More Than Fine

Changing the Face of Christianity

2009-03-13T20:53:00.001-07:00

Do You Want To Write for This Blog?

2008-05-01T13:09:00.000-07:00

Hey guys...

it's been so freaking long since i've written an entry, I feel completely ashamed of myself. Here's the problem - there's way too much crap going on for me to devote the attention to this blog that it deserves. At the same time, the discussion on my last posts have been amazing and I don't want to just abandon this thing completely. And there has been SO much juicy stuff going on too! Reverand Wright/Obama in particular!

I need someone or someones to write for this thing if it's to become a thriving place of discussion we all know it can be. I can't offer people any money, but i can offer you two things: 1) A link to whatever personal site you want (within reason), and 2) The fact that some intelligent and opinionated people will read your writing (This blog still gets a few hundred hits per day consistently).

If you want to write for this blog, send me an e-mail (see my e-mail address at the right side) and give me 2 sample entries on how you would cover news as it relates with religion and Christianity. This is the last hope that this site has to stay alive. And yes it's sad, but if no one responds, maybe i'll be back again later, down the line, with a renewed commitment to keeping it real here.

-David

For No Reason At All

2008-03-30T21:29:00.000-07:00

Here's a video of a 2-year old reciting the Lord's prayer in song form. Why post it here? Because kids are just so darned adorable when they try to be religious:

Click here for the clip

How Jack Thompson Gives Christians a Bad Name

2008-03-30T09:22:00.000-07:00

Gamepolitics recently ran a series on the trial of Jack Thompson, in which they excerpted parts of the courtroom transcript for public consumption. For legal junkies such as myself, this offered a fascinating way to get a look at the (in)famous man leading the anti-videogame industry.

Thompson's inflammatory writing has always contained religious overtones, but it wasn't until I read his closing statement that I was struck with the immutable and troubling fact: Thompson is, in fact, explicitly doing this all in the name of God. Check out the following quotes:

I’m simply making the argument, Judge, that my motivations - which I have tried to make clear, maybe to the point of nausea - are religious and that my efforts against the distribution of adult material, pornographic material, violent material, adult rated material to children is violative of the law as well as violative of Scripture. I quoted the biblical passage where Jesus says, reportedly: “If any one of you should cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you be cast in the uttermost depths of the sea.”

...As I recounted in my book… they found that Jack Thompson is perfectly sane… He doesn’t have brain damage and, in fact, he’s a Christian acting out his faith in this fashion. So they’re stuck with a formal document that they generated to the humiliation of me in my community that I’m simply a Christian acting out my faith when I do these things.

It makes me shudder to hear Jack Thompson quoting scripture. As a progressive Christian, let me just tell everyone who's reading this right now: This man does not represent my people, or at least, not most of them. Here are just a few reasons why.

He Wants To Legislate Morality

Thompson's world is one in which the government controls what you and your kids see, play, and watch. Although some believe that games rating system is broken, few people have a problem with games ratings categorically. But like the movie industry, we should try and let the games industry police itself (with hopefully more transparency than the MPAA uses).

Government legislation is not going to solve most of the issues that Thompson decries. It has to be done from the ground up, with parents getting more involved with their kids lives' and making sure they don't buy their 9-year old Grand Theft Auto IV when it comes out on April 29 (which by the way, I can't wait for. That doesn't mean that I'm going to let my kids play it though). Moral laws are necessary to keep our society functioning, but every theocracy in human history has ended in tragedy. The more Christians try to get the government to do what they think is God's will, the worse off it looks for all Christians, and the worse off we'll be as a society.

He Seeks To Divide, Not Unite

Thompson is opportunistic to a fault. There are ways to make the world change, but trotting yourself onto TV whenever there's a school shooting to blame videogames for all the world's ills is not one of them. Thompson consistently uses inflammatory language that's meant to polarize and divide, not to unite. He recently suggested that Destructoid should "molest a child directly, rather than through Rockstar." While sarcasm is fine if you're a blogger, it's a little bit unbecoming in this case, when you're a lawyer striving to be taken seriously regarding his Christian values. And when you're already not known for being very reasonable, it makes you into a pontificating and dismissive bastard.

He Uses Bad Science

Videogames certainly don't prevent violence but the evidence that they cause it is murky at best. There are plenty of other factors that might play into why a kid who is in a situation where he spends 6 hours on Doom or Counterstrike per day might want to shoot up a school. And that's assuming he even plays videogames at all (see the point below).

Christians already have a bad enough reputation regarding their relationship to science. We don't need another. But don't take my word for it. Check out the argument captured here:

He Deceives

To watch Thompson's performance in an interview with Chris Matthews is to see a deceiver exposed for what he really is (i.e. a man who grossly distorts the truth to prove his misguide point):

See Chris Matthews take on Jack Thompson by clicking here.

You can also see him blame the sniper attacks on Halo below:

But half-truths are only part of the problem. EA's withering statement of Thompson after he offered them his help with the Take-Two acquisition tells a whole other part of the story (i.e. the part where Thompson fabricates lies wholesale):

We have received your letter to EA's shareholder site. In response to your offer to assist in the proposed acquisition of Take-Two, we would strongly prefer that you not get involved in this matter. EA is a strong supporter of creative freedom for game developers. We feel that your past statements - including false claims about content
in our games - make any collaboration with you impossible.

If you're going to take on a controversial cause in the name of God, at least have the decency to ground your work on facts, please.

**

(For a pretty good list documenting the rest of Thompson's antics, see his Wikipedia page.)

The Christian message is about peace, unity, and love. Videogames can sometimes run counter to this message. There are bad videogames out there, games that may have a negative impact on how you perceive the world, games that make you think sad or violent thoughts. And this is not to mention how games can arguably cause you to be disengaged from the reality around you to begin with. But the way Christians should address these issues is not be standing on a soapbox, armed with a J.D., and trying to make it illegal. It should be to build relationships with those around us, trying our best to love them and address their needs.

So parents, pay attention to your kids and what they're playing with. And as for you, Thompson, here's hoping that your day is over soon.

Should This Woman Be Allowed To Kill Herself?

2008-03-19T13:58:00.001-07:00

[Again, apologies it's been so long since my last entry. I'll try to ramp it up! :) But please know that the more comments you guys leave here, the more motivation it will be for me to get my next entry out soon.]

Chantal Sebire used to look like you and me, but facial tumors (esthesioneuroblastoma) rendered her face disfigured. Over time, they will destroy her brain and kill her. Sebire speaks heart-breakingly of what she has had to go through:

In 2000, I lost the sense of smell and taste ... and I lost my sight in October 2007. One would not allow an animal to go through what I have endured.

Sebire recently appealed to a high court in Dijon, France, to be given the right to end her own life but was turned down. She's now appealing to President Sarkozy for a change in France's euthanasia laws.

Sebire's case presents one of the most troubling right-to-die cases in recent memory. Her disfigurement and pain is obvious to anyone who sees her photographs, and a restriction against killing herself is equivalent to a sentence of lifelong suffering.

In evaluating these cases from a Christian perspective in contemporary society, there are many conflicting values and norms that come into play. The first is the prohibition against suicide. Most often, people cite 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 to demonstrate unequivocally that God is against suicide:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body

It's clear that God values life in the Bible, but the Bible is strikingly unclear as to what level of existence qualifies as life. Would God prefer someone resigned to the abject pain and horrifying struggles of a daily struggle with only a future of slow and torturous death ahead of them, or would he prefer someone that celebrated their life for what it was shortly before taking it? This is the choice I think is offered by Sebire's situation.

One other thing to consider is the advancement of medical technology, which has made suicide an easy and painless procedure, but has also brought into existence life-prolonging drugs and equipment that might benefit the body but not the soul. People live longer today than they were meant to live according to "nature." A pastor who I recently spoke with opined to me that as a result of all this technology, people live longer than they're "supposed to." Maybe we're not supposed to live so far past the time when we still have the ability to feed ourselves, clothe ourselves, and use the bathroom ourselves. But society has deemed that because we can, we should.

But maybe in Sebire's case, keeping someone alive just for the sake of it says a lot more negative things about us as a human society than it does positive.

God Might Be Angry After All: Westboro Baptist Church Fined $5 Million, Appeal Declined

2008-02-25T07:54:00.000-08:00

Turns out God might be paying attention to the situation with the Westboro Baptist Church after all. This past week, a $10 million fine was handed down to Fred Phelps and his fun-loving congregation of gay-bashing America-haters. The church appealed this massive ruling but, thankfully, the Supreme Court declined to hear it. The appeal did get the fine reduced to a mere $5 million though (very thoughtful of him). According to the Baltimore Sun:

[Judge] Bennett affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Snyder's father, who sued the church for emotional distress and invasion of his family's privacy after Westboro Baptist Church members waved signs decrying homosexuality at his son's funeral in March 2006. But the judge also reduced the $10.9 million award announced in October to $5 million, noting constitutional concerns of appropriateness. He held up the jury's compensatory damage award of $2.9 million but reduced the total punitive damages to $2.1.

From my understanding, this fine will essentially bankrupt the church completely. I would say "Let's hope they get the picture and decide to fade away completely," but we all know that that won't happen. So perhaps a better thing to say might be: May God throw up more bureaucratic obstacles to prevent them from wreaking further emotional havoc.

This is the best news I've read all week.

Changes Coming at "More Than Fine"

2008-02-25T06:13:00.000-08:00

(Photo by ladygoth, via CC)

Hey all,

So I've been doing a lot of thinking and I've decided that in order for this blog to live on and be useful, I'm going to have to do some refocusing. From this point on, "More Than Fine" will no longer be a general grab-bag of random topics that are of interest to me. I am going to be focusing more on Christianity and its relationship to politics and culture from here on out, and avoid the television and film aspects.

Many of you have subscribed to this blog after reading some of my film and TV-related articles, and for that I'm grateful. While those have obviously been my favorite articles, it's time for me to focus this particular blog on faith and on how it affects us all. I'll probably lose some of you after today but I hope to continue offering all of my readers a unique perspective on what's going on in the world today.

Thanks for tuning in as usual,
Dave

Tools

2008-02-16T07:47:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Docman, via CC)

When I was in high school, some technicians from Sears came over to fix the water heater in our basement. When they left, they took my dad's 108-piece toolset with them (which happened to be lying right next to the water heater). I remember wandering into the dining room one day while my dad was on the phone, arguing with the Sears people. Although dad was unflappable as always, I could tell that he was not happy with the situation. And who would be? Ultimately, the Sears people agreed to purchase my dad a new set of tools, albeit a crappier one. At the end of the whole ordeal, my dad said to me something along the lines of, "In all my time in America, I have never met anybody like this," referring to the toolman.

That's not to say that he hadn't, in his dealings, met any incompetent, inconsiderate or even cruel people. Rather, it was the gall with which these Sears technicians took his things, then lied to his face about it. Then, they didn't respond to his complaints with compassion, but with more obfuscation. And when they finally did make up for it, it was with useless half-measures.

I've been on the internet for a long time now (since AOL was a dial-up service!) and I've met a lot of pretty mean people. On this blog, I've been called a whole host of evil things, and occasionally I've been informed that I'm going to hell. Still, in all that time, I never thought I'd have to say what my dad said, about meeting someone that terrible, that inconsiderate, that cold, that calculating.

Until now.

I recently met someone online that epitomized all these above characteristics. This person lied to me and tried very hard to steal away my dignity. This person showed me the limits of friendship on the internet, and how ultimately, we can't really trust anyone. My anger burned against them for their deceit.

I've had some time to cool off, to realize that, in the end, no one's perfect. I've tried my best to realize that this person's crimes against me aren't that much more serious than my crimes against others. I'm reminded of a Bible verse that people don't really speak of that much these days:

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

These were the words of Jesus, thousands of years ago. Today it's much more politically fashionable to rail against abortion clinics and teen sex (although apparently, it's become less and less fashionable as each day passes by). But despite an encouraging surge in attention towards social justice, few people really talk about these verses anymore. Jesus led through an example of self-sacrifice, where revenge was noticeably absent. Righteous indignation is still okay, but punching someone's lights out after they piss you off is not.

We all meet these types of people in our lives. Every day we encounter them when they cut us off on the road, when they are curt to us in the supermarket line, when they tell you to "Shut the f**k up" at your team meeting (true story). May we show them the courtesy and respect they so completely fail to show us.

Writer's Block

2008-02-05T20:49:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Flickr user Thorinside via CC)

Despite a recent increase in the number of subscribers to this blog, I haven't even been able to keep up with even my pathetic "1 quality post per week" update schedule. The problem has been a recent spout of writer's block. It's not for a lack of topics either. Jozjozjoz at 8Asians recently wrote up a post about the racist superbowl ads and how they were actually created by a mentally deficient South Asian man who singlehandedly helped to set race relations back by a couple of decades. And on Digg today, this extremely provocative post written by an abortion doctor in which she describes the joy she takes in doing job.

There's so much to write about. So much to comment about. So much that needs to get done, that needs to get said. Yet here I sit, unable to take it all in and synthesize it in a way that is meaningful and entertaining for the rest of you. These are the horrors of writer's block.

I know that this is a phase. I know that this, too, shall pass sometime soon. But for now I feel as though my creative skills are completely inert. I feel temporarily directionless, with no sense of who I am or what I want to be, not only blog-wise, but life-wise. And while writing this helps me cope, it doesn't help me deal with the broader problems that threaten to consume my whole psyche.

Nonetheless, we've all dealt with these things before. There are times we struggle with an inability or lack of desire to write and in the end, many of us overcome these problems and are stronger writers because of them. It's been a crazy last 7 days and although the roller coaster of my life is far from over, I know there'll be a lull coming up in the near future. There has to be, right?

Thank you all for sitting tight and being patient. I plan on being back in the game soon.

Is The Era of Religion in Politics Over? According to Jim Wallis, "Yes."

2008-01-23T05:53:00.001-08:00

Jim Wallis was on "The Daily Show" recently and in the interview, he declared that the era of religion in politics is over:

Click here for the clip

Like it or not, Americans, as a whole, are religious. But as we've seen throughout history, and especially in the last few years, when you mix religion and politics, the result is usually tragedy. Politics is the rule of law over the people. Religion is the rule of God over man. But because God didn't make it 100% clear exactly what he wanted, differing interpretations, each of which is convinced of its own veracity, can lead to a great deal of strife. Your god may believe that I shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of the same sex, but my god does not. Your god may believe that I should be able determine what happens within my own body, but my god does not. And the beat goes on...

The religious right was the reason why John Kerry lost the election in 2004. It's why Huckabee won the caucus in Iowa. It's part of the reason why every single president we've ever had has been a believer, and will be for the foreseeable future.

So is the period of religion in politics over yet? I don't think so. But my hope is that the era of James Dobson and Pat Robertson is soon coming to a close, that Christian demogogy will soon be trumped by Christian compassion and progressivism. For the sake of our country, I pray it.

CNN Chooses Its Own Election Winner By Choosing Candidate Headshots

2008-01-16T11:15:00.000-08:00

Sorry guys, that Supreme Court post I promised is forthcoming, but in the meantime, thought I'd point out something I didn't see anywhere else.

I was checking out CNN's political coverage on its site (Didn't you hear? They have the best political team on television) on the night of the Michigan primary and I noticed that the candidates headshots were chosen in a very interesting way:

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards start cheery at the top, but by the time you get to Gravel, not only are you completely turned off, you're afraid for your life. Certainly this doesn't represent proof that CNN has a bias or preference towards certain candidates, although that phenomenon has been well documented in the past. But anyone that looks at this page is going to come away with a more favorable impression of Obama than of Dodd.

If CNN is so fair and impartial, why did they have to make the lesser candidates so completely unappealing and frightening?

This Bumper Sticker Speaks the Truth

2008-01-09T06:32:00.000-08:00

Welcome to my new subscribers!

I've been working on a post about the election as it relates to the Supreme Court, but that's still a few days away. In the meantime, thought I'd share this photo, which has a special place in my heart, with you guys:

From 2007: Five Movies That Prove MPAA Ratings Are Broken

2007-12-31T08:38:00.000-08:00

[You can digg this post by clicking here.]

In Kirby Dick’s film, “This Film Is Not Yet Rated,” Dick examines the MPAA ratings board members and explores the sketchy and seedy underbelly of our country’s ratings system. We learn that ratings, far from being an exact science, often leave people guessing as to what criteria are used when evaluating their films; that MPAA ratings amount to censorship; that raters are probably subject to the whims of studio pressure; and, ultimately, that the ratings board is completely unaccountable for its actions.

More than any year in recent memory, 2007 demonstrated that these assertions are true, through the preposterous ratings that have come out for some of the year’s most popular and/or highest grossing films. And while I will examine some of them during the course of this post, there are several premises that I base my arguments on, which will be important to understand before I get going:

Rating a movie with an R rating limits its reach, its audience, and potentially, its grosses – Since R is the only rating (other than NC-17) that actually prevents someone from being able to get into the theater, directors and studios will often bend over backwards to get the coveted PG-13 for an adult-themed movie. The reasons are obvious: PG-13 ratings open up the huge 12-16-year old market, and allows them to get into the theater unhindered (My local movie theater, for example, actually cards).

Parents trust film ratings as a guide to tell them whether or not they should take their children to see a film – Whether they are right to do so or not, the fact that they do remains a fact of life. And when parents take small children in to see a film that features dozens of maimings, impalings, and brutal murders because it’s only rated PG-13, you know that the system is broken somewhere.

Independent film studios hold less sway over the MPAA than big established studios – Paramount, Universal, and Disney have more money, more power, and more influence.

The MPAA has established itself as the de facto gatekeeper of who gets in and out of films. I don’t necessarily mind this, but if they’re going to do it, all I have to say is: don’t do such a crappy job of it. Without further ado, here are five films from 2007 that prove that the MPAA ratings system is unequivocally broken:

5. Once
What it was rated: R
What it should have been rated: Anything else less severe
Comments: One of the ratings rules that has actually become quite evident is the prohibition against the F-word. “Once,” winner and nominee of many awards (and listed by many critics as one of the best films of the year) is a completely innocuous, innocent, and sweet love story in which two people find a shared affection of music and for each other. But because the F-bomb is dropped a few times, the MPAA decided that it’s too extreme for your kids to watch. Also, in this slot, feel free to put in any other independent film this year (or any other year) that’s been dicked over by the MPAA’s shenanigans. While this example in and of itself is not enough to demonstrate the MPAA’s incompetence, the ones that follow show how ridiculous the “Once” rating decision truly was.

Here's a preview of "Once":

click here for the clip

4. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
What it was rated: PG-13
What it should have been rated: R
Comments: In an obvious display of Disney’s influence, this brutal film was given a PG-13, undoubtedly a fact that allowed it to rocket to an incredible box office take. The movie opens with the public hanging of a 10-year old boy, and features countless killings and maimings of pirates and soldiers, a couple scenes in which people are brutally burned by cannonball fire, an attempted rape, and in the most disturbing scene of the film, the complete annihilation of a man’s face with a Davy Jones’ tentacles. Not pleasant to watch and not appropriate for kids, despite its Disneyland ride pedigree.

Bonus video: See this spoiler-y video while it's still up and decide for yourself (fast forward to 6 minutes in to see what I think is the most gruesome death in the film):

3. Live Free or Die Hard
What it was rated: PG-13
What it should have been rated: R
Comments: The MPAA’s liberal stance on violence and conservativeness on foul language is fully on display here. It’s okay to show Bruce Willis graphically putting a gun into a wound in his shoulder and pulling the trigger, but having him say “Yipee Kay-yay Motherfucker,” as McClane’s character was meant to do is, of course, unacceptable. The film also featured a woman getting hit by a car, then plunging to a fiery death, dozens of graphic gunshot deaths, and a man getting ground up into a fine hamburger-y pulp. But no F-word and no sex means that kids are allowed to check this one out. Go here for the opposite perspective on this issue.

Bonus Video: Ignore the music and check out this summary of many of the film's killings (spoilers within):

Click here for the clip

2. Beowulf
What it was rated: PG-13
What it should have been rated: R
Comments: Despite being animated, this movie features an Angelina Jolie that’s basically naked, a hideous monster that murders - often brutally - dozens of townspeople (for example, he tore one in two and chewed off another one's head, slowly), several impalings, a graphic dislocation of an arm, a graphic severing of an arm, and lots of gore in the slaying of the monsters featured. One character's family is burned alive, although this is only implied off screen. I went to see it in IMAX 3d (a great experience, by any stretch of the imagination) but was disappointed to find out that several families had brought infants in with them to see the film. As I saw Grendel's horrific visage barrel onto the screen, a prelude to his murderous rampage, I myself was on the edge of my seat and just a little frightened. I can't imagine the mental scars that these kids in the audience would have to bear. Beowulf 3D is what little kids' nightmares are made of.

Bonus Video: Beowulf, rated PG-13, ironically has a red band trailer. Catch a glimpse of the gore here:

Click here for the clip
1. Taxi to the Dark Side
Comments: "Taxi to the Dark Side" is Alex Gibney's yet-to-be-released documentary looking at how our country slowly transformed, post-9/11, into one that tortures civillians and ignores the Geneva conventions. This top example on my list doesn’t concern the film’s rating as much as the MPAA’s preposterous decision to censor its poster, seen above (which, let’s all admit, is not so much inappropriate as it is shocking in its veracity). As Boing Boing put it, “MPAA message? Torture for entertainment is suitable for all ages. Torture examined in a documentary is not.” In a society in which the real-life torture of terrorists suspects is so salient to the American image in the world at large, the MPAA’s hampering of this movie’s messages strikes me as especially despicable.

**

Reading over this post again, I sound like a prude, but in fact, I'm not arguing against violence, sex, or language in movies. I am strongly against censorship in any form, whether that comes in the form of an NC-17 rating for movies or an AO rating for videogames. I'm arguing that the MPAA should either 1) Use clear, sensible standards that every movie can abide by, and/or 2) Be publicly accountable with the methodology it currently rates films. Usually the argument about parents taking children in to see adult films is that the parents should know better. But if the MPAA does such a horrendous job of informing them, then I think more of the blame should fall on the organization them than on the parents.

Shame on you, MPAA. Shame on you for censoring great indendent films, while simultaneously bending to the will of studios and using leniency on their ratings. Shame on you for all the kids you've scarred by allowing their uninformed parents to take them into see the atrocities in films like "Beowulf." And shame on you for using politics in a time when America needs more honesty and self-examination about its international activities, more than ever.

***

If you liked this article, you'll probably like these:

What Do Bioshock and The Incredibles Have In Common

The Top 5 Jason Bourne Improvised Weapons

Why Do Great Films Get Awful DVD Cover Art

***

Update 1: Added in the word "sensible" to 2nd to last paragraph

The Objectivist Implications of Ratatouille

2007-12-20T12:08:00.001-08:00

In my crapulence, I missed out on Ratatouille in theaters, despite the fact that Brad Bird is one of my favorite directors, and Pixar hasn't made a film I haven't liked yet (with the potential exception of "Cars"). In any case, I basically purchased a blu-ray player just so I could watch the film in high-def the first time. That's how certain I was that I would like it.

The film certainly delivered on all fronts. While some of the messages about dealing with prejudice and, separately, about rising above your humble beginnings were a bit lost in the mix, I was dazzled by the film's amazing animation, great voice acting (esp. by fellow nerd Patton Oswalt), and uplifting ending.

So how does it relate with my last post?

Between "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille," I think Brad Bird has really come full circle. Cracked.com once described "The Incredibles" as an "Ayn Rand bedtime story" and I basically tried to prove as much in my last post. But the message of "Ratatouille" seems drastically different. The film chronicles the activities of Remy, a rat who has a keen sense of smell, a complete understanding of English, and a strong desire for delicious food. The problem is that his rat-like appearance poses problems whenever he tries to get into a kitchen for grub that compares favorably to his normal dumpster-diving fare.

One day while pawing through a kitchen for some foodstuffs, Remy encounters the work of master chef Auguste Gusteau, whose cooking skills and populist message ("Anyone Can Cook") resonate deeply with Remy.

Shortly afterwards, through a series of comedic and outlandish circumstances, Remy is marooned in Paris and figures out a mutually beneficial arrangement with a young boy named Alfred Linguini. They work out a system in which Remy pulls on his hair to control his hand movements, using him as a vessel to make divine culinary creations.

There's the standard bad guy and the obligatory love interest, but the heart of the story is Remy's break from his rat family and how he grapples with his role in the world. Does the world have a place for a chef from such humble beginnings? The end of the movie seems to offer an unequivocal and hopeful answer: Yes.

The thematic differences between "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" are quite stark. Whereas one argues that there are those among us who are inherently superior (and that's a good thing), the other argues that even the lowest of the low can achieve greatness. Whereas one argues that "special-ness" is something that is granted or inherited, the other shows that it must be worked at, in the midst of obstacles that risk even life and limb. Whereas one is a celebration of the superiority of others, the other is a celebration of egalitarianism, and the triumph of an indomitable will.

"Ratatouille" repudiates the message of "The Incredibles" and it does so in a way that only a genius like Brad Bird could. It is sweeping in its simple and profound message. It has characters that grow and change throughout the course of the film's running time. And it is deeply moving.

See it!

BONUS VIDEO: For longtime readers, you'll know what this is:

Click here for clip

The Trajan Invasion

2007-12-14T18:44:00.000-08:00

MAN, what a long week. I hope everyone out there is getting into the holiday spirit and not working yourselves to death. Cause I am.

Kirby over at Goodiebag.tv has posted up an insightful video about one design element (My DVD cover art post is referenced in his notes). Check it out:

click here for the video

Have a great weekend!

What Does Bioshock Have In Common With The Incredibles?

2007-12-06T15:04:00.001-08:00

vs.

Digg this post by clicking here.

[MAJOR SPOILERS for Bioshock and Incredibles to follow]

[This post has been updated to respond to comments left on the blog. Please see update at the bottom.]

On Thanksgiving Day, NBC broadcast the network premiere of "The Incredibles," allowing me to watch the film in HD - a pretty great experience since there's currently no other way to do so. I love the film, but every time I watch it, its overriding themes always bother me. Coincidentally, I also recently played and beat the wonderful "Bioshock," by Irrational Games, which is what led me to write this post.

Intentional or not , both of them derive strong inspirations from Ayn Rand's work. But where "Bioshock" illustrates the downfall of objectivism, "The Incredibles" spends most of its running time advocating it, to an extent that's fairly shocking for a mainstream film. This article will explore the similarities between the two works, but I will spend the bulk of the time interpreting their take on Rand's philosophies.

First, a quick tour of objectivism: Rand's philosophy, made evident in books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged essentially boils down to the notion that humans are self-interested and should be allowed to pursue their own happiness. In her own words,

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Those that are smarter, more talented, or just plain better should be allowed to pursue their own interests without interference from government, religion, or anyone/anything else. The societal consequences of this are, of course, unfettered laissez-faire capitalism. This, coincidentally, is the exact same principle that Andrew Ryan (whose name is a play on Rand's name), one of the main characters from Bioshock, lives by. The following clip from the game should give you a pretty good summary of it, while also demonstrating how awesome the game is:

Click here for the clip

In Bioshock, Ryan perfects the notion of objectivism in his underwater city but when scientists came up with plasmids and the devious Fontaine - more word play on Rand's The Fountainhead - cornered the market on them, things went horribly awry. Although we know that Ryan continued to have faith in free market capitalism ("Just design a better product!"), ultimately human nature took over. The power of plasmids was too hard to resist. And some, like Ryan and Fontaine, just became addicted to power:

click here for the clip

While Bioshock shows us the promise of objectivism, with its beautiful underwater city loaded with brilliant scientists and artists, it also shows us its downfall. What Ken Levine, the game's writer, seems to be saying is that human nature is incompatible with Rand's vision of the heroic person and that objectivism, noble and promising as it may be, is doomed to failure. Ugly, dystopian, freaky, frightening failure.

On the other hand, consider "The Incredibles."

In the opening scene of "The Incredibles," Mr. Incredible saves a suicidal building jumper, who in turns sues the daylights out of him. The "Supers" are then all forced into hiding by the government and the old-school film depicting the incident shows how they have now become everyday people:

Consider this piece of narration from the above section:

The supers will be granted amnesty from responsibility for past actions, in exchange for the promise to never again resume hero work. Where are they now? They are living among us. Average citizens, average heroes. Quietly and anonymously continuing to make the world a better place.

The world in the film is one that clearly glorifies normality and same-ness. And that fact is intended to frustrate the audience, especially given the acrobatics we've just witnessed in the opening scene. We want to see these super heroes doing what they love to do, what they were born to do. And we hate that it's been taken away from them.

Speaking of which, there is a clear delineation between the supers and "normals." The character Incrediboy/Syndrome/Buddy, played deliciously by Jason Lee, is one of the latter, and his affections for hero work are repeatedly rebuffed by Mr. Incredible. In the opening scene, Incredible heartlessly ejects him from his car after Incrediboy tries to tag along:

Mr. Incredible doesn't mind working with cohorts like Frozone and Elastigirl, but Incrediboy seems to be out of the running simply because he wasn't born with superpowers. Forget the fact that he has worked immensely hard and has single-handedly engineered incredible technology; in the opening scene, he is depicted as annoying, foolish, and almost responsible for destroying a train full of innocent bystanders:

The primary problem with Incrediboy is that he's not one of the "chosen" ones, he's not "incredible." And therefore, he shouldn't hinder the efforts of those that are "incredible." Of course, i can't continue without mentioning the (in)famous scene in which Mr. Incredible laments mediocrity:

Bob: It's not a graduation. He's moving from the fourth grade to
the fifth grade. It's psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate
mediocrity but if someone is genuinely exceptional...
Helen: This is not about you, Bob. This is about Dash.
Bob: You want to do something for Dash? Then let him actually
compete. Let him go out for sports!
Helen: You know why we can't do that...
Bob: Because he'd be great!

Mediocrity should not be celebrated, Bob seems to be saying. Greatness should be. And greatness, in the realm of the movie, means having superpowers. Weren't born with them? Too bad, even if you have an intelligence that can only be described as monstrously large (e.g. Syndrome).

By the end of the film, Syndrome has transformed into an evil menace and the Incredibles are cheered for thwarting his plan, and eventually, for killing him. The message of the film seems clear: Those that hinder greatness will be destroyed. In the end, greatness reveals itself and triumphs over mediocrity. Pretty heady stuff, and actually a pretty horrifying message for a children's film.

Except for one last thing.

In the final scene, Dash is seen actually taking up sports, while his family cheers him on from the bleachers. But they don't tell him to use his gifts to their fullest extent. Instead, they scream at him to do just well enough to come in second place:

It's actually a poignant scene and funny scene. But what are we to take from all this? This last scene seems to confuse "the message" of the movie and it's not entirely clear what Brad Bird is trying to communicate here. Perhaps he is saying that everyone can co-exist peacefully, that being "incredible" isn't all that important, and that it's not necessarily exclusive of normality. If this is true, then I think it's a positive message, but certainly a contrast from the 1 hour and 45 minutes that have come before.

Although Bird has often stated that he didn't intend any of the Rand-ian parallels, they are often sometimes embedded even within the visuals of the film, such as during the climax when Mr. Incredible takes a pose that looks a heck of a lot like Atlas Shrugged:

Whether or not they were intentional, the parallels and messages are fairly clear.

My law professor once called "The Incredibles" a "Republican movie." There are those that are incredible, there are those that aren't incredible, and that's just the way life is. You have to just have "it" in you (i.e. in the "Republican" analogy, "it" would be wealth, power, or an overriding desire for those things) and if you don't, you're looked down upon. When I first heard him, I didn't really know what the hell he was talking about. But now, I think I've come to terms with it.

"Bioshock" and "The Incredibles" show two visions of objectivism. "Bioshock" glorifies this vision before burning it to the ground, and quite rapidly at that. "The Incredibles," on the other hand," simply glorifies it. Yet regardless of what these works have to say, they remain some of my favorites of all time, and I hope they will be for you too.

So what do you think?

Next Friday: The Objectivist Implications of Ratatouille

Update (11:00pm, 12/10/07): There's been lots of great discussion going on in the comment section, so I thought I should take some time to respond. I think that responding to Brock's points will help answer some challenges that you guys have posed to my theories.

Brock said:

As others have mentioned, Incrediboy was out of the running because he was a child without the training or skills to survive Hero work. Mr. Incredible said the exact same thing about his own children.

I don't recall when Mr. Incredible said this about his own children, but in any event, Incrediboy was not Bob's child, and therefore, he wouldnt' have felt as protective over him. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Incrediboy could have been trained over time, in a Batman-and-Robin situation. Certainly that would have been preferable to rejecting a potential apprentice outright.

Brock said:

In the scene where Incrediboy's help is rejected, he hasn't done any of the times you've mentioned. If you're going to discuss movies, you NEED to keep your timelines straight.

Sorry, Brock. YOU need to get your timelines straight. In the opening scene, Incrediboy has already developed rocket shoes that allow him to fly...technology that we don't yet have today (in the real world). He definitely showed promise and when he shows up years later with zero-point energy, it's not a complete surprise because we've already seen his brilliance demonstrated at such a young age.

Brock said (I'm cutting and pasting his responses into one whole one):

I would have thought that 'the problem' with Incrediboy/Syndrome was that he was a psychotic murder. The message I got was: "Those who build giant killer-robots, murder people, and try to destroy whole cities, will be opposed by good people who have the power to do so." The other lesson I got was: "Just because someone was mean to you as a kid is no excuse for building giant killer-robots, murdering people, or trying to destroy whole cities."

What you don't fully take into account here is that the REASON Syndrome became a psychotic murderer was partially a result of his rejection by Mr. Incredible at the beginning. I don't disagree with you that he was a psychotic murderer (and should have been held to account for his actions) but if Incredible had said "Hey kid, you clearly are brilliant and have a lot of potential, despite your lack of super powers. I would like to train you as my successor," we can imagine the movie having a much different ending. It also would have been a much less exciting movie.

My problem is with Mr. Incredible's reason for not accepting Incrediboy, and I think it was primarily a result of his not having superpowers (and secondarily as a result of other reasons, e.g. he was annoying, he was young, he was inexperienced, etc.)

One last thing to consider before moving on from Syndrome. Consider this passage of dialogue from the film:

Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it
without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics.
I'll give them the most spectacular heroics anyone's ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that everyone can be superheroes. Everyone can be super. And when everyone's super...no one will be.

This last line is delivered ominously, and with scary music in the background to boot. The director is indicating to the audience that they should fear Syndrome's vision of the future, a future in which there is nothing remarkable about anyone, a future in which everyone can be super. And ultimately, for a children's movie, I think that's a shame. Despite his hyper-intelligence, at this point in the film Syndrome still represents mediocrity, sameness, and the status quo, which (as I've tried to point out) is what the film rails against.

Shifting gears to Bioshock: As for the notion that Andrew Ryan didn't truly exemplify Rand-ian ideals, I think user Edgeman says it best, when he's quoting user Brackhar:

"There's a large hole in your analysis regarding Bioshock though. In the end Rapture didn't collapse under the weight of its Randian ideals, but instead because Andrew Ryan betrayed those principles."

I was thinking, isn't this EXACTLY why Randian ideals always fail, and wasn't this the point the writer made about it. In my personal opinion, if you really think it through, pretty much ANY form of government would work perfectly fine if human beings weren't so...human. Randian philosophy fails exactly for this reason. It fails to see reality beyond the naive ideals, and fails to see that human beings are greedy and selfish.

For those that have read and taken my thoughts seriously, thank you. I have tried to do the same for yours. Even if you didn't agree, I hope you at least found the post thought-provoking. If more comments come in, I'll do another update (or if you feel your comment didn't get a fair shake, feel free to e-mail me and I'll try to write up a response).

Thanks for reading!

***

If You Liked This Article, You'll Probably Like These:

Stephen Colbert's Top 10 Funniest Correspondent Pieces

Demetri Martin: Spiritual Successor to Mitch Hedberg

The Top 5 Bourne-Improvised Weapons

What I'm Thankful For

2007-11-26T15:23:00.000-08:00

(photo by me)

Still here?

Sorry it's been so long since my last post. I've been inundated with work these past few weeks; I recently finished producing a 30-page report for my boss, which felt like giving birth to a 30-pound child (not that I'll ever know what that feels like, ladies). Then the Thanksgiving break, and now....is now. The run-up towards Christmas. I have a buttload of stuff to get done before the birth of our Lord, as I'm sure many of you do as well. Deadlines to meet. Presents to buy. Vacation to take. And hopefully, posts to write :) To those of you that still check back here every day for a new entry (I know you are out there), thank you so much. If it weren't for you, I wouldn't have the strength to keep writing, albeit infrequently.

Today, some words about Thanksgiving.

Take out the gluttony and the dysfunctional family get-togethers. Take out the stress of cooking a huge family meal. Take out the monstrous Black Friday crowds. When you strip it all down, Thanksgiving is actually a damn fine holiday. It's not nearly as commercialized as Christmas, and the message is one that hasn't been as lost in the haze of fat men dressed in red suits and hideously decorated trees.

Give thanks.

And the follow-up question is simple: What are you thankful for? Really, if you're an American, the answer is so much. Way more than we deserve.

I went to go see Beowulf last week, in IMAX 3D. The friends I saw it with didn't like the film, but, at the very least, found it a fun ride. I actually genuinely enjoyed the film, with its bravura action sequences and its mature themes. But what struck me about the moviegoing experience wasn't the film or even the 3D glasses. Instead, it was the fact that a woman had passed out from the room's heat while waiting in line (the shows were all sold out). When I arrived at the theater, there was a fire truck, a police car, and an ambulance all there with a stretcher, making sure she was going to be okay. I wondered why a woman fainting warranted such extensive expenditure of resources, but since I live in a suburb, I decided that that was probably the most excitement the local hospital, fire, and police departments were going to have that night.

It's remarkable to me that in a world rife with death and inhumanity, that we for the most part live in a country where we can rely on a tremendously reliable public infrastructure. For most of the people that are reading this blog, we can be assured that when we pick up the phone to call 911, someone will be there to answer the phone. We know that when we go to our sink, drinkable water will come out. We know that food is just a few miles down the street at the local grocery store.

Give thanks.

In his 1941 State of the Union address, President Roosevelt spoke of the Four Freedoms, the freedoms that everyone in the world ought to have:

1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of religion
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear

As Americans, we enjoy these freedoms but some of them are so subtle, we can't pull our minds out of our problems and be thankful for all the things we already do have. As the holiday season approaches, with its often immense ferocity, I pray that I'll have the solitude to understand how much we really have, how much I've personally been given. And I hope that I'll be in the frame of mind to remember who has given it all to me.

News roundup

2007-11-08T04:55:00.000-08:00

(Photo by me!)

Hey guys,

Sorry it's been quiet around here lately...I usually get off at least one substantial post per week but that hasn't happened recently just due to life circumstances. I will try to get back on track this weekend and next week. In the meantime, there's been a TON of stuff happening recently all over the news, much of it relating to religion. Here are some links for your pleasure:

More Evangelicals Concluding that God Is Green - After years of believing that the world is ours to do what we want and that "The Rapture is going to come any day now, so who the heck cares how much we pollute?", some Evangelicals are finally waking up to the notion that yes, our children might be the ones that have to shoulder the consequences of the disastrous violence we've inflicted upon the environment. About time.

Pat Robertson Back Giuliani - What?! Ultra-conservative Robertson backs a presidential candidate who has had three wives (one of which was his second cousin), who cross-dresses on occasion and is a supporter of gay and abortion rights?

It Will Take Us at least a Generation to Recover from the Bush administration - From the war to the disastrous tax cuts, this administration will leave a legacy that has an impact in all the wrong places. I fear for my children and their children if our next president doesn't recognize the problems and turn things around.

Obama Supporters Tried to Keep Stephen Colbert Off the Ballot - Because we could all afford to laugh a little less in this horrendous political climate, am I right guys? Seriously though, their actions were understandable but completely unnecessary.

That is plenty of reading for now. If you like this type of thing, maybe I'll try to do one of these a week, plus a post. Let me know, and thanks for reading!

In Honor of Colbert '08: Stephen Colbert's Top 10 Funniest Correspondent Pieces (From the Daily Show)

2007-10-27T14:33:00.000-07:00

[You can digg this post by clicking here]

Ostensibly launched as part of a marketing campaign for his new book, "I Am America (And So Can You!)" Stephen Colbert's presidential campaign is making a lot of waves, both on the internet and even in traditional news outlets. Shockingly, he has reached double digits in some polls, and his Facebook group shows no signs of slowing down, fueling speculation that he might run for real (although I highly doubt that will happen; in this interview, he stated emphatically that he doesn't want to be "part of the debate" that comprises our political discourse)

Comedy Central recently did the right thing by their viewers and their stars by making thousands of Daily Show clips available at a brand spanking new site. With this archive now open to the public, it's possible to look at the vast work of Colbert throughout the past 8 years and view and enjoy some of his best works. Here are the top 10 I think merit attention, in no particular order. If the response to this post is good, I'll do more of these for Ed Helms, Steve Carrell, and Mo Rocca:

[One word about the selection process: I have been watching the Daily Show consistently since 2000. This video is not just "The Top 10 Clips I Could Find In 15 Minutes" but rather a product of having watched and re-watched pretty much all of his reports and correspondent bits. I have given preference to making the clips as diverse as possible, so that should also help explain the selection, but I think they are his best. If you have more that you think deserve to be here, please comment and/or shoot me an e-mail. Thanks for reading!]

1. Colbert breaks character while reporting on gay scandal - In this classic clip, Colbert layers on the sexual innuendo until it's so thick and tumescent, it explodes onto the screen:

click here for the clip

2. Even Stevphen: Halloween - All of the Even Stevphens are amazing, but this one is particularly poignant, as Colbert stages a mock breakdown over a lost childhood:

click here for the clip

3. Abu Cribz - How do you make the discovery of an Iraqi bunker into comedic gold? Watch and learn:

click here for the clip

4. Red, Yellow, Blue, and Black Like Me - In this clip, Colbert both reveals the self-righteousness of the "colored" people and makes light of the situation by disrobing violently at the end. Clips like these show Colbert at his most audacious, and most willing to humiliate himself for a laugh. And for that, we can all be grateful.

click here for the clip

5. "My dad was a turd miner." - In this classic clip from the DNC episodes, Colbert is so funny he gets Stewart to almost break character:

click here for the clip

6. Drug-Testing Bridge players - One of the first clips I'd ever seen by Colbert, this Bridge clip has been held up as one of Colbert's quintessential pieces, a model for all the Daily Show pieces that came after it:

click here for the clip

7. George Bush jacks off a horse - Colbert and Stewart keep it real and show they're not serious about being a news show with this lowest-common-denominator and devastating clip:

click here for the clip

8. The most discriminated people in America - Masturbation. Hitler. Amusingly deluded interviewees. This clip has all the hallmarks of Classic Colbert:

click here for the clip

9. "Whatever happened to condemning the Jews?" - I'll admit it, this clip isn't necessarily the best, but it's one of the best "This Week in God" clips, which Colbert helped to pioneer. This clip is bursting with great lines, while still containing biting satire. Enjoy:

click here for the clip

10. Colbert visits an invention conference - This one's from the olden days, but it shows Colbert as his best, playing a doofus while questioning a plethora of "inventors":

click here for the clip

BONUS CLIPS I also love:

Colbert enjoys drugs and wife-swapping- In an amazing exercise of subtext and insinuation, Carrell and Colbert paint a sad picture of two buttoned-up guys gone out of control:

click here for the clip

"The joker in the race card deck" - For some reason I just really think this clip is genius, as Colbert ridicules CA's judicial system during the Michael Jackson trials:

click here for the clip

Why assault weapons are good for the economy - This clip shows Colbert most clearly preparing for his persona on "The Colbert Report," portraying the unflappable conservative against big government, despite his ridiculous ideas:

click here for the clip

***

Related Articles:

Demetri Martin: Spiritual Successor to Mitch Hedberg

The Top 5 Bourne-Improvised Weapons

Why Do DVD Covers Suck?

Demetri Martin: Spiritual Successor to Mitch Hedberg

2007-10-20T15:02:00.001-07:00

I recently heard an entertaining and informative interview with Demetri Martin on NPR the other day and I thought I'd do a quick write-up on him. Martin recently premiered an amusing comedy special on Comedy Central called "Person." He attended Yale and went to NYU law school (one of the country's best) for two years before dropping out and devoting his life to comedy. It takes balls to give up a sure thing for a shot at your dreams, and I salute Martin for trying. His success has yielded him a gig on the Daily Show and apparently there are talks for him to get his own series soon.

I wasn't always a fan of Martin; his style was a bit too aloof, a bit too smug for my tastes, and I questioned his use of musical instruments to his act. Does it really add that much? I, for one, am a bit of a purist when it comes to these things. If I'm going to see a comedy show, I expect one guy to talk for 90 minutes without the aid of props, damn it! But over time, Martin has found himself in my good graces; I now consider myself a mild fan.

Martin has a rapid-fire style of comedy that is very similar to a beloved, recently-deceased comedian called Mitch Hedberg. It's an observational humor, a blink-and-you'll-miss it type of humor that makes light of our every day conceptions and experiences. There's no other way to describe it other than to show you, so here's a clip:

Click here for the clip

What I like about Hedberg is that there's no pretension to his work. By all accounts, it's just a guy sharing about some hilarious things he's noticed during the course of his life. Here's another clip:

Click here for the clip

Martin has a similar style, but with an air of elitism that comes from a privileged background (and not one that was a result of a massive intake of drugs). Martin also infuses his character with a social awkwardness that belies his mastery of comedy and the crowds that he performs for. Check out this clip from his recent comedy special:

Click here for the clip

Am I just imagining things, or are their styles strikingly similar? Here's one more clip:

Click here for the clip

None of this is to complain. We could all used a bit more Mitch Hedberg in our lives and I feel like Demetri Martin provides it for us, in a slightly tweaked and personalized form. But the striking similarities suggest some degree of inspiration going on behind the scenes, and is definitely a fascinating process.

Welcome To The Turning of the Tide

2007-10-11T05:25:00.000-07:00

Alternet reports on a new study by the Barna group:

A study released last week by the Barna Group, a reputable Evangelical research and polling firm, found that under-30s -- both Christian and non-Christian -- are strikingly more critical of Christianity than their peers were just a decade ago. According to the summary report, Barna pollster David Kinnaman found that the opinions of non-Christians, in particular, had slid like a rock in that time frame. Ten years ago, "the vast majority" of non-Christians had generally favorable views of Christianity. Now, that number stands at just 16%. When asked specifically about Evangelicals, the number are even worse: only 3% of non-Christian Millennials have positive associations with Evangelicals. Among the Boomers, it's eight times higher.

What you reap is what you sow; we are finally beginning to see the deleterious effects of the Christian Right's misguided and self-defeating war on homosexuality. The anti-gay movement is not something that Jesus fought for, and it's probably something that Jesus would have fought against.

Addicted with power, conservatives like Dobson and Falwell knew they could use Christian's visceral homophobia as a way to galvanize a political movement. But what they failed to see, and what we're finally beginning to see now, is that such a movement was not sustainable in the face of progressive politics and culture, and that ultimately, a plan like this would lessen, not strengthen, the Christian political movement.

Young Evangelical Christians are the future face of the movement. I'm one of them. And we're all sick and fed up with what we see. It's time for a politics of peace, not a politics of hate. It's time for a change. Welcome to the turning of the tide.

The Wire's Fourth Season (Season 4) Is Coming To DVD; Release on December 4, 2007

2007-10-08T06:38:00.000-07:00

There are many people on the internets that hate me and think I'm a moron because of this Wire-related post I wrote about 8 months ago. Nonetheless, I stand by my points.

However, dozens of Google searches about the Wire's fourth season DVD have inexplicably brought people to this page. This post is for all of those people. It's finally official: The Wire Season 4 will be released on DVD on December 4, 2007, as originally predicted. I am almost certain that the new season will premiere shortly afterwards. The DVDs have never been exorbitant with their special features and have usually featured only a few commentaries. I don't expect this trend to change but hopefully they'll pull out the stops for this fifth and last season....

If you haven't seen "The Wire," you are doing yourself a disservice. Pick up the DVD sets now, seasons 1-4, (they are way cheap now and definitely worth the price) and catch up before the fifth season wraps up next year. I am not exaggerating when I say that "The Wire" is constantly in the process of making TV history in a good way, and will be until its eventual end.

Shooter Is Sniper Porn

2007-10-05T14:52:00.000-07:00

There are films that seem like they give you a glimpse into another world, films like "Babel," "Dark Days," "Amores Perros." Ostensibly, these films offer an unadulterated examination of the lives of people who you would never normally interact with. They are, in many ways, fascinating yet also to some degree pornographic. They rely heavily on the fact that they're showing you something new, something fresh, something unknown, in order to hold your attention. And while comparing "Babel" to a film like "Shooter" is a really bizarre thing to do in any circumstance, that's loosely what i'm doing today.

I saw shooter on DVD the other day and found it to be offensive, pointless, disgusting...yet somehow awesome. But the most fascinating part of the film is that it wants you to think it knows a lot about sniping. Take this bit of dialogue:

"Long shots generally go places you wouldn't want to go afterwards to confirm'em. Confirmation does pose a problem. You know what it takes to make a shot a that range? Everything comes into play that far. Humidity, elevation, temperature, wind, spin drift. There's a six to ten second flight time so you have to shoot it where the target's going to be. Even the Coriolis effect, the spin of the Earth comes into play. President will be wearin' body armor, that means a head shot, at over a mile? You believe there is a shooter involved capable of makin' this shot?"

"Yes."

"Then you got a real problem. You got to find the shooter."

A scene like this is really interesting to me. It makes one feel enlightened, yet at the same time probably does nothing to scratch the surface of what's really involved in being a good sniper. While educating, it also perpetuates our ignorance, allowing us to wallow in our minimal knowledge of a subject. And to a significant degree, that's what movies like shooters are all about: Giving you a glimpse into the unknown, but only enough that the unknown is sexy, unreal, and unattainable.

Mostly though, we just watch these movies to watch people killing other people. Expertly. To this extent, Shooter delivers (This is the movie's climax):

Click here for the clip

Dobson and Friends Show What's Most Important to Christians...Again.

2007-10-03T21:04:00.000-07:00

Every time the Christian Right makes political statements like the ones in the news recently, it not only displays its ignorance: it broadcasts it. According to the New York Times:

Alarmed at the possibility that the Republican Party might pick Rudolph W. Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate. The threat emerged from a group that broke away for separate discussions at a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City of the Council for National Policy, a secretive conservative networking group. Almost everyone present at the smaller group’s meeting expressed support for a written resolution stating that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third-party candidate,” participants said.

This story sees the confluence of two hot-button issues: Right wing conspiracies and abortion. As with all stories of this nature, what really irritates me is that Christians are choosing this one issue as a catalyst for their vote, ignoring, at their peril, other equally important issues like poverty, health care, and education. It's nothing new, just the same ol' same ol'. And that's what keeps my anger flowing.

Ironically, the introduction of a third-party candidate may split the conservative vote, paving the way for Democratic victory. If that does happen, we'd certainly be left with the lesser of three evils. But don't thank the Christian Right; they won't have any idea what's going on.

The Virtuosity of Michel Camilo

2007-10-01T05:17:00.001-07:00

I saw something that blew me away over the weekend: Michel Camilo playing his self-written piece, "Caribe" on the piano. The level of talent on display, both in terms of technical skill and songwriting, left my jaw hanging and my heart beating. Camilo is apparently classically trained, in addition to being a jazz musician and I think those sensibilities show through. This Youtube video will give you some idea of how freaking amazing this man's hands were, as well as his ability to improvise at lightning-fast speed and still make it sound great:

Click here for the video

From the video's description:

June 18, 1993. From the 40th anniversary of the Newport Jazz Festival, held in a tent on the lawn of the White House. Bill Clinton is the one who starts the standing ovation at the end.