...It would be over for every other candidate. Mr Gore would not even have to campaign, and money would flow to him like a river towards the ocean. Why? Al Gore has displayed the ability to speak directly of what he means and wants without euphemisms, he is extremely intelligent, he is a rational thinker, and he knows what he is talking about. Sometimes we joke that we should just give him the presidency because he technically won it in 2000. With his books and movie (book version of An Inconvenient Truth and his new Assault on Reason), his mesage is already out there. He's the only candidate to throw away congeniality and say what he really thinks. Thats what I want. Forget pandering to a far-right/far-left base of charlatans, say what you really think. No political expediency here. This is where the Republicans are most trapped. They have to sound evil and backwards to appeal to evil because evil will not vote for people who want progress. Evil aside, the other 60% of the population would vote for Gore. And he has the Republican mess to capitalize on, the transition from a dunce to a brilliant man.
Run, Gore, Run.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Creation Museum
I've known about this for a while now, but it just opened. Oh boy. The only place where psychotics can say that, to quote SNL, "Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church" without being ridiculed. They expect, according to the New York Times, 250,000 visitors in the first year, one fourth of the amount of minions Pat Robertson claims he has.
One of the final strongholds of legitimized fantasy. To those of us who buy Charles Darwin (I have both The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man), this is an amazing thing. What they really seek to do is not simply to "challenge" Darwinism, but to undermine the integrity of the scientific process. Think about it, if one could get a man in a white coat to say anything, and for people to believe him, then he has power. James Dobson isn't a legitimate psychologist, but people believe what he says. Or the televangelists of the 80s-present? They completely obliterated Christianity.
They believe that if they can undermine intellectual integrity, they can replace them with their own fantasies and establish them as legitimate (all challenges to legitimacy would be obliterated). Part of the strategy is to have bills passed or shot down, extensive special interest lobbying, and defaming books and authors that express conflicting views with outrageous or ad homenim claims, similar to the Scientology strategy.
The Creation Museum needs to be swiftly attacked and debunked by the intellectual community.
One of the final strongholds of legitimized fantasy. To those of us who buy Charles Darwin (I have both The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man), this is an amazing thing. What they really seek to do is not simply to "challenge" Darwinism, but to undermine the integrity of the scientific process. Think about it, if one could get a man in a white coat to say anything, and for people to believe him, then he has power. James Dobson isn't a legitimate psychologist, but people believe what he says. Or the televangelists of the 80s-present? They completely obliterated Christianity.
They believe that if they can undermine intellectual integrity, they can replace them with their own fantasies and establish them as legitimate (all challenges to legitimacy would be obliterated). Part of the strategy is to have bills passed or shot down, extensive special interest lobbying, and defaming books and authors that express conflicting views with outrageous or ad homenim claims, similar to the Scientology strategy.
The Creation Museum needs to be swiftly attacked and debunked by the intellectual community.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Reality of Making Movies
My friend's friend and I discussed the possibility of the new reality TV show of making movies.
The show's producers, before we begin, have a choice: They can pick either the next George Lucas (whose student film THX-1138 EB was expanded into his first major film and also won the USC's student film competition that year), or they could pick just a few hot guys and girls without any aspirations or even ideas.
The show, obviously, could either be really cool, or could really, really suck. Unfortunately, there already is kind of a show like that, without the "reality" bullshit. It's on VH1 late at night and its called Acceptable TV. People actually make 2-minute shorts and five are picked each show. I dont care how its made, how uncooperative people are, just show me the final products (its Fox, so there has to be at least 3 spoiled rich crybabies).
Thirty years ago, Star Wars Episode IV was made. Well, why isn't THX-1138 celebrated? I would call it Star Wars' predecessor, and because it isn't as (nearly as) well-known as Star Wars, I think it deserves wider public attention. And people, if they actually get it, might appreciate it.
I also think that the Lord of the Rings/Star Wars "debate" is silly. They are both excellent movies. The question is merely preference: Do you like intergalactic starfighter battles with dystopian and heroic themes? Or do you like fantastic realms and magic, and heroic themes? So geeks across the world, put down your dwarf hammers and lightsabers, and get along.
The show's producers, before we begin, have a choice: They can pick either the next George Lucas (whose student film THX-1138 EB was expanded into his first major film and also won the USC's student film competition that year), or they could pick just a few hot guys and girls without any aspirations or even ideas.
The show, obviously, could either be really cool, or could really, really suck. Unfortunately, there already is kind of a show like that, without the "reality" bullshit. It's on VH1 late at night and its called Acceptable TV. People actually make 2-minute shorts and five are picked each show. I dont care how its made, how uncooperative people are, just show me the final products (its Fox, so there has to be at least 3 spoiled rich crybabies).
Thirty years ago, Star Wars Episode IV was made. Well, why isn't THX-1138 celebrated? I would call it Star Wars' predecessor, and because it isn't as (nearly as) well-known as Star Wars, I think it deserves wider public attention. And people, if they actually get it, might appreciate it.
I also think that the Lord of the Rings/Star Wars "debate" is silly. They are both excellent movies. The question is merely preference: Do you like intergalactic starfighter battles with dystopian and heroic themes? Or do you like fantastic realms and magic, and heroic themes? So geeks across the world, put down your dwarf hammers and lightsabers, and get along.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Foreign movies
Recently, I've been escaping to foreign films. Most movies that come out under American studios are not at all imaginative, and are merely "fun" movies. You shut your brain off, you are presented with material to soothe your libido and thanatos for two hours and you go home. You don't learn anything new nor are you inspired.
I started watching Japanese horror movies (first was Audition), then I moved to other countries with the Tim Burton-esque City of Lost Children, and District B13. Then came Pan's Labyrinth. I really can't talk about this movie because it fills me with awe and inspiration every time I think about it. Why can't we do that? Because most of our movies start with "Based on the best-selling novel by -----" or "the hit video game -----" And why is that? There hasn't been an original idea in Hollywood sincethe mid 1990s, I think (the last original movie I remember was THX-1138, in 1971, and I'm trying to be reasonable). Other countries have taken it upon themselves to do what we should be doing, because American directors, who could have a good, completely original idea will not get the funds because it might not appeal to a wide audience. Mr Del Toro, director of Pan's Labyrinth, directed Hellboy and Blade II before he unleashed upon the world his brilliance. It must be that after making a ton of money with second-rate comic book movies, our directors still don't have an original idea in their mashed potato brains or we would have heard of it by now. They continue to try to convert other people's ideas from one medium to another, mutilating them beyond recognition in the process (I'm talking about a film version of the 1000-page novel, Atlas Shrugged and a proposed American film version of my favorite anime, Neon Genesis Evangelion). I would expect someone like Peter Jackson, who has directed many movies based upon others ideas, to finally make his own movie. But instead he's making a Halo movie, which is a complete waste of time because we'd all rather spend the two hours watching Master Chief kick Covenant/Flood ass, actually doing it ourselves.
This post is inspired by someone from the New York Times commenting on renowned anime director, Satoshi Kon's latest work, that Japanese directors are reaching for the moon while "American directors are still in the kiddie sandbox" and I took it upon myself to try to figure out why.
I started watching Japanese horror movies (first was Audition), then I moved to other countries with the Tim Burton-esque City of Lost Children, and District B13. Then came Pan's Labyrinth. I really can't talk about this movie because it fills me with awe and inspiration every time I think about it. Why can't we do that? Because most of our movies start with "Based on the best-selling novel by -----" or "the hit video game -----" And why is that? There hasn't been an original idea in Hollywood sincethe mid 1990s, I think (the last original movie I remember was THX-1138, in 1971, and I'm trying to be reasonable). Other countries have taken it upon themselves to do what we should be doing, because American directors, who could have a good, completely original idea will not get the funds because it might not appeal to a wide audience. Mr Del Toro, director of Pan's Labyrinth, directed Hellboy and Blade II before he unleashed upon the world his brilliance. It must be that after making a ton of money with second-rate comic book movies, our directors still don't have an original idea in their mashed potato brains or we would have heard of it by now. They continue to try to convert other people's ideas from one medium to another, mutilating them beyond recognition in the process (I'm talking about a film version of the 1000-page novel, Atlas Shrugged and a proposed American film version of my favorite anime, Neon Genesis Evangelion). I would expect someone like Peter Jackson, who has directed many movies based upon others ideas, to finally make his own movie. But instead he's making a Halo movie, which is a complete waste of time because we'd all rather spend the two hours watching Master Chief kick Covenant/Flood ass, actually doing it ourselves.
This post is inspired by someone from the New York Times commenting on renowned anime director, Satoshi Kon's latest work, that Japanese directors are reaching for the moon while "American directors are still in the kiddie sandbox" and I took it upon myself to try to figure out why.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
A Villain Hath Fallen
A villain has died today, one of those responsible for the decline of a great nation. An angry and hateful man has left the earth and can do no more harm. This villain is none other than Jerry Falwell, one of the first Christian fascists to open his mouth at the start of Tsar Bush II's term. On September 13th 2001, he, and his good friend Marion ("Pat") Robertson blamed the events of two days prior on innocent and free people, saying it was freedom that made God angry at us, and allowed the Islamists to kill 3,000 people. Ironically, he was not sniped for anti-Americanism, as he is a member and a kingmaker in the dominant party.
It upsets me that this monster of a man gets more attention than Kurt Vonnegut and Ayn Rand. A hatemongerer, a man who capitalized on the stupidity of mankind, a demagogue; that was Jerry Falwell. The rest of us, especially "moderate" Christians, should treat him the same way Soviet Russia treated the corpse of Stalin, by spitting on his grave.
He was not the first to fight against the rights of those different from himself; throughout history, anti-suffragists and those who were pro-slavery (with whom, ideologically, he was inherently and closely tied), have been fighting for the status quo, not caring one iota for the quality of life of those in question.
I, for one, have seen far too much of human stupidity and hate during his life that it is not necessary to celebrate him in death. In death one is not supposed to say anything less than positive, yet this one man has a record such that then we should not have said anything at all.
I write this in response to those who have lied over the past 12 hours, those who have painted a hero from a hatemongerer. In this respect, it is the Republican candidacy that appears most repugnant in its rewarding intolerance and hypocrisy. John McCain and Rudy Guliani should have known better. It is here that I should offer my condolences to the mother of Matthew Shepherd on behalf of those who allow Socrates' belief that all evil stems from ignorance to be true.
Jerry Falwell was disease to the Republican party, a malignant tumor in the nation, and a stain on the world. To all those he has wounded, I admire you.
It upsets me that this monster of a man gets more attention than Kurt Vonnegut and Ayn Rand. A hatemongerer, a man who capitalized on the stupidity of mankind, a demagogue; that was Jerry Falwell. The rest of us, especially "moderate" Christians, should treat him the same way Soviet Russia treated the corpse of Stalin, by spitting on his grave.
He was not the first to fight against the rights of those different from himself; throughout history, anti-suffragists and those who were pro-slavery (with whom, ideologically, he was inherently and closely tied), have been fighting for the status quo, not caring one iota for the quality of life of those in question.
I, for one, have seen far too much of human stupidity and hate during his life that it is not necessary to celebrate him in death. In death one is not supposed to say anything less than positive, yet this one man has a record such that then we should not have said anything at all.
I write this in response to those who have lied over the past 12 hours, those who have painted a hero from a hatemongerer. In this respect, it is the Republican candidacy that appears most repugnant in its rewarding intolerance and hypocrisy. John McCain and Rudy Guliani should have known better. It is here that I should offer my condolences to the mother of Matthew Shepherd on behalf of those who allow Socrates' belief that all evil stems from ignorance to be true.
Jerry Falwell was disease to the Republican party, a malignant tumor in the nation, and a stain on the world. To all those he has wounded, I admire you.
And Now for Something Completely Different
That last post was inspired from a New York Times editorial on Sunday about the GOP candidates and the possibility of their defeat and I was feeling particularly cynical, so I wrote it as if one of them were speaking honestly and frankly.
And now, as my title states, for something different.
There are now three people that I admire, and one of them is actually alive, though I am not sure for how long, for he is an old man and has endured much.
The first is Charles Darwin for standing up to religious authorties (he was a pious man) when he found similiarities between the finches in the Galapagos. Since the beginning, those who have learned biology from schizophrenics (and those schizophrenics themselves) have tried to stop the spreading of his idea. Mr Darwin, I admire you for opening the way for science and "secularism" to overcome religious ignorance and tyranny. Psychologists are now studying the roots of morality and the evolution of the brain.
The second is a largely unknown Russian author by the name of Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of WE, who lived in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. He stayed true to his ideas and resisted the Bolshevik intrusion into the artistic and literary world, even as his colleagues, who were his friends previously, denounced and betrayed him. Strangely, Stalin himself granted Zamyatin permission to leave, and he settled where most authors have been known to go, Paris.
The third person is one I've recently learned of by the name of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn [pronounced Sols-hen-eet-sin], also lived in Russia for nearly his entire life (and has returned as of 13 years ago). He spent time in a Stalinist Gulag and battled with cancer in the Soviet Union as well. Khruschev, Stalin's successor, used Solzhenitsyn for political gain with his novella, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which he won the Nobel Prize for, among other novels such as Cancer Ward and The First Circle. Unfortunately, he declined to receive it until five years afterwards, when the Soviet authorities exiled him. Some consider him to be a historian, John Keegan cites him in his book, The First World War, but in 1980, he expressed diappointment that most of the analyses of his work were political in nature, not focusing on their literary value. I wonder if this is still true?
And now, as my title states, for something different.
There are now three people that I admire, and one of them is actually alive, though I am not sure for how long, for he is an old man and has endured much.
The first is Charles Darwin for standing up to religious authorties (he was a pious man) when he found similiarities between the finches in the Galapagos. Since the beginning, those who have learned biology from schizophrenics (and those schizophrenics themselves) have tried to stop the spreading of his idea. Mr Darwin, I admire you for opening the way for science and "secularism" to overcome religious ignorance and tyranny. Psychologists are now studying the roots of morality and the evolution of the brain.
The second is a largely unknown Russian author by the name of Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of WE, who lived in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. He stayed true to his ideas and resisted the Bolshevik intrusion into the artistic and literary world, even as his colleagues, who were his friends previously, denounced and betrayed him. Strangely, Stalin himself granted Zamyatin permission to leave, and he settled where most authors have been known to go, Paris.
The third person is one I've recently learned of by the name of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn [pronounced Sols-hen-eet-sin], also lived in Russia for nearly his entire life (and has returned as of 13 years ago). He spent time in a Stalinist Gulag and battled with cancer in the Soviet Union as well. Khruschev, Stalin's successor, used Solzhenitsyn for political gain with his novella, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which he won the Nobel Prize for, among other novels such as Cancer Ward and The First Circle. Unfortunately, he declined to receive it until five years afterwards, when the Soviet authorities exiled him. Some consider him to be a historian, John Keegan cites him in his book, The First World War, but in 1980, he expressed diappointment that most of the analyses of his work were political in nature, not focusing on their literary value. I wonder if this is still true?
Monday, May 14, 2007
What is This?
The Republican Party lose the election? By a landslide? Where are all of their loyal slaves, are there not enough people signed up for Kids on Fire this year? Are Falwell's sheep defecting? What if Guliani wins the GOP nomination? (Heaven forbid! An anti-hypocrisy [see previous posts] right-wing candidate!) How could James Dobson not like the current GOP contenders? All but two are theocratic WASCs! And those have no domestic policy; they just keep ejaculating the same schpiel (spelling) on Iraq! I'm sure they would all be for ejecting Leslie Newman's children's books from public libraries, or be willing to burn them! Perfect!
And what ever happened to End-Times prophecy? Why this change of heart for Global Warming? Isn't that good? Jesus the Klansman is going to come and take them away after we set the world on fire and everyone else can suffer for all eternity. Since when did people care about Genesis over Revelations? Fundamentalists and cherrypicking! No! You know what Capital G says about that! What kind of example are you setting?
And what ever happened to End-Times prophecy? Why this change of heart for Global Warming? Isn't that good? Jesus the Klansman is going to come and take them away after we set the world on fire and everyone else can suffer for all eternity. Since when did people care about Genesis over Revelations? Fundamentalists and cherrypicking! No! You know what Capital G says about that! What kind of example are you setting?
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Dystopian Novel is Back!
The Dystopian genre, famous for such works as Fahrenheit 451, Nineteen-Eighty-Four, Brave New World, The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx & Crake, Kallocain, We the Living, Atlas Shrugged, WE and many others, has returned, but in a different form. It has evolved somewhat. The two examples I cite are Cormac McCarthy's The Road and Jim Crace's The Pesthouse. These novels are not about deplorable living conditions, forced abstinance, or totalitarianism, but are about what happens when we set the world (or America, specifically) on fire. The Road follows a man and his ten-year-old (estimation) son on a journey to the east coast after some unknown disaster (nuclear fallout?), hoping for some remnant of civilization.
Jim Crace's novel, which I've read about in The New York Times (and the first page of the novel) and plan to get for my birthday, according to the reviewer, depicts a degredation of America (Crace is British, where a lot of Dystopian literature came from), where people, instead of moving west (Monroe Doctrine, Gold Rush, promise of land and livlihood), seem to have reaped what they have sown and now there is nothing left but pestilence, and they, again, move from the West to the East, wishing to return to the Fatherland (the father of America). Also, the reviewer pointed out that remnants of "traditional morality" still exist, and all science and history is lost.
I think of The Pesthouse, as according to the NYTimes reviewer, as being, in a sense, correct about America, especially after Tsar Bush II. I, for one, seek to leave the United States, a land of unrestrained greed and powerlust without regard to consequence, and cutthroat competition for the minds of human beings, a war so violent, few people hold their own ideas, or trust them.
Also of note is the new Nine Inch Nails album, Year Zero. Trent Reznor also tells a dystopian tale, but it is not of the recent trend of post-apocalyptic wastelands, rather it is of the urbanite totalitarianism of many other stories past. Year Zero tells a complete story, from what we are now ("Survivalism") to what Crace and McCarthy speak of in their novels ("In This Twilight", "Zero-Sum"), from revolution ("The Good Soldier") to thought-control and justification ("Vessel", "The Greater Good"). The final two songs of the album focuses on either the fulfilment of Christian prophecy or worldwide nuclear fallout. The entire album is focused on a Christian totalitarian theocracy in the United States under a Christian equivalent of Khomeini (the inside flap features a Bible on one side and a submachine gun on the other). While little of what Reznor says is original (it could be imagined by anyone with the ability to judge the future based on the past and present), he tells the story very well and completely.
Jim Crace's novel, which I've read about in The New York Times (and the first page of the novel) and plan to get for my birthday, according to the reviewer, depicts a degredation of America (Crace is British, where a lot of Dystopian literature came from), where people, instead of moving west (Monroe Doctrine, Gold Rush, promise of land and livlihood), seem to have reaped what they have sown and now there is nothing left but pestilence, and they, again, move from the West to the East, wishing to return to the Fatherland (the father of America). Also, the reviewer pointed out that remnants of "traditional morality" still exist, and all science and history is lost.
I think of The Pesthouse, as according to the NYTimes reviewer, as being, in a sense, correct about America, especially after Tsar Bush II. I, for one, seek to leave the United States, a land of unrestrained greed and powerlust without regard to consequence, and cutthroat competition for the minds of human beings, a war so violent, few people hold their own ideas, or trust them.
Also of note is the new Nine Inch Nails album, Year Zero. Trent Reznor also tells a dystopian tale, but it is not of the recent trend of post-apocalyptic wastelands, rather it is of the urbanite totalitarianism of many other stories past. Year Zero tells a complete story, from what we are now ("Survivalism") to what Crace and McCarthy speak of in their novels ("In This Twilight", "Zero-Sum"), from revolution ("The Good Soldier") to thought-control and justification ("Vessel", "The Greater Good"). The final two songs of the album focuses on either the fulfilment of Christian prophecy or worldwide nuclear fallout. The entire album is focused on a Christian totalitarian theocracy in the United States under a Christian equivalent of Khomeini (the inside flap features a Bible on one side and a submachine gun on the other). While little of what Reznor says is original (it could be imagined by anyone with the ability to judge the future based on the past and present), he tells the story very well and completely.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Theocracy, Lying to Kids, Tyranny, and Abortion
I saw the first 30-45 minutes of the GOP debates, and then I got bored and scared. The issues relevant to me were touched upon, and I did not like their positions at all. America is not a "faith-based experiment," as it was intended to keep government entirely free of what Lou Dobbs called "adventurists," but I call theocrats. And, Mr Brownback, Bush II did invite faith into the public sphere - and look what happened! Two Supreme Court Justices who were appointed specifically because of their 16th century views showed themselves to be entirely unqualified for the position, perhaps moreso than Bush's mistress, Harriet Meirs, after entirely bungling an abortion case because of religious misogyny. Congress intervened in a man's private life on behalf of a woman who had been comatose for 13 years. So he married soon after. He moved on during those 13 years because he knew that she would never recover and was basically dead. And lastly, the stupidity of "Intelligent Design," and the "legitimacy" of Becky Fischer's Hitler Youth-esque children's camp, Kids on Fire.
Around the country, in this era of Theoconservatism, parents have been vying for the power to lie, not only to their own kids, but to other people's kids as well. I'm talking about sexual education and Intelligent Design. If you want to screw up your own kids, fine, take them out of the public schools. But no parent should ever be given power over anyone else's kids unless specific consent is given and there is a relationship between the two families. I call what happened in Kansas and around the country tyranny.
Tyranny. The only difference between democracy and other forms of government is that the people get to pick which dictator they want to be enslaved by. Government, in this country, is only a mechanism by which one group of people can gain power over everyone else. It is a public institution utilized solely for private interests. From slavery to the Mexican War to WW1 to engagements during the Cold War to Iraq and the "War on Terror", this country has never been interested in "liberty for all" even once in its entire existence. I know why people hate this country. And their hate is mostly justified. We betray a thousand-fold the ideals that formed this country in the first place. We aren't the Great Satan, but we are the Great Hypocrite. Formed by conquest (Spanish imperialization), thus we conquer others.
Abortion. No longer should the Pro-Choice position be called "Pro-Choice." It should instead be called "Anti-Hypocrisy." The majority of pro-lifers in this country also support the War in Iraq. And war = death, the opposite of life. They also support Capital Punishment, which is also not life. And they are not up, either, on quality of life. I think (this is merely my hypothesis) that it is to support the Krieg Machina. No abortions leads to many abandoned children (build more indoctrinating centers! Make Kids on Fire a year-round educational facility), who will then be kicked out onto the streets at 18. Eighteen is also the legal age to join the military, and recruiting tactics have never been anywhere close to honest. Come on, pump up that theo-nationalism!
So who's pro-life again?
Around the country, in this era of Theoconservatism, parents have been vying for the power to lie, not only to their own kids, but to other people's kids as well. I'm talking about sexual education and Intelligent Design. If you want to screw up your own kids, fine, take them out of the public schools. But no parent should ever be given power over anyone else's kids unless specific consent is given and there is a relationship between the two families. I call what happened in Kansas and around the country tyranny.
Tyranny. The only difference between democracy and other forms of government is that the people get to pick which dictator they want to be enslaved by. Government, in this country, is only a mechanism by which one group of people can gain power over everyone else. It is a public institution utilized solely for private interests. From slavery to the Mexican War to WW1 to engagements during the Cold War to Iraq and the "War on Terror", this country has never been interested in "liberty for all" even once in its entire existence. I know why people hate this country. And their hate is mostly justified. We betray a thousand-fold the ideals that formed this country in the first place. We aren't the Great Satan, but we are the Great Hypocrite. Formed by conquest (Spanish imperialization), thus we conquer others.
Abortion. No longer should the Pro-Choice position be called "Pro-Choice." It should instead be called "Anti-Hypocrisy." The majority of pro-lifers in this country also support the War in Iraq. And war = death, the opposite of life. They also support Capital Punishment, which is also not life. And they are not up, either, on quality of life. I think (this is merely my hypothesis) that it is to support the Krieg Machina. No abortions leads to many abandoned children (build more indoctrinating centers! Make Kids on Fire a year-round educational facility), who will then be kicked out onto the streets at 18. Eighteen is also the legal age to join the military, and recruiting tactics have never been anywhere close to honest. Come on, pump up that theo-nationalism!
So who's pro-life again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)