Category Rants

Unbelievable

BELIEVE

I was busy yesterday and completely offline all afternoon, so by the time I caught first wind about the story with the balloon and the kid, they had just found the kid on the ground, hiding. But this ridiculous story led the local 6:00 newscast AND the network newscast, and the frothing twats at our local NBC station were ready to go wall-to-wall with it all night long if the kid hadn’t turned up about two minutes into their newscast. They had reporters live at various locations to cover this IMPORTANT STORY…even though this was happening in Colorado and NOT Boston. They had “Experts” lining up to explain about how balloons work. They had animated SCARE-O-VISION graphics and that “Voice of Doom” voice-over guy they use all cued up and ready to use over and over and over. And I will wager you any amount of money that at least one station in every single major media market in the country did the exact same thing. And all you had to do was look at that balloon to know that there was no way in hell it was going to support the weight of a small child. Is there a television news director left anywhere in the country who isn’t a complete moron?

Even if it turns out that this was a complete stunt on the part of the family involved (and I can’t make up my mind if it is or not), every working television journalist in America needs to take a long, deep look inside themselves and honestly question what the hell they are doing if this sort of inanity receives that much of their time and attention. Seems to me that maybe we would be better served if the newspapers stayed in business and the television news networks were the ones shutting down; newspapers are guilty of a lot of sensationalism, too, but this story would have had time to play itself out before a single inch of print could be wasted on it.

UPDATE: Since some people coming here via the CNN link can’t play nice, I have turned comments off

See Also

  • Sorry, No Related Posts

Bring Lawyers, Guns and Money

revolutionary

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — The Declaration of Independence

If it isn’t clear to people by now that when Barack Obama said “Change you can believe in”, he really meant nothing of the kind. He meant “we’ll just keep on doing it the way we always have”, and most Democrats have been okay with this because the ones in power benefit from having it be their turn and the ones who aren’t powerful seem to be satisfied that he’s not George Bush and that’s all they really cared about in the first place. Which is really, really, really disgusting, when you think about it.

So what can you do? Well, the deck is so stacked against any attempt to bring change to the rotten two-party system that the consensus seems to be that the only way to effect any change is to “nut up” (as that ad for the new Woody Harrelson movie says), and settle in for the long haul of trying to bring genuine change to the Democrats, who are the lesser of the two evils. The Republican Party was transformed through the slow process of seeding people at the bottom 25-30 years ago and now those wackjobs and wingnuts have successfully turned that party into a very scary political entity indeed. This long, but well-written, post at The Seminal (which has been folded into the political site Fire Dog Lake) by Bill Egnor outlines exactly wht a long and arduous task it will be. If you don’t have a quarter-century to devote to it, it’s going to seem insurmountable.

And maybe it is insurmountable. Maybe our political system is so ossified and thoroughly corrupt that it can’t be changed through even the most diligent of grass roots activism. Maybe it’s time to “nut up” and shoot it out. It’s my distinct impression that there are quite a few people on the right preparing for this very solution. It’s becoming my opinion that the left should begin thinking the same way. If you want me to believe in “change”, then you’d better be intended to actually change something.

See Also

Another $0.02 Opinion About “Star Trek” From A Middle-Aged Geek

oldtrek-newtrek

It did not suck.

All three of us went to see it Saturday afternoon at the nearby IMAX theater, since I had been smart enough to pre-buy the tickets online. By that time, there had been enough positive word-of-mouth from trusted friends as well as the glowing professional reviews that I felt reasonably confident we would not be seeing a stinkbomb, but I was still delighted and surprised at how much fun the film was. Charlotte, who has never seen a single episode of any version of Star Trek in her entire life, was totally taken with it, and Bridget, who has had to put up with me being a fanboy all these years but isn’t much of a Trekker herself, still keeps saying two days later how much she liked the movie. I think the three of us represent the exact target audience J.J. Abrams needed to hit: the hardcore Trekker, the newbie, and the average moviegoer. How you could expect to please all three seems to be an impossible task, and yet he managed it.

Now that I’ve had a couple of days to percolate about it a bit, I realize that as much fun as it was to watch, it doesn’t hold up to much careful scrutiny at all. To it’s credit, you can sit through the entire movie and just be a part of the experience without once being distracted by the weaknesses of the film, but be warned that if you are one of those people who likes to pick apart a film as you’re watching it you will see the problems and it will spoil the watching for you. Just let yourself be swept up for the 120 minutes and enjoy it as an ephemeral pleasure and save the analysis for later. That’s working for me.

At this point I’ll pause for any of you who choose to take that advice and stop reading, then I’ll share some of my critical observations with you. Noo ni noo noo…….

Okay, so on with the criticism. We’ll start with the problems from the perspective of its place in the Star Trek Canon and then move on to the problems from the perspective of the filmmaking. From the moment this film was announced as being in development, we all knew the problem would be recasting the characters and re-introducing the series without totally demolishing 40 years’ worth of carefully crafted backstory and utter worship of the original cast. Hollywood has done an utterly TERRIBLE job with every movie they’ve made based on some beloved TV show of the 1960s and 1970s, and the fear early on was that this would be no exception. What ultimately saves the bacon of this movie is that the casting of the primary roles is slam-dunk flawless. All seven of the main cast roles are so fucking awesome that it almost doesn’t matter how stupid the rest of the movie is. Chris Pine channels just enough of Bill Shatner’s swagger and charm but never seems like a caricature or a parody. There are one or two moments when Zack Quinto’s Spock is a little too much like Sylar (the character he plays on “Heroes”), but his intensity seems just right for a young Spock who has not yet mastered his unflappable demeanor. The rest of the cast get a little more leeway to bring new interpretations to their characters, especially Uhura (Zoe Saldana), although poor Scotty (Simon Pegg) gets stuck with the comic relief a wee bit too heavily, and every single one succeeds. Even Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike is great.

But my first and most serious criticism as a Star Trek fan is that they actually had TOO MUCH from established canon in the film. Every character got to utter at least one of their best-known catchphrases, and though each line got a bit laugh from the audience, after the first one or two I found myself just waiting for somebody to say the next one. Trekkers usually love lots of inside jokes or subtle references to bits and pieces of other episodes, but especially considering that the idea was to “reboot” the series, by the last couple of scenes it was just too much for my taste.

And that dovetails with my other biggest criticism from a fan standpoint: they went too far in establishing the story as an “alternate reality” that ties the new cast firmly to the entire canon of Star Trek. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Seems to me they did it to buy some legitimacy from the existing fanbase: “See, you nerds, it’s not THAT different!” It also made the inclusion of Leonard Nimoy’s Spock a viability. But that viability also represents a liability for future movies to have to continue to justify the existence of their diagetic universe by explaining it in the context of the original series. Along that same line of reasoning, I don’t see how they could have worked in a similar role for Shatner as Kirk within the narrative they ended up using, so I’m glad that didn’t come to happen no matter how pissy Shatner has been about it.

So here are my carps about it as a film on its own merits:

The whole film is simply an extended action sequence. One chase scene after another, with barely any time to catch one’s breath. It’s fun, but it’s extremely superficial. Abrams doesn’t make the slightest effort to do any character development or storytelling, he simply relies on the fact that 80% of the audience know these characters inside and out already and that he hasn’t changed anything significant about any of them. So, fire forward phasers, Mr. Sulu and get us out of here, warp factor seven! The villian is utterly generic — angry bad guy with a powerful spaceship who wants to destroy Earth — yeah, right, we all saw Star Trek IV already. He’s as much of a throwaway as the guy in the red uniform who buys it on the away team mission. All he does is enable the conceit of the “alternate timeline” element. A really good Star Trek bad guy has to imply some serious peril to the Federation that maybe the Enterprise can’t stop. That’s why the Borg were such a good nemesis and why Q could keep coming back again and again. In other words, if this wasn’t a Star Trek movie, it would be an utterly forgettable generic summer action movie. A fun bit of entertainment and nothing more.

But you KNOW how these things work. Without question, all the primary cast members had to sign a multi-picture contract, and the writing team is well into a late-stage draft of the next movie so they can go into pre-production this year and have a finished film ready for release late next year. My guess is that there will be at least three movies with this cast, if not four, to pretty much fill up the release calendar clear through the next decade. So they have the opportunity to cover some ground in that time in terms of working out some more substantial storytelling and original character development. OR they could go down the path that most movie series take these days and simply cash in on all the catchphrases and shtick that worked in the first movie and repeat them endlessly until the last film goes straight to DVD.

Personally, I am at a point in my life as a fanboy to appreciate the film from a very superficial level of enjoyment. In fact, I liked it enough that I plan to go see it again, probably without the wimmins. I think it is worth recommending to anyone, be they a trufan or not. Just try not to think about it too much.

See Also

Terror From Within

This post also appears today as a guest article at The Daily Clarity.

This week marks the tenth anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre. The mainstream media already have their retrospectives, their “where are they now” pieces, and their terribly thoughtful commentaries all put together and ready to bombard us with. Meanwhile, over the past month and a half a string of mass killings and murder-suicide incidents has taken more than twice as many lives as were lost in Littleton, Colorado that April day. Fourteen people diedjust as a result of the mass killing in Binghampton, NY two weeks ago and the latest incident over the weekend involved a Maryland man killing his wife and three young children before taking his own life. News coverage of such incidents has become so commonplace that the Maryland story barely registers in the collective consciousness of the media. Also in the last several weeks, the Department of Homeland Security released a report finding a significant rise in the activity of right-wing extremist groups. Despite receiving criticism for being “inflammatory”, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano justified the need to release the report before it could be bowdlerized to avoid such criticism because of the urgency of the issue — the growing likelihood that what is random violence on the part of disturbed individuals could snowball into organized violence on the part of disaffected groups united by their self-feeding paranoia and realized by hair-trigger situations.

Our cultural obsession with the potential for terror caused by the mysterious “other” — al Quaeda, Iran, Somali pirates — has rendered us nearly blind to the reality of the terror that we instill from within. The threats from outside remain nebulous at least and utterly imaginary at most, while the possibilities of violence against innocent people from disturbed individuals and groups within our own communities realize themselves with increasing frequency and horrifying regularity. Pundits and historians alike now commonly point to September 11, 2001 as the demarcation point for a new era in American society, yet few would choose April 20, 1999 or it’s almost-exactly corresponding predecessor, April 19, 1995 (the date of the Oklahoma City bombing), for the same milestone, despite the vastly more significant occurrence of violence against ourselves.

In a sense, our projection of the source of terror and violence onto whatever handy villain our leaders can provide is little more than an ages-old mechanism for focusing public attention to a political agenda; Americans have obediently changed the locus of their hatred and fear over almost a century from Germans to Japanese to Russians to Muslims as political expedience dictated. Indeed, the transition has been so seamless most of the time, that when the first President Bush needed a new villain, the effort of trying to pick one between Manuel Noriega, Muammar Gaddafi and then ultimately Saddam Hussein was almost comic. But the buffoonish machinations of governments and politicians obscure a much more complicated problem. Our projection of terror onto “the other” is a significant denial of the growing manifestation of terror and violence as commonplace elements of our own society.

For the time being, it is possible to ease the visceral response to events like Columbine or the Binghampton shooting as the acts of people with psychological problems. The regularity of such events, though, speaks to a growing acceptance of the conditions that create those psychological disturbances and even an amplification of them to the point that they result in violent outbursts. Now, we are also told by the very agency created in response to the singular events of 9/11 that we are crossing a threshold from individuals acting out in fear, despair, and paranoia to the organization of groups who share many of the same characteristics. The metamorphosis of terroristic violence from lone gunman to motivated group may only require a very small push, and it is clear that there are people actively hoping to put themselves in the forefront of those groups. It is too easy to look back over the last ten years and see the individual incidents as they have become part of our national life. Ten years hence, how likely will it be that we will be able to begin the retrospective of the list of homegrown terrorist attacks that will form yet a new element of our society.

See Also

The Dirty Fucking Hippies Were Right

This video runs a little long and oversells the point a bit, but any of you who were actual DFH’s back in the day will undoubtedly appreciate the appreciation.

See Also

Jumping With The Sharks

woz-and-karina

I have to say that I think “Dancing With The Stars” has jumped the shark. It’s debatable exactly when this happened; I think there’s an argument to be made that it was after about the fifth week of Cloris Leachman not getting voted off during the last “season” of the show, but if not then, surely with the debut of the current season last week. Between the ever-growing DL of celebs with injuries, the hopeless no-name D-list celebrities, and the mere presence of Steve Wozniak on the show, I don’t think there’s much hope.

At Tina Brown’s “Daily Beast”, DWTS judge Bruno Tonioli is now posting a weekly wrap-up of the previous night’s competition, and even his bombastic Italian enthusiasm can’t hide the sheer lameness of the current cast. When a reality-show reject can join the cast with only 48 hours to train for a number that the others have been rehearsing for SIX WEEKS and blow them all away, you know it isn’t looking very good.

And Karina? Even though I would like to cover every inch of your body with maple syrup and lick you clean, you are a complete slut. How many of the celebrities have you slept with and now we’re somehow supposed to believe you’re in love with Maks, who publicly called you a fat-ass just a couple of months ago? We all know this show is just as scripted as all the other reality shows, but the writers are treating this like it was “All My Children”. Maybe they got confused by having Susan Lucci on as a contestant. But it IS maple syrup season here, so, y’know, call me, baby.

Also, did Disney somehow run out of teenage wannabes from shows like “Wizards Of Waverly Place” or “Suite Life of Zack and Cody”? Those kids are all kinds of awesome on DWTS. That rodeo guy is stiffer than a dead opossum, even if he IS married to Jewel, and Julianne Hough’s boyfriend is completely talentless (he is, however, one of the luckiest losers on the planet to get to do the horizontal mambo with her). Even that little shrimpy kid from “Hannah Montana” could probably dance circles around both of these guys AND mug for the camera every time he slid between Edyta’s legs.

It’s too bad Nancy O’Dell had to drop out, because I was really looking forward to seeing her mostly naked and covered with body glitter and spray tan. I hope they invite her back.

In the worst case scenario, DWTS is going to turn into one of those zombie shows that lingers on for season after season even though everybody has long since moved on to something more interesting, and that would be too bad. When it first premiered, it had the air of absurdity about it; has-been celebrities so desperate for work they’d prostitute themselves as dime-a-dance girls, the unabashed flamboyance and sexual ambiguity of professional ballroom dancing (Did you see him grind his package into her ass, how can he be gay?), and the ad-lib genius of Tom Bergeron (still, for my money, the best reason to watch the show) all rolled up into the total unpredictability of live television. But what should have been a sleeper hit summer replacement show turned into such a phenomenon, that the fall from grace was inevitable. They should just kick off all the terrible dancers this week, have a showdown between the “Bachelor” chick and the naked guy from “Sex and the City”, and cut their losses.

See Also

Still Believable

On Tuesday, I posted a link to a blog post from Rex Hammock wherein he listed some things that he had lost belief in due to the economic crisis we’re in, and then I added a few others that I felt were similarly discredited. In the comments, my friend Karan asked what I did still believe in and/or hope for (since Hammock had, at the end of his post, added a few on that score). Since I felt it would take up too much space to explain in a comment, I said I would write a second post along those lines, and so here we are. Given that the crisis itself stems from a lack of confidence in financial institutions (a well-deserved lack, I think), it’s much easier to point to things to be critical about, but I’ve come up with several things that I think would be worthwhile, not just in easing the strain on the economy, but in fashioning the paradigm that will replace the one presently burning itself into ashes.

Restoring the government’s role as the natural enemy of corporatism — In my view, the best role government has is maintaining an adversarial relationship to big business. Our government, by its very definition, is meant to protect the interests of individuals over the potential abuses of other institutions that can amass power: churches, military leaders, even the individual branches of the government as established in the Constitution. The founders also clearly wanted to circumscribe the power of corporations by limiting their charters and enacting other restrictions that held corporations in check for decades. By the latter half of the 19th century, the increasing economic power of some began to erode this adversarial position through the traditional route of corruption, but even the financial shenanigans of the late 1800s eventually overstepped a threshold and a new wave of governmental reform and regulation swept through Washington in the first quarter of the 20th century. The reforms in labor, in the social safety net, in the manifestation of “public interest” as a valid entity in regulation, and ultimately the sweeping financial reforms of the early part of FDR’s administration all served to rein in the monster of capitalism that came to life after the Civil War. In the years since World War II, however, and especially in the forty years since the election of Richard Nixon, government has been completely co-opted by business and now only works for the benefit of corporations. My personal belief is that it remains possible to resurrect the government’s identity as the antagonist of unbridled capitalism, though I also think it will take a few more years of drama and devastation to get there.

The adaptability of the human species — I am, quite honestly, utterly fed up with the popular fascination for Doomsday-ism, and have been for some time. Anyone who reads this blog for any length of time knows that I have zero patience or tolerance for people who are constantly looking for some catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it. While the failures of the global economy surely should not be waved away dismissively, the Doomsdayers were all too quick to latch on to this crisis and whip themselves up into a frenzy speculating over the degree of chaos it would cause, mainly because the economic crisis is a lot more real than waiting around for tsunamis, bird flu, killer volcanoes, asteroids, or glacier melting. Humans are nothing if not resourceful and adaptable, and I believe that it’s far more likely that people all over the world will develop adaptive responses to the situation rather than self-destruct. That’s not to say that there will not be unrest; indeed, there is a strong need for unrest in troubled times, as it is often the only way to shake the powerful out of their complacency and reorganize power structures to meet the needs of the many. However, to imply that all of human civilization stands on the brink of annihilation within the context of a financial collapse is simply deluded.

Money is bullshit — Money is probably the only mass delusion on Earth bigger, more powerful and more destructive than religion. What we’ve seen is that it’s possible for clever and unscrupulous financiers and businesspeople to simply invent wealth out of whole cloth in the form of credit swaps, derivatives, bogus consumer credit, and good old fashioned fraud. And then to have it all evaporate in the space of a few weeks, even though there was never any tangible wealth behind all that paper. And what is “tangible” about wealth? I hear and read a lot of people hollering about gold, but even our insistence on the value of gold is illusory. You can’t eat it or wear it; it has practical uses, but they’re limited and certainly do not justify the overall value we assign to it. The more money that appears to be lost, the more money that appears to be given away in “bailouts” and “stimulus packages”, the more it looks like the great big lie that it is in the first place. There must be other ways to effectively exchange goods and services that can be shielded from the effects of greed and fraudulence to such an extent that allows the basic material needs of all people to be met to a level that our civilized advancements can sustain for the very long term. And it’s not the All-Mighty Dollar, the Euro, or the yuan.

See Also

Copyright © BrianKaneOnline

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress