Many will rail against racism or sexism but what I've noticed to be more prevalent is prejudice against homosexuals. Whereas, in polite company, I rarely hear somebody say something against different races or women, it is more common to hear some stray remark about gay people.
Twice it has happened at my job that I hear someone say something disparaging or condescending about gay people. And what that tells me is that these people think it is socially acceptable to talk that way without fear of censure. For all some people know I could be gay myself. How would they know?
There are many people out there who have grown up in a culture where this is accepted. There are some who have religious reservations. And there are some who are just plain stupid. It also irks me to assume I'm as stupid and narrow-minded as you are. I wouldn't put myself in a position where I'm with people I don't know that well (like work) and say things that might cause offense. Even if you're some narrow-minded bigot, don't you at least have manners? Weren't you taught by your mother how to show some class?
I hope that the younger generations are getting used to treating gay people (or anyone for that matter) as decent human beings. It's a lesson it seems that we always have to re-learn. It is so asinine to dislike people simply because they have sex differently than you do. What is equally disturbing is that both those people who made those comments at work are black. With all the history of discrimination in our country that they have they should know better than that.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The King (er...President) of the United States
One of my pet peeves is calling an ex-president, "Mr. President." Did you ever notice how often that is done when watching an interview with Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, or Bill Clinton? They are not the president anymore, they each are just some old fart who used to be president.
One may well ask (as my wife does), "Who cares?!" But if you click on the title of this and read the article by Gene Healy in Reason Magazine, you'll start to get a sense of why that is a pet peeve of mine.
I am enchanted by the conception of the original Founding Fathers concerning the presidency. Just an ordinary citizen who now had the responsibility of executing the laws of the land. Thomas Jefferson himself is supposed to have ridden and walked to his own inauguration in a plain coat. When you consider how monarchical and extravagant most governments were at the time, that is just astounding!
One may well ask (as my wife does), "Who cares?!" But if you click on the title of this and read the article by Gene Healy in Reason Magazine, you'll start to get a sense of why that is a pet peeve of mine.
I am enchanted by the conception of the original Founding Fathers concerning the presidency. Just an ordinary citizen who now had the responsibility of executing the laws of the land. Thomas Jefferson himself is supposed to have ridden and walked to his own inauguration in a plain coat. When you consider how monarchical and extravagant most governments were at the time, that is just astounding!
Another disturbing trend I noticed a few years ago concerning this issue was what happened to Terri Schiavo. People were asking for the president to intercede on her behalf. They didn't care what the courts said or what the legislature might have on its books. They wanted a hero...er, king...er, president to step in as if he's above the law and change everything for them. That is beyond disgusting to me. The president should not be asked to step above the law. No matter what you think of his/her policies.
Which reminds me of another thing--aren't there two other branches of in the national government? Whatever happened to the power of Congress or the umpire role of the Supreme Court? I've been recently reading about the "Great Triumvirate" of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun. All of them were in Congress in the early 19th century at some point in their careers and all were seen as very powerful men. They had influence, were famous, and were able to help shape public policy. Does anyone even know our Congress members anymore unless they run for president?
I, for one, think there's a tendency in the public to gravitate towards "heroes." The public at large wants to see some great person who can get everything done. We don't want some committee deciding our policies. We revere the powerful monarchs and public figures of the past and see that as some national glory. But the obverse is the tendency towards tyranny.
I know it's been said before millions of times but it is true that Republican Rome slowly decayed into the Roman Empire. And sometimes I see this happening to us in my more pessimistic musings. Let's hope that the American spirit of independence guides us through.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Movie Review: "Zoo"
Zoo has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It is one of the most pretentious and boring movies ever. If you have any inclination toward suicide, watch this movie!
Zoo is a true story about a man who died from internal bleeding after having sex with a horse. Actually, the film is about the "zoophiles" who engaged in this. It is not really a documentary since everyone is an actor, but it is taken from several audio interviews.
Problem 1:
The music is horrible. It is overbearing and obviously intended to make you feel "poetic" or "haunting" as some asinine critics have said. There's no subtlety at all about the director's manipulation of his audience.
Problem 2:
One-half to 3/4 of the film is poorly lit or actually a black screen. I don't go to movies to watch a black screen. Again, this seems to be another manipulative device used to make the audience feel "moody".
Problem 3:
The whole film is one long monotone of audio interviews. Almost the entire film is a voice-over of interviews with the different people involved. That wouldn't be a big problem if there were actually something interesting to see. In this case, it would be better on radio.
Except, it wouldn't be better on radio. Almost every interview in this movie is dull. One interview in particular stands out: one of the actors is interviewed against a white background (finally) who talks on and on about nothing. He is pointless and the director insists on cutting his one scene up several times. Actor talking, black screen, actor talking, black screen, etc. No reason whatsoever for it.
Problem 4:
The acting is atrocious. While you're hearing the boring interviews you get to see the actors who make this film look like a parody of bad silent film melodramas. Every action is overdone, there are several moments in slow motion, tears abound. I've seen better acting in dramatic re-enactments.
Overall I would say--don't see this film. It is complete crap. And I have a bone to pick with some film reviewers. There seems to be several critics who say how "lyrical" and "poetic" and "daring" this film is. This is actually the kind of film that turns people off of independent or arty films. There are many good independent or art-house films out there. Don't waste your time with this.
Zoo is a true story about a man who died from internal bleeding after having sex with a horse. Actually, the film is about the "zoophiles" who engaged in this. It is not really a documentary since everyone is an actor, but it is taken from several audio interviews.
Problem 1:
The music is horrible. It is overbearing and obviously intended to make you feel "poetic" or "haunting" as some asinine critics have said. There's no subtlety at all about the director's manipulation of his audience.
Problem 2:
One-half to 3/4 of the film is poorly lit or actually a black screen. I don't go to movies to watch a black screen. Again, this seems to be another manipulative device used to make the audience feel "moody".
Problem 3:
The whole film is one long monotone of audio interviews. Almost the entire film is a voice-over of interviews with the different people involved. That wouldn't be a big problem if there were actually something interesting to see. In this case, it would be better on radio.
Except, it wouldn't be better on radio. Almost every interview in this movie is dull. One interview in particular stands out: one of the actors is interviewed against a white background (finally) who talks on and on about nothing. He is pointless and the director insists on cutting his one scene up several times. Actor talking, black screen, actor talking, black screen, etc. No reason whatsoever for it.
Problem 4:
The acting is atrocious. While you're hearing the boring interviews you get to see the actors who make this film look like a parody of bad silent film melodramas. Every action is overdone, there are several moments in slow motion, tears abound. I've seen better acting in dramatic re-enactments.
Overall I would say--don't see this film. It is complete crap. And I have a bone to pick with some film reviewers. There seems to be several critics who say how "lyrical" and "poetic" and "daring" this film is. This is actually the kind of film that turns people off of independent or arty films. There are many good independent or art-house films out there. Don't waste your time with this.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Dancing as Salvation
We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
I do not know what the spirit of a philosopher could more wish to be than a good dancer. For the dance is his ideal, also his fine art; finally also the only kind of piety he knows, his "divine service." -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
I should not believe in a God who does not dance. --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Dancing in all its forms cannot be excluded from the curriculum of all noble education: dancing with the feet, with ideas, with words, and, need I add that one must also be able to dance with the pen? --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
After quite awhile of sedentary pursuits I went out dancing last night. I'm a horrible dancer and will probably need time to recover now, but it was quite fun. Now that I am not young and single and no longer feel the need to go to a club to try to get laid, I can relax with my woman and just let my body make all the decisions.
There is a freedom in physical activity that just can't be acquired through the intellect. Whether it is dancing, or running a few laps, or pounding something with a sledgehammer, or sexual activity, we are animals that need to exercise our physique. Being a part of the animal kingdom we need to remember the joy in physical activity (just as bear cubs or playful dogs "know").
We should strive to live the ancient Greek ideal. Not only should we pursue intellectual goals in our education but need to stress the physical. A well-rounded person should be in good health.
One of the most pernicious ideas given to our culture through Christianity is the horror of the body. From the prudishness concerning sex to the extreme derangement of ascetic behavior, Western culture stopped caring about the body. Fortunately, our growing secularism is coming back to appreciating the importance of our bodies--by way of science. Contentment might well reside in a balance between what we need for our mind and what we need for our body. Better yet, we should realize there's not even a schism between the two and are both the same thing.
My advice: dance! read! fuck! meditate! Just be aware of going too far in any direction.
I do not know what the spirit of a philosopher could more wish to be than a good dancer. For the dance is his ideal, also his fine art; finally also the only kind of piety he knows, his "divine service." -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
I should not believe in a God who does not dance. --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Dancing in all its forms cannot be excluded from the curriculum of all noble education: dancing with the feet, with ideas, with words, and, need I add that one must also be able to dance with the pen? --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
After quite awhile of sedentary pursuits I went out dancing last night. I'm a horrible dancer and will probably need time to recover now, but it was quite fun. Now that I am not young and single and no longer feel the need to go to a club to try to get laid, I can relax with my woman and just let my body make all the decisions.
There is a freedom in physical activity that just can't be acquired through the intellect. Whether it is dancing, or running a few laps, or pounding something with a sledgehammer, or sexual activity, we are animals that need to exercise our physique. Being a part of the animal kingdom we need to remember the joy in physical activity (just as bear cubs or playful dogs "know").
We should strive to live the ancient Greek ideal. Not only should we pursue intellectual goals in our education but need to stress the physical. A well-rounded person should be in good health.
One of the most pernicious ideas given to our culture through Christianity is the horror of the body. From the prudishness concerning sex to the extreme derangement of ascetic behavior, Western culture stopped caring about the body. Fortunately, our growing secularism is coming back to appreciating the importance of our bodies--by way of science. Contentment might well reside in a balance between what we need for our mind and what we need for our body. Better yet, we should realize there's not even a schism between the two and are both the same thing.
My advice: dance! read! fuck! meditate! Just be aware of going too far in any direction.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Don Imus--Who Cares?
There seem to be several "faux pas" occurring lately in the media: Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, that guy from Grey's Anatomy, Ann Coulter, now Don Imus. Now Al Sharpton wants to have a discussion on where to draw the line about what people can talk about. If you click on the title to this post you will find a good article on this whole issue. But I would like to add my own two cents (for what it's worth--two cents I suppose).
There should never be a line to draw. Everything is permitted. I think (especially for comedians) there can't possibly be a line to draw. Many people will go over that line just to be provocative anyway. But, not only that, it is something that is so complex it can't possibly be defined. Some people saying some things in some situations is fine; it can also be completely offensive in other situations. And there's no lack of sanctimonious people out there who find many, many things offensive that others would not.
The easiest and best solution is the market. If many people are really offended with Don Imus they could easily stop listening to his show. His show slips in the ratings, advertisers pull out, his bosses fire him, and he's gone. Someone like him should be fully aware of the possibility that people will not like him and does not have to listen to him. It's part of his job.
I think it is hilarious that all these people are feeling pressure to apologize to this or that group or civil rights "leader". It's also a spectacle for people to poke fun at and for hypocrites like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to seem righteous. But to see Michael Richards on the David Letterman show look dazed and terrified for his life is funny and might stop other public figures going over the line (unless they really want to stick by what they're saying). So all these public apologies might actually stop some people from shooting off their mouth.
I've heard Don Imus in the past. He was syndicated on the radio and I listened for awhile. He sounded like a rude, crude, typical, over-the-top male-ego dominated radio personality. What really offended me about him is...he's not even funny.
There should never be a line to draw. Everything is permitted. I think (especially for comedians) there can't possibly be a line to draw. Many people will go over that line just to be provocative anyway. But, not only that, it is something that is so complex it can't possibly be defined. Some people saying some things in some situations is fine; it can also be completely offensive in other situations. And there's no lack of sanctimonious people out there who find many, many things offensive that others would not.
The easiest and best solution is the market. If many people are really offended with Don Imus they could easily stop listening to his show. His show slips in the ratings, advertisers pull out, his bosses fire him, and he's gone. Someone like him should be fully aware of the possibility that people will not like him and does not have to listen to him. It's part of his job.
I think it is hilarious that all these people are feeling pressure to apologize to this or that group or civil rights "leader". It's also a spectacle for people to poke fun at and for hypocrites like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to seem righteous. But to see Michael Richards on the David Letterman show look dazed and terrified for his life is funny and might stop other public figures going over the line (unless they really want to stick by what they're saying). So all these public apologies might actually stop some people from shooting off their mouth.
I've heard Don Imus in the past. He was syndicated on the radio and I listened for awhile. He sounded like a rude, crude, typical, over-the-top male-ego dominated radio personality. What really offended me about him is...he's not even funny.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Just A Few Things That Caught My Eye Today
It's a wonder that I get out of bed sometimes when I have to read of the sad state of affairs our nation is in:
- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debate: Democrats are boycotting any debates hosted by the Fox News Network. In a nation built on the foundations of free expression and open debate our politicians back down and show how poorly they understand what a democracy is all about. Instead of embracing an opportunity to show how well they can defend their positions and confront an audience with different views, Democrats fail us again and show how cowardly they are. It seems they would prefer to speak to an audience that already congratulates them and defends them like CNN. Sometimes it seems this nation is turning into an aristocracy.
- http://www.reason.com/news/show/119562.html: In yet another concession to intolerance and stupidity a university (in San Francisco, of course) presses charges against campus Republicans for stomping on terrorist flags. Why are students being taught that it is a good thing to not allow different perspectives? Isn't a university supposed to be the sanctuary where diverse views are heard and discussed? If they had been stomping on American flags no one would try to stop them. But Allah forbid we should offend Muslims! At some point these ignorant, intolerant morons will become Democratic front-runners for president.
- http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDY3N2IwMDBjZDM4Nzc3NzdhMjg1YWRhOTVjYzQxZjc=: There was a time when (or maybe I just bought into the hype) it was easy to tell the difference between the backward, stupid, evil, racist rednecks and the enlightened, tolerant, refined, well-educated liberals. I suppose I shouldn't have believed everything I was taught in public education. Now, apparently, if anyone points up how hypocritical Al Gore's stance on conservation is when shown how little he practices it, you are ignorant or racist or any other stereotype you could imagine for Southerners. I guess we should all worry about the state of our ecology (unless you're rich, liberal, and get to appear on the Oscars).
I was not searching for a theme. I was just perusing different websites I tend to read and it struck me how many articles pointed to the intolerance, cowardice, and general ignorance of the left. Maybe it's time we provided our public with a real education and emphasize the core Western values that we've all seemed to forget.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Why Easter is Pointless
If you don't already know I am an atheist. Consequently, most religious celebrations mean absolutely nothing to me. But I can see reasons for having civic holidays made for Christmas or Thanksgiving. But Easter is one holiday I almost never remember or care about.
Easter is the holiday for Christians. The whole religion revolves around this holiday. All of Christianity revolves around the belief that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected for all of humanity's sins. So Easter must be celebrated if you truly believe in all of this (since Easter is the day he was resurrected).
For me Easter has always been a day that kids get an Easter basket and eat a lot of candy, engage in Easter egg hunts, and go to the park in nice clothes. Except as a day for kids to party, it really means nothing unless you're religious. Although early Christians took over the holiday from pagan celebrations commemorating the coming of spring and new life, I can't seem to care much about that aspect either. If humanity is to be "saved" it will come from within ourselves, regardless of an ancient myth about Christ. If I want to commemorate life or fertility or spring I'll live, have kids, play in the grass on any day, not just Easter.
Maybe it's just me but I think the merger of Easter with pagan spring festivals was a poor marketing decision by the Catholic church. If you really care about the resurrection of Christ all the bunnies and eggs detract from that. What should be sacred to many seems to become rather foolish and petty.
But that's just my opinion.
Easter is the holiday for Christians. The whole religion revolves around this holiday. All of Christianity revolves around the belief that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected for all of humanity's sins. So Easter must be celebrated if you truly believe in all of this (since Easter is the day he was resurrected).
For me Easter has always been a day that kids get an Easter basket and eat a lot of candy, engage in Easter egg hunts, and go to the park in nice clothes. Except as a day for kids to party, it really means nothing unless you're religious. Although early Christians took over the holiday from pagan celebrations commemorating the coming of spring and new life, I can't seem to care much about that aspect either. If humanity is to be "saved" it will come from within ourselves, regardless of an ancient myth about Christ. If I want to commemorate life or fertility or spring I'll live, have kids, play in the grass on any day, not just Easter.
Maybe it's just me but I think the merger of Easter with pagan spring festivals was a poor marketing decision by the Catholic church. If you really care about the resurrection of Christ all the bunnies and eggs detract from that. What should be sacred to many seems to become rather foolish and petty.
But that's just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
