CulturEsponse

We're All Left Behind

2011-05-21T20:26:00.000-04:00

It's well into May 22 in many parts of the world, and I've yet to see anyone fly naked through the air clamoring for Jesus--except that guy on the Metro. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't so much "raptured" as "schnockered." Face it, Christians. The rapture was a bust. Better luck next year.

Or maybe the rapture did happen and none of us were worthy of divine ascension. This God fellow is awfully persnickety. Take His name in vain? You're going to Hell. Forget to honor your mother and father? You're going to Hell. Nap through the Sabbath? You're going to Hell. And don't get me started on Leviticus... (Have you eaten shellfish recently? You're going to Hell.)

As far as I'm concerned, we've all been left behind. And we should start acting like it. Remember: "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." And here we are.

Let's forget this God guy and start worrying about reality. It'll be a lot more productive, require a lot less cannibalism, and finally rid us of Sarah Palin. (One can hope.) Not to mention you get to keep that tithe you've been putting in the offering plate every Sunday. I'm taking mine to Vegas to "stimulate the economy."

But even if the rapture didn't happen, there are many things more likely to occur before it does:

1. Cubs World Series victory.
2. President-Elect Ron Paul.
3. World peace.
4. Megan Fox-Richards.
5. Obama admits his Kenyan roots.
6. Zombie apocalypse.
7. Skynet.
8. Flying cars.
9. B.A. in Philosophy with an emphasis in Objectivism.
10. ?

What do you think is more likely to happen?

A Toast to Twellman: Right Time, Right Place

2010-11-07T09:00:00.002-05:00

I sort of met Taylor Twellman once. I say sort of because we didn't really have a conversation or anything. It was more a passing hello. In the summer of 2004 I was an intern for the New England Revolution in the communication department under Brad Feldman and Erin O'Brien. One day I was walking through the offices in Gillette Stadium as Twellman was sitting on someone's desk. I said, "Hey." He said it back. He seemed extremely nice and pleasant. He was wearing a light blue shirt. That's all I remember about Taylor Twellman.

Well, that's not all remember about him. It's all I remember about Taylor Twellman the person. What I remember about Taylor Twellman the soccer player is much much more detailed and much much more powerful. It is the story of excitement and ability, of the reviving of a franchise (around the same time its "brother" franchise had been revived), and of the shortcomings of a league. Essentially, it is the story of my love affair and subsequent break up with Major League Soccer.

Two images of Twellman will always endure in my mind: his near post diving header and his being chopped down from behind. Both demonstrate a danger to his body--what ultimately cost him his career. Both represent not only what made him successful but also the shortcomings of MLS.

Twellman knew how to score goals. No one can deny that. As a friend of mind said upon reflection of his career, he was more of a goal poacher than a traditional striker. It's why when he first came to the Revolution I didn't believe his scoring streak would last. He joined the Revolution in 2002, when Rusty Pierce and Ted Chronopolous were still on the team, and scored his first goal against the Crew on 4/20 (stoners rejoice). Two games later he opened Gillette Stadium, then known as CMGI field, with a double, the second of which was his first near post diving header finish. It was a scoring pace that a Revolution player had never been on before, and it was built on close quarters one-touch and two-touch finishes. It's why I didn't believe it would last.

Except it did last. He scored 23 goals that season, second only to Carlos Ruiz's 24, and led the Revolution to MLS Cup in Gillette Stadium--a game they lost 1-0 to the LA Galaxy on a Ruiz goal. It was the season that changed the history of the team, which, if you were wondering, is why I mentioned obscure tidbits like Chrono and CMGI. Twellman led a historically tragic franchise owned by Robert Kraft to the league championship in his first season playing for them. Look, I'm not calling him the Tom Brady of the New England Revolution, but I kind of am.

Just as I was raised on the New England Patriots, I grew up with the Revolution. The Revs may actually mean more to me than the Pats, a statement that may seem shocking to many people who think they really know me. The difference is, while the Pats have been around since before me, I was around since before the Revs, before the whole MLS actually. In fact, Tab Ramos, the first MLS player, was signed on my birthday in 1996. My family had season tickets to the Revolution for the first 13 seasons. We sat in the pouring rain to watch Eddie Pope score in overtime to win the first MLS Cup for DC United by a score of 3-2. I know who Darren Sawatazky is. I know what it means to "pull a Revolution." It was epic. It was tragic. Twellman changed it all.

This was the first season since 2002 that Twellman didn't play a game for the Revolution. This was the first season since 2002 that the Revolution didn't make the playoffs. This is no coincidence, Twellman even said so himself as he expressed the pain we all felt at his absence (no one more so than him):

"To come to every game, that is the hardest thing in the entire world. To come to every game, knowing you're not going to play, but somehow walk in that locker room and look every one of your teammates in the face--and they'll tell you, I come in loud and obnoxious--that's the hardest thing.

"Every single time, and I'm tearing up right now, I walk right in the car and I cry. Every time. Because I did nothing for them, and it was the one thing this team needed. We didn't make the playoffs this year. I'll tell you why; they needed a goal scorer. And I wasn't there. It's hard. Very humbling."

No pundit or fan could have said it more perfectly. Except he shouldn't be humble at all. He should be proud at what he did for himself, for his teammates, and for us fans and at the knowledge that he could have done so much more and scored more than 101--except for the flawed system that set the stage for the untimely demise of his career.

Surely most people will remember the accidental punch to Twellman's head by Galaxy goalkeeper Steve Cronin in 2008 as the reason for his retirement. For me, however, the punch was nothing more than the culmination of the abuse suffered by the striker over his career, lest I remind you of the games Twellman missed due to a fractured cheekbone and nose caused by a collision with the Galaxy defender Danny Califf's foot on a diving header. Detractors of my point will assuredly point to Twellman's disregard for his own body.

Twellman was repeatedly knocked down from behind by defenders when challenging for a 50/50 ball. With his back to his opponent and his sole focus on winning the ball, Twellman found himself on the ground after being pushed, pulled, or tripped. The fact that this sight was common over nearly a decade of play demonstrates that American players think that this style of play is successful and that American referees think this action is acceptable. The only problem is, it's not. It has created a brutal on field product in MLS where games are almost always decided by injuries or referees calls (from cards to free kicks). It has hindered the development of the United States National team so that they're now known for their physical style of play to the point that their most impressive result in the last two World Cups was a 1-1 bloodbath against Italy in 2006 that featured three red cards. You can deny these observations all you want with any number of dismissive comments, but the undeniable truth is that a great player's professional career was ended prematurely because of them--and that outcome not only hurts him but American soccer in general. Twellman never played in a World Cup for the United States National Team. He only played in 29 games for them. He only scored six goals for them (three in one game). Most important of all, he never made his mark by showing them what he had that they didn't.

What Twellman has that is so sorely lacking in the American game is knowledge of the sport. It's what made the Revolution so powerful for years. The spine of their team was composed of players that knew how to read the game--from Twellman up top to Shalrie Joseph and Steve Ralston in the midfield and Michael Parkhurst at center back. When those four were on and their chemistry was clicking, they were unbeatable. Why? Because they always knew where to be and when to be there. It is a skill that no American goal scorer has possessed more than Twellman. He had the uncanny ability to arrive at a spot at the same exact moment the ball did. It's how he scored all those near post diving headers.

And the same goes for me. I found myself in the right time and place to witness such an amazing player's career. Except my positioning wasn't due to any ability on my part. It was all down to good fortune--from the time and place I was born to having such great parents that brought me to MLS games from the beginning to following a team with owners as smart as Robert and Jonathan Kraft and coaches as smart as Steve Nicol and Paul Mariner. They saw something that would help make my life better, and all I can say is thank you. Still, they're not the most important people to thank.

Thank you, Taylor Twellman, for playing for the New England Revolution and scoring 102 goals for the Foxborough Faithful. I'm not even lying when I say I broke down and cried after work upon hearing the news of your retirement. I'm 27 years old, I've taught college, I drove across the country in a U-Haul while towing my car, and I cried over the retirement of a professional soccer player I said hello to once. That's how much I loved seeing you play. That's how much of a tragedy your career ending at only 30 years old is.

In some way, Taylor, I'll always remember every goal you scored, but the one that stands out the most to me is the bicycle kick against the Chicago Fire in the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals to propel the Revolution to a 1-0 victory and their fourth MLS Cup. They haven't been back since. It was the same year the Patriots went on their undefeated run that ended in the Super Bowl. They haven't been back since. It was the same year the Boston Red Sox won their second World Series of the decade. They haven't been back since.

One day when I look back upon my life that bicycle kick may be the apex of my sports fandom. Everything was literally perfect at that moment. It hasn't been since. Deep down, part of me wants to believe everything would be perfect again if you just score one more goal. It's why every once and awhile a random request pops into my head. Please, Taylor, one more? It's a plea that crossed my mind during so many games over the years. Now that you're finished for good, because you made the smart choice for yourself and your family, it is the one I'll carry with me for the rest of life because I know I didn't see as many as you or I deserved:

Please Taylor, one more?

House S7E02 Selfish

2010-10-01T03:11:00.013-04:00

The Fall 2010 television season has been disappointing at best. The best new shows, Hawaii Five-0, Boardwalk Empire, and No Ordinary Family, were slickly produced and well hyped, but generally didn't live up to their hype . Of those three, Hawaii is yet another procedural, Family will likely be unable to maintain itself over a long run, and Boardwalk shows the most potential. The best returning shows, How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, and Castle, sustained their momentum by staying true to their identities. Only Community had a truly stellar and memorable season premiere, riffing on genre conventions, the development models of other networks, and itself. These gems are few and far between and this post-LOST landscape offers us little to get excited about, huddle around our televisions in groups to watch, and discuss the next morning at work or school. Glee? Please, that barren philosophical wasteland went schizophrenic in its season premiere, introducing seemingly random new elements to its theater of the absurd. It then became even more embarrassing in its Britney Spears episode as it reduced itself to a soulless parade of caricatures attempting to imitate true musicians, especially as Lea Michele gutted the maturity from Paramore's "The Only Exception" by turning it into a teenager attempting to assert something she obviously doesn't yet understand.

Perhaps most upsetting to me was the House premiere, "Now What?" If Glee gutted Paramore, then the first episode of House's seventh season tried to change it's own identity. The medical mystery was simplistic in that installment and had little to do with the plot. The team was largely inconsequential. Wilson did his best Winnie the Pooh impersonation. House and Cuddy? They were bumbling teenagers who spent the entire episode in essentially one room. House was so insecure he couldn't be loved in reality that he wouldn't let Cuddy leave. Cuddy continued her contradictory statement's to our favorite doctor by stating: "I know you're screwed up. I know you are always gonna be screwed up. But you're the most incredible man I've ever known." Yes, it's always good to tell the man you love that he's screwed up. It's also good to continue the riff that has slowly eroded the foundation of this show. The more messed up House believes himself to be, the less entertaining the show becomes. What made this show special was how he shirked social convention to follow the best judgment of his mind and, no matter how many people told him he was messed up (ok, mainly Wilson and Cameron), he never believed them...until he did.

Season six was an exercise in House indulging everyone else. He "admitted" he was crazy. Get it? Because he admitted himself into a nut house. Following his release he spent the entire season attempting to make other people happy, only to realize in the second to last episode "Baggage" that no matter how much he did that, he himself still wasn't happy. In short, the main critique of the good doctor over the first five seasons was refuted. Still, for some reason, the season finale was allowed to close with House proclaiming himself "the most screwed of person in the world" and Cuddy responding: "I know. I love you. I wish I didn't. But I can't help it." And that's where we picked up. Despite everyone being wrong about House needing to be about other people, he still believed them about him being messed up...and Cuddy agreed with him by saying pretty much the worst thing you could ever say to someone you supposedly love.

You see, here's a little secret I've known about Dr. Gregory House since the good old days when I had to fight off people who actually believed that Cameron was a good match for him. There's nothing wrong with him. Actually, let me rephrase that statement. There's nothing wrong with him except that he listens to other people when they tell him there's something wrong with him. What made classic House so good was that all the other characters represented the naysayers that the men of true talent are forced to deal with. Every episode he navigated through all the unnecessary bullshit to save someone's life thus proving he knew what he was doing and they didn't. Except House would inevitably fall victim to the failing of our society. Since he didn't show remorse for being so damn good, he would be made to feel guilty another way. He would be told he was unlikeable over and over again until he finally had to admit to himself (at the end of Season Five) that he believed it. This is where that secret comes back again. House isn't unlikeable. To anyone with a clue, he is a hero, not the anti-hero everyone else believed him to be.

Based on "Now What?" it seemed the series would become about Cuddy coming to terms with the fact that she loves the anti-hero and House coming to terms with the fact that all he is ever going to be is the anti-hero. The name of the second episode scared me even further into this belief. "Selfish" is a word the show has always danced around. There have been many episodes that have played with the idea, but the writers never showed their hand, somehow always deftly managing to appear to be pro and anti selfishness at the same time. Seeing as how their (anti) hero was the definition of selfish, it seemed they were simply putting off the inevitable moment when they would come out against it, as doing so would mean fundamentally changing their protagonist and thus their show...which could only mean the end. So, when an episode titled "Selfish" was set to air, I prepared to lose another great show that had carried me through the last decade. I even delayed watching the episode for an entire day, not wanting to see a favorite character of mine be destroyed. Except, destruction is almost the opposite of what happened.

In a series that has had such amazing episodes as "Three Stories," "Son of Coma Guy," and "Ignorance is Bliss" (among many others) and had writers that enjoy playing with their own successful formula, "Selfish" is the boldest and best episode yet. What makes it such a success is its return to the basics of the show while being self-aware that it is doing so. The last few seasons of House have been marked by their deviation from the methods that made it a ratings smash in the early seasons. Plot devices such as changing the team members were met with criticism from the fans and declining ratings. This episode pretty much went back to formula. It was almost like the writers were intentionally reminding us what made House classic, as if they were saying, "we can do this whenever we want...and here's why we haven't been doing it. We had to take the long circuitous journey we did in order to get to this point, to make this point."

What point were they making? It's one that the series has been implictly begging during its entire run, the one that it has avoided answering, the one that has to be asked when your main character is Dr. Gregory House. It's the one that Taub explicitly attempted to mock his boss with in this episode:

Taub: "You're right, the world would be a better place if everyone were more selfish."
House: "See, I can skip the idiot part when you're not being an idiot."

House's response is as it should be, snide, sarcastic, and accepting of the philosophy of selfishness--assuring us that our hero hasn't been fundamentally changed by the insane asylum theatrics of last season. Perhaps he is even more entrenched in this belief after his realization that he told his therapist last season:

"To hell with this. When I first came to you, I told you that I wanted to be happy. I followed your advice and instead I'm just miserable. How is this working for me...For a year I've done everything you've asked and everybody else is happy. I run on my treadmill. You just sit there and watch. You're a faith healer. You take advantage of people who want to believe. There's nothing in your bag of tricks...Whatever the answer is, you don't have it."

Essentially, the answer season six was supposed to provide was false. Through the first five seasons of the show, many people derided House as crazy and said he needed to care more about other people. They are the people House were referring to as "wanting to believe" and that life is about living for other people is what they wanted to believe. But House figured it out. Focusing on other people being happy only makes them happy...and you miserable. So, in the season finale, he did what made logical sense and went after what he wanted...and got it. He finally had Cuddy.

Except, as this season opened, it became apparent that House had internalized the false lessons of the therapist more than we, and perhaps he, had realized. In "Now What," he was completely focused on what Cuddy was thinking or feeling (and other people as well). Their relationship wasn't about how he felt about her, it was about how she felt about him (and how others would feel about how she felt about him). It's why he continued to see himself as a miserable human being. That is how other people define him, the other people who said he was crazy and needed to focus on, well, other people. "Selfish" took this perspective head on, disproving it by weaving it into the old school plot elements.

First there was the clinic case. An elderly man came in with his elderly friend (who turned out to be his son) complaining of pain. The thing is, he didn't actually think he was sick. His ulterior motive was that he wanted a doctor to command him to move into a home so he didn't have to tell his son he wanted to move out of the house. Likewise, the son didn't actually believe his father was sick. He too wanted his father too move out, but didn't want to insult him by asking him to, so he wanted House to make the same command. If you're keeping score, both the father and the son wanted the same thing, but were focused on what they erroneously thought the other thought. The twist here is that the father actually was sick. He was accidentally poisoning himself by using a tube of denture creme a day. How did House figure this out? By exposing that they both wanted the same thing, the conversation changed so he could focus on what was important: real symptoms.

In short, the two men were so worried about each other rather than themselves that they actually endangered the health of the elder. If they had honestly spoken about what they wanted, then they could have identified the actual symptoms the father was having...and maybe lived on their own sooner. Yes, Taub, their lives would have been better if they were more selfish.

Second was the escalation of dangerous treatments on the patient in the main case of the episode. As is the convention, the sicker the patient became, the riskier the treatments House wanted to try in order to gain more information about her condition, and the safer the options Cuddy commanded him to use. Here's where the episode started to excel. House acquiesced to Cuddy and I jeered him. He wasn't acting House-like. I didn't tune in to see a doctor take the safe route, to give in to bureacracy and the culture of liability fear our legal system has created (a subject handled through the Tritter storyline). I was hoping for him to get out of this mindset and do what he always does, what needed to be done. Though I can't speak for everyone else, I can certainly hope they were responding in the same way, because if they weren't then they were missing the point and not enjoying the episode as much as they possibly could.

And what was the debilitating mindset that House was in? As put forth in "Now What," he was focused on what Cuddy was thinking/feeling about him. He was worried about what would happen to their relationship if he didn't agree with her. In other words, he was putting her mind above his own. He knew what the best manner of treatment was, but he didn't pursue it because he thought that if he didn't privilege Cuddy's view of the world, then he would end up alone. The irony is that by attempting to save the relationship he (and she had a part in this too) actually endangered the relationship. Neither of them could do their jobs properly because they were so focused on the other and that would mean their relationship would have to end to save their jobs. Yes, by being so selfless House (and Cuddy) endangered a patient and their own high value (their relationship). The solution to this dileema could only be found in true House-style: through the case-of-the-week.

This case amped up the sympthy as it focused on children. Fourteen year old Della collapsed while pushing her wheelchair bound brother Hugo around a skateboard course. You see, it would seem that Della does a lot of things a teenage boy would...and does them well. But that's not the problem...the physical problem, anyway. What starts as a heart issue quickly turns to failing kidneys and then destroyed lungs. The disease ravishing Della even dispenses with the donor lung she receives, making it nearly impossible for her to receive a second lung off the donor list when House figures out what's wrong with her. And make not mistake about it, House does figure it out. He also figures out a solution to the donor problem. Terminally ill Hugo is a bone marrow match with his sister and can thus donate some of that tissue and half a lung. The only problem is, doing so would shorten his life that is already slated to end by his 20s by another couple of years. Thus, Della and Hugo's parents are left with an impossible choice no one would envy.

The solution to all this is where the episode transitions from excelling to soaring. House solves Della's case by using a technique similar to the clinic case (and one that we have seen many times over in this show). He asks the teenage girl for a better history, when the last time she was sick was. Reluctantly she admits to not feeling well for the last year or so. Why didn't she say anything during this time period? She didn't believe she had the right to complain about such minor pains when her brother is terminally ill and in a wheelchair. Just like she was participating in teenage boy hobbies because of her brother, she had allowed herself to become deathly ill because she was living in line with his weakness. Boiled down to the root fundamentals, being selfless was killing her. And don't think this wasn't intentional on the part of the writers. Earlier in the Taub defends her by calling her selfless when she refuses to take her brother's bone marrow the first time. It's in the breath right before he mocks selfishness. That's right, Della never even had to get as close to dying as she did. She was just being too damned selfless.

Something about this diagnosis must have resonated with House too as he went behind Cuddy's back and informed the father of the children about the one possible way his daughter could be saved. Later as the parents debated the impossible choice, Cuddy learned of House going behind her back (as he always has in this series) and a more epic version of one of their drag-down knock-out fights ensued. They each angrily explained what the judgment of their mind was in front of the parents. They were being themselves again and it would lead to the resolution as one other person heard it all, Hugo.

Hugo then turned around and offered a plea to his sister as to why, despite everything she believes, she should take his lung:

"I want you to take half my lung...You do so many great things. I just watch. I get to watch and coach and cheer. That's not me out there. It never will be. If you take this piece of me, carry it with you, then I really can share everything you do. This is the great thing I can do with my life. Don't make me live without you."

In one of the most moving and perfect speeches I've ever seen or read in a work of fiction, Hugo is acting selfishly in a way that all the other characters in the episode weren't understanding. He was completely honest about what he wanted. More importantly, what he wanted was to support strength and values in the best way he could do. He wanted to do something great with his life. This wasn't a soliloquy about how noble he felt because of the burden of weakness he was forced to bear. This was a statement about how he could be great. And by making it he solved everyone issues. He made the impossible choice for his parents. He taught his sister the most important lesson of all: It's your own life. Live it for yourself. Yes, Taub, everyone's lives improved by Hugo acting selfishly.

Most importantly to the series, that was the lesson House and Cuddy took away from these events. Standing in front of the elevator, they discussed what had happened:

House: "We got lucky. I did give them an impossible choice. That kid took it away from them."
Cuddy: "That fight, it was the first honest interaction you and I have had since we came back to work. If we are painfully, brutally honest with each other, maybe we'll get lucky again."

All true, except they're making one important error in judgment. They didn't get lucky at all. By being brutally honest, by explaining the best judgment of their mind, they better equipped everyone else to deal with reality based on the best judgment of their mind. When you mince words and hold back, all you achieve is making it so other people have to guess what you're thinking and feeling. This truth is the lesson Hugo taught them because Hugo, in his disabled state, was forced to face reality more than they ever did. In many ways, his struggle parallels House's in the series...except for one major difference. Hugo was guilt free. Not once did he focus on his disease or how other people saw him as weak. No, instead he turned his attention to what he valued and the ways he could achieve those values. That perspective was the exact opposite of the one Cuddy and House (like the father and son in the clinic case) had/have. They were too focused on how they might lose their relationship, not what earned them it in the first place.

"Huddy" = House + Cuddy. I apologize for the "shipper" lingo and the obvious statement, but it must be made. How did House end up with Cuddy? First she fell in love with him because he used his mind to be the best diagnostician pretty much ever. Then he decided what he wanted (her) was worth pursuing and he attained her. Likewise, Cuddy became attractive to House by acting like Cuddy, by disagreeing with him in a manner no one else ever did, by providing him with a respectable opponent in his games. It was their honest approach to reality that made them attractive to each other. It was their selfishness, living their own lives for themselves, that brought them together. This was the lesson they learned.

It is my hope that they now learn how to apply this lesson properly and take from it what I hope will be the ultimate point of the series. House was only ever miserable because he thought he deserved to be miserable based on everyone else's standards. In fact, in the universe of the show, no one is better equipped to deal with reality than House. He is not screwed up. He is the ideal man. It's why Cuddy believes he's the most amazing man she's ever met. She just needs to learn to trust the judgment of her own mind above everyone else's too. She needs to tell Taub what House already did:

House: "You were right before. If everyone were more selfish, the world would be a better place."

Movie (P)review 9/24/10

2010-09-24T01:13:00.006-04:00

(Each week I will review the movies to be released that week...before I see them. What that means is, I won't be rating them on what they're actually like, as I haven't seen them, but on my likelihood of seeing them based upon what I do know about them. I will use the following rating scale, which explains "when I'll see it:" Never [I'll never see the movie], TV [I'll watch it if it's on basic cable/broadcast TV and happen to come across it], Cable [I'll watch it when it's on one of the pay cable stations and want to see something new], DVD [I'll watch it if I can rent or borrow the movie from friend], Something to Do, [I'll watch it when I want to go to the theater but there's nothing I'm especially excited for, Opening Night [I'll watch it on its release date].)

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

For weeks I have dismissed this movie as another silly adaptation of a children's book with a title that reminds me of the Goa'uld from SG1. Now I know that's certainly what it is; I've just removed the word "silly" from my estimation. Why the change in my perspective? I looked into it a bit more and learned the director is Zach Snyder, the same man who brought us 300 and Watchmen, two of my recent favorite movies. Snyder has a preference for taking epic tales about the victory of the human spirit and emphasizing what makes them human. 300 was about the strength of belief in your society to do whatever it takes to protect it. Watchmen was about every day people proving it's possible to stand up for the goodness in man (in short: Who watches the watchmen? We do.), starkly contrasting the point of the comic. I don't know what the owls in this movie are guarding, but I don't care. I trust Snyder. Plus the voice actors are Emilie de Ravin (Claire from LOST), Ryan Kwanten (Jason from True Blood), Hugo Weaving (the guy in most epic franchises lately), and Geoffrey Rush (Barbossa from the Pirates of the Caribbean series). I'm sure this will do well as its an animated kids movie, but I now expect it to slip under the radar and be under appreciated.

When I'll See It: Opening Night

The Virginity Hit

In the 90s there was American Pie. In the 00s there was The 40 Year Old Virgin. As we enter the new decade, Will Ferrell and Adam McKay (the guys behind Funny or Die) bring us the latest attempt in the virginity losing genre. The twist here is that it's filmed in the pseudo documentary style of shows like The Office and takes the improvisation technique of Judd Apatow films to the extreme. For it's first week it's only a limited release, though. I doubt anything new will be added to the conversation. Still, there's at least a hint at that being a possibility, as the title, concept, and marketing strategy have been a bit novel (if you've seen one of these billboards than you know what I mean). I don't particularly like treating virginity as a problem. It makes me worry this movie will be what I feared The 40 Year Old Virgin was going to be, mockery of the virgin. Maybe, just maybe, though, this movie will portray the truthful awkwardness in what can often be seen as a struggle to get to your "first time."

When I'll See It: DVD

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

No, just no. If Zach Snyder can put me in the theater, Oliver Stone can make me choose to do anything else in order to avoid seeing one of his movies (including going to both the Ground Zero Mosque and Islamic Gay Bar in the same night). A sequel to the hit film I've never seen, it promises to further demonize Wall Street and capitalism, as Michael Douglas's main character is released from prison into the drama his greed has given him, a failed relationship with his daughter who is engaged to some guy played by Shia LaBeouf. The trailers show LaBeouf's character getting sucked into the world of greed, so it's pretty easy to see the paint by the numbers ideas here. LaBeouf represents the new generation who needs to rebel against the oppressive ideas the previous generation has left them in order to rebuild the decimated economy the ideas led to. It's all boiler plate buzz word thinking (as Stone always does) and demonstrates how LaBeouf's career has gone awry. Immensely talented, the young man has simply attached himself to every big name franchise that has come his way: Transformers, Indiana Jones, and, now, Wall Street. Sure, he's making me money, but it's not making me watch this.

When I'll See it: Never

You Again

I know little to nothing about this movie. I don't want to know anything about this movie. It has chick flick written all over it. However, it stars Kristen Bell, Kristin Chenoweth, and Betty White. That's three generation of short-in-stature-but-tall-in-talent. It's so impressive it just made me create that incredibly long hyphenated adjective. Seriously, sometimes I swear they're (she's) the same woman who just time traveled to the same year so she (they) could be the first actress to star in movie with herself (this pronoun doesn't work as a plural). Are you tired of hearing me write about this one random detail of the movie? Then click here. Otherwise, this is probably a great date movie as the woman would love the revenge plot line or whatever and the guy wouldn't really have to pay attention to enjoy.

When I'll See This: If I can find a date (yes, I even made a new category for this special special motion picture).

The Future of Books

2010-09-22T15:58:00.002-04:00

Yes, please:

The Future of the Book. from IDEO on Vimeo.

Television Tues: New Season, Old Rules

2010-09-21T21:15:00.000-04:00

The fall premiere season is upon us and so far what I've seen has been less than impressive. What follows is a brief response to everything I have seen so far. Generally, I have decided to forgo police and legal procedurals. You'll find that I have one exception. As the season goes on, I may also pick up The Defenders, as Jerry O'Connell and Jim Belushi are two very entertaining actors. I may have to. So far, in this post-LOST landscape, nothing has really jumped out as me as writers and producers continue to walk the same old grounds.

Hellcats

Alyson Michalka looks very good and that's about all the good I can say about this series. The best way to sum up its failures is the main character's transition into the life of a cheerleader. In order to earn a scholarship so she can remain in school, she puts her dance background to use...except, the first time we learn about her dance background is during the tryouts. This show also features the forced romantic tension of the return of an old lover while a woman is with a new lover and the severe underuse of the most talented actors on the show, DB Woodside and Matt Barr. It's pretty much what you would expect from a low end CW show. Ashley Tisdale does bring a refreshing complexity to her role, however.

Terriers

I've never understood FX's ethos. I still don't. This show is the story of two down-on-their-luck PIs who get involved in something bigger. One is an ex-cop who was bounced off the force. The other is a slacker with the ability to charm (as the movie and television cliche goes). Together, they're mildly entertaining, but nothing really clicks about it. There's nothing witty or original here. On the flip side, there's also nothing awful here. The writing is consistent and logical. The performances are understated and respectable. There's a lot worse to watch out there, but I also didn't find any reason to go out of my way to watch this show either.

The League

A sitcom about fantasy football is the one show on FX I have understood. Maybe that's just because I'm a huge dork. After an successful short first season of six episodes, this comedy is back for 13 episodes. If the premiere is any indication, the extra episodes are warranted. With comedy in the style of Judd Apatow, the members of the league take their draft to Las Vegas where Chad Ochocinco moderates. While there, Andre is up to his old antics, Taco raps impressively, and a new player is added to the ensemble. My only concern is that this character is a response to the rising popularity of Zach Galifinaskis. Still, if you like funny, this show is worth watching, even if you don't understand anything about football.

Survivor Nicaragua

If you haven't gotten tired of this reality competition or have never seen it, you'll appreciate it. Though the formula is still the same (despite the small tweak of the introduction of the "Medallion of Power"), there is still nothing like Survivor on television. What makes this season unique is the split of the tribes (old vs. young) and the inclusion of self proclaimed Survivor fan Jimmy Johnson, championship winning former coach of the Miami Hurricanes and the Dallas Cowboys. The characters echoed former contestants, but, as always, there's no way this won't be fun. If you're going to watch a reality show, seriously, pick this, not Jersey Shore.

How I Met Your Mother

Sometimes I wonder how long this show can drag out its main mystery by relying on its coyness and internal reference. Well, producers Carter Bays and Craig Thomas found a way to elongate it again. This time they introduced the mystery of (seemingly) Barney's wedding where Ted is the best man and meets the mother. Who is Barney getting married to? Is it Robin? They certainly teased this fact in the episode. Is it even Barney getting married, though? All of this new mystery will surely be resolved by season's end and maybe, just maybe, we'll meet the mother in the season finale. This show definitely promises to stay true to its successful formula.

House

Remember the show about the genius solving medical mysteries who had no time for your social trivialities and immaturity? Yeah, me too. That show is gone. In it's place is a drama about a doctor and the hospital supervisor he's in love with. I appreciated the season premiere. "What now?" was a brilliant way to frame the season. I understood House's fear that if he let Cuddy leave the apartment, everything would end and he would lose her. What I didn't appreciate is the lack of a medical mystery (the subplot was weak) and Cuddy saying House is a screwed up person and always will be the most amazing man she has ever known in spite of it. I thought House was screwed up because he believed he couldn't connect with people. Now he is connecting with people and he's still screwed up. Is he intrinsically screwed up? The arc for the lead is over. This show needs to go back to its roots. Every week, I want to see House solve a seemingly hopeless case by doing what Cuddy tells him not to, but she never chastises him because she realizes he was right. Except this time, it's her turn (and the audience's turn) to grown and learn. She needs to appreciate House for the genius he is, not denigrate for the Wilson he is not (and shouldn't be).

Castle

Like CBS' How I Met Your Mother and Survivor, this show knows what it is and doesn't aspire to be anything more or less. Castle and Beckett solve a murder and their relationship is paralleled in Castle's home life. Castle and Beckett squabble, mainly because of Castle's antics. Ryan and Episito laugh and egg the lead duo on. Castle's daughter and mother provide him with the insight he needs. True, this show is a procedural, but it's the fact that it knows it's a procedural and basks in that identity that keeps me coming back. Plus, dude, it's Nathan Fillion, come on. As you would expect from him, it's pure fun. Sometimes, that's all that's needed.

Hawaii Five-O

If you haven't had enough of Kurtzman and Orci's brand of soulless production, then this remake is for you. Borrowing stylisticly from the new Star Trek (an old premise that is rebooted by taking the trappings of the show and focusing it on action) and 24 (a main character who is tougher on crime/terrorism than everyone else), this show is slick and pretty, but not much else. Scott Caan turns in the most engaging performance as Danno. It's nice to see Daniel Dae Kim and Grace Park turning their sci-fi success into something mainstream (and probably steady). However, there's no real reason to tune in here unless you want to numb your brain with something other than alcohol. It's not bad. It's just the next iteration in CBS' CSI, NCIS, and Criminal Minds network.

Lone Star

Watching the premiere, I was waiting for the "new." At its core, the show seems to be a cross between Sawyer's plot from LOST and Don Draper's from Mad Men. The main character Bob lives as a con man in Texas thanks to his father. In one scheme, he is selling shares in an oil company to the residents of "Midland," a small town. In the other scheme, he is infiltrating a successful corporation by marrying the daughter of the CEO. The only problem is he wants out because all of it is his father's idea. Still, what made him tick wasn't quite apparent. There was the LOST commentary on parenting (fathers screwed up their sons with mothers conspicuously absent). There was the Mad Men commentary on business (are they legitimate or con men). However, what sets this show apart is that the main character isn't good at anything except pretending. Sawyer understands reality and thus justice. Don Draper understands humanity and thus advertising. Hell, even Dexter is good at killing. Bob has just been pretending to know good deals for so long that he knows good deals. I understand that the point is he has ability and wants to express his self-esteem, but his father won't let him. However, the issue is why--the driving point of the series. In the end Bob decides to give up conning (sort of) and right the wrongs of his past so he can love both the wife he already has and the wife he takes at the end of the episode in Midland. While this is probably supposed to play as novel, for me it plays as nothing more than tragic. What I see is a man who is undefined because his father didn't let him determine an identity of his own and when he finally decides to try, he defines it through women. Where as Mad Men gave us "Who is Don Draper?"and LOST gave us "I'm a complex guy, sweetheart," Lone Star gives us "Who do you love, your girlfriend or your wife?" "Both." That's nice, Bob, but truthfully, I just don't care.

The Event

If you crossed 24 with LOST, this is what you could get, a science fiction mystery with global political implications. In some ways, it is similar to ABC's V; however, where that show focuses on procedural, this show focuses on flashbacks. It's hard to give a summary of the plot, because I'm still not sure what it is. There is a reference to an "event" occurring and it has something to do with "them." Seemingly "the event" is not what happens in this episode and it has something to do with the identity of the mysterious "they" (who are likely either aliens or time travelers). What's really supposed to hook you, though, is the family this story is wrapped in. Jason Ritter's Sean Walker is about to propose to his girlfriend Leila Buchanan (played by the charming Sarah Roemer who I enjoyed immensely in Disturbia) on a cruise when she mysteriously disappears. A day earlier, Leila's mother was killed in her home. In real time, Leila's father Mike is an airplane pilot who is coerced into attempting to crash the plane into President Martinez's son's birthday party by whomever kidnapped his daughter. Sean tries to talk Mike down while the President seeks shelter with his family and Sophia, a mysterious woman who may or may not be associated with "them." The crisis is averted by a portal opening in the sky that the plane flies into. Sophia declares that "they" saved them and tells the President "I haven't told you everything" (which is the name of the episode). Yes, this show is going to be plot heavy (a la 24). No, I don't care about Sean, Mike, and Leila. And while this show is no LOST, it does succeed where Heroes and Flashforward failed. It does not attempt to fill its premise with cliche caricatures or completely asinine characters to promise plot progression. It's a promise that maybe, maybe, this story could be going somewhere worthwhile. That's reason enough to tune in for a few more episode.

(Note: I haven't watched Boardwalk Empire yet. I will eventually and will write a new post when I do.)

Music Monday: Terror and Diversity

2010-09-20T18:32:00.007-04:00

Album of the Week

Keepers of the Faith by Terror

The definition of "punk" music is convoluted and debatable at best. Everyone's heard of The Sex Pistols, but after that it's hard to say if anyone agrees on who is "loyal" to the genre. Start the new millennium and the the surge of "pop punk." All the mainstream focus on that iteration of the genre distracted people away from the still evolving "hardcore" scene. Formed in 2002, Terror has returned with a new album that was produced by Chad Gilbert of New Found Glory, and it's like they declare on the title track: "Keepers of the faith/Only true believers remain/All the blood, the sweat we gave/You can't deny we're the keepers of the faith." It's harsh. It's loud. It's passionate. It's everything hardcore is, right down to the paradoxical positivity. How can something that sounds so angry be more upbeat than pop music? Consider these lyrics from my favorite track "You're Caught:" "Infiltrator, imitator/Stay clear of me/Weak man, weak mind/So play your games and act a fool/It's coming soon when no one gives a fuck about you." This band isn't afraid to express the indignation they feel at the culture that demands that people squander their lives and they understand the terror their screaming about it can cause.

Notable Releases for Tomorrow (9/21)

Hands All Over by Maroon 5

In 2002 Maroon 5 took over the pop rock genre with their album Songs About Jane. Singer Adam Levine's voice was energetic and soulful. Singles "Harder to Breathe," "This Love," "She Will Be Loved," and "Sunday Morning" displayed a range of tone of style. This band seemed to be the mainstream answer to overly produced instrument-less boy bands. While their second release It Won't Be Soon Before Long sold well, it didn't live up to the promise of Maroon's first, seemingly lacking soul and diversity. Which album with the band's third release more closely relate to, their first or second? If lead single "Misery" is any indication it will (unfortunately) be the second.

You Get What You Give by Zac Brown Band

If you've ever been annoyed by the country song "Chicken Fried" like I have (over and over again at the local bowling alley) then you have this band to thank for it. Now they're back with their second major label release. Featured on it are Southern frat boy country star Jimmy Buffet and melancholy country star Alan Jackson. If you're a fan of non-Taylor Swift country, chances are you're looking forward to this release. If you're not, you're probably like me and crossing your fingers that there's not another "Chicken Fried" here.

Enjoy Yourself by Billy Currington

Another huge recent country chorus you may remember is "God is great/beer is good/and people are crazy." Currington wrote that diddy aptly titled "People Are Crazy." Well, he's back, adopting the ethos of contemporary country and drinking more beer in his new single "Pretty Good At Drinkin' Beer." Basically, he can't do much normal guy stuff except drinking beer. The rest of the album promises to be the same with song titles such as "Like My Dog" and "Bad Day of Fishin." If you're curious about country, maybe you can put these songs on and ask if this is how to "enjoy yourself."

Guitar Heaven: The Greatest Guitar Classics of All Time by Santana

Then there's Santana one of the greatest guitar players of all time who pays homage to some of the greatest guitar songs of all times. The choice seems kind of strange though, seeing how he's been around as long as some of the tracks he covers. Still, he returns to his recent formula that found success, collaborations with popular singers. This time he features rockers Chester Bennington and Gavin Rossdale and American Idol star Chris Daughtery. Though the album may not live up to Santana's previous work, it is another chapter in a long successful career.

A Year Without Rain by Selena Gomez & The Scene

On the other end of the spectrum a Disney Channel star is desperately attempting to establish some pop legitimacy. Based known for her work on Wizards of Waverly Place, Gomez is releasing her second album in two years with her group The Scene. Her style seems to exist somewhere on the spectrum between Hilary Duff and Lady Gaga. She doesn't want to be the over produced pop of Duff and lose legitimacy with the scene (understand the band name either), but she also doesn't want to be the vulgar freakshow of Lady Gaga and sacrifice her purity ring Disney Channel image either. Lead single "Round & Round" seems to be a stronger effort than anything else this group has done so far, but it's impossible to know where they're headed (if it's anywhere at all).

It Takes a Thief by Thievery Corporation

As if the band name wasn't enough to tip you off, this DJ duo is a successful independent politically charged act. And that's all I pretty much care to say about them. They've been around since 1995, so if you're a fan, you're likely excited for this release. If you're not, then you're like me. Nothing more to see here.

Wake Up! by John Legend and The Roots

To satisfy diversity enthusiasts, John Legend and The Roots decided to join forces this week. Legend is a R&B/Hip-Hop singer. The Roots themselves are a synthesis act, combining elements of Jazz and Hip-Hop. Together it will be interested to see what they come up with. If lead single "Wake Up Everybody" is any indication, the album might be intended as a political rallying cry that fans of the Thievery Corporation might appreciate. It certainly rounds out a very diverse week that makes me wonder how certain people can complain about certain things in mainstream America.

Value "Diversity"? Celebrate Individualism

2010-09-18T16:51:00.000-04:00

It's back to school time, and with it comes the annual press releases from our alma maters updating us on the incoming herd of freshmen scholars. They're social media savvy, have never lived in a world without Harry Potter, and don't wear wristwatches.

Oh, and of course, they're also "diverse." "The most diverse class in our history," one press release pines, going on to list their ethnic breakdown.

There's something ironic about measuring "diversity" by the number of different ethnic groups you have. By definition a group is a collection of people based on some unifying characteristic. So to claim a "diverse" student body, universities clump people into ethnic generalities and then count the number of clumps. The school with the most clumps gets to claim the best "diversity."

But what if we took the logic further and changed the clumping criteria from ethnicity to something like favorite book? Surely there would be more clumps to count as, presumably, there are more "favorite books" than ethnicities. You'd have a 1984 clump, a Pride and Prejudice clump, and a much more nerdy Watchmen clump. This is a diversity jackpot, right?

Of course not.

Universities won't change the clumping criteria because to them ethnicity is the primary factor for diversity. Without multiple ethnic groups, there would be no differences among the student populace. Students would walk around with the same ideas in their little heads, unable to to fathom the world outside of their genetic prison.

In order to achieve "diversity," schools bind students as racial collectives.

This race-is-diversity theory is nothing but biological determinism that sounds more suited for Mein Kampf than my alma mater. It should be painfully obvious by simple observation that all ethnicities contain a wide range of people with many different beliefs. Ethnicity is no more a determiner of ideology or cultural practices than hair color or length of your index finger.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how many "minorities" your school admits; your level of diversity depends not on racial mixture but on ideological contrast--which comes from an academic environment that encourages honest intellectual debate and challenging of the academic status quo. But, unfortunately, race is where the academy draws its line with diversity. No Independent Thinkers Need Apply.

Ayn Rand correctly pointed out that the smallest minority on Earth is the individual. And it turns out that the best way to achieve true "diversity," if the term has any validity, is not by ethnic quotas but by promoting individual achievement and expression. The differences in individuals is astounding. Their goals, interests, talents, tastes--all examples of what it really means to be diverse. And if universities actually value diversity, they should abandon arbitrary clumps in favor of the only objective measurement of difference: individuals.

Movie (P)review 9/17/10

2010-09-16T18:27:00.005-04:00

(Each week I will review the movies to be released that week...before I see them. What that means is, I won't be rating them on what they're actually like, as I haven't seen them, but on my likelihood of seeing them based upon what I do know about them. I will use the following rating scale, which explains "when I'll see it:" Never [I'll never see the movie], TV [I'll watch it if it's on basic cable/broadcast TV and happen to come across it], Cable [I'll watch it when it's on one of the pay cable stations and want to see something new], DVD [I'll watch it if I can rent or borrow the movie from friend], Something to Do, [I'll watch it when I want to go to the theater but there's nothing I'm especially excited for, Opening Night [I'll watch it on its release date].)

Alpha And Omega

The "social outcast who is finally seen for his true value" tale that Judd Apatow made popular finally makes it way back to an animated movie. I say back because when I watched this trailer, I was met with an echo of Aladdin as omega Humphrey (voiced by Justin Long) said, "Jump. Trust me" and then "See, I told you you could trust me." Of course, there's even a Lion King moment as an elderly goose tells Humphrey to look behind him and then hits him over the head with his cane a la Rafiki to Simba. The basic premise of this movie is as follows. Humphrey is an omega in the pack who is "in love" with Kate (voiced by Hayden Panettiere) who is in alpha in the pack. Due to the prescribed social order, Humphrey has no chance...until fate intervenes and they're both bagged, tagged, and relocated to Idaho where they are now social equals. There Kate begins to see the true value of Humphrey. The lesson here is if you're "in love" with someone who is "out of your league," then you should kidnap them and bring them to a new location where you can wait for Stockholm Syndrome to sink in. In all seriousness, I can't review the content of the movie as I've only seen the trailer, but I doubt that even though it closely shares the premise of Apatow's Knocked Up (substituting the Idaho for the pregnancy) that it will come close to watching the intelligence and humor of that movie. In a cultural note, this movie features the late Dennis Hopper's second-to-last acting role, even if it is just his voice.

When I'll See it: TV

Devil

In the theater a few weeks ago, the trailer for this movie played and when M. Night Shyamalan's name came up the audience booed. Yes, audiences here in Los Angeles truly are discerning. Actually, though they think they're demonstrating intelligence, what they're actually demonstrating is loyalty to the media smear machine. While The Happening was a confusing mess of a movie and The Last Airbender was a cartoon adapation that was panned by critics, Shyamalan has still turned a profit with every movie he has released. His least successful movie financially was 2006's Lady in the Water which only made $72 million worldwide off of its budget of $70 million. Why the media machine has turned against the writer/director/producer is too big of a subject to cover here, but what I can say is it's undeniable that he is one of the most creative minds in the business. That mind is exactly what is on display here, as Devil is the first film in his three film Chronicle series where he comes up with a story and gives it to other writers and directors to create. The premise of this one is very Hitchcockian, as a group of people are trapped in an elevator and one of them is the devil. That's it. How does that not sound interesting? Of course, a movie like that is all about the execution, so it's up to writer Brian Nelson (best known for 30 Days of Night and Hard Candy) and director John Erick Dowdle (best known for Quarantine and The Poughkeepsie Tapes) to pull it off. Though Quarantine was a mess in its attempts to be Cloverfield, my hope is that mess can be blamed on the script. Devil looks like it could be intelligent and suspenseful.

When I'll see it: Opening Night

Easy A

You may know Emma Stone from Superbad and Zombieland, where she efficiently and charmingly played the love interest of Apatow-style male leads. The question with this picture is if she's ready for her own starring role. The story is a riff on The Scarlet Letter, which the high school class in the movie happens to be reading. As a favor for a male friend, Stone's Olive helps create the perception that she took his virginity. She soon becomes know for the act, even affixing a red A to her clothes. The trouble I have with this movie is it seems to be nothing more than a retread of the typical teen virginity comedy, without any sort of humor. I understand that this is an issue our society is dealing with, but that means movies like this should try to present something new, not grab cash by placating teen angst. However, the movie is driven by two relative Hollywood newcomers. William Gluck, the director, is best known for cocreating and coproducing The Loop, a witty sitcom that was the victim of Fox's cancellation machine, and the writer Bret V. Royal has done nothing before. Here's hoping the duo will have something new to add to the conversation.

When I'll See It: Something to Do

The Town

Here's the problem. After giving a movie like Easy A a chance, how can I say anything other than positive words about The Town without looking like an infant? Well, first, these are my opinions, so it shouldn't matter what you think of me. Second, this movie not only stars Ben Affleck, but is written and directed by him. I know, I know. Affleck has an Oscar for cowriting Good Will Hunting and was praised and won several awards for Gone Baby Gone which he wrote and directed, but he didn't star in either of those pictures. However, my problem isn't Affleck's involvement persay, it is, like Easy A, the subject matter. The basic premise of The Town is that a gang of thieves is being hunted by a FBI Agent, and the romantic entanglements of one of them (Afflect) might endanger them all. Just like Gone Baby Gone, this movie is a crime drama, a genre that has been run into the ground in recent years. Still, though, Affleck's quality with the subject matter has been proven and the FBI Agent is played by Jon Hamm (best known as Don Draper on Mad Men), so there is appeal here. Personally, that it's set in Boston pushes me closer to the theater. However, I just don't see enough new here to make me excited. At least with Easy A, there is the glimmer of that possibility of something original.

When I'll See It: DVD

Sainz and Sex: Jeopardizing the Jets

2010-09-15T22:06:00.001-04:00

I'm the first person to jump for joy when anything bad happens to the New York Jets, especially the Rex Ryan incarnation. As a fan of the New England Patriots, I enjoyed the Jets' offense sputtering to a 10-9 loss to the Baltimore Ravens on Monday night a little more than most NFL fans...and look forward to their showdown with the Patriots offense which once again appears as if it might be ridiculous. Despite my disdain for the franchise, though, I don't enjoy seeing them maligned for the wrong reasons--mainly our country's continued mistreatment of sexuality and professionalism.

If you haven't heard about or read the controversy (or still don't understand it because coverage of it has been, intentionally, imprecise), the best description I could find was in this ESPN article:

It's bad enough that some of the Jets players allegedly acted boorishly toward Sainz on Saturday by hooting and shouting catcalls at her when she went to the locker room. But if the stories are accurate about that or what happened on the practice field earlier in the day, what were Ryan and Thurman -- two members of management -- doing yukking it up like schoolboys and concocting a fake passing drill so the players could run by where Sainz was standing?

Yup, this is a good old sexual harassment case. ESPN.com writer Jemele Hill puts a finer point on the issue by making it about feminism:

The NFL has launched an investigation, and Jets owner Woody Johnson personally called Sainz to apologize.

That, in itself, is tremendous progress. It's taken a long time for women to be taken seriously in sports media. It was 20 years ago this week that Lisa Olson, currently a sports columnist for AOL Fanhouse, was subjected to humiliating treatment by members of the New England Patriots in their locker room, an incident that many acknowledge as a turning point for female media members in their struggle to gain respect in the sports industry. At the time, many dismissed Olson's claims of harassment, and she received an avalanche of public scorn.

But at the risk of sounding insensitive to Sainz, I would never group her situation with the Jets with Olson's treatment by the Pats. I'm having a hard time feeling sympathetic for someone who at times carries herself in a manner that insults some women in this business.
At the Super Bowl XLIII media day, for example, Sainz went around touching players' biceps as part of what she called a "strongest arm" competition.

At last season's Super Bowl between the Colts and Saints, Sainz allowed herself to be carried on the shoulders of a couple of Indianapolis players.

Then there's the matter of the attire she's worn on the job around professional football. A quick Google search turns up numerous images of Sainz standing on a football field in clothing that seems better suited for a nightclub.

"It's my style," Sainz told George Stephanopoulos on ABC's Good Morning America. "It is my style for all my life."

You should listen to Hill, too; trust me. Go Google those pictures right now. They're totally worth it. I'm serious. Go. Ok, back? Good. Sainz is clearly a good looking woman. Anyone can agree with that statement, whether she is their type or not. However, that isn't the issue. It's about the inherent contradiction Hill is arguing by making this point specifically about women. She continues:

In no way am I saying Sainz deserved to be disrespected because of what she wore or that she doesn't bring a hard-hitting, Barbara Walters-type approach to her job.

It isn't fair, but female sports journalists have to adhere to unspoken rules that our male counterparts never have to consider. Otherwise, the door is left open for comments such as the ones Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis made when he was asked on a D.C. radio show about Sainz's situation.

Yeah, yeah, CYA, we get it, by why are female sports journalists forced to "adhere to unspoken roles that [their] male counterparts never have to consider." Oh, it's because men make comments such as the following statements she was referring to by Portis:

"You know, somebody got to spark her interest, or she's going to want somebody. I don't know what kind of woman won't, if you get to go and look at 53 men's [bodies]. I know you're doing a job, but at the same time, the same way I'm going to cut my eye if I see somebody worth talking to, I'm sure they do the same thing."

On a rudimentary level what Portis is talking about is the reality of the situation. One to 53 is pretty good odds for anyone to find someone they like, especially when that someone is in a locker room where the gender of their interest is sweaty, naked, showering, and changing. However, that situation does not necessitate sexuality and that's the error Portis, Hill, and anyone who forces Portis to apologize (as was done by Redskins management) and condemns the Jets is making.

Photo by Flickr user SDH PHOTOGRAPHY

A situation is only sexual if you choose to make it that way. The problem is, that statement assumes free will and self-control, concepts the modern culture and more specifically feminism do not accept. Men, we're taught, are at the mercy of their nature to impregnate multiple women at a time. They are visually and physically motivated creatures, disconnected from their nature. Women, we're taught, are the gatekeepers of sex. They decide who sleeps with who because they are the only gender capable of being discriminatory.

The "crime" Sainz and the Jets are being criticized for is not controlling male sexuality. Sainz is acting unprofessionally by dressing and acting in a way to provoke men. The Jets are acting unprofessionally by giving in to their "lesser" urges (which they are simultaneously told they can't control--this is the position in which we put men in our society). What Clinton Portis was attempting to do was deliver the message, albeit it not particularly succeeding in his delivery, that men have a choice, too, and that women's sexuality is just the same and as powerful as men's sexuality. He was essentially saying, "If the roles were reversed, if I were in her shoes, this is how I would act." That is true equality--not what Hill says, treating someone exactly like you would treat yourself.

Consider the reverse, a male reporter going into a WNBA locker room or the Women's National Soccer Team's locker room (is that even allowed?) or holding some sort of contest on the sideline that involves him touching all the players. I'm pretty sure he'd be strung up, which not only speaks to the view of male sexually I already described, but our cultures view of sexuality in general.

Earlier I wrote that a situation is only sexual if you choose to make it that way. Here's what I mean. No matter what a person wears or how he or she acts, if you're attracted to them you're attracted to them. The person of your interest could be dressed in a turtle neck giving a speech on hunting, killing, and cooking wild turkeys, and you would still find them attractive (and perhaps even be turned on). However, you still have the discretion of how and when to express yourself. You could never say anything and relegate yourself to the role of angsty teenager whose crush never knows of your interest. You could declare your interest right there and become known as the guy or girl who is either romantic or crazy (depending on the execution and the reception). The point is, how you express and conduct yourself sexually is, like everything, up to you, but attraction never stops whether the person of your affection is naked or in a parka.

In a perfect world, a female reporter could go into a men's sports team's locker room (and vice versa) and no issue would arise because, if there was any attraction on anyone's part, they would express it mature and professionally because the involved parties are in a professional environment. However, we don't live in a perfect world and this situation speaks to something that is much too complex for me and most people who are speaking and writing about it to do so: the psychologies of the involved people.

At its root, the story is about how Sainz and the Jets do their jobs and live their lives. Why is that Sainz's, as she said, style and always had been? I have no idea. Why did Jets's coaches and players focus on a woman on the sideline, constructing their drill around her location rather than around what they needed to improve upon to win? I have no idea. I can't and don't care to answer that question. What I do care to conclude with is this:

If I was the head coach of a National Football League team, I wouldn't let a woman anywhere near my practices or locker rooms, and I'm sure I'd be reviled for it. While I would seek to hire players and coaches that understood the responsibilities of their jobs, I would also seek to limit all variables that give them a chance to stray from their jobs; that is why every day would be planned to every possible detail (obviously that task becomes even harder on game day when the stadium is abuzz with activity, which is when the mentalities of the other players and coaches becomes even more important).

This approach is why I am a huge fan of the New England Patriots's head coach (beyond the fact that he is the Patriots's head coach). I believe his philosophy and strategy is the superior one. And that is the real point being missed by focusing on the sexuality of this Jets "controversy." Jets head coach Rex Ryan is coaching with pretty much the exact opposite philosophy and strategy of Belichick. The battle for supremacy in the AFC East this season is being fought on a deep level, and we're worried about what clothes a reporter is wearing and if a running back on a team in the other conference says sex is natural.

Yeah, sex is natural, and so is existing, but taking control of either action is not. It's volitional, and difficult, and that's what it takes to win, and enjoy, either. I know the Jets didn't enjoy themselves on Monday night. Here's hoping they're suffering continues this Sunday afternoon. Something tells me it will.

Are You Meat Loaf?

2010-09-15T12:41:00.000-04:00

Pleated-Jeans helps you find out:

Big Sister: Kathleen Sebelius

2010-09-14T12:05:00.000-04:00

Dr. Paul Hsieh's latest article on healthcare points out some disturbing trends coming from the Obama administration's PR machine:

Secretary Sebelius has just ordered insurance companies not to blame their rate hikes on ObamaCare. She warned that she would show “zero tolerance” for any insurers spreading such “misinformation.” Companies that objected could be banned from the new government-run “insurance exchanges” where millions of Americans will be obliged to purchase their health plans starting in 2014.

In effect, the government is saying: “Let’s pretend we never said ObamaCare would lower costs — even though that’s how we sold it to the public.” “Let’s push patients into restrictive health plans — and call it a ‘medical home.’” “Let’s label it ‘misinformation’ when insurers tell the truth about how our laws raise their costs — and then punish them if they complain about it.” And as the problems of ObamaCare deepen, we can expect such “re-education” efforts to intensify.

Chilling to say the least.

It's important to keep in mind that government is the only entity that can legally use force. In fact, force is their only function. Government literally has the power to destroy these companies for speaking out.

Music Monday: A Lady, A Park, and Flowers

2010-09-13T19:30:00.000-04:00

Album of the Week

The Fame and The Fame Monster by Lady Gaga

You may think it's strange that a blog such as ours would feature a pop music sensation like Lady Gaga as our anything of the week, but it is impossible to deny the sensation she has become. From dominating the music charts to having an episode of Glee written around her music to being a crossover South Park hit, the Julliard School of Music graduate has found a way to take over popular culture...and that's exactly why her first album and subsequent eight song release are worth a listen, especially when famed "dissent feminist," social critic Camille Paglia writes a deconstruction of her.

I first heard Lady Gaga before she was super famous (a level all to its own). I was aware of her first single "Just Dance" in passing. Then I was visiting my friends in Seattle and it came on the radio. We espoused our enjoyment of it for its tongue-in-cheek style. Its humor seemed to be in the style of 3OH!3, someone with a superior education appropriating a genre only to make fun of it ("I'm gonna have a house party in my house," come on, how can you not get that joke). I mean, how can you not have that take on "Just Dance" with lyrics like this:

I've had a little bit too much
All of the people start to rush.
Start to rush babe.
A dizzy twister dance
Can't find my drink or man.
Where are my keys, I lost my phone.
What's going on on the floor?
I love this record baby, but I can't see straight anymore.
Keep it cool what's the name of this club?
I can't remember but it's alright, alright.

Just dance. Gonna be okay.
Da-doo-doo-doo
Just dance. Spin that record babe.
Da-doo-doo-doo
Just dance. Gonna be okay.
Duh-duh-duh-duh
Dance. Dance. Dance. Just dance.

Gaga seemed to both pop and aware of pop's shortcomings at the same time. Then came "Poker Face" and lyrics like this:

I wanna roll with him a hard pair we will be
A little gambling is fun when you're with me I love it)
Russian Roulette is not the same without a gun
And baby when it's love if its not rough it isn't fun, fun
Oh, oh, oh, oh, ohhhh, oh-oh-e-oh-oh-oh
I'll get him hot, show him what I've got
Oh, oh, oh, oh, ohhhh, oh-oh-e-oh-oh-oh,
I'll get him hot, show him what I've got

Can't read my,
Can't read my
No he can't read my poker face
(she's got to love nobody)
Can't read my
Can't read my
No he can't read my poker face
(she's got to love nobody)

P-p-p-poker face, p-p-poker face
(Mum mum mum mah)
P-p-p-poker face, p-p-poker face
(Mum mum mum mah)

I won't tell you that I love you
Kiss or hug you
Cause I'm bluffin' with my muffin
I'm not lying I'm just stunnin' with my love-glue-gunning
Just like a chick in the casino
Take your bank before I pay you out
I promise this, promise this
Check this hand cause I'm marvelous

On its face (pun intended), the song seems to be about female empowerment, about women doing exactly what men have supposedly done for years. "Supposedly" is the key word here, as the song quickly degenerates into a cold harsh sexuality, where "if it isn't rough it isn't fun" and the woman promises to "take your bank before I pay you out." Don't think Gaga isn't aware of this either. With phrases like "I'm bluffin' with my muffin," the song is as absurd as her costumes that soon followed as she turned herself into a symbol of political correctness, for "letting your freak flag fly" (as the phrase goes). Her followup "album," The Fame Monster, then came with the hit "Bad Romance," a song that revels in the nonsensical and darkness that modern pop music and sexuality have become:

I want your horror
I want your design
‘Cause you're a criminal
As long as you're mine
I want your love
(Love-love-love I want your love-uuhh)

I want your psycho
Your vertigo stick
Want you in my rear window
Baby you're sick
I want your love
Love-love-love
I want your love
(Love-love-love I want your love)

You know that I want you
('Cause I'm a free bitch baby!)
And you know that I need you
I want it bad, bad romance

I want your love and
I want your revenge
You and me could write a bad romance
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh!)
I want your love and
All your lovers' revenge
You and me could write a bad romance

Simultaneously calling herself a "free bitch" and declaring her desire for "horror" and "bad romance," the song is the logical progression of our culture as Gaga declares that the subject of her affections is "a criminal as long as you're mine." We're supposed to embrace out freedom and at the same time be ashamed of who we are. This is the persona and message, despite all of her technical talent, that Lady Gaga sells. Paglia states it best:

Furthermore, despite showing acres of pallid flesh in the fetish-bondage garb of urban prostitution, Gaga isn’t sexy at all – she’s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation? Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era…

Lady Gage is a logical waypoint on the natural progression of a relativistic culture. When values have no basis in reality, they are as easily swappable as outfits, simply being what you wear to get in good with whomever you're trying to get in good with. Products of your life then, such as sex and art, become nothing more than shells, subverting their very nature in an attempt to be the height of themselves. Yes, it's a contradiction, but that is the problem with elevating the audience over the artist or the loved over the lover.

But don't take my word for it. Investigate the phenomenon for yourself. That's why these albums released in 2008 and 2009 are the album of the week in 2010.

Notable Releases for tomorrow (9/14)

A Thousand Suns by Linkin Park

In 2000 Hybrid Theory Linkin Park posited the idea that the mainstream was ready for a rap/rock synthesis act. Certainly not the first or last band to combine the genres (my personal favorite is Zebrahead), the group seemed to be on to something with their hits "One Step Closer," "Crawling," and "In the End." Teen angst lurked beneath their rhymes and hard rock riffs, and they soon followed with a creative remix album of Hybrid called Reanimation and their second album Meteora. All seemed to be going well. Their hypothesis seemed correct...until 2007's Minutes to Midnight and now A Thousand Suns. The rap is almost gone. The rock is boring and redundant. If anything, the album is notable for marking the end of the theory with the knowledge that the problem wasn't that the synthesis act was too much for the mainstream, but that it was too much for its members. (Now can Mike Shinoda finally completely go solo with his rap career and release another Fort Minor album?)

Flamingo by Brandon Flowers

Four years after the emergence of Linkin Park came The Killers, a band that likewise shifted the mainstream alternative genre, this time away from a harder edge to a more "indie" and "dancy" vibe. "Somebody Told Me" was an infection anthem in 2004 that even I couldn't help dancing to. Six years later, much maligned lead singer Brandon Flowers has put the band on hold and is releasing his solo debut. Called "a little girl" by one person and "the singer with the denim skin" by others, Flowers has oft been insulted for being the opposite of the stereotype of "masculinity" (he's certain no "juicehead"), which makes his band's feuds with pop punk/emo acts Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco even more amusing. Writing all the tracks (with help on a few) himself, it will be interesting to see what Flowers produces and if he can stay relevant in the age of Gaga and Guidos.

Hurley by Weezer

And then there are some bands that keep chugging, steadily remaining similar to their beginnings. Weezer is a band that most people know about, yet has never seemed to sky rocket to the top of the music world. Their latest album is an homage to the hero of LOST, Hugo "Hurley" Reyes, who "believes in you, dude." The cover art is picture of the Jorge Garcia, the actor who portrayed Hurley. The intrigue here will be to see if the content of the album lines up with the philosophy of "The End." What's likely is the band will unintentionally expose a flaw in the ideas put forward in the finale as they attempt to celebrate the ethos of Hurley, much in the same way The Big Lebowski exposed (unintentionally?) the ethos of "The Dude." (Which has to lead to the question, is Hurley's constant "duding" a reference to "The Dude"?)

10 Things I Learned about Girls from OkCupid

2010-09-12T22:43:00.000-04:00

For those of you living in a cave in Afghanistan, OkCupid is a free online dating site. Having used it for a few months now, I thought I'd share these (apparently) universals truths I've learned about the ladies. (These will be funnier if you've spent some time on OkCupid. So, what are you waiting for?)

1. Nine out of ten attractive women are bisexual and just aren't interested in men "right now."

2. North America is populated by vastly more vegetarians, pescatarians, vegans, and macrobioticians than plain old omnivores.

3. Men aren't funny. A woman will only sleep with a man if he's funny. Ergo, no one is having sex.

4. The most embarrassing thing a woman can tell you is that she's trying to find someone she values online.

5. No woman is looking for casual sex or a "hook up." (Unless you're funny. Then invest in the Sam's Club box of Trojans because you're going to have a busy weekend.)

6. All women between 5'3" and 5'9" have yet to discover the Internet.

7. OMFG! WOMEN HATE TO BE WINKED AT!!!

8. Women are leftists who do not understand 1984.

9. There is no harder task for a woman than talking about herself--except getting back to you.

10. Every woman is approachable and friendly, but for God's sake do not talk to her.

9/11: What's in a Name?

2010-09-11T16:08:00.000-04:00

Nine years after one of the most horrific attacks that the US has ever seen, the victims are still without a memorial, the scar from the crumbled towers is left empty like an open wound upon New York's face, and influential politicians, the president included, support the building of an Islamic community center (read: mosque) on near Ground Zero. These are all inexcusable insults to the families and friends who lost love ones and to the rest of us who watched in disbelief as the American way of life was suspended indefinitely.

Yet none of egregious offenses compare to the insult that is America's refusal to name our enemy.

Image by Flickr user Firas1

Nine years later, with over $1 trillion spent on foreign wars and 6,500+ soldiers killed, we are no closer to defeating our enemy than we were on September 12, 2001. The major reason is our failure to name them. It was bad enough that at the time we used the woefully non-descript name "terrorism" to describe our enemy--since "terrorism" is a tactic, not an ideological motivation--but it's outright disgusting that given nearly a decade we've come no closer to correctly identifying them. (Arguably, we've taken a step back with the Obama administration's unofficial ban on the use of the phrase "global war on terror" in favor of the much worse, politically correct "overseas contingency operation." Though, to be fair, the administration has denied such a ban.)

So after 3,285 days and two (ongoing) wars, our enemy is basically without a name, a faceless blankout whose presence we're supposed to simultaneously ignore and actively notice, whose ideology we're supposed to tolerate and loathe, whose motivation is radical religious perversion yet somehow still our fault for being born American. The best our politicians have given us to identify the people who want to kill us is a color and an emotion: yellow, fear.

It is beyond offensive that in the most moral country in the history of the world, we must alter our lifestyles in any way in return for a sense of security. Yet we live in a constant state of uneasiness, of removing our belts and shoes (and clothes) at the airport, of worrying that we're the next terror suspect because we packed too many liquids in our carry-on, of riding the Metro with heavily armed guards, of surveillance everywhere with no guaranteed safety. Obama was right in one sense. Our enemies haven't been able to "terrorize" us as much as our own government has. Compare the attitude of the American people immediately following the attacks (righteous anger) to the attitude of the government. Americans were told that the world would never be the same and that we must live with the idea that we could be attacked at any time. Anger turned to fear as our leaders told us we couldn't really defeat the enemy--because there wasn't one. Only a word: terror.

But our leaders were wrong then and are still wrong now. If we are honest, we can both know and defeat our enemies. Because they're not some shapeless non-entity or some mysterious underground movement. Our enemy is Islamic totalitarianism.

Yesterday our president reminded the world that we were not at war with Islam. This is true only in the most limited sense. In the same way we were not at war with Germany and Japan in WWII but with Nazism and Japanese imperialism, we are not at war with Islam. That is, we are at war with the ideology within the greater Islamic movement that would see every non-beliver killed, that would stone to death a woman "convicted" of adultery, that would subject the entire world to sharia law. It's undeniable that during WWII there were citizens in Germany and Japan that did not agree with the ideologies of their governments just as there are Muslims who denounce the Islamic totalitarian movement. Yet we did not claim that Nazism was a fringe movement that could wiped out with precision bombing and tolerance nor did we preach that Japanese imperialists were a "movement of peace." We declared America's moral superiority, prepared for all out war, and did everything we could to bring those ideologies to their knees. And we did so in six years. (For the most comprehensive, most thoroughly convincing argument on this point, I suggest you read Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism edited by Elan Journo.)

As Marsha Enright and Gen LaGreca point out in "Defending Western Civilization":

In their quest to establish a worldwide caliphate, radical Islamists invoke morality, claiming they have God’s sanction for performing their barbarous acts.

To defend Western civilization, we, also, need to invoke morality. But although the world envies the prosperity we’ve achieved, it is widely seen as the product of soulless materialism, of unbridled “greed,” of unscrupulous self-indulgence.

[...]

It is said that Ground Zero is “sacred ground.” In truth, all of America is sacred ground—because the individual is sacred here.

We must assert the moral superiority of our civilization—or lose it to our enemies.

Before we can do so, we have to agree that our enemy is not an unknowable force, a military tactic, or a strong emotion. And we have to agree to fight. The longer we go without naming and defeating our enemies, the stronger they become--and the less likely it is that there will be a civilization left worth fighting for.

Movie (P)review 9/10/10

2010-09-10T16:52:00.003-04:00

Television Tues: Love, Death, and Cheers

2010-09-07T19:25:00.008-04:00

Mad Men Drives Fans Mad

In case you missed it, Mad Men aired "The Suitcase" on Sunday night. It was one of the best damn episodes of television I've ever seen, the highlight of a philosophically dense season. The episode was "about" Donald Draper and Peggy Olson trying to come up with an idea for a Samsonite suitcase advertisement. It focused on their relationship, bridging the gap from mentor-protege to confidants as they opened up their hard exteriors and shared their baggage with each other. Get it, Don (and Peggy to a certain extent) is the suitcase. What made the episode so powerful to me is the ease in which they interacted once they got past expecting things from each other. Though they ate dinner in a ratty diner and spent most of their time in the office, it was an incredibly romantic evening.

Except it would seem my reaction is atypical. At least, if my reaction is typical, the other people who share it are keeping their mouths shut as part of the old "silent majority." Here's a smattering of fan reactions on the internet following the episode (preserved in all their grammar splicing glory):

"I like that Don and Peggy are becoming good friends I hope they don't ruin it by making them hook up."

"Draper and Peggy will never get together. It would absolutely be a mis-step by Weiner if they did, just because it is not within their characters. I see their relationship as a father-daughter relationship...Don needed a replacement confidante - the reason why he revealed to Peggy so many tidbits about his life over the course of the episode. The relationship between Don and Peggy will become closer, but never (hopefully) romantic."

"I think it's a bad idea for Don and Peggy to be together -- it becomes too predictable and then the series will run out of ideas."

"A platonic relationship with someone who really knows and 'gets' you can be so much more powerful than anything romantic or sexual....this episode blew me away! Wondering now when Don's going to hit rock bottom - I don't think he's there yet, but he doesn't have far to go, either."

"I am definitely NOT comfortable with the idea of Peggy and Don....they are more like brother and sister!"

"They're kindred spirits in some weird way but I didn't see anything romantic in their interactions. If anything, this pivotal episode underlines that there is nothing amorous about their complicated relationship."

"Don NEEDS a platonic relationship now...The two of them are both loners; independents, and to show them both on that same journey, while helping each other on the way, makes a lot more sense than them hooking up. "

For those keeping score, the general consensus is that Don and Peggy falling in love doesn't make sense because 1. They're like brother and sister, 2. It's too predictable, and 3. Platonic relationships are better than sexual ones. In response, I can only quote "the sex speech" from Atlas Shrugged:

...just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love–and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool’s self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one’s code of values.

Platonic love is exactly what both of them don't need. The reason that they're both "suitcases" is the intimacy they've experienced is hollow and when they meet the rare person that is like themselves, they don't express true intimacy to them. Some fans understand this:

"Twice we witness Don is indeed capable of intimacy... Interestingly enough for him it doesn't involve sex."

"Peggy Is the extension of Don, he pushes, judges and loves her like he does himself...,loved this episode!"

What bothers me is that the viewers who don't "get it" it seemed to outnumber those who do by a large margin. What do these people do when they meet a kindred spirit? Who do they have sex with? It would seem they do the same thing as Don Draper. Why then do they condemn him for his actions? Do they receive some perverse joy in both identifying with and disliking Don? More pressingly, how do they live their lives? It's at this point I stop and realize I'm not that smart, as this has all been said before. I quote "the sex speech" again:

"Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives–and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One proceeds from the other."

The only true question that remains is if Matthew Weiner truly understands this philosophy, as he seems to with his continued referencing of it. The most frustrating thing is that episodes such as this one will be used as evidence by both sides until we learn what happens to Don Draper (which will presumably be the last episode...hopefully it won't end with him in a church begging his father for an explanation).

The Walking Dead Rises Again

When people ask me what show I'm excited for this season, I have to admit it's a show that won't air until Halloween, The Walking Dead. AMC's zombie survival show based on the comic book series of the same name just released its second trailer this week and man is it creepily awesome. Watch it here.

Hellcats Have No Fury on the CW

The fall season finally starts tomorrow night (Sept 8th) on the CW and the first new show we get is about...a cheerleader who hates cheerleaders. Surely trying to capitalize on the success of Friday Night Lights and the fact that cheerleaders are hot, the show is led by former Disney Channel stars Alyson Michalka of Phil of the Future and Ashley Tisdale of The Suite Life of Zach and Cody and the High School Musical series. It also stars Matt Barr, who was pretty good as Christopher "Sully" Sullivan on CBS' 2009 one season mystery/horror show Harper's Island. It's definitely worth one go just to see what they do with all of this talent and premise, but I don't expect it to be anything more than the next One Tree Hill, Gossip Girl, or The Vampire Diaries.

Music Monday

2010-09-06T19:54:00.004-04:00

Album of the Week

Rumor Has It by The Soundtrack

If you ever wanted to know what the pop punk genre would sound like in the wake of Fall Out Boy and Paramore, then The Soundtrack came together just for you. Frontwoman Rachael Petit sounds more like Casadee Pope (of Hey Monday) than Hayley Williams and this unsigned Atlanta based band errs more towards the pop than the punk, but their six track EP still rocks. Petit opens the first track "Don't Step On the Cracks by simultaneously asking and declaring "Is there something in the water cause I can't remember where I put my dignity." And that's what these songs are about, completely embracing the contemplative yearning of the genre. It's best summed up in the lyrics to masquerade: "And she thinks she's got that something, a pretty little disguise, see it deep in her eyes. Wouldn't it be so nice if we all could just be nice? Wouldn't it be so nice?" Yes, it would, and that's the perfect word to describe this album, nice.

Notable Releases for Tomorrow (9/7)

Interpol by Interpol

When you can't think of a title, just name it after yourself. That's exactly what indie veterans Interpol decided to do for their fourth album. I always wonder if such a naming technique represents a lack of creativity, though I don't think it matters much. Interpol is a band that has yet to go platinum, but still has a strong and loyal fan base, guaranteeing they'll be around as long as they want to, no matter how creative they care to be.

The 4 Complete Ed Sullivan Shows Starring The Beatles

Yeah, it's a DVD, but don't we all need an excuse to buy another product of The Beatles repacking machine? Cynicism aside, live television performances are one of the major things this beloved British band is known for, so buying this would be like owning a piece of history...right?

Mean Old Man by Jerry Lee Lewis

Sure, when talking about country it's cool to up your cred by mentioning how you much love Johnny Cash, but what about Jerry Lee Lewis? I mean, have you seen his discography page on Wikipedia? More to the point, have you ever wondered what he would sound like on tracks with Kid Rock, Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton, Tim McGraw, Eric Clapton, Sheryl Crowe, John Mayer, Ringo Starr, and others? Then this album was made for you, as it only features duets with the old school superstar. You have to appreciate the title too. In an industry that is becoming increasingly diversified and focused on partying, an album such as this one provides an ironic breath of fresh air.

Audio Secrecy by Stone Sour

Still somewhat unknown, Audio Secrecy is the perfect name for Stone Sour's third album. A Slipnot side project for vocalist Corey Taylor and guitarist James Root, Stone Sour came out of seemingly nowhere in 2002 with the hit "Bother." Since then, they've never gone platinum, but have created more main stream accessible music with this band than their more popular one. It'll be interesting to see what they produced for this album and what it does for their careers.

Dark is the Way: Light is a Place by Anberlin

The album title is paradoxical. The album cover is a picture of a horse falling. Those two statements sum up this band for me. I can never quite get a grasp on them. They're clearly talented and know what they're doing, but what exactly are they doing? It's like the album title says, their music sounds so dark, but there is also something so uplifting about it. It's a remarkable amalgamation of angst and hope. This release will surely be no different.

Beer: The Musical Drink

2010-09-04T19:11:00.000-04:00

Finally:

Tuned Pale Ale has come out with a beer that gives you a chance to do something constructive while boozing: whistle a tune. It's carefully calibrated so you know just what note you're going to hear when you blow over the top.

Beer. Is there anything it can't do? (Quiet, Justin.)

"Atlas Shrugged" and Sense of Life

2010-09-03T22:20:00.004-04:00

[This is the fourth of four responses to "The Greatly Ghastly Rand," a National Review article by Jason Lee Steorts. Read the first, second, and third.]

Atlas Shrugged is a work of art. Sure, you may dislike it, even hate it, but there's no denying that it's literature. (After all, I still acknowledge that Ulysses is literature--though just barely.) As such, the novel is bound to evoke in each reader a certain emotional response. This unique, deeply personal reaction comes from what Ayn Rand called a "sense of life," i.e., your subconscious emotional evaluation of the world. Think about sense of life this way: In the same way that we consciously organize the world using logic, we subconsciously organize the world using emotions. The criteria for this emotional organization is not what is "good" or "bad" for us--that's ethics--but what is important to us.

Art reaches into our souls and either embraces or attacks our sense of life. When we read a great book, listen to outstanding music, or view a remarkable painting, we're invigorated. The piece of art confirms our sense of life and shows us, if just for a moment, the concretization of the values we hold most dear. Contrarily, when we experience bad art, our world seems darker, as if our greatest values have suddenly become impossible to achieve. This ability to make our abstract values real is why art is so powerful and so important.

You can tell certain things about someone by their reaction to art. Of course, the more reactions you observe, the more you can know. But even one experience can be revealing--especially within the rest of the context of someone's values.

What, then, can we know about Jason Steorts from his negative response to Atlas Shrugged? As Justin astutely points out in "A (Bitch) is A (Bitch)," "Steorts's Christian values make him uncomfortable with strong judgments in the novel." Let's unpack this observation.

Photo by Flickr user Stuck in Customs

Two things initially puzzled me about Steorts's review: first, how he found no compelling heroes in Atlas Shrugged (because, he argued, they weren't realistic enough) and, second, that he was bored by Howard Roark(!). I soon realized that both evaluations stem from the same sense of life reaction. As a Christian, Steorts accepts that all humans are morally flawed. Only God is perfect. No matter how hard they try, humans cannot attain moral perfection until they die and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

The heroes in Atlas or, even more blatantly, Howard Roark, do not fit with Steorts's view of humankind. They are not conflicted, submissive, distraught, or otherwise diminished. They do not humble themselves before a God or anyone else, seeking revelatory answers to their problems. They are worshipers of reason--apostles of reality. And this is exactly why Steorts finds himself bored. His sense of life tells him that no human can attain such certainty, such confidence, such rationality; therefore, the characters in Atlas are not human.

But aside from the characters, Steorts central argument, boiled down to its essential, is that Rand is cruel. I think all three previous CE responses demonstrated beyond doubt that Rand is anything but cruel--that she rightfully celebrates the best among us and, again rightfully, denounces the worst. I have nothing to add to their defense of Rand's benevolence.

What I will say is that attacks such as Steorts's show exactly why Christian conservatism has failed as a philosophy--and why conservatives are not the best defenders of freedom. Though they recognize Rand as a someone of importance, someone whose ideas seem to simultaneously mesh and clash with their own, they have no substantive arguments to counter her. It's always, "She's right about capitalism, but...I just don't feel right about her" or "Her views make so much sense, but...they just make me feel uneasy." It's their sense of life speaking, and it's fighting vehemently against the beautiful logic that Rand presents.

The problem, of course, is not that people like Steorts have these reactions, but that they use them as a primary source of knowledge or, in some cases, a last line of defense against accepting any idea that contradicts their world view. They substitute their feelings for their thoughts, "gut" for mind, emotion for logic.

This is not to say that some Christians have not read and liked Atlas even while dismissing certain parts. The extent to which a Christian has not accepted his religion's views of man is the extent to which he'll enjoy Atlas Shrugged on an emotional level. If, like Steorts, a man has fully accepted and integrated the Christian sense of life, then I would not expect him to find any comfort in the novel's themes--justice, rationality, heroism, or otherwise.

And, frankly, it's his loss.

Movie (P)review 9/3/10

2010-09-03T02:10:00.006-04:00

(Each week I will review the movies to be released that week...before I see them. What that means is, I won't be rating them on what they're actually like, as I haven't seen them, but on my likelihood of seeing them based upon what I do know about them. I will use the following rating scale, which explains "when I'll see it:" Never [I'll never see the movie], TV [I'll watch it if it's on basic cable/broadcast TV and happen to come across it], Cable [I'll watch it when it's on one of the pay cable stations and want to see something new], DVD [I'll watch it if I can rent or borrow the movie from friend], Something to Do, [I'll watch it when I want to go to the theater but there's nothing I'm especially excited for, Opening Night [I'll watch it on its release date].)

The American

The trailer ends with a priest telling the main character played by George Clooney, "A man can be reached if he has God in his heart." Clooney's character replies, "I don't think God's very interested in me, father." So, is this movie about a spy quitting the game and finding faith? Is it a commentary on "Godless America"? Apparently Clooney's Jack is a lonely assassin who finally takes a job that lets him stay in one locale for an extended period of time. While there, he starts a romance and befriends a priest...but, of course, his profession catches up with him. Need to know more? The script is based on a book called A Very Private Gentleman. Basically what this sounds like is a conventional "man learns he can't live for himself" flick. Though the writer did pen the decent 28 Weeks Later, the director is best known for music videos and the star is Clooney, who always seems to try to take these "classy," "refined," and "dignified" roles. (This movie was actually released on Wednesday.)

When I'll See it: Never

Going the Distance

The marketing campaign for this movie has actually been surprisingly active. I've seen several trailers, billboards, and website banners for it. It does seem to be relatively amusing too. The problem is, it also seems to suffer from what most comedies do now-a-days: The Hangover. What that means is, rather than trying to dig into it's premise and use intelligence to make jokes, it lowers itself for the easy laugh such as the couple having sex on someone else's kitchen table. To it's credit, it does star Justin Long, who can be very funny, and Drew Barrymore, whose quirky seems to work best in these kind of movies, who are actually dating, so their romance may shine through. Seeing how the movie is a romantic comedy, that's good. However, the movie is still a romantic comedy, a genre that needs something new...and this doesn't look to be it.

When I'll See It: Cable

Machete

In a summer filled with "mindless action," this intentionally campy movie has interested me the most. It originally began as a joke trailer during Quentin Taratino's Grindhouse, but has since taken on its own life. However, the story seems to go back further than that, when director Robert Rodriquez first met star Danny Trejo in the early 90s. Upon their meeting, Rodriquez believed so strongly that Trejo should be an action star, he wrote the script. Truthfully, if you've ever seen Trejo in anything (or read his extensive filmography on IMDB) it most likely puzzles you as to how he's not a huge star already. Packaging him in an action blockbuster with a budget of only $25 million and pairing him with writer/director/producer Rodriquez who has been successful in multiple genres seems to be the perfect platform to catapult him into even bigger success. Then there's the rest of the cast. First, we have LOST alums Cheech Marin, Michelle Rodriquez, and Jeff Fahey. Yes, that's Hurley's Dad, Ana Lucia Cortez, and Frank Lapidus (Lapidus. He survives explosions because he's the only pilot. Lapidus. Turns out the mysteries don't matter so does that even bother you? Lapidus. Walt and Widmore used to be important. Lapidus!) and this is the type of movie that seems to be well within their ranges, especially Michelle Rodriquez. Second, we have Robert DeNiro, Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan, Don Johnson, and Rose McGowan. I get the impression that the majority of the budget went to paying the cast. Finally, there's Steven Seagal. Yes, you read that sentence correctly, Steven Seagal. In the middle of a quasi-resurgence, this movie is his return to the big screen...and it is reminiscent of his 80s action flicks. Sure, the trailer hints at a premise about immigration law that makes me a little wary of it becoming overly preachy, especially because of the obvious Hispanic nature of this film, but there's just too much talent and intelligence involved with the project to believe it will go that way. Besides, how can you not think a movie where a character declares "We didn't cross the border. The border crossed us." is going to be fun?

When I'll See It: Opening Night

Happy "Atlas Shrugged" Day!

2010-09-02T22:02:00.000-04:00

Atlas Shrugged opens with Eddie Willers walking through New York City, contemplating life, the universe, and everything. He notices the city calendar atop a tall building:

"A white rectangle hung over the city, imparting the date to the men in the streets below. In the rusty light of this evening's sunset, the rectangle said: September 2."

His mind races:

"He thought suddenly that there was some phrase, a kind of quotation, that expressed what the calendar seemed to suggest. But he could not recall it."

It's the perfect phrase to remind the looters of on this pseudo holiday:

"Your days are numbered."

For the Genius of Man's Mind

2010-09-01T11:45:00.000-04:00

By Amanda Carey

[This is the third of four responses to "The Greatly Ghastly Rand," a National Review article by Jason Lee Steorts. Read the first response here and the second here.]

“But it got too painful to look any longer, and so, exercising the right of any self-interested reader, I simply closed the book,” wrote Jason Lee Steorts, Managing Editor of National Review at the end of his commentary on Ayn Rand in this month’s issue.

Steorts wrote his profile, he said, because President Obama seems to have inspired nearly half the country to open the covers of Atlas Shrugged, and, to a lesser extent, The Fountainhead. Both are Rand’s most famous novels. And both provide the reader with an insight into her philosophy of Objectivism--one on a larger scale, and one on a more introspective, personal level.

Thus, Steorts felt it his duty to remind himself just what, exactly, Rand was teaching the masses. But as it is any writer’s prerogative to review another author’s novels, so it is the readers’ prerogative to review the review…not to put too fine a point on it. Therefore, as any self-interested admirer of Ayn Rand would, I now offer my critique of Steort’s assessment.

What I found most interesting in his review is that Steorts longs for the Rand who created the character of Gail Wynand--the media mogul in The Fountainhead. Steorts wrote:

“What is sad to me about Rand is that she could, but that the creator of Gail Wynand could create only one; that she could no longer imagine him when she looked out at mankind; that what she showed us instead was her need to reassure herself, in terms frankly delusional, of her superiority to it.”

What Steorts means there is that when he sat down to compare Atlas Shrugged to The Fountainhead, he found both lacking. But the only real redeeming quality of the latter is that it contained a character (Wynand) who, in Steorts’ words, “becomes magnificent, awe-inspiring, in the discovery of his integrity.”

My immediate thoughts: there is no character in Atlas Shrugged that fits that description?

What about Hank Rearden? A man, who, when we first meet him, is a slave to society and unknowingly the sanction of his own destruction, yet turns into a man who recognizes that productivity goes hand in hand with moral virtue and eventually learns to dissolve his mind-body dichotomy?

If that’s not awe-inspiring, I don’t know what is (or so the saying goes).

But the larger point here is that Steorts found Atlas Shrugged to be a depressing novel, devoid of inspiring or good characters. Not only that, but he even goes so far as to boil down the 1,100-plus page novel into one independent clause:

“…She [Rand] brings forth the barely comprehensible hatred of her derangedly insecure ego.”

This is evidenced by her “contempt for creation.”

Photo by Flickr user j/k_lolz

And this is where Steorts totally and completely gets it wrong. And boy, did he get it wrong. He got wrong one of, if not the major theme that Rand wanted her novel to be about: the love of creation and the genius of man’s mind.

Atlas Shrugged is a story about man’s productivity being stifled and government forces coercing him into giving up the fruits of his labor. It’s a story (without giving away any spoilers) of characters who recognize that, fight it, then figuratively shrug their shoulders at the whole mess. And in the end the producers of the world leave behind a society to be destroyed by the looters--those who don’t create wealth but demand it nonetheless.

This is perhaps what Steorts finds so depressing. The world as we know it is all but destroyed by the end of the novel. And in the meantime, the Hank Reardens of the novel go off to what Steorts so degradingly refers to as a “mountain valley that […] has cleverly been hidden from the world by means of refractor-ray shield.”

But what Steorts misses is that in the end, the good guys win. The producers in the world leave so their creativity and productivity is not tampered with or destroyed by society. Thus, Atlas Shrugged, at its very core, is a celebratory novel. It is not depressing; it is a celebration of man’s achievement.

Nor is it contemptuous. It paints a gloomy picture, to be sure. But does that mean all authors who write novels about evil in the world hold “contempt for creation”?

In the end, Steorts’s critique is befuddling because he compares Atlas Shrugged to The Fountainhead, and finds the latter only moderately better because of one character, who in the end, really isn’t all that redeemable.

But at the end of the day Steorts’s thoughts are his thoughts. One thing I will say, is that it was refreshing to read a review that at least went further than simply ranting about Rand’s inability to write well or the evils of her views. This four-part series is our way of showing where Steorts went wrong in his interpretations.

But, we also give credit where credit is due. And Steorts did offer reasons and examples, which is a lot more than most Rand critics.

Television Tuesday: No Ordinary Show

2010-08-31T20:28:00.001-04:00

"I have a lair...with wifi."

Heroes with heart, Everwood with superpowers, ABC's new dramedy No Ordinary Family surprised me more than the members of the Powell family were when they discovered their new abilities. Since ABC put the premiere episode on their website recently, I seized the opportunity to get my viewing of it "out of the way" so I could cross it off my list of new fall shows to try. Why was I so sure this show would fail? Because it's a rehash of everything that has been done so poorly over the last few years. Normal people get super powers...yeah, no one has forgotten the Heroes debacle. A generic family that just can't quite get along...yeah, no one has forgotten Everwood or the now defunct WB network. Though it seemed like the show would have to succeed in spite of these elements, it is exactly because of them that it soars.

Before the opening minimalist title screen (now a television staple thanks to LOST, which isn't the last time this show borrows from that game changing program), I was hooked. Show creator and writer Greg Berlanti, best know for creating and running the aforementioned Everwood, re-introduced me to his wit. In the middle of a dangerous sequence, the socially networked teenage daughter Daphne played by Kay Panabaker answers the question "Who are you texting now?" with the flippant retort "God." Then, a mere few minutes later, Berlanti also reminded me how adept he is at tugging at my heart strings with only a couple moments of footage. As father of the family Jim played by Michael Chiklis walked around his house and narrated, I could feel the distance between the family members. Where so many shows fail, No Ordinary Family had succeeded almost immediately. It reached both my head and my heart (metaphorically speaking).

Then, everything changed. (Come on, I had to use that transition in a story about super powers.) Jim accidentally discovers his super strength and the geekdom is kicked up a notch. The scenes where he tests his powers are reminiscent of Tobey Maguire's Spider Man. After Jim's wife Stephanie played by Julie Benz discovers she's incredibly fast, she demonstrates her new ability to her X-Men loving lab assistant by insanely quickly retrieving a Kitty Pryde action figure on the other side of the large research building they work at. The kicker of all this is the source of their powers. It's so nerdtastic and timing appropriate, you might not even believe me.

The family takes a vacation to a tropical locale. There, while on a private tour, their plane crashes into glowing water. No wonder Jacob et al didn't want anyone to go into the light. Who knew the black smoke was just the manifestation of the MiB's inner super power? Even more fantastically, when Stephanie realizes they gained their abilities there, she declares that "it's the only thing that makes sense, if any of this makes any sense." Take that Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse. Don't think this show is a dichotomous venture between geekdom and family drama however. What holds the two threads together is that each family member's new power seems to be in response to his or her greatest weakness...but I'll leave all of that for you to figure out for yourself.

No matter how well it navigates its themes, what truly makes this show heroic is the element that can make or break any television show, it's cast. Chiklis makes you forget his role in The Shield as he completely embodies the new millennial husband who isn't the family breadwinner and never got his career off the ground. Benz is phenomenal (and hotter than ever) simultaneously managing to be softer than the evil Darla in Angel and stronger than the weak Rita in Dexter. I also have to note that the voice she has chosen for this character is her most bearable yet. I might even dare to call it pleasant. The highlight performance for me, however, was Romy Malco, best know for his roles in The 40 Year Old Virgin and Weeds, as DA George St. Cloud and Jim's best friend. Though he doesn't have much screen time and isn't given a whole lot to work with, his character is overflowing with comedy and conscience that fleshes out the universe in an important way.

Though the show isn't perfect, it does manage to turn its one misstep around in the closing minutes. Throughout the episode, Jim and Stephanie narrate in a way that is reminiscent of reality television confessionals, The Office, and Modern Family. This technique mainly feels unnecessarily tacked on, as if it's used in order to check another box on a "what works" in contemporary American television rubric. However, there is ultimately a point to it that solidifies it within the narrative. I won't spoil the details, but I will say it presents a nice surprise for fans of Everwood. Oh, and just in case you thought this show was completely devoid of social commentary and Berlanti lost his ability to tickle us politically, the main villain in this episode robs banks wearing an Obama mask. Good luck interpreting that one.

The scariest thing about this show for me is how far it could fall. There are plenty of places for it to go (it even hints at a broader mythology), but the worry is that it could go in the wrong direction. After one episode Panabaker's angsty high schooler Daphne is much more sympathetic than Hayden Panettiere's odd Claire in Heroes, though I can imagine the character progressing along a similar route. And though the LOST nod was nice, I don't know if I can take another show squandering all of its beautiful setup. Regardless of what happens in the long run, the "Pilot" of No Ordinary Family is no ordinary hour of television. If you're a geek with a heart...or just a geek...or just have a heart...it's worth tuning in for.

A (Bitch) is A (Bitch)

2010-08-31T12:32:00.007-04:00

[This is the second of four responses to "The Greatly Ghastly Rand," a National Review article by Jason Lee Steorts. Read the first response here.]

Predictably, following the resurgent popularity of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged has come the critiques and dismissals of it and her philosophy of Objectivism. I’m generally tired of hearing that Rand’s writing is poor and/or is only for emotionally stunted 15 year olds, so I ignore the mud being slung. However, when an editor of the National Review publishes a, um, review that's intended to be scathing, it must be acknowledged, if only for the pervasiveness of the publication.

In “The Greatly Ghastly Rand,” Jason Lee Steorts writes that Rand’s “contempt for her creation” in Atlas Shrugged is obvious by contrasting its universe with that of her earlier novel The Fountainhead:

"Instead of bringing forth the best within her [as in The Fountainhead], she brings forth the barely comprehensible hatred of her derangedly insecure ego."

The problem with Steorts’s critique is it is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of Objectivism (and fiction writing) that he construes into an attack on the author’s character. To see what I mean, there is no need to look any further than his comment that “some of the heroes are first-class haters,” a point which he proves by describing Francisco d’Anconia:

“…who is pretending to be a worthless playboy so that the looters won’t respect him enough to notice how he is tricking them into destroying their copper supply. He charms with such proclamations as: ‘The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide — as, I think, he will’; and, of women he has manipulated into falsely claiming affairs with him and so destroying their reputations: ‘I gave those b**ches what they wanted.’"

(Note: He censored the word “bitches,” not me.)

The question about this description of Francisco is what exactly he means by “hater.” I was taken aback by his usage of the word. I don’t often hear it outside of Internet forum flame wars or rap songs…and though it does have a definition outside of those usages, Dictionary.com only defines “hate” and lists “hater” as a related form, so we can safely say a “hater,” traditionally, is someone who does the following:

–verb (used with object)
1.
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2.
to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
–verb (used without object)
3.
to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
–noun
4.
intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5.
the object of extreme aversion or hostility.

The colloquial definition is a bit different, as it stands on its own form-wise (it is not simply a nominal verb). It is likely derived from the “old school” rap term “player hater” in which performers would say “don’t hate the player, hate the game” (a statement later turned into a catchphrase by professional wrestler Triple H aka The Game). The idea roughly translates to “don’t hate the person, hate his ability.” Thus, UrbanDictionary.com defines “hater”:

“A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person. Hating, the result of being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater doesn’t really want to be the person he or she hates, rather the hater wants to knock someone else down a notch.”

The difference between this definition and the traditional one is that the hater takes his hate a step further; he wants to tear down the other person’s success. Here is where Steorts’s misunderstanding of Rand begins to show. If we look back at his original statement, he is clearly referring to the colloquial definition of hater, insinuating that Rand is only attempting to tear people down because of her “derangedly insecure ego” and that there is "no villain we can respect [in Atlas Shrugged]." Except, this comment reveals the fundamental error he is making: a lack of knowledge on the subject which he is writing about. Rand wrote about "hating" long before any rapper ever said "player hater" and the term entered to common vernacular. She called it the hatred of good for being the good.

“‘Envy’ is not the emotion I have in mind, but it is the clearest manifestation of an emotion that has remained nameless; it is the only element of a complex emotional sum that men have permitted themselves to identify.

“Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves . . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good.

“This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree . . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.

“If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good.

“The nature of the particular values a man chooses to hold is not the primary factor in this issue (although irrational values may contribute a great deal to the formation of that emotion). The primary factor and distinguishing characteristic is an emotional mechanism set in reverse: a response of hatred, not toward human vices, but toward human virtues.

“To be exact, the emotional mechanism is not set in reverse, but is set one way: its exponents do not experience love for evil men; their emotional range is limited to hatred or indifference. It is impossible to experience love, which is a response to values, when one’s automatized response to values is hatred.”

And:

“They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.”

The second quote might as well be the Urban Dictionary definition of “hater.” The similarities are actually a bit uncanny and chilling. Still don’t believe me? Watch this video from comedian Katt Williams where he discusses “haters” and basically echoes Rand’s words.

Except, calling someone a "hater" now-a-days carries with it an extra rhetorical trap, one that Steorts is using to his advantage (though most likely unwittingly). While at its root, the label “hater” is meant to identify “haters of the good for being the good,” it has become appropriated by relativism as insulation against criticism. If someone doesn’t like something, you can simply call him a “hater” and his view is dismissed. Think of it this way, if Scientist A has a theory that Scientist B doesn’t agree with, A can simply call B a “hater” and the criticism disappears. Why? Because in relativism all values and truth are relative, so any person who criticizes someone else’s idea, creation, or happiness is a “hater” because there is no valid ground to actually criticize anyone else’s values or truth. It is an escape clause for Scientist A to not have to evaluate his theory any further, an evasion of the reality that he doesn’t accept because he embraces relativism. It is exactly what Steorts is doing by calling Francisco a “hater.”

Photo by Flickr user cubemate

Francisco uses the terms rotters and bitches to describe certain people because that’s what, in his estimation of reality and them, they are. He looks down on them, both the men and the women, because they want his fortune and fame without earning it. The men seek to take it by backhanded “business” dealings. The women seek to do it by holding false relationships with him. Except, business dealings can only be “backhanded” and relationships can only be “false” if there is some sort of objective truth. If all truth is relative, than the rotters and bitches aren’t such because they are just using different methods to amass money, and since everything is relative, everything is equal. But truth isn’t relative and, even if I granted that it was, the basis of Rand’s entire philosophy is the existence exists independent of man--aka Objectivism--so this understanding of “hater” would still be true internally to the novel.

Generously, I don’t think Steorts accepts relativism. Rather, I think the problem is that he doesn’t accept the central conceit of Atlas Shrugged. The central conceit of a story (as defined by Wikipedia) is “the underlying fictitious assumption which must be accepted by the audience with suspension of disbelief so the plot may be seen as plausible.” In Terminator, the central conceit is that autonomous robots are sent from the future. In LOST, the central conceit is there is an island where pseudo-scientific things are possible. In CSI, the central conceit is that forensics can solve almost any crime. You get the idea. In Atlas Shrugged this conceit is that the “haters of the good for being the good” are so numerous that society has turned its back on the prime movers.

Steort’s inability to stomach the train crash is the best demonstration of his non-acceptance of the central conceit. He refuses to believe that any people could invite such tragedy to befall them. Why? Because he accepts the Christian worldview where no one has any right to judge anyone else except God...and that view is the opposite of what Atlas Shrugged can be boiled down to: producers realizing they have a right to judge people for acting in destructive ways (looting, mooching, and literally destroying). Francisco (as well as the other “hater heroes” as Steorts describes them) are justified in their actions because of the prevailing political climate that denounces them as evil and that climate’s contradiction of objective reality. But, since Steorts doesn’t accept the premise, he simply can’t enjoy the novel, in much the same way that I can’t enjoy Dexter even though it is extremely well produced, written, directed, and acted. He wants to respect villains because in his world view even villains can be redeemed. (Ironically, that is likely the reason people enjoy Dexter; they see the show as the redemptive story of the serial killer main character.) In Ayn Rand’s estimation, “respectable villain” is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a “respectable villain,” which is why there are none in Atlas Shrugged, a novel about reality as she saw it.

Even worse, Steorts is uncomfortable with the comparisons people make between the reality of the book and actual reality. As more and more people read Atlas Shrugged, they wonder if its central conceit is not a conceit but, in fact, fact. Since Steorts can’t accept the conceit in the book, he can’t even begin to fathom it in reality. This is the failing of conservatives and the Republican Party. They unintentionally accept relativism by defining mankind’s inherent equality not in terms of mere existence but as our inability to understand existence. If none of us can understand anything, then none of our values or truths mean more than anyone else’s, and anyone who criticizes anyone else is nothing more than a “hater” (which is why if you accept God as the only being who can know truth and ask for his forgiveness, you can be redeemed).

Still, just because reality is objective and people do hate the good for being the good doesn’t mean we should run around telling other people they're wrong and worthless. That's infantile and ineffective. What it means is, if you're rich and successful and a woman starts hanging around you for the fame and fortune, it's alright to call a bitch a bitch. The revolutionary notion that Ayn Rand introduced us to and that Jason Lee Steorts fails to understand is that there is nothing hateful about that. It’s just honest.