; to internalizing sets of symbols meant to allow for social organization and appropriate behavior. However, there are moments where even I catch myself deeply embedded in a situation. I get that gut feeling, and my head begins to buzz. I realize at that moment that all humans share something beyond the symbolic realm. Maybe religion is the way to tap into that for some, but for me, it is during moments of suffering that I feel the closest to humans. And, I am not sadomasochistic by any means; in fact, I wish there was no suffering. But something about the look on a person's face when they are forced to feel really high levels of pain makes me human...

Some Links for the Morning Cup 'O' Joe

2009-11-03T06:38:00.000-08:00

- A Follow Up On my Conservative GOP statement: (Here)

- A Scary Op-Ed Arguing Kind of what I argued yesterday regarding the conservativizing of America: (Here)

- As If Africa didn't have enough problems, a giant crack in Ethiopia will like split the continent in two and form a new ocean some day: (Here)

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-03T06:21:00.001-08:00

I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road. - Stephen Hawking

Strange Thoughts on the GOP

2009-11-02T14:20:00.000-08:00

What is happening? After a strange summer of Tea Parties, boisterous talk/TV show hosts, and the GOP losing then finding their way, things still strike me as very odd. First, if I were a moderate Republican (e.g., Snowe or Collins), and I saw the moves being made by the far, far right, I would be a little more than nervous. Politics, of course, are a strange game with even stranger, unpredictable events. Ironically, the most pragmatic institutional actors -- political entrepreneurs -- are also the most difficult to pin down when you think you understand their moves.

Take the NY-23 (don't you hate the media's cute way of short-handing things that than get picked up and become politico-speak?) race. A Republican is tossed out for being 'more liberal' than her opponent to make room for someone far more conservative than your average New York Republican. You would think people like Gingrich and Fred Thompson would be less than optimistic about these turn of events because it indicates a very possible GOP strategy for 2010 and beyond: exile the moderates and bring in the hardliners. But, no; in the face of this strange coup, the GOP has thrown its full support behind Hoffman. Now it is plausible to suggest a win is a win; in an off-year election with really only two governor races, even small victories appear magnified on their own.

The summer and the fall cast this possibility into doubt. The GOP has been moving to consolidate and play to its base, which is the only excited or excitable dimension of the GOP. The country, for the first time in a long time, identifies less as republicans than as democrats; Obama's campaign and internet success increased the number of democrats in the electorate...but, more people identify as being conservative than before (there are some doubts, by the way, that these surveys are useful because the word "conservative" is confusing to respondents. Are we talking fiscally, socially, or militarily conservative? Different wording produces different effects). Moreover, the two governor races look dangerously Republican in outcome.

Thus, what shocks me is despite the purges and the efforts to make the right far righter, the McCain's, Snowe's, and Boehner's stand strong with the GOP. Being more moderate than anything, I almost wish and feel like the center-right and center-left should ally and form a moderate party. A third-party with real candidates and good fundraising abilities may be a nice counterweight to the intensely partisan way of doing politics...

Your Quote for the Day

2009-11-01T08:03:00.001-08:00

The lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government, Government should not support the people.- Grover Cleveland

Top Ten Halloween/Horror Movies...A Little Late Edition

2009-10-31T14:33:00.000-07:00

There is nothing like a great horror movie to get the blood pumping. Occasionally, however, a horror movie transcends the genre and contains much more important subtext and depth that makes the experience worth watching multiple times. Thus, in honor of those movies that can both scare and convey some artistic expression, I give you the Top 10 Horror Movies...Ever.

1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (The Original)

2. The Exorcist

3. The Shining

4. Nightmare on Elm Street 1 (Of course, not much subtext, but brilliantly scary)

5. Rosemary's Baby

6. The Ring

7. The Hills Have Eyes (The Original)

8. Scream

9.Candyman

10. Night of the Living Dead

(Others Receiving Votes: Amityville Horror (Original); The People Under the Stairs; Alien and Aliens; Evil Dead; Halloween and Halloween II; Psycho)

Your Quote for the Day

2009-10-31T06:29:00.001-07:00

Advertising is a racket, like the movies and the brokerage business. You cannot be honest without admitting that its constructive contribution to humanity is exactly minus zero. - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Humanity, Punishment, and Confusion

2009-10-30T10:48:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking about the gang rape in Richmond, CA that I mentioned the other day, and have been thinking long and hard about crime and punishment...and, as Durkheim would predict, I am revolted, disgusted, and have a strange bloodlust for the perpetrators and the bystanders. But, I am also a humanist and with time I have come to question my own feelings about this and my own opinion about retribution. What would restore the situation to normalcy? My initial feeling was public castration for the actual rapists, and some serious public humiliation for the bystanders. Personally and on a side note, regardless of the punishments doled out, I don't think age should be a factor in our decision-making. Biologically and neuro-psychologically we are wired to feel sympathy for others, and the actions these boys pursued (especially after 2+ hours) at some point become meditated and the morality of the situation obvious. There is nothing I have read or seen that convinces me otherwise. I am also sympathetic to the "blame society" model, because the anger/aggression of these boys derives in part from their socioeconomic status, the pressures of being a teenager, and likely unstable familial relations. But, they are actors with a conscience and the power to make decisions like anyone else; they made a decision.

Thus, we return to the question: what is the right punishment? I said castration and humiliation. An eye for an eye would say they should be brutally raped while others watch; castration may be too light of a punishment. Or, metaphorically, castration and scooping one or both eyes out of the bystanders would send a message. But, are these the answers? How do we distinguish American human rights from those of Arab, African, or Asian nations which routinely torture, abuse, or otherwise use insane forms of punishment for the crimes? Does deterrence even work (evidence in Texas and the number of murders commmitted vis-a-vis the highest rate of capital punishment suggests a weak link)? I don't know...

Am I being weak, or too liberal in suggesting other punishments? Realistically, the situation cannot be restored. This girl is screwed for life. She will never be able to have normal relations with men, nor will she be able to deal with most people. She will live her life terrified of the dark, of alleys, of strangers, and of life itself. She is fifteen...she still has two more painfully embarrassing years of high school...then perhaps college. What is in store fore her? And, does castration really fix this? Does the death penalty fix this? I don't have an answer (though I am curious to hear what you think). I am too middle of the road perhaps to be a good judge. Part of me says take them out back and shoot them, but that becomes a slippery slope. Who else do we just pass judgment on immediately and kill or painfully torture? In most countries, where habeous corpus does not exist, no one questions the systems efficacy despite the fact that people commit crimes everywhere regardless of potential punishments. And, I don't think this particular case warrants preventative measures because I think it is a 1 in a million chance that after prom anyone would do something like this. But, man....it makes me really, really sad. My brother has two daughter. As if raising children wasn't difficult enough, now I have to think about this. If I keep writing, I will talk myself into the original punishment I feel they deserve. Bring back the public hangings?

Some Reading for your Morning Cup 'O' Joe

2009-10-30T08:56:00.000-07:00

- A good article attacking the old "deficit" is always bad voodoo economics...

- A smart roundtable regarding the Tea Party and its benefits and/or costs to the GOP

- An interesting Op-Ed asking the question of whether Feminism has made people happier or not...It does not seem to be a clear answer, but some interesting discussion points for the water cooler

- An Op-Ed discussion Obama's tenacity or lack thereof...ties in with a blog post I wrote a week ago regarding my concerns for Obama, or of Obama

Your Quote for the Day

2009-10-30T08:16:00.001-07:00

Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems, in my opinion, to characterize our age. - Albert Einstein

Signs of Crumbling Morality or Bad Survey Technique...You Decide

2009-10-29T09:53:00.000-07:00

While reading the LA Times this morning, I came across an interesting article on the Josephson Institute which is an organization committed to ethics. Strange, indeed. I have yet to see the survey or its methodology, but the results are startling. 7,000 people from various age groups were questioned about their morality and asserted that "today's youth [are] cynics who are aware that their behavior crosses boundaries but believe it is necessary to succeed." Now, before I go on and before I give you my opinion, keep these basic principles in mind. First, adults and older people in general tend to forget the past even when it is written down. Second, older people always (and I can get you quotes from Roman or Greek times, ancient China or Mesopotamia) lament a long lost golden age. And third, people generally lie on surveys, either consciously or unconsciously (the reasons why will be discussed below).

Assuming the survey is accurate here are some findings. (1) Teens (17 and younger) are five times as likely than those older than 50 to lie and cheat when they believe it is necessary to success (51% v. 10%). The younger group is also four times as likely to lie to their boss and three times as likely to keep change mistakenly given to them. (2) Young adults (18-24) were more likely to lie to a spouse than 41-50 year olds (48% v. 22%), make an unauthorized copy of music/video (69% v. 27%), and misrepresent themselves or omit a fact in a job interview (14% v. 4%). The conclusions some are drawing is that unethical behavior is molded early, which is probably true to a certain extent. The survey itself offers no theoretical discussion or interpretation of the data aside from the conclusion I just noted.

First, let's look at the data (and I am sure there is more, but the report has yet to be released). Taking the 18-24 versus 41-50 year-old groups first, it is possible to dismiss this data for a number of reasons. What does "lying" entail? Are we talking about concealing another lover, or just telling your wife you are working when you are hanging out watching TV? This word is loaded and unclear. And, my best guess as a sociologist, what it means to a person in their early twenties and someone who has been married for 10+ years is very, very different. A person tells their significant other so many small, white lies that by the time you are older, a lie comes to mean something much more grave. "What does my butt look like in these jeans?"; "Do I look fat?" Or, how about trying to plan a surprise party and telling your significant other a bunch of lies to keep them off the trail? Clearly, lying is subjective and changes over time. I would imagine 41-50 year-old people feel a lie is something that will damage the relationship, whereas younger people probably consider any non-truth regardless of impact a lie. The disparity of unauthorized music is nonsense. Any person with a VCR in the 1980's made tapes of TV and movies; cassette tapes also allowed people to transfer vinyl, make mix tapes, and dub friends music. There are few if any people who have not done this; or make a CD for their car. Again, the words are the key to this question, as is the level of awareness. In the 1980's it was nothing to make tapes and in the 1990's it was nothing to make a CD, -- but, we all know the FBI warning on movies and on the backs of CDs and records, yet ignore it because it is for personal use. The internet has changed this in many ways. No one has to buy the CD or movie you plan on making a copy of for personal use. But, more importantly, the number of high profile trials of companies like Napster have made this issue much more salient for teens and young adults. Older people still think don't consider what they did to be illegal, despite the contrary. And, all I have to say about the misrepresenting yourself in a job interview is thank god the numbers are so low. That may be the truest statistic; the discrepancy, without looking at the data, is probably not statistically significant which means you cannot really interpret the actual difference between groups.

Now, for the 17 and younger group v. the 50 and older group. Re-read the principles I stated above. The third one especially is important. We know that people lie on surveys. Sometimes people overestimate or underestimate their behavior (you know you do too, so don't try and hide it). We also know people are rational and when taking a survey will often tell the surveyor what they think he/she wants to hear. We also know that norms are very well socialized in a lot of people, and they will often answer in normative fashion rather than as accurate reflections of their behavior. And, of course, depending on the administration of the survey, we know people outright lie sometimes. Either way, respondents are not likely to give good answers to questions like: would you cheat or lie if necessary. For younger people, they are likely to either tell the truth because they care less and don't feel social pressures the same way, or overestimate it because they have not been in enough situations to discover whether they would or would not do the things they think they will. In fact, their answers may be more a reflection of what they think older people, or the average person would do. This is bad. Most kids see their parents cheat on their taxes, try to get out of speeding tickets, take short cuts, and do other things. They learn from them. If only only 10% of adults lie and cheat, then where do the 51% of the teens learn these behaviors? Blaming friends and the media may account for some of the discrepancy, but surely not all of it. Of course, I feel it is probably a reflection of their understanding of the world.

Conversely, older people lie all the time. The results prove this. It is unlikely that only 10% of the American population cheats on their taxes. Again, the words hold different meaning to different age groups based on life experience or lack thereof. I find it hard to believe that these people do not lie to their boss on a daily or weekly basis. What constitutes a lie, its severity, and its consequences again are very different given peoples' age and experience.

More generally, what does this survey tell us? Well, it tells us that Americans are like most other homo sapien sapien, primates, and other animals in that they will generally do what they need to succeed. It also tells us that society does a pretty good job of socializing at least 49% of its members (and, likely higher) to act ethically and morally. That is a reasonable number. In fact, I would assume based on the age-based biases I noted earlier, the number is likely higher -- somewhere between the two age groups' responses. As a professor, I see a cross-section of students who cheat and lie all the time. They do this because they learned it early on: to survive in the current educational system rife with test after test, and an ultra-competitive job market hit hard by globalization and a recession, one must do what they must. Kenneth Lay and Enron don't help; nor do athletes and owners fighting over millions of dollars; nor do reality TV stars hitting it big for having no talent; nor rappers singing about their money, their fame, and their narcissism. And most importantly, the fact that every adult lies to their kids about Santa Claus, where babies come from, about fights and divorces, about everything that is not "kid-oriented" does not help. People lie. They cheat. And, their children witness these things...go figure.

Your Quote for the Day (And My First Blog)

2009-10-29T08:40:00.000-07:00

Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are dead...and, because I am feeling a sense of irony this morning: Cynical realism is the intelligent man's best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation.- Aldous Huxley

Two quick things: Below the two lists on the left-hand side of the blog's page, you will find a "Followers" button. I have no idea what this means, but I think it will send you notifications of new blogs. You may or may not want this. However, if my blog has been at all interesting and you do like it, please become a follower. Also, feel free to comment, reply, argue, etc. I don't really know what I am doing yet, and am working through this process. I am trying to bring some laughter -- albeit darkly at times -- to people. I am also trying to raise awareness when possible of the strange mechanics of American and global social life...I hope this has been good.

Second, I would like to say one thing about capitalism as a shitty system. Why is it that if I do not pay my cable bill by the date they tell me to, I get a finance charge, but when the cable is down and the internet is down and I cannot use the service I am paying for, I get long waits on hold and little to no sympathy from customer service? In a just world, they would credit my account for services not rendered. Just something to consider this morning.

Invention of the Week: The Camera and Photography

2009-10-28T16:29:00.000-07:00

I would like to raise my glass to you, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, for inventing the first permanent photograph in 1826. While you were certainly not the first person to think of such a thing (that honor belongs to Johann Heinrich Schultz who figured out that a silver + chalk + light = darkened images in 1724), you made the all important innovation that would eventually come to shape American and global society in ways previously unimagined. In reality, your contribution would give democratic nations the teeth they were lacking. When Matthew Brady (and lesser knowns Alexander Gardner, George Bernard, Timothy O' Sullivan, and James Gibson) began photographing the American Civil War, they changed the way wars were understood and perceived by the public. While the TV and Vietnam may have changed the military's strategy in terms of warfare and protecting soldiers, Niépce, your invention afforded the public sphere a window into the good, the bad, and the horrifying aspects of warfare. To be sure, your invention has lost its power in the face of the internet and, before that, television, let's be honest: your innovation changed the face of governance and the terms of war. Committing atrocities could potentially leave a fingerprint that would provide the world with evidence.

In addition, the camera beyond Niépce's contribution altered the way time would be understood by people. The past was always a murky subject, and while writing allowed cultural knowledge to be stored, transmitted faithfully over time, and reinterpreted, the camera appealed to the sense most honed in homo sapien sapien: vision. No longer did one have to hear stories about their great-grandparents or their dead uncle, but no they could match the face to the name and the story; no longer did one have to endure a long-distance relationship and long courtship sans some image to remind them of the objection of their affection; and no longer did people have to strain to remember what they looked like as a baby, a teen, a young person, or a middle aged person...it could be preserved.

And, I cannot hesitate to mention the more contemporary iteration of cameras and their use: instant gratification! Without the camera, where would we be? How could we go out to a bar, club, dinner, or anywhere and not take a picture or ten or hundred to post on Myspace and Facebook immediately after the event (or with Blackberries and iPhones, immediately after the picture is taken)? I cannot even remember what it was like to go out and enjoy myself without a flash in my eyes, without some strange picture showing up the next day reminding me of something I had forgotten...or, god forbid, having to bring my film to the drugstore and wait a whole 24 hours to get the prints...How did we ever survive?

So Niépce and your predecessors...I salute you! And so do the millions of teens and college-aged kids who use your invention three or four times a day to update their profiles on a seemingly infinite number of networking sites!

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

2009-10-28T10:47:00.000-07:00

The Good: 7 out of 10 Americans think Sarah Palin is unqualified for the office of the presidency. Hooray!!

The Bad: There are too many Dems opposing the plan making a filibuster likely, and making healthcare tough.

The Ugly: The Dem's Joe Wilson, Alan Grayson is a total moron who makes my arguments about Republicans being morons almost moot.

Scientology

2009-10-28T08:56:00.000-07:00

For a rare glimpse into the Church by a defector, read this article.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-10-28T06:19:00.001-07:00

The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry. - Ernest Hemingway

I Smell Bullshit

2009-10-27T11:39:00.000-07:00

There, I said it. Who is this guy to our left? Only the biggest dipshit in the Senate today. I dislike him more than any Republican or Democrat for two reasons. First, he is Jewish and so am I; except, he gives Jews a bad name by being such a stupid moron. And to think he was almost vice-president. Do we really want the first Jew to reach that high of an office to be this guy? He loves war; he basically wants to be John McCain, but he is just an Independent who kind of votes Democrat. What confuses me most is that the great people of Connecticut fell for his ruse and re-elected him.

Second, and more germane to contemporary issues, he has threatened to filibuster the health care plan Reid (who I dislike also) is pushing. Not just abstain or vote no, but filibuster. And, not just attack the final plan and the final vote, but he won't even vote for cloture, or the movement of the bill from Reid's desk to the Senate floor for debate and then a vote of passage.

I smell bullshit Mr. Lieberman. You, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska are all guilty of...hold your breath...it's coming...douchebaggery -- a common crime of politicians. You four, and especially Mr. Lieberman are guilty of it beyond belief. 60% of the public want a public option. That is a fact at this time. Up from 54% in August, which means people have been convinced. Why would you be against it? Oh yeah, you are afraid of not being re-elected. You all are a bunch of trained monkey. You know why I am beginning to like Harry Reid who I would have also accused of douchebaggery only two weeks ago? Its because he is really reviled in Nevada and is looking at a likely ouster in 2010. When politicians smell their demise, they act in ways that reflect their true feelings instead of kowtowing to every interest group for re-election. He has nothing to lose, and perhaps he is at peace with that. Maybe by acting decisively he will win next year because his constituents will see him as being strong and as enacting legislation that has been a long time coming, and actually does benefit the poor white fuckers who keep voting Republican despite the Republican party exploiting them (another blog unto itself). Hey Lieberman, just quit; or, shut your damn mouth. You are irrelevant. You were a vice-presidential candidate on a losing ticket; you lost a primary in your own party, of which you have belonged for a long time; and, no one likes you on either side of the aisle. So, go home and just be lame. Stop bothering everyone.

Update: I did a bit of research and found some interesting stuff. First, health professionals and the insurance industry are ranked 7th ($1,041,362) and 8th ($1,036,070) respectively in campaign donations over his career. Second, in terms of individual donors, Purdue Pharma is 4th -- most of which was donated between 2003-8 for his re-election ($150,100), Aetna is 9th ($112,618), and Pfizer is 11th ($85,190). His voting record, during Bush II's administration is not much better...

Why Do I Hate Humans

2009-10-27T07:55:00.000-07:00

I was led to believe that schools were the sacred environments, like protective wombs for students. In truth, they should be. Children, vulnerable human beings, go to school to become educated -- whatever that may mean. But, schools are horrible, horrible places. I just read about some girl in California (of course) who was assaulted and raped after prom for over 2 1/2 hours...read that again: 2 1/2 hours. Are you kidding me? Three guys supposedly were the assailants, but 15 people sat there and watched the whole thing without doing anything about it...as if it was porn on their computer. Say what you will about the ultra-white, middle-upper class school I went to in Michigan; complain about the lack of diversity and the class boundaries between my high school and the other cities high school; complain about whatever you want. This shit never happened in my school, and ironically enough, it is unlikely to happen. It always happens in California, or some other big, crazy urban environment. (Incidentally, small, suburban schools give way to armed students killing kids). I am all for due process in the courts, but some crimes seem heinous; that there will be defense attorneys lining up to defend these kids and some liberal watchdog groups saying the 15 year old kids involved didn't know any better makes me hate people even more. Let's just go back to the old days for cases like this: throw them in a lake with a stone tied to their legs; if they float, then they are innocent, if they sink...oh well. Think about this: if that was your daughter, or friend's daughter, or someone you knew well...how would you feel? I say we castrate these people publicly. While we are at it, I have a solution to cleaning up and fixing the LA schools: it is called the scorched Earth method. Let's go, round up all gangs -- Mexican, black, Asian, white...whatever -- and just put them on an island. We can film it as a reality show as they brutally kill each other while also cleaning up the crime problem. Then, kids who want to learn or want the opportunity to learn can go to school without being afraid of being shot, robbed, coerced into joining a gand; families can feel safer; and we can try and start this over again. Too extreme?

Obama Support

2009-10-27T07:21:00.000-07:00

For those who cannot stand the new calls of Nixonian politics being lobbed at Obama, the only way to counteract these in daily conversations is with history. Humans have short memories; Americans have the memories of fruit flies -- 24 hours or less. So, here is a link to an article at Politico to remind us of Bush and Gingrich's actions that were similar to Obama's refusal to meet with Fox News...some ammo for your morning water cooler talk.

Chris Farley and Advertising

2009-10-27T07:08:00.000-07:00

I saw the most disturbing thing on sunday while watching football: an ad with Chris Farley doing some routine from a movie he and David Spade was in. The disturbing part? David Spade was sitting on the couch, as he did in the movie, and talking to and about Chris Farley as he was jumping around. Spade acted as if he was still alive and they were literally in the room together. I find this problematic on two levels.

First, Spade was supposedly his best friend. How could he even consider doing this? Second, who the hell gave this company (I have trained myself to block out ads, so I don't even know what it was for) the legal right to use Farley's image? And, I suppose, third, who green lighted this? Using a dead person to sell products is just morally wrong. Business schools, which teach "ethics" that are typically ignored by people under real life situations who are also taught to maximize profit -- often a contradictory goal -- should be ashamed.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-10-27T07:03:00.000-07:00

An argument fatal to the communist theory, is suggested by the fact, that a desire for property is one of the elements of our nature. - Herbert Spencer

Further Evidence of Adverse Effects Coming From Television

2009-10-26T22:43:00.000-07:00

Evidently, putting your children in front of the television is a bad idea...shocking, right? I had told my brother to not purchase the Baby Einstein video because a study demonstrated that children who watch it actually learn less words than their counterparts. Just today, I read Disney is refunding parent's money for purchasing it. (Here and Here).

Other studies are finding more and more links to television watching and decreasing attention spans as they get older. Australia has begun to adopt guidelines suggesting children under the age of 30 months watch little to no tv, as studies are demonstrating poor vocabularies, poor attention spans, and aggressive behavior (Here).

Another study of 3 to 8 year olds found that TV was linked to significantly higher blood pressure in children, regardless of their weight. Ironically, other sedentary behaviors like using the computer were not significantly linked. Furthermore, researchers estimate children see 10,000 or more food ads per year (the average person sees close to 3500 ads per day...not just on TV), which likely promote unhealthy lifestyles and contribute to our youth's obesity problem.

I guess we should all take heed. Reading is good, TV is bad; outdoor activities is good; TV is bad. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this. It is good that there is increasingly good empirical evidence demonstrating the bad things TV does to children. I suppose anyone with a kid or young people around and have watched them watch TV knows they essentially become retarded...

Slow Day at the Office

2009-10-26T17:52:00.000-07:00

I suppose this blogging thing requires vigilance. Today was a slow day: stocks plummeted, Obama produced little new, the Senate predictably said the public option would be out there, I taught two classes, and the baseball world took a deep breath in preparation for the World Series.

Moreover, I am personally digging deep into some work. I have been trying to balance two projects. The first is meant to convert my dissertation into a book, something much more challenging than I had anticipated. And the second is a much larger project that is looking to explain the Axial Age, and apply this general theory case-by-case. This is where I think I may lose some of you, because you might be more interested in my political ideas/harangues, as well as my other random thoughts. But, today, I am going to go sociological on your asses...sorry.

Here is the thing: how do I talk about institutions in a way that is accessible to a larger audience whilst staying true to my sociological audience? Colloquially, we use the word institutions do describe everything: the Presidency, Yale or Harvard university, the handshake, In 'N' Out Burgers, marriage, patriarchy, democracy, capitalism...You get the point. But, when considering this list or whatever else pops into your mind, what exactly is an institution? Clearly it is something enduring; something that we cannot imagine not existing. In sociology, unfortunately, we make the same mistake. But a science strives for precision in its concepts, otherwise it risks ambiguity and problems when seeking explanations. Some of my colleagues don't believe in definitions, or social science for that matter. Choosing to ignore social forces that are unalterable, they opt for critical theories that propose utopian societies that cannot exist because of the simple social forces that are unalterable! Moreover, the obfuscate their arguments with 50-cent and $1 words that make them appear really intelligent, but actually enhance the vagaries of their discourse. Thus, we come to the problem: what is an institution?

This is what I study, essentially: the evolution of human institutions from 10,000 years ago to today. Institutions can be defined as constellations of individual and corporate (group) actors organized around and by universal human concerns and their adaptive satisfaction. In other words, actors -- like people and groups -- become distributed in social space based on their relative access to resources like power, prestige, love, or wealth. An easy example: parents are "vertically" higher in status because of their relative access to important resources in relationship to children; each child, likely based on age criteria, are also distributed differently in social space. But this brief discussion could also be used to define a group like McDonald's, a family, or a Church. What distinguishes an institution is that it consists of a bunch of groups who are oriented towards satisfying some universal human concern. Six institutions appear ubiquitous: kinship, polity, religion, economy, education, and law.

Each institution historically is the physical and symbolic location of a particular concern: kinship-biological/cultural reproduction; polity-defense, resource management, and internal conflict resolution; religion-communication with the supranatural and the moral order; economy-subsistence, both production and distribution; education-knowledge and truth; and law-justice/conflict resolution. These are real institutions. They vary in terms of their autonomy, or how distinct the actors, resources, and rules are in relation to each other. In a hunter/gatherer society, some 10,000 years ago, there were no full-time political actors like a president or king; there were no full-time religious actors, though shamans occasionally existed part-time or as patrons for clients; and there were no lawyers, judges, or courts. As societies grow in size and density, so does the complexity of the society. Conflict resolution and justice, for example, become problematic when there are greater numbers of people, living in denser settlements, and they become ethnically, occupationally, socioeconomically, or religiously heterogeneous. As these concerns become more frequently expressed, legal actors become more distinct from other types of actors. In a modern society like the U.S., we have lawyers, doctors, clergy, politicians, CEOs, teachers/professors, students, mothers/fathers/children, and artists. Each one of these roles are distinct in behaviors, appropriate time and space for which these behaviors are expected or obligated, sanctions for misbehavior, and unique symbolic elements -- that is, doctors wear ________ whereas judges wear _______? The fact that all of you can answer that the same way means that these roles have symbolic meanings distinct from each other.

Am I boring you yet? I hope not, because you might be asking me who cares? Well, sociology first emerged to answer the big question: why do people make the decisions they make and set the goals they set? Or, why do some people choose line of action to achieve a goal whereas someone else may choose a different one? Institutions exist to channel our behavior. It limits the decisions we make, the goals we set, and the lines of action available to us. Someone who derives a lot of their self-worth from being a professor rather than a father/mother or citizen, is more likely to orient their attitudes and actions towards the educational institution. Which means they are going to seek out social circles where their professor identity is likely to be activated; they are likely to understand problems or perceive things through the lens of a professor, even when the problem or event falls outside of their jobs. Another example may help: a judge who derives the majority of their wealth, power, and prestige from their legal role is more likely to make legal decisions based on legal principles vis-a-vis a judge who is less committed. Does this play out in real life? Yes. In very high profile case recently which pitted the Dover (Pennsylvania) School System against some people who felt intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution, we saw an Evangelical judge act counter commonsense. Most people, liberals especially, would be inclined to assume he would rule in favor of his religious values; instead, in his ruling he acknowledged these values, but noted the legal principles precluding him from allowing intelligent design into the classroom. Sociologically, this is relevant because commonsense is often wrong. A theory of institutions allows us to better predict, as well as understand/explain, the behavior of individuals and groups more empirically...

I am done now.

For Californians, Those Interested in California, or those Interested in Good Journalism

2009-10-26T06:27:00.000-07:00

Just read a great article on California in The New Republic addressing California's present and future. It is full of interesting stuff on education and economy, so if this is not your bag avoid it. It is also a long read, though, so be prepared.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-10-26T06:08:00.001-07:00

"...[D]emocrats believe that justice implies equality--and so it does, but only for those who are equal, not for everybody. The oligarchs, on the other hand, believe that justice implies inequality--and so it does, but only for those who are unequal, not for everybody. Both sides judge erroneously...because such judgments affect their own interests, and most men are rather bad judges where their own interests are involved...." - Aristotle

Reason #34 Why Jon Stewart is a Good Guy

2009-10-25T19:08:00.001-07:00

I was thinking about this old Jon Stewart Crossfire appearance, and decided to find it and post it. If you haven't seen it, please watch...it occurred during the 2004 election and Jon Stewart takes it to Tucker Carlson. If you have seen it, enjoy a stroll down memory lane.

Strange, But True

2009-10-25T13:41:00.000-07:00

-A 75-Year Old woman in Saudi Arabia has received 40 lashes, 4 months of imprisionment, and deportation for having two men in her house, one of which was her nephew. (Here)

-In Iowa, a man was arrested after he called another man a zombie and punched him twice. (Here)

-A man in Virginia was busted for being naked...in his own home...alone. (Here)

-Taiwan has a restaurant in which you literally eat whilst sitting on toilet bowls...the list of food is pretty gross too. (Here)

Afghanistan

2009-10-25T09:17:00.000-07:00

Should Obama send more troops? No. Simply put. My reasons are not the standard set; though I can see the analogies between Vietnam and the current "quagmire," I can also see the differences. I also am not a fully committed pacifist even though I do believe we should try and solve problems sans force whenever possible. I do think that some groups require military force, but only as a last resort.

Here is my reasoning. On the one hand, George Bush diverted his attention nearly three years after committing to Afghanistan, yet continued to "fight" there quite ineffectively. On the other hand, the U.S. is truly at a crossroads of epic proportion, not to unlike the point that Rome was at as a Republic when Caesar and then Augustus transformed it so it could survive another half millennium.

Let's look at the first point. There are no such things as short wars. Admittedly, World War II was five years for the U.S.'s involvement, but in a hundred years, when historical time becomes compressed, WWII will look much more like the continuation of WWI. Indeed, many wars last thirty years despite the typical interregnums between actual fighting. The causes of WWII lie deeply rooted in the resolution of WWI. Vietnam, despite not being defined as a conflict, was also 15 years long or more if you consider the time we were there with soldiers dying. Thus, wars are long. But, it is also rare that one war is shelved or pushed in the periphery to fight another; a strategy Bush chose to pursue for many, many benign and nefarious reasons. The outcome of this strategy has likely lengthened the amount of time we will have to realistically spend in Afghanistan both in terms of fighting and stabilizing. Who is our enemy? It was the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but now it is becoming just Al Qaeda, with some olive branches being reached out to the Taliban. What is our strategy? More troops? Not going to work. Not only did the Russians and British fail before us, but using conventional tactics does not work in a country like Afghanistan where the neighbors, Iran, Pakistan, and the Caucuses are not exactly pro-American or willing to build a wall on their borders. This is bad. If we had remained vigilant in the early stages, a surge may be useful, but because we neglected this front for so long I don't know how it is really worth it.

You might respond by saying we owe it to the Afghani's to do this. We don't owe anyone, except the Iraqi's who did not attack us and whose infrastructure we destroyed in the process of preemption. The Afghani's live in little nucleated villages that function more like chiefdoms than city-states or provinces; chiefdom politics are much different from Americanized/Western politics...translation: better to leave these people to deal with their problems customarily than try to impose some nonsensical system on them.

The second reason should draw attention to the U.S.'s steady decline in hegemony since it lost Vietnam. Our political and economic clout have drastically ebbed, and all that is left is our military power built up during the Cold War and our cultural hegemony. People wanting to buy Levi's jeans, though, does not lend itself to leverage in politico-economic realms. We are a paper tiger, with a big dick. The parallels with Rome are thrown in sharp relief when we consider how they used their military more and more near the end of the Empire's efficacy to subjugate little territories rather than defeat challengers. Short of nuclear war, we could not defeat China without losing a lot of human lives, which means they have leverage. Thus, we fight proxy wars like Rome did to gain resources like oil that the Chinese will need. By owning them, we have economic bargaining chips that seem like good substitutes for military power. But here is the rub: that is exactly what the Chinese want. The more committed we are to foreign incursions, the more resources have to be diverted from the American people to some foreign universe, its population, and its infrastructure. Wars and geopolitical power are eroded when countries spend lots of time stretching their imperialist grasp far from home. Look at the examples: Egypt, after the First Intermediate Period, became an imperialist state stretching as far as Mesopotamia; in Mesopotamia, Sargon's Akkadian dynasty (see a prior post), Hammurabi's Babylon, the Assyrian, neo-Babylonian, and Persian empires all did the same thing. China's dynastic upheavals offer similar examples, as does Greece under Alexander and then later under Athenian rule; Russia during the Cold War. The examples are endless actually. Why?

Stagnation in political expansionism has its costs. Political systems require material resources to sustain their goals, activities, and actors. The best way to secure this is through expansionist policies as the government can become a powerful landholder who can either "lease" the land, sell it outright, or let people use it but tax them. That is revenue. The spoils of war also help prop up the aristocracy who are given things to keep them from revolting against the ruling class. In modern US, this happens all the time. The contracts given to Halliburton, for example, are no different from a king parceling out some land to a noble or landed gentry to pacify them, increase their wealth, and buy their allegiance. Defence contractors are not the same as the aristocracy of feudal times, but they certainly exhibit similar qualities in terms of their relationship with political elite.

I digress, however. The point I am making is fighting these wars and diverting our human and material resources thousands of miles away means that schools, hospitals, and other vital social services will eventually become neglected. In economic crises, like the one we are in right now, the first things we stop funding are schools. Ironically, schools and education are one way to combat the changes in the economic landscape. But, as many founding fathers and Greek philosophers recognized, democracy has a very easy path to despotism and tyranny. When warfare becomes routine or necessary to the political elite, the consolidation of vital resources become exacerbated. Few benefit, other than the modern aristocracy. War produces security fears which are met through the restriction of rights (e.g., the Patriot Act); power increasingly becomes centralized, and soon bad things happen.

I don't think we are going to become autocratic, nor do I think we are going to collapse like Rome...but, we are headed the direction Britain took in the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, decline. This will be hard for Americans to accept because we like cheap goods and services; we like thinking we are the best. But, a state is like all living things: it grows, blossoms, declines, and decays. The question our generation faces is: do we want to go down with the pedal to the floor or nice and steady? I for one prefer the latter to the former, and advocate what George Washington once advocated...let's avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements because they only lead us down a dark path. War is an ugly business which only profits a few people. Certainly not the pawns on the chess board in Afghanistan.

Your Quote for the Day (Two For One Special)

2009-10-25T08:25:00.000-07:00

If you come to a fork in the road, take it. & If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.- Yogi Berra

Fact or Fiction

2009-10-24T18:02:00.000-07:00

Found a cool site today called snopes.com that looks to find evidence supporting or refuting urban legends. For example, did Frank Zappa eat shit on stage? Evidently not. It turns out that it is also not true that Mama Cass chocked on a ham sandwich leading to her death; she evidently suffered a heart attack likely caused by her obesity. Another myth that I always thought was true concerned Phil Collins' "In the Air Tonight" which was rumored to be written about a guy who Phil witnessed watch a kid drown to death. Also false.

In the truth department: Sly Stallone's acting debut was in a porn; Led Zepplin did use a mud shark on a willing female...

Random Links for the Day

2009-10-24T14:32:00.000-07:00

1. Ironic Link of the Day: India has begun to institute sexual education to its junior/senior high kids. The government is a little wary of this new education. Why is this ironic? Well, India is only the birthplace of the Kama Sutra and Tantric forms of sex meant to reach enlightenment...

2. Sticking with the sex tip, it seems conventional wisdom wins again: sexual satisfaction in women leads to greater levels of happiness in general...amazing...(Here)

3. Further evidence of the impartiality and fierce independence of the Israeli Supreme Court...another example of why democracy is always superior to other "cracies". (Here)

4. For a break from the inanity of modern living, I present to you the Onion. (Here)

History Lesson of the Week

2009-10-24T13:58:00.000-07:00

This lovely fella to the left is Sargon the Great. Born somewhere in northern Mesopotamia (see map below), or northern Iraq today, sometime in the middle to late second millennium BCE (Before the Common Era). Around 2334, Sargon became the first emperor the world had ever seen, or at least that we knew of. It is unclear whether or not he truly shed much blood, or how large his army was (though clay tablets found report it to be around 5,400 men which would be a lot for 5,000 years ago), but we do know he pacified the otherwise unpacifiable southern Mesopotamia and brought together the north in a single empire which last through four generations of Sargonaids.

Westerners would instantly recognize the myth of Sargon's birth: his mother was a high priestess (and his father was unknown) who had him in secret. To conceal his birth, she placed him in a basket and sent him upstream where a woman retrieved him and he became a gardener. The story diverges from the Mosaic legend here. For some reason, a king appointed him cupbearer. Subsequently, the king had a dream that Sargon would usurp his throne. It is unclear how he became king, or how he was able to subject other city-states to his rule. But, we know that c. 2334 BCE, he had become emperor of the "four corners of the world."

Sargon's achievements are numerous. For one, he provides future political entrepreneurs a key innovation in the pursuit of legitimacy: he invented a new capital city, Akkad. He built it anew, assigned a local deity to the city whose power was supreme over the entire region, and drew his bureaucrats from their natal homes to live in the new city. He separated the bureaucrats from kinship influence, one way to reduce corruption. Nearly every powerful king since then has chosen a new capital or built a new capital to demonstrate their divine power and control over nature and the people. A second innovation came when he made his daughter Enheduanna, the high priestess for a key god. The reasons behind this political move was to secure a degree of power over the temple, the priests, and control their ability to put his power into check. Obama did something similar to Hillary Clinton.

Upon Sargon's death around 2215 BCE, his son tried to keep the empire together. As is typical, the son fails to a large degree, but Sargon's grandson Naram-Sin does succeed at pulling it back together and expanding it. In a serious power grab, Naram-Sin declares himself a god; as such, the temples, which were literally considered the houses of the gods, belonged to Naram-Sin and the priests were officially under his purview. By the end of his rule, modern day Iran had already begun to revolt, the priests were likely pushing against his rule as well, and Naram-Sin's son Shar-Kali-Sharri survived about 20+ years before the empire brokedown into small, city-states.

Sargon's legacy does not live on today for numerous reasons. Because of this, I chose to highlight his impact this week. His political innovations, origins myth, and tactics survive today. But, his name and legacy are shrouded by historical ignorance. So, Sargon, I salute you.

Lamenting the Lost Art of Comedy

2009-10-24T11:47:00.000-07:00

I was considering reviewing Couple's Retreat, which I went to against my better judgment last night. The movie, despite some initial laughs, a good cast, and an interesting premise was predictable, lost its energy by the middle, and was everything I hate about recent comedies. So, instead of a review I offer a nostalgic analysis of the bygone days of good comedy.

You might be asking, what is wrong with the comedy today? Here is the basic answer: the love story between the protagonist and the main lady grow more and more central to the movie as it continues. In other words, the first half is loaded with classic bits, great one-liners, and good physical stuff; the second half becomes increasingly about the idiot overcoming some personality based obstacle and making his love life work. Recent examples include Wedding Crashers (which almost made it to the end, but became a sap story), Road Trip, nearly anything with Ben Stiller (e.g., Along Came Polly), Adventureland, anything with Luke Wilson, and anything with actresses named Kate. My reply: who cares?

The old comedies were great because that is what they were. Plain and simple. Caddyshack. Original screenplay focused heavily on Danny Noonan, the caddy, but with an all-star cast and a great director the movie made the love story a background element that makes very little sense in the context of the big picture. Airplane!? Naked Gun? Both had love stories, but the love stories were actually so insane that they were easily integrated in the surreal nature of both movies. Animal House also had a minor love story, but a dysfunctional one at best. The National Lampoon Vacation series? No love story because Chevy Chase was already married. Mel Brooks flicks? Same thing. In the Young Frankenstein, Gene Wilder's character is down with Teri Garr's, but the movie's plot takes precedence. Here is where it drops off. Adam Sandler flicks, pre The Wedding Singer, were good with the love story not hurting the plot...Austin Powers also succeeded, but the last two were questionable for other reasons. Will Farrell may be the only true comedian left. Anchorman, Talledega Nights, and Step Brothers all stay away from love stories dominating them.

Here is the problem. I don't think comedy and romance can't comingle. But, I believe that mature adult movies serve that genre the best. Sideways or Annie Hall demonstrate this quite clearly. But, I feel that directors and writers don't have enough funny ideas to drive an entire movie, so they resort to building into the first movie and second movie. Of course, in the Hollywood drive to reach bigger sets of demographics it cannot hurt to include women in the audience, but please, please, please. When I want to laugh, I want to laugh all the way through. Old School is awesome become it sustains its energy despite Luke Wilson's attempts at ruining it.

Your Quote for the Day

2009-10-24T07:05:00.000-07:00

An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men. - Charles Darwin

CarHenge!!!

2009-10-23T15:10:00.000-07:00

What is this strange picture above, you might ask? Well, it is none other than Carhenge located in Alliance, Nebraska. Recently, I was on a road trip which purposely sought out this strange mecca. An artist whose name I have forgotten, built this amazing structure to proper specifications. If you are having trouble finding it, it is just south of this rest area (the picture below the text). I highly recommend road trips with very strange destinations and little scheduling so that you can discover as much of the US as possible...life is short, and the US big!

Mandatory Civil Service? A Good Idea?

2009-10-23T12:20:00.000-07:00

Here me out before passing judgment. In Israel (among other nations), every guy/girl has to be in the army for a certain number of years. Forget forced armed service, and focus instead on two or three years mandatory civil service. The possibilities are limitless. First I will look at how it would work, theoretically, and then look at its benefits.

Every person would have to give service time, rich or poor, to local, state, or national governments. Exams could be administered to better place the person in terms of their aptitudes, skills, and likes/dislikes. A minimum pay scale (a good one) would be established that would actually benefit those who are poor by probably giving them more economic power and freedom; for those making more money than the minimum, they would receive the equivalent pay with a maximum ceiling meant to prevent tax payers being unfairly burdened. Because everyone had to participate, employers would either voluntarily or by law be forced to suspend the persons job and give it back to them at the end of the service, unless the person wanted to change their career and become a full-time public servant. Civil service, of course, can be a wide ranging set of things: local/state/national politics; armed service; engineering; construction of public goods; etc. There would be an age minimum/maximum that would force people to delay it while pursuing an education and a family, but would not allow them to delay it for too long.

Among other things, I think it would be beneficial for a number of reasons. First, by giving one's time and seeing what it is like to participate in local, state-level, or national politics, the individual will get a better feel for how the system works. Second, by getting a better feel s/he will appreciate what s/he has, be more inclined to protect it, and be more sympathetic to others trying to protect it. Third, the complexities of politics would be laid bare to those participating in it, and the tendency to polarize and practice politics of absolutism would more likely give way to politics of responsibility. Fourth, knowing that the person you are dealing with in other settings has given their time and energy, or will be sacrificing this soon will hopefully increase the tendency towards civil discourse. It is a way of creating a bond, forced no doubt, but positive. Furthermore, while 2-3 years sounds like a lot, it would be the best way to give back to a society which provides jobs, wealth, subsistence, entertainment, affection, and the satisfaction of a wide range of other needs. It would be hoped that the rhetoric between the left and the right, between liberal and conservative, and between majority and minorities would give way to a healthier, more fulfilling discussion focused on improvements. Knowing everyone is contributing in similar ways, albeit temporarily, would likely make other social services appear more deserved regardless of one's class position. The rich could not say "why should I give anything to these people, let them earn themselves." Well, they are earning and so are the rich people by giving up a little of their time/energy.

Something has to change before we give in to anger, fear, and the dark side. We can continue to celebrate the Glenn Beck's, Limbaugh's, and Pelosi's, or we can look for true and efficacious ways to reach across the various divides in American civil life. If not, we will only hasten our own destruction which seems inevitable given the nonsense of American media, politics, and the tainted civil sphere...