The Stumbling Pundit

Why popcorn and pretzels are the worst movie snacks... and the best

2013-10-09T08:11:00.000-05:00

Tasteless. Unhealthy. The classic “movie” snacks baffled me since day 1. I would rather milk a cow with my bare lips than fill my gut with exploding corn nuggets and knotty dough.

The reason they're popular is simple. When you're watching a movie, you're not thinking. Your brain responds to the salt payload of each bite, and the answer is simple. More. Ever eat an unsalted, unflavored potato chip? Try it. Take a single chip to the sink, rinse, and let it dry. If you're more daring, take a whole bag, and see if you still want to finish 500 grams over a single episode of Parks and Recreation. Not so funny now, Amy Poehler.

Fats and sugar affect brain chemistry, says David Kessler, former head of the FDA and Dean of Yale School of Medicine. Food companies are just as guilty as the tobacco industry. Obesity continues to be the leading cause of preventable death worldwide (counting hypertension, or high blood pressure, whose other main causes are aging, low exercise and poor diet). Smoking is second. Interesting that first and second places for murder, globally, are the products we buy every week at the local supermarket.

Sugar is essential for your survival. It is naturally absorbed through the consumption of carbohydrates. For most of human history, pure sugar was unheard of. In evolutionary terms, humans like the taste of sugar because it encouraged our hunter-gatherer ancestors to eat foods like fruits, vegetables, honey and berries. (Bitter tastes, incidentally, were to scare them away from poisons, diseases, and indigestible flora.) Sugar traders were rare and wealthy until the 18^th century, when suddenly sugar became a food ingredient “necessity”. Colonization of tropical islands, and the slave trade, was driven in large measure by the sugar market, and it was only after sugar production became automated that European cultures “rediscovered” their Christian heritage (which started as the truth of universal social equality) and began to outlaw slavery.

Today, sugar is harvested primarily from sugarcane and sugar beets, plus maize from the United States, subsidized to produce high fructose corn syrup. Fructose and glucose, the resultant compounds of all three, are absorbed directly into the bloodstream during digestion, and are fuel for the brain and other body functions. Fructose is almost twice as sweet as glucose (and by the way, some corn syrups are engineered to have almost exclusively fructose). Sugar is even added to apparently non-sweet food products, like potato chips, peanut butter and soup. As a result of sugar inflation, desensitization and marketing tactics, most people in developed countries consume ten times the sugar the body needs.

Likewise, sodium, highly concentrated in salt, is found in naturally high concentrations in nuts and meats, but is present in nearly all foods. Like sugar, salt was an expensive commodity for most human history and was at times used as trading currency. Essential for storing meat, salt transformed seasonal and geographical limits to food, thus playing a major part in the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer-settler (civilization).

Biologically, salt (less than a teaspoon daily) is needed to regulate body fluids and pH, and by the nervous system to send electrical signals. When salt is broken down into its constituent elements, sodium and chloride, sodium regulates blood volume and pressure, while chloride is used to break down food into energy.

Food companies take this physiological predisposition toward salt, concentrate it in an almost pure form, and add it to their products so that people find them irresistible. 75% of the world population now consumes more than double the recommended intake, and many surpass the amount agreed by the United States, Canada and Britain to be decidedly unhealthy (6 grams/day).

While we all know that consuming too little salt is lethal, too much (1 gram per kilogram of body weight) is equally deadly short-term and arguably damaging long-term. There are associations between high salt consumption and increased likelihood of stroke, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and edema (fluid accumulation and swelling). Since healthy kidneys work to process excess sodium, the data across an entire population is inconsistent, but as a whole an excess salt diet has a markedly negative impact, particularly on margin demographics such as the infirmed, disabled, youth and elderly.

The Salt Institute, Salt Works and other such organizations claim that there is no negative connection between health and overconsumption of salt. Reminiscent, perhaps, of the outcries of the tobacco companies not too many years ago? In any case, the salt controversy continues to rage, and meanwhile, salt, like sugar, is used to sell. For decades food companies been researching how to keep us hooked to their product.

Coincidentally, Kessler also ousted the tobbaco companies. He's a regular whistle-blower. He was even fired as Dean of UCSF Medical School for calling attention to his own school's questionable financial practices. Kessler's legitimacy is unquestioned. His investigations in tobacco led to a 368 billion-dollar settlement and immunized the companies to future lawsuits. Notice how cigarette prices went up eight-kagillion percent in the past ten years? Notice how cigarette packs have uglier and uglier warning labels on the boxes? That was him.

Unfortunately, selling eggrolls is a lot harder to tax or prohibit than Camels. Alcoholism was declared an illness as early as 1956 and is currently recognized as both a psychological and a medical afflication. What about food dependency and obesity?

Dietary fat is an essential part of a healthy diet, despite the attack during the 20^th century on the stuff, to the point where being called “fat” (once merely a scientific term) became one of the bigger social insults, and being fat one of the bigger social crimes. However, vitamins essential to our survival can only be digested and absorbed when fat is present. Fat buffers the body's delicate innards from physical trauma, regulates body temperature, protects us from diseases, and increases the health of every living cell. More well known, but less important in the abundance of the western world, fat allows energy to be stored for future use.

The great irony is that “fat” has been for decades the supposed culprit of obesity. The reality is that fat is more a symptom than a cause. Yes, fat tastes good, as studies in 2001 demonstrated, which is why the smooth creamyness of milk chocolate is so easy to recall.

In 1914 the call against fat went out. To support the rationing war effort, gaining wait was called “unpatriotic” by popular American and British magazines. Before that, we can trace the change of heart toward fat as early as the French revolution, when obesity was associated with the aristocracy and thus damnable. Before this time, some state officials and rulers would pad their bodies to look bigger and therefore more imposing, powerful, dangerous. Oh, how the times have changed. Obesity is seen, at least in North America, as a moral issue. If you are fat you are lazy and cannot control your impulses.

Fat, however, is not the great enemy of the 21^st century. Lobbyists in Washington continue to block the restriction of high-salt and high-sugar foods in universal policies that could transform the diet of the nation. Symbolic initiatives like the soft drink controversy in 2012 in New York are met with ridicule. And all the while these products continue to make headway in Europe, Africa and Asia. The only way that other producers can compete is to artificially enhance their foods and drinks, too. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Check out this webpage for a more complete list.

Speaking of joining them, if you've never tried mixing salted and sweetened popcorn, or eating salted chocolate, it's about the cheapest mouth orgasm out there.

Labeling laws have allowed public opinion to crack down on fat content. Packaging with words like “non-fat”, “low fat”, “less fat”, and “lean” are guaranteed to increase sales. “Unsweetened” and “low sodium”, on the other hand, don't yet sound as sexy. Consequently, the solution is to exchange one tasty substance for another. Take out the fat, label it "non-fat", add salt or sugar, and like magic, sales go up without making food any healthier or less addictive. Everyone wins... except the consumer.

Since fat is a highly stigmatized substance, most foods don't have much. Regardless, remember that fat equals 4 calories per gram, whereas protein (generally viewed as a positive food substance) has 2, so either way you look at it, it's portion size that's going to make a major difference, not whether your yoghurt is 5% fat or 10% fat. As long as the food products are designed to make you crave for more, unable to stop until it's all gone, then wanting to go back to the store to get more, fat content might drop, but portion size will not.

Wet around the gills: conflating idioms

2013-10-02T08:16:00.000-05:00

It started with my father, the bastard. He passed it on to me and there's nothing I can do. That's science. Darwin provided us with the perfect excuse. I am not responsible for the way I am. It's all society and ancestry, my bloated arthritic gay great-grandmother and the one-room metal box where I was raised in downtown shitville. Thankfully I'm preaching to a dead horse. We're all evolutionists now.

My father's verbal memory was a tricky bastard. It didn't start that way, at least according to his stories, which I, his only child, heard ad nauseum every day of my youth. When he was in his 20s and 30s, he did those impossible newspaper crosswords every day and blew the competition out of the water. He would refer to Martin Riggs (from Lethal Weapon) as “John Smith” because Mel Gibson played Riggs and also voice acted Smith in “Pocahontas”.

I remember him saying that he was trying to “nail the hammer on the head” and advised me not to “count all my eggs before they hatch”. He would try to “shoot the blue moon” when playing Hearts online. With his mourned that he would “burn that bridge when [he] came to it.” It was all amusing as hell until I noticed that I was cursed with the same problem.

Today I said “wet around the gills,” after which my wife glanced pityingly in my direction, like Professor Higgins to Eliza Dolittle before she gained the insufferable accent. Being sure of the rightness of my poetic instinct, I googled the phrase. 5,590 hits, or rather, only 5,590 hits. Google proceeds to reveal that my brain is conflating two idioms. “Green around the gills” scores 985,000 hits. “Wet around the ears” gets 19.3 million.

That a phrase exists on the Internet is hardly the litmus test for its rightness or coherence. Even “green around the gizzard” may be found on page 146 in an e-book entitled Sundays in August. People will publish any wild herring these days. Judging by research by the International Data Corporation, we should be closing in on 3 zettabytes of global information, and I may not be able to fathom the ridiculous volume of information that entails, but I do know it includes that every moron like myself who posts a comment on Youtube and all those posts may or may not be included in a Google search. (In fact I tried googling a youtube comment I made a few years ago and thank God, nothing showed, which means that not every word ever interneted is forever available.)

I conclude that there are up to 5,589 other mental delinquents out there, and I can still be proud to say that before this article I never published the phrase.

I'm getting off-track. I was trying to discussing conflating idioms. Conflations.com defines this common confusion as “an amalgamation of two different expressions. In most cases, the combination results in a new expression that makes little sense literally, but clearly expresses an idea because it references well-known idioms.” The introductory articles goes on to distinguish between conflations that are still interpreted to mean the same thing (e.g. “look who's calling the kettle black”) from conflations that do not – usually rendered as incoherent as a red goose chase.

But I'm in good company. During the October 7, 2008 Presidential debate, Barack Obama made a similar error. “Now, Senator McCain suggests that somehow... I'm green behind the ears.” The best part is, this could be taken (at least out of context) as the Democratic candidate, still smarting from the birthing controversies, making a Freudian slip and referring to himself as an alien (i.e. little green man).

And now I live in France, which makes it easier, but I live with my wife, who is an educated linguaphile with a perfect memory and an insatiety for pop culture, which makes home a constant stream of embarrassing moments. For years I was able to pride myself on my golden tongue – not so hard when you teach English to Hispanics, French to Americans, and you live with aforementioned dad.

I suppose the dagger's practically in the coffin. Right? Anybody?

The campaign against India's female genocide

2013-02-17T23:32:00.001-06:00

To: The Government of India, The OHCHR, UNICEF, The UNIFEM, The UNFPA, CEDAW, The EU and The G8

We the undersigned, strongly condemn the practices that have led to the elimination of millions of girls and women from India’s population, and hold the government of India accountable for failing to protect the lives of its female citizens.

We further contend, on grounds of human rights, that immediate and effective action be taken by the government, through the implementation of rapid action task forces, to halt this femicide. We also insist the government officially commit to a time-line within which the associated practices of female feticide, female infanticide and dowry murders will be effectively arrested through the rigorous enforcement of existing laws and a stringent accountability on the part of India’s hospitals, government offices, and law enforcement agencies.

We further urge international human rights bodies and other governments to join in this effort to persuade the government of India to acknowledge and honor the call of this petition.

Today my brother-in-law invited me to sign a petition demanding that the UN, the EU and the G8 join forces to coerce the government of India to enforce its constitution of democratic equality for all men and women. This particular campaign against India's female genocide was started in 2006 by Rita Banerji, who picked up on the language used by Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen in 1986 to describe the phenomenon demonstrated in national census data. At that time, Dr. Sen claimed that 37 million women were "missing" from India, and since then, claims Banerji, the number has climbed to 50 million. Dr. Sen later revised her research and in 1990 tallied the global number of "missing" women to 100 million.

If we want social practices like these to end, signing a petition isn't going to do it. India is overpopulated and many families want a first-born male. (A lot is actually accomplished as preferential gendered abortion.) In a society that cannot afford reasonable healthcare for all, money is set aside for males and females are neglected.

Take Japan, for instance. In terms of its historic preference of male over female offspring, it is typical of Asian countries. But after World War II Japan was not allowed to regrow its military, and consequently it put all its energies into developing its economy. Now, as in European and Western countries, the balanced has tipped to favor women at a ratio of 1.05 or 1.06.

Western countries, too, have clear sexist treatment in favor of men -- look at our political representatives, university professors and CEOs -- but we are wealthy enough to be able to afford quality nutritional and medical care for all.

In other words, perhaps it's wrong to look at the "missing" 50 million women as a result of immoral practices that can be stopped through a simple change in policy. Look at the mess that China is in due to a well-intentioned attempt to guide change in population over time - and the male-to-female ratio is much worse than ever before. How can democratic India jarringly mandate equal treatment between males and females when their society is still very classist in practice, mindset and design?

If women have opportunities for gainful employment, slowly, perception of their relative worth will change. In developing countries for so much more labor is physical, women, with higher body fat and less muscle mass than men, are at a disadvantage. Women were given preferential treatment in North America because they were needed as the lynchpin to the colonists' cultural warfare against the native tribes -- in short, we needed to increase our population, so we could not afford to let our women die. India's population is bursting at the seams. Consequently, to be blunt, what do they need women for?

In some places in India, women are able to find gainful employment, and this is likely due to high literacy rates in those areas. As regional populations increase in wealth over time, education is more highly valued, which nullifies the inherent physical advantage of men over women in densely populated and labor-intensive areas.

The petition is useful in that Westerners are being made more aware of the plight of not only Indian women, but women generally in the undeveloped and developed world. However, change comes slowly, and I doubt that Dr. Sen herself would have ever called for the powerful countries of the world to pressure India into using a big stick to stop social practices that have arisen as a result of the geographic reality of southern and southeast Asia. Even if we were to succeed in artificially ending these abortive practices against women, will not that many women still die from increased starvation, crime and civil unrest?

It is paramount that we look to preventing similar imbalances from happening in other countries. India is so far gone that it may take generations more to arrest these social practices and turn around the imbalanced male-to-female ratio. We need to understand why it is happening in India and learn from it. Reacting to it impetuously and forcefully won't necessary help the situation; in fact it may make it worse.

Film in 2012: Reviews

2013-01-21T08:13:00.000-06:00

Premium Rush. Action. ★★ 1/2 (Fair-Good)
I usually enjoy movies that take unconventional, everyman roles and turn them into heroes. Daniel Koepp does this with NYC's bicycle messengers. Surreal "gaming" motifs are regularly inserted into the story, at times turning Premium Rush into a muted Scott Pilgrim. Stereotyped roles: the dirty cop, the ex-girlfriend, the Chinese loan shark, the self-obsessed rival, the impatient boss. Ironically Gordon-Levitt (the lead role) did injure himself while cycling too fast during shooting. An appropriately light-hearted movie worth seeing if you need to unwind.

Looper. Science fiction action. ★★1/2 (Fair-Good)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis play Joe Simmons' younger and older selves in this science fiction action thriller. "Looper" derives a unique premise from a previously unexplored possibility of time travel, an increasingly rare beast. There are glimpses of a larger world behind the sharply drawn characters thrust into the foreground, which gives the story a depth often lacking in modern sci-fi. The story would have worked better if the two leading roles could have looked a bit more like each other. Great entertainment, some implicit philosophical issues for a thinking viewer (like "Minority Report", are individuals already culpable for actions not yet committed? Can trying to avoid a certain future result in its very fulfillment?), and overall a lean and trim addition to the genre.

Argo. Historical drama/thriller. ★★★ (Good)
After "Good Will Hunting", Ben Affleck was been in so many bad movies ("Pearl Harbor", "Daredevil"), it is positively thrilling to see him succeed again. I never saw The Town, the only other film Affleck both starred in and directed, so this was a first for me. Based on a true story (certain points about the Iranian government and the role of the CIA have received criticism), this film had me on the edge of my seat for nearly the whole two hours. Ever since "A Separation" I have wanted to see another movie based in Iran, and with "Argo" I was able to revel in the Arabic world once again. Unfortunately, with American-Iranian relations at such a historic low, "Argo" exploits current public anti-Iranian sentiment and fails to engender any sympathy for the Iranian people. But in terms of raw entertainment, you can't get much better than this.

Cloud Atlas. Drama and science fiction. ★★★ (Good)
The most expensive independent film ever produced ($102 million budget) and the most recent work of the Wachowskis ("The Matrix", "V for Vendetta"). This is intended as a philosophical work, but only attentive viewers will pick up on the connections between the six stories from six different time periods, ranging from the 19th century South Pacific to the post-apocalyptic 24th century. This mosaic takes a dozen actors and recycles them with some consistency across the half dozen stories, which provides some guidance for the connections that are supposed to be made and the patterns supposed to be seen. After an ambitious three hours of airtime, I was satisfied with the movie's message, although many movie critics apparently were not. Worst movie of 2012? Best movie of 2012? Neither. Some of the mini-stories are compelling and interesting; others are not. Some of the philosophical points are said well (fighting against a greater power to find the truth and free oneself is the occasion to demonstrate the noblest qualities of our race) and others are not (actions and consequences of individual lives impact each other and last far into the future). My recommendation is to leave your snarky side at home and see what signs you can read in this ever-shifting Atlas.

Skyfall. Action. ★★ 1/2 (Fair-Good)
Martin Campbell directed the first, Marc Foster the second, and now this third Craig installment of this Bond reboot (after Brosnan derailed the franchise in an attempt to be "the last Bond") is directed by Sam Mendes, whom I love for "American Beauty" and "Revolutionary Road", but I didn't know he had a talent for action. Admittedly, this 23rd Bond film feels very different from anything else in the entire corpus, mostly because Bond is not playing spy but rather a bodyguard most of the time. There are still the great action and chase scenes but, for the first time, Bond is not the target. This being the case, Bond feels like another agent, and Bond's world has a chance to grow beyond the constraints of megalomania. In fact, I would suggest that the franchise has more fundamentally evolved with this film than with any other as far back as "On His Majesty's Secret Service", the first movie after Connery's retirement from the franchise, and the occasion of Bond's only marriage (his wife is killed shortly thereafter). The story arc that started in "Casino Royale" continues to develop his character into the roundest any movie Bond has ever been. I am still unhappy with Ben Whishaw's persistence as Q but hopefully that role will be recast next time around.

Silver Linings Playbook. Romantic Comedy/Drama ★★★1/2 (Good-Great)
Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawerence co-star in this full and compelling romance about two people who have lost their spouses (although in vastly different ways) and struggle to move on. If half of the joy of this film is piecing together the backstory, the characters' motives, and the truth, the other half is watching them bounce off each other at each encounter. It's like nuts in a nuthouse. Each pair of characters exhibits its own fiery chemistry and the verbal exchanges are usually hilarious. The artistic and athletic performance that marks the climax of the film is beautiful. There are a few times when the situation is so surreal as to lose credibility and believability, but only a few. In the meantime the film sensitively explores questions of destiny, positive thinking. Cooper here shows a range of acting ability that he didn't need in comedies like "The Hangover" and "Wedding Crashers". Lawrence, incredibly, moves from her barely pubescent performance in "The Hunger Games" to acting opposite a man 16 years her senior, and miraculously she feels perfectly fitted for the task.

Lincoln. Historical Drama ★★★ 1/2 (Good-Great)
Daniel Day-Lewis gives a magisterial performance in Spielberg's new "Amistad" (1997). The sixteenth president is exactly as I always imagined him: self-possessed, sharply intelligent, approachable, powerful. The film moves back and forth between the epic and the personal, conveying both the critical historical juncture belonging to late nineteenth century Washington, as well as the intimate moments between Lincoln and his wife, sons, African-American soldiers, servants, and fellow politicians. What is essentially a two-and-a-half hour long West Wing episode goes by in a flash. I am no history buff so I cannot say to what degree the film is faithful to history, but I can say that it is faithful to American memory of it. What Spielberg clearly hoped to achieve in "War Horse" (2011), namely, a dramatic tribute to our collective interpretation of Lincoln, the civil war and the abolition of slavery, is achieved here. The final moments of the film should have been handled more deftly -- little screen time is given to the reaction of the President's family, and makes his death a rather cold and lackluster event. Spectacular supporting roles by Sally Field (Mary Todd Lincoln), Tommy Lee Jones (Thaddeus Stevens) and David Strathairn (Secretary of State Seward), all worthy of Oscar nominations. John Williams, too, for yet another flawless soundtrack. This film the inspirational powerhouse that "War Horse" could never be. Skip "Vampire Hunter".

Movie-going in 2012

2012-12-13T17:18:00.002-06:00

2012 is almost over. Again I find myself thinking ahead to the Oscars. Again I'm considering reviewing a couple dozen films with the hopes of better remembering the ones I've seen and evaluating them in a more critical light. And again, I find that I've missed many interesting films, and chosen to ignore even more.

Please take this opportunity to inform me if I should skip a film on my "to see" list, or see a film on my "to skip" list. I value your opinion!

Movies I've seen	Movies I'd like to see	Movies I'm going to skip
Woman in Black Casa de Mi Padre Jeff, Who Lives at Home Cabin in the Woods Moonrise Kingdom Prometheus Magic Mike Amazing Spider-Man Dark Knight Rises Bourne Legacy Premium Rush Looper Argo Cloud Atlas Skyfall Silver Linings Playbook Licoln Les Misérables The Dictator Hope Springs Beast of the Southern Wild Monsieur Lazhar Sinister Men in Black 3	Man on a Ledge Zero Dark Thirty The Kid with a Bike The Master The Secret World of Arrietty Django Unchained It's Such a Beautiful Day Marley Deep Blue Sea Holy Motors This Is Not a Film Chronicle Best Exotic Marigold Hotel Life of Pi The Man with the Iron Fists Killing Them Softly Dredd	Devil Inside Ghost rider: Spirit of vengeance The Lorax 21 Jump Street Hunger Games Wrath of the Titans Pirates! Band of misfits Avengers Snow White and the Huntsman Madagascar 3 Rock of Ages Brave Madea's Witness Protection Plan Ted Ice Age: Continental Drift The Watch Diary of a Wimpy Kid Total Recall The Campaign Odd Life of Timothy Green Expendables 2 ParaNorman Anna Karenina Resident Evil: Retribution Frankenweenie Pitch Perfect Taken 2 Here Comes the Boom Paranormal Activity 4 Man with the Iron Fists Twilight: Breaking Dawn 2 Hitchcock The Hobbit

Don't rain on my gay parade: Equality and the future of marriage

2012-05-09T18:09:00.000-05:00

First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought. --Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
President Obama's recent statement - his personal support of same-sex marriage and rejection of civil unions, putting him in stark contrast with Mr Romney - has given everyone a lot to think about. While I am not ignorant of the campaigning dynamic going on in such an unambiguous admission, neither am I interested in it. Rather, I am interested in the question it raises for the future of American society. Should we, like the President, embrace homosexuality as equal under the law in all respects? Or should we, like the soon-to-be Republican candidate, embrace the preservation of traditional, monogamous, heterosexual marriage?
First, a preliminary philosophical observation. Always and in every society there is an Other (a group generally viewed as outside the accepted circle of good, God-approved individuals) who is denied social equality and legitimacy. We see a long list of Others in our society's history. Women, visible minorities, religious minorities, disabled persons, subcultures, and so on.

   Some societies perpetuate these prejudices and preserve social and legal inequality. This is done by squelching the voice of the Other and preventing it from being heard as a valid point of view. In some societies prejudices increase because of economic rivalry, a historical wrong or sociocultural resentment. However, as a democratic society evolves, these prejudices have generally been eroded by other more enduring values and principles.
     In a democratic society it is inevitable that, once they are considered persons and citizens with the right to vote, the voice of the Other will be heard. That voice will complain of the prejudices endured and their manifestation as gross legal inequalities. It is always in the legal arena that any issue in inequality will first come to a head.
     A democratic society will invariably increase legal equality of non-destructive preferences and behaviors, whatever these may be, and regulate or ban preferences and behaviors that hurt those besides their practitioners. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859. This ranges from sexual self-determination to the use of narcotics to ethnic background to religious belief/practice to protesting to riding a bicycle without using a helmet. Our legal courts are charged with seeing the basic trajectory of our country and, when it is time, creating or altering laws to increase equality and decrease destructive acts.
   Legislation in a democratic society cannot be coterminous with morality. In the United States we expect to enjoy personal freedoms, even if we do not always follow the status quo. We are allowed to live in peace with differing views and practices on many subjects. We understand the difference between morality and law - no wonder that so many moral people break laws on a regular basis without a single pang of guilt.

     You don't see pornography or other sexually explicit entertainment outlawed, do you? People who see homosexuality as immoral almost certainly view these other practices as immoral - and many others, too. However, it doesn't matter how many people believe watching porn is wrong. Laws are not written based on what the majority believe is moral or immoral. Laws have to do, as I said already, with stopping people from hurting others, and granting equality to groups disenfranchised in older generations. It is unethical to write a law stopping someone from doing something just because you think they shouldn't. That's called bigotry.
     Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever to outlaw minority practices unless they are destructive to others. I have the right to believe an act to be immoral but I do not have the right to impose my view on others. I have the right to believe an act to be moral but I do not have the right to require others to do it, or to see things the same way. A democratic society believes in free thought, which stands and falls on free speech, which stands and falls on free action - so long as my free action does not impinge on the rights of someone else.
     Only if gay marriage is destructive to others, therefore, can there be any basis for outlawing it. Otherwise it's simply a clear-cut example of an oppressed minority finally having an opportunity to receive equal treatment under the law - the constitutional right of the GLBT community as much as it is mine or any heterosexual person.
     So, does gay marriage hurt others? I don't think that it has ever hurt me. No gay or lesbian has ever hurt me by simply being the way they are, much less hurting me by committing themselves to each other in monogamous, life-long union. I can't see how that could ever hurt me. Am I missing something here?
Here are some possible arguments of how homosexuality and gay marriage could be destructive to others:

1. God will punish the entire society for its immoral conduct. The biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is the chief example supporting this argument. However, if you read the story carefully, you'll note that Abraham only has to find ten righteous people in the whole city to save it. As long as heterosexual marriage is resolutely preserved, then, I can't see why even the most superstitious person would worry about being turned into a gigantic salt shaker.
2. Homosexuality will be approved by society so it will harder to convince our children that it is wrong. Exposure to a different idea or way of life is not the same as actual harm. If it was, we could not stop until we had a morally homogeneous society, and this conception runs contrary to every fiber in my democratic body.
3. Gay marriage will lead to gay adoption. Let's assume it does, or will, eventually, given the view of democratic society I outlined above. I've never heard of a study showing that a child raised by a gay couple is more likely to have some serious psychological trauma, or be abused, or anything else. Again, it's pretty clear that the horror of the idea of kids being "raised gay" is a result of moral prejudice. Such prejudice is the right of anyone, but by no means can it determine the direction of new legislation.
4. Gay marriage will lessen the validity of heterosexual marriage and lead to the destruction of the institution of marriage, raise divorce rates, corrupt society because the family unit no longer passes on valuable moral teachings to children, etc. I say, there's some truth in that. But the bigger truth is that Western society lost that battle almost one hundred years ago with the legalization of birth control methods as part of the early feminist movement and the liberation of women to be more than baby factories.

The fact of the matter is that marriage isn't primarily about babies anymore. Society has changed, for better or for worse, and there's no going back. To try to salvage an obsolete notion of marriage is hopeless. In fifty years no one outside of extremely conservative religious groups will even bother. I can visualize the Catholic church continuing to maintain strict policies against both contraceptives and gay marriage for maybe that long, but not much longer. American society, meanwhile, will continue to develop and update its laws to reflect its nature - assuming the political scene is fixed sometime before the Union of States utterly dissolves. If you want a society that considers marriage to be primarily about progeny, you'll have to go to some other part of the world (not Europe). But I predict as their populations stabilize and the middle class becomes wealthier, as health care quality and availability increases and infant death mortality drops, the urge to define marriage in terms of procreation will weaken and ultimately fade.
Folks, it's a brave new world out there, and we need to go and be part of it. Instead of pining for a lost era where black was black and white was white, we need to figure out how to make society work as best as it can.

Sex at school

2012-05-02T17:59:00.002-05:00

     The other day I told my Creative Writing students, "Your job is to make your topic interesting. The only subject that's interesting by default is sex. No other topic is interesting until you make it interesting."
     The point I was making was valid, but I almost regret putting it that way, because simply mentioning sex in class gets them thinking about sex, rather than about writing. Case in point, right? It's such a powerful part of human existence. Those who treat sex casually are at war with the bulk of human societies and civilizations since the dawn of time.
     (I suppose I just enjoy being unpredictable. How often does a high school teacher mention sex? It's nice to be absolutely sure now and then that your students are actually listening to you.)

     Today I started the most ambitious instructional unit of my career -- sexual ethics. It's coming at the tail-end of a semester of ethics, starting with ethical issues relating specifically to young people, then environment, education, war and politics. It's been a great class. However, our school district has failed our students insofar as it does not require each of them to take a course on sex, sexuality and gender. This is my chance to fix that grievous error.
     Unfortunately I've only left myself two weeks to cover the material, so we'll have to move fairly quickly through some of the most controversial issues that will be raised this year. Homosexuality. Premarital sex. Age of consent. And once again, I think I will be able to hold my students' attention without too much difficulty.
     Of course, the challenge of an ethics course is to let the students arrive at their own conclusions instead of being told what to believe. Not only is it the ethical way to go about instruction -- as opposed to taking advantage of your position of authority and trust to preach your personal viewpoints -- but it will also result in a far more lasting impact on the way the students think.
     This is basically what distinguishes a teacher from a parental figure. Parents are keen to pass on their values and beliefs to their children. I, however, cannot adopt one hundred teenagers for 180 days, and repeat the process from scratch every year. For one, I'd probably kill myself. But the larger issue is the fact that they are not little mes, in any sense. Some might respect me and some might hate me, some will idolize me and others filled with disdain and scorn. Yet their background is not mine, their home life is not mine, their past is not mine, and although I can impact their future, it is not irrevocably tied to my own.

     Sex and sexuality is sort of like religion and tradition. It's hard to break away from your roots. Students learn math, English, history and science at school, but when it comes to sex, they come with a set of presuppositions, sometimes hardened by specific theological premises. In the United States, anyway. In more secular countries -- Britain comes to mind -- would have many parents who tell their kids, "Think about it, and go with what makes sense." Americans are more dogmatic. And by extension, whereas in Britain a teacher could have a full curriculum about sex, that's not true in Oklahoma. It's safer to skirt the most important questions, lest an instructor call down some serious parental wrath.
     Still, I don't deny that I have an agenda. My devious plan is to get them to reflect on their own assumptions, the traditions they've inherited, the biases the embrace as part of their subconscious endeavor to be accepted by their peers. Strong opinions in controversial matters are part of the adolescent experience and the search for one's personal identity. I get that. But they can't stay teenagers forever.
     When I was a high school student, like them, I had strong opinions about many hot topics. Then I grew up. At university I experienced the process of letting go of my purported wisdom, and much to my dismay, I was wrong on pretty much everything. Is it egotistical to want my students to similarly reject the simplicity of their youth? Do I claim that a phase of intellectual rebellion is necessary to internalize one's values and thus ensure that one is not merely a creature of habit but an empowered individual?
     I suppose so. And frankly, if a teacher can get a kid to rethink what she thinks she knows about sex, then pretty much everything is up for grabs.

Diversity in education

2012-04-29T21:56:00.000-05:00

It is often said that no two people are exactly the same. At the same time, it is also true that most children have a lot in common, whether it be the stages of cognitive development, generational social trends, or cultural thinking patterns. And it is on this very basis that teachers teach diverse classrooms as a single unit. While modifications per student are provided as needed, differentiation takes a back seat to the homogeneous modeling, scaffolding, skill-mastering and assessing that characterizes the bulk of what takes place in the classroom.

However, as the world shrinks and multicultural communities form in urban areas, schools invariably become increasingly diverse. Teachers are continually challenged to teach larger groups of students who give the impression of uniformity – whether due to age, dress code, or trends in language and behaviorisms – while in fact significant differences only multiply. As these differences become more apparent over time, educators determine whether to group students by specific characteristics – academic competence, language fluency, cultural background, special needs – or to let the chips fall where they may.

The landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS emphasized that the desegregation of public schools would be a great boon to the American education system. The natural interaction between students despite their differences results is academically beneficial, as research and reason both demonstrate.

Sadly, diversity can also be attempted thoughtlessly and may easily result in depressed education standards and increased conflict between distinct communities. The story of Erin Gruwell and her LA-based "Freedom Writers" is a case in point. Woodrow Wilson High School in Long Beach implemented a voluntary integration program that only aggravated the high level of tension between the African-American, Asian, White and Latino neighborhoods.

Social engineering carries inherent risks and must be executed carefully. Educators must be prudent not to promote students of different backgrounds in a way that reduces individual children to certain characteristics, whether sexual orientation, ethnic heritage, or learning style. Healthy interaction between diverse student groups demands equality, unity, and an environment where intimate peer relationships may be developed safely.

At Santa Fe South High School in Oklahoma City, for example, a complex urban environment coupled with ethnic prejudices results in a unique situation that requires care and attention. The Latino demographic in Oklahoma City and southwestern United States generally is one that experiences social, and recently legal, prejudice, due to the ongoing complications of illegal immigration and related issues. SFS HS is predominantly Hispanic, with about 10% African-American and 10% White. These minorities, while economically and socially dominant (the former clearly less so) as a national ethnicity, now experience a turning of the tables on campus. Strained relations between these groups create ongoing prejudice on campus, but due to the clear dominance of the Latino community, conflict is minimal. Every school experiences its own issues relating to diversity and no educator has the privilege of ignoring its relevance to the success or failure of public education.

The classroom teacher must understand and sympathize with these larger population trends if he or she is to create a venue where diversity can be expressed and embraced in the context of a broader and singular vision. And the same rules apply in the case of any significant student groupings. If students of different academic levels, for example, are to work together productively and safely, teachers must address the prejudiced treatment of students, whether by themselves or by other students. Different expectations for stronger or weaker students will not foster resentment or embarrassment if the teacher clearly articulates a common vision of growing in skill and knowledge of the subject matter. If the student's goal is to get a certain grade, and the teacher expects more of one student than another to get the same grade, then equality in assessment is lost, and the students will not trust the teacher, nor will they build healthy, intimate relationships with each other. However, if a growth model is adopted and students are consistently assessed on the basis of individual growth, equality is maintained.

Indeed, successful diversity in public education is the best way to prepare our children to continue the American democratic tradition, to be responsible global citizens, and to let their world grow beyond the locality in which they were born.

What my dog taught me

2012-04-22T15:13:00.001-05:00

Stretch. Sigh. Pant-pant-pant. Lick the chops. Pant-pant-pant. Perk the ears. Head up. Curious. Push up from the hind legs. Trot toward the noise. The clicking of black toe-nails on wood. Sniff. Muzzle to the floor. Investigate the fallen flower of cold broccoli. Tongue out. Take it into the mouth. Doesn't taste right. Drop it. Pant-pant-pant. Raise head and eyes toward master. Inattentive. Want a head pat. Little tail wag. Master turns, lowers hand. Good boy. Turns back to stove. Trot back to bed. Stretch. Lie down. Sigh. Eyes open, watching, resting. Pant-pant-pant.

To a dog, everything is now. Animals are a world apart from their owners, though their owners often forget. A dog may be anxious, but it cannot worry. A dog may be afraid or excited, but it cannot be pessimistic or optimistic. A dog may be jealous, but it cannot be bitter.

To a dog, the past and the future, as we conceive them, do not exist. There is no set of distinct events fading toward the horizon. There is only a general sense of “how things are” and “what will happen if I do this.”

It is without question that dogs have a sense of immediate past and future, in questions like “this happened because I did this” or “I want this to happen so I will do this.” Training animals that cannot apprehend simple causality, like a jellyfish or a bumblebee, is impossible.

However, as not only a lover but also an observer of animals, I question anyone who says that dogs can remember distinct events that occurred even hours ago, much less months or years. Not only is such information irrelevant for an uncivilized species, the brain is not developed with those abilities. As researcher William Roberts famously observed, animals are “stuck in time” - they cannot travel backward or forward to other places, events or scenarios, historical or hypothetical. They can't remember when they were puppies or that traumatizing event two months ago, and they plan think ahead for the weekend or even envision themselves taking their afternoon walk. Dogs lack the kind of memory called “episodic.” In other words, even though a dog can learn something, it doesn't remember learning it. Similar psychological phenomena occur among humans in the cases of young children and anterograde amnesiacs.
Try testing your dog yourself for evidence of episodic memory (thanks, Professor Ira Hyman). Put your dog in the backyard for ten minutes, then go and visit it. If your dog is like mine, it will be immediately overjoyed to see you. Now stay in the backyard for ten minutes. Your dog will quickly become bored with you. Leave the dog in the backyard for another ten minutes, then return. Bless its heart -- it is just as excited as the first time! You could repeat this procedure all day with little to no change in the animal's reaction.

What about a dog predicting when its master will return home? Doesn't this prove that the dog distinctly remembers past events? Not at all. Dogs remember such repetitive events through something akin to a circadian rhythm or an internal clock. Mine gets antsy in the evening because he knows that we go for a walk every day, and he knows by instinct that it usually happens shortly after he starts whining and pacing in my office. The incessant clickety-click breaks me out of gaming, surfing or (occasionally) working reverie.
On the other hand it is very difficult to find positive evidence of episodic memory without a strong semantic mode of expression. Hyman explains that this kind of memory is tied to an awareness of the self and argues that even chimps may lack the same cognitive abilities.

Because of their episodic memory, consistency makes or breaks an animal's happiness. While most will enjoy some variety to their day - an exciting change to the walking circuit or a treat with a new flavor - too much will cause anxiety. Dogs' eyes are hardwired to learn an environment. Think of wolves in the wild. To be successful hunters they need to learn the position of every rock, tree and bush in their territory - and these are props that rarely move. Any aberration is perceived as a red flag, warning bells go off - threat or meal? Human beings, having created their own environments for millenia and abandoning the hunter-gather lifestyle for farming and industry, naturally are no longer this sensitive to visual change in their regular venues. But if you move a couch that hasn't been moved in a while, your dog will notice. Your dog won't even know why - but it will be at least a little anxious about this. The owner may be, too - but at least the owner has the power to move it back. The dog just has to deal with it.

I've had a dog for nearly three years now. We walk or run together every day, usually late at night, one of the last things I do before I go to sleep. We walk alone. There aren't many people that walk when it's dark, and even when we cross paths with someone, we rarely stop to chat.

This being the case, I've had hours upon hours to observe my dog's behavior and reflect on his psyche. I have to. I leave him off the leash and often signal him - a finger snap or a single word - to do or not do something. I want to give him as much freedom as I can, because he is first and foremost a living thing, and a pet second. And as one living thing to another, he inspires and challenges me and gives me a window to consider another kind of life.

For the most part, it's a life that seems inordinately desirable. It is simple, present, and generally without worry. I could do without salutation-by-crotch-sniff and bark-in-the-back-yard-all-day, but the exception proves the rule. Dogs have it pretty good.

I admire my dog for his boundless joy at the little things. Master coming home after a long day. A belly scratch. A quick game of chase. Scraps falling on the floor while master is cooking. A twisting roll on the grass in the sun. Yet another interesting smell.

I admire my dog for his devotion and dedication. He is fascinated with me and interested by default in anything I happen to be doing. He is upset when I am upset with him and happy when I am happy with him. His existence only makes sense when he is being my dog.

Doubtless, it's all too easy to idealize a life unplagued the anxieties that come as the price of a complex grasp of the self and the world. Like Adam and Eve, we have given up the world of instinct for the world of right and wrong, which necessitates experiences of shame, deceit, anger and bitterness, at the same time opening up possibilities of generosity, wisdom, courage and love. In short, the sophistication of our brains contains both the birth and death of civility and civilization - our very humanness.

I don't wish I wasn't human. But my dog teaches me that when I suffer, it's because I choose to suffer. When I experience conflict, it's because I decided to wrestle with an outside force. My dog teaches me that I have the power to choose my battles. Never fighting at all would, I suggest, reduce my humanness to a mere appearance; and that, I cannot do. But what I can do is apprehend my own complicity in the internal, psychological and spiritual pain I experience every day.

I believe that through pain comes many good things that would otherwise be inaccessible. Through pain I can forge my way to a new understanding of myself. But, akin to the mandates of just war theory, I must apply the laws of proportionality and comparative justice to each case. It is hardly worth entering a war if I cannot prevent more evil than I cause - if the benefits do not exceed the cost. Strangely, through my dog's inability to choose his battles, he has taught me that I can do what he can't.

Politics away from the dinner-table

2012-04-19T22:18:00.002-05:00

The two topics you're not supposed to discuss at the dinner-table are religion and politics. Well, I've been interested in the former since the middle of tenth grade, and comfortable discussing it after the middle of six years of post-secondary study on the subject, after traversing the spectrum from theological conservative to liberal. And the latter? Well, we'll get to that.

A bit o' life contributed to what I'd call an inevitable change in my opinions in such matters. First, my distaste for authority. Second, a belief in social and cultural influence. The origins of both lie in my upbringing. My mother was laissez-faire, my step-dad was an unclear parental-guardian figure, and my father strongly encouraged me to think for myself, argue, reason, and who to this day maintains incredible dissonance with pretty much every social, political, military and religious institution on the planet. Contrary to most children, then, the education system never successfully taught me to do what I was told.

Add to this the reality of my cultural diversity. My grandfather grew up on a Navajo reservation in Arizona, my grandmother moved from Arkansas to Fresno during the Great Depression, and my mother's parents a pair of middle-class Englishwomen and Scotsman who became life-long missionaries to China, Mongolia, and Taiwan.

It was a foregone conclusion that ultimately I would give up the claim of my youth that the Bible was an absolute authority, that morality was absolute, and to subscribe to the murky waters of ideological relativity. The fact that I'm now analyzing my own ideological development in terms of personal experience only confirms the persistence of this sordid tale. And so it goes to this very day.

For a long time I was content to restrict my philosophical interest to the spiritual realm. However, since moving to the United States I've had to give up my precious apathy in matters political. Growing up in Canada, receiving a socialist education and enduring a traumatic religious transformation has resulted in my rejecting the moralizing sympathies of the Republican cause. As for their cry for smaller government, I cannot see the point. At this stage in economic history it simply means we trade a federal puppet for fifty state puppets, and all the while corporate powers are holding all the strings. Washington's great fall to the evil of money – currently enshrined in electioneering and lobbying – is troubling indeed, and the terrible polarization of a broken two-party system refutes any hope for deep and lasting policy changes to defeat this corruption. A minority in Oklahoma, I silently count myself a Democrat and try not to engage many of my colleagues in serious political discussion.

My best friend in high school, Jay, always joked that a benevolent dictatorship was the most reliable and efficient way to run a country, and I sympathize with the thought. Unity without all the red tape and time-consuming procedure. An emperor to run the galaxy a la Palpatine. If Hitler had been for vinyl flooring instead of genocide, would fascism have such a bad name? In every strategy game I play, you don't win through democratic process. You win by being in control and making all the right decisions to grow your civilization economically, militarily, and culturally. And in nearly every one of those games, you are practically forced to adopt a militaristic ethic toward neighboring nations. Otherwise, the game is boring. Maybe real-life dictators experience similar internal naggings for conquest and... peace, of a sort.

Sometime ago I ran across some youtube videos on anti-statism which, after years of living in Oklahoma, was a breath of fresh air. I'd heard about it in high school but the word "anarchy" was filled with frightening associations and I never seriously considered it as a political option. After listening to several long-winded but well-reasoned arguments and counterarguments, however, it gained my respect. Just like totalitarianism is the final form of political control (Democratic Party), anarchy is the final form of political freedom (Republican Party). And while neither will ever have a prayer of significantly impacting American politics, considering these extremes was helpful in trying to make sense of why the bulk of Americans are able to respond so emotionally and vehemently against one political party or the other. In a two-party system, the easiest way to discredit "the other" is to exaggerate its distinctive features – much like Nazis illustrated Jews with long noses in anti-Semitic propaganda. In reality, President Obama and Governor Romney are chiefly centrist, regardless of public perception, and whether one is in office or the other is in office will make very little difference to my life, socially or economically.

Nevertheless, exhausted as I was from political nitpickery so popular in my new home, I repeatedly promised myself, my friends and my family that I will leave the United States as soon as possible. It's the simplest way to voice my real and well-earned distaste for American politics. For a country to come so far and yet be disabled by pointless bickering and in-fighting is so maddening, how could anyone look at it straight in the eye without wanting to flee?

Desperation forced me to consider absurd options, like a benevolent dictator, the end of the state entirely, and... a third party. I've always thought that minority governments are relatively effective. The balance of power dictates that they compromise in order to rule, and this greatly slows the push toward the corruption and abuse of that power. However, in the current political climate the rise of a third party and the transition of American politics toward a Canadian or European likeness seems as absurd as the voluntary self-annihilation of the government, or the ascension of a true totalitarian to the White House.

Like the unending Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it feels as if there is no end in sight. We were driven here by unyielding historical forces, and those same forces are keeping us from discovering a solution. On the other hand, the best part of history is its unpredictability. Ten years from now I might be lamenting an entirely different set of seemingly insurmountable challenges, having forgotten the progress from yesteryear and taking for granted our new-found freedoms. Pie in the sky? Probably. But in the end it's optimism that keeps away defeatism and keeps me thinking and engaging a system that does change, albeit slowly and spasmodically.

Here I am, on the cusp of a new chapter in my life, one I've been pining for all year, and it's still hard to believe it's finally on its last approach and descent. Perhaps America, too, is on the verge of something new. After all, aren't we overdue? Like the movie I saw last night – Cabin in the Woods – can we finally step down from our position as ruler of the cosmos, and give someone else a turn? The world badly needs a fresh hand at the wheel.

Put down that E-Reader and pick up a pen!

2012-04-12T21:14:00.002-05:00

     Read How to Mark a Book by Mortimer Adler here. Adler was the co-founder of the Great Books foundation and published this magnificent essay in 1940. I discovered it through one of about.com's many treasure troves while searching for teaching resources and I'm confident I'll find many more gems like it soon.
     Adler goes to great lengths to persuade his reader that marking up a book with lines, stars, notes and cross references is not an act of mutilation but of love. Such annotations are the gateway to serious reading, remembering, and creating an intellectual diary of your conversation with a brilliant author that can continue again at the drop of a hat.
     Ten years ago there were two books whose subject matter concerned me enough to write in them: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, a conservative Christian apologist's wet dream, and the Bible. In my early college years I scored the woodpulp of many other works of non-fiction. My first two years after high school I spent at an ultra-conservative Bible College, and my thirst for theological knowledge drove me to spend quality time reading deeply, actively, and wrestling with the ideas I was presented.
     Sadly, that time came to an end. I remember walking into the library of Providence College for the first time. Row upon row of books were laid before me, and I walked between the shelves, my eyes dancing from spine to title to author to Dewey Decimal number. I was nauseated and knew immediately that not in my whole life would I have the time, energy and ability to consume the sum of human knowledge. It was simultaneously thrilling and devastating.
     Every semester I was assigned hundreds of pages to read, mostly highly complex research texts using the technical language of linguistics, philosophy and literary criticism, each with its own set of a hundred bibliographic references in the index in the back. I was trained to read quickly and broadly, to get the gist and move on. In fact, I utterly forgot the importance and method of reading deeply.

     After graduating from college I was set free from this endless academic burden and was granted another instead - the eight-hour day, the five-day week, the eternal countdown to vacation, the inauguration into a system designed to wrest your very best energy, digest every muscle and fiber, and spit out the lifeless remains. I still loved to read, but lacked the energy to do so, I believed, being exhausted from my daily marathon that constitutes my current vocation.
     Partially true, I still maintain. However, the greater truth lies in my forgetfulness. I forgot how to read seriously. When I tried to read the great philosophical, historical and intellectual works in my library as if I were reading a New York Times best-seller, and failed, the whole guilt fell upon my job, and none upon my method. Falling asleep, eh? Not able to read more than a few pages, eh? Sheesh. Pick up a pencil, for Christ's sake, and stop whining.
   I'm not saying I'm going to read everything seriously. There's a place in my life for leisure - much more so for the next six weeks! - and there always will be. I don't need to spend five minutes a page in a work of contemporary fiction, or even The Great Gatsby. But I sure as hell will if I want to read some well-written non-fiction or some well-thought-out philosophy. Poetry, even, maybe.
     I can't leave it to professional educators to drive me to read deeply. Frankly, not only can I not afford to be a perpetual student, more than that, I don't need to be. I know how to read. I know what I want to read. I know I want to skip the bullshit bureaucratic formality that we call college education. The books are there. Smart people to talk to? Yes, they exist off-campus.

Marking up a book is so much better than the mnemonic techniques of the World Memory Championships - which despite reading a new release on the subject, still seems awfully gimmicky to me. (The subtitle should read, "Remembering anything," not "everything.") Paper was a revolutionary invention, not the mind map. I'm not denying the historicity of such methods, but I challenge anyone to demonstrate them to be a primary intellectual habit of any great thinkers and writers. It's a good tool for the tool belt, but it's not the bread and butter of critical thought.
The scary part of this is how difficult it is to properly annotate a digital text. One of the more popular apocalyptic prophecies in the past decade has been the end of the printed word. I've always been a nay-sayer - and how much more so in light of the most important method of active reading! This is not to say we couldn't have a digital equivalent, but I expect it will be watered down on many levels. So much of the natural memory depends on the spatial physicality of an object (says Boer of Moonwalking, referenced earlier) and here we are, giving all that up without a fight!

No, no and double no. Raise your Nay to the Nook, Kindle and Kobo. Throw them into the fire! Ok, maybe a bit dramatic. E-read your way to relaxation on a Caribbean cruise or a quick jaunt up to the chalet. But don't stop building your library. For God's sake, don't stop buying the books that could change your life. Believe that as little as a pen in hand could make all the difference in the world.

Tess of the D'Urbervilles

2012-04-11T22:00:00.000-05:00

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion—several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. -Mark Twain
The full text free: legal download.
Further thematic reflections on the novel.
Sparknotes summary and analysis.
Caution: spoilers.
     Many students of great literature will come across Tom Hardy's magnum opus of the Victorian woman and have a hard time seeing beyond the protagonist's suffering, and, more troubling still, her apparently stubborn refusal to reject the system that belittles and hurts her, poor and female as she is. However, there is more to Tess than meets the eye. She is not so blind or foolish as it would seem. Moreover, Hardy writes her brutal story not to celebrate her misery but to show its philosophical moorings and effectively to unharness it. This he does with much success.
     First, we note that Tess does not believe that she is treated fairly - rather she is quite aware that her station in life is ugly. Her conversation with her younger brother, Abraham, reveals her awareness of the injustice of social inequality. It could be written off as a Victorian sensitivity toward sin, but the universal tone of the subject at hand (other worlds) suggests otherwise.
     "Did you say the stars were worlds, Tess?"
     "Yes."
     "All like ours?"
     "I don't know, but I think so. They sometimes seem to be like the apples on our stubbard-tree. Most of them splendid and sound - a few blighted."
     "Which do we live on - a splendid one or a blighted one?"
     "A blighted one." (p.26)

     This being at the beginning of the narrative, I see Tess as being aware of class inequality but entirely ignorant of gender inequality. She maintains a staunchly Victorian attitude toward her sex, namely, that God intends her to be chaste, demure, delicate, subservient to men, and religiously devout. Throughout the entire story she never shirks this God-given identity, and this is her mantle of honor.
     The reader cannot question her integrity - and this is precisely what makes the story so compelling. Unlike The Jungle, which I read in December, the awful and horrific series of events the protagonist endures does not result in moral corruption here. While her naïveté disappears, the strength of her will never falters.
     This vignette concludes a couple pages later, when Tess falls asleep and Prince, the horse pulling her and her brother's wagon, is killed when he runs into a mail-carriage.
     " 'Tis all my doing - all mine!" the girl cried, gazing at the spectacle. "No excuse for me - none. What will mother and Father live one now? Aby, Aby!" She shook the child, who had slept soundly through the whole disaster. "We can't go on with our load - Prince is killed!"
     When Abraham realized all, the furrows of fifty years were extemporized on his young face.
     "Why, I danced and laughed only yesterday!" she went on to herself. "To think that I was such a fool!"
     " 'Tis because we be on a blighted star, and not a sound one, isn't it, Tess?" murmured Abraham through his tears.

     The self-reproach that Tess endures for the consequences of slight errors (due to her naivete - this is her only vice) is harsh, to say the least. And this is entirely consistent with the Victorian model of the ideal woman.
     It's discouraging to read about such a noble and selfless character so little rewarded for her virtues. Tess is certainly a Christ-like figure. Look at her end. She is hung for murdering an evil man, the pretty boy who wooed her and stole her virginity. Hardy makes several religious allusions (e.g. the Two Apostles painting) to tie her death to the crucifixion and suggests her death was inevitable, the expression of the blind justice created by a society that successfully exploits the working class every day.
     "Justice" was done, and the President of the Immortals... had ended his sport with Tess... The two speechless gazers bent themselves down to the earth, as if in prayer, and remained thus a long time, absolutely motionless; the flag continued to wave silently. As soon as they had strength, they arose, joined hands again, and went on.
     Morally, Tess is as pure and spotless as Christ himself. However, she is woman - without power and the scourge of her society, guilty of all human sin solely because of her sex - and she is not divine - she has no great omniscience or omnipotence to tide her over until God can justify her. She can work no miracles to prove her virtue, and when walking through the wooded regions of southern England, she believes - falsely - that she is out of sync with God himself:
     A wet day was the expression of irremediable grief at her weakness in the mind of some vague ethical being whom she could not class definitely as the God of her childhood and could not comprehend as any other.
     But this encompassment of her own characterization.... was a sorry and mistaken creation of Tess's fancy - a cloud of moral hobgoblins by which she was terrified without reason. It was they that were out of harmony with the actual world, not she. Walking among the sleeping birds in the hedges, watching the skipping rabbits on a moonlit warren, or standing under a pheasant-laden bough, she looked upon herself as a figure of Guilt intruding into the haunts of Innocence. But all the while, she was making a distinction where there was no difference... She had been made to break an accepted social law, but no law known to the environment in which she fancied herself such an anomaly. (p. 85)

     The same language surfaces when Tess's bastard child dies and she asks the vicar for a Christian burial. Social convention makes such a request impossible. The vicar, sympathetic to Tess's dignity and tenderness, brings about an internal battle "between the man and the ecclesiastic," or rather, between his instinctive human impulse and the mechanical social function called propriety.
     He refuses. Tess begs, reasons, threatens, abases herself, and ultimately the vicar tells her that a Christian burial is "just the same" as being thrown into the earth. Convention be damned! And the narrator vindicates the truth in his word, not his mind:
     In spite of the untoward surroundings... Tess bravely made a little cross of two laths and a piece of string, and having bound it with flowers, she stuck it up at the head of the grave one evening when she could enter the churchyard without being seen, putting at the foot also a bunch of the same flowers in a little jar of water to keep them alive. What matter was it that on the outside of the jar the eye of mere observation noted the words "Keelwell's Marmalade"? The eye of maternal affection did not see them in its vision of higher things.
     Tess's persistent self-doubt continues to plague her. Leaving home in an attempt to make a new life for herself and lift the burden of her presence - the consumption of three squares a day, and the loss of her virginity, the Victorian working woman's only prized possession - she sings some ballads to herself, some psalms, but stops suddenly "and murmured, 'But perhaps I don't quite know the Lord as yet.' " (p. 104)
     It is this self-doubt that cripples her one chance at self-preservation at the key moment when, after telling her husband, Clare, of her past inglories, he utterly rejects her.
     There was, it is true, underneath, a back current of sympathy through which a woman of the world might have conquered him. But Tess did not think of this; she took everything as her deserts and hardly opened her mouth... She might just now have been Apostolic Charity herself returned to a self-seeking modern world. (p. 242-43)
     Clare, too, is no less bound to convention than his wife:
     No prophet had told him, and he was not prophet enough to tell himself, that essentially this young wife of his was as deserving of the praise of King Lemuel as any other woman endowed with the same dislike of evil, her moral value having to be reckoned not by achievement but by tendency. (p. 267)
     In other words, morality is not a question of perfection but of intention. Because Tess is incessantly victimized as a woman, her intentions far exceed her degree of perfection; contrast this with an upper-class male of the same era, who only fails to achieve perfection as a result of his own moral determinations.
     Especially revolting is how Alec d'Urberville (the man who deflowered her, thus ruining her life) repeatedly castigates Tess for his own moral imperfections - a practice that still continues in many socially conservative communities today:
     He stepped up to the pillar. "This was once a Holy Cross. Relics are not in my creed, but I fear you at moments - far more than you need fear me at present; and to lessen my fear, put your hand upon that stone hand and swear that you will never tempt me - by your charms or ways..."
     Tess, half frightened, gave way to his importunity, placed her hand upon the stone, and swore. (p. 315)

     And Tess, named the temptress of the garden and the witch of Babylon, continues steadfastly to defend her husband of his innocence.
   Tess is repeatedly accused by d'Urberville to have rejected or recanted the true faith. Angel Clare, her husband, having studied theology and having readied himself to serve as clergy, ultimately chose a path closer to nature, with less deceit and hypocrisy on the way. While he and Tess were close, he imparted to her his more liberal understanding of matters theological. Later she hears d'Urberville expostulating a fundamentalist vision of salvation - he had turned preacher during their years apart - and she has a brief occasion to pass on what her husband told her, which to her instincts rang true, since (I suggest) it gave priority to morality over dogma.
     D'Urberville ceases to be a preacher as quickly as he became one, telling Tess her words instantly eroded his religious conviction. As soon as he saw her, he says, he instantly realized his conversion had been a lie, because he knew he would trade it all to possess her again. He admits to the thinness of traditional Christianity but cannot see how morality can exist without it:
     [Tess] tried to argue and tell [d'Urberville] that he had mixed in his dull brain two matters, theology and morals, which in the primitive days of mankind had been quite distinct. But owing to Angel Clare's reticence, to her absolute want of training, and to her being a vessel of emotions rather than reasons, she could not get on. (pp.334-35)
     Is Hardy offering a critique of the Victorian philosophy of the sexes, or a statement about the nature of religion generally? I'm inclined to find both in this classic work.
   On the one hand, we see a clear indictment of the nineteenth-century model of womanhood. It takes a woman comfortable in the diverse avenues of social manipulation - thus betraying the very ideal she pretends to achieve - to play the desired role convincingly. For the high-minded, working-class woman, however, such niceties are impossible, for if you truly buy in to the model, you cannot maneuver your way out of the social sins you will surely commit. The ideal is fundamentally flawed in its conception and demands a hypocrisy to operate - and this very inconsistency is what destroys its spirit.
     On the other hand, Tess's religion is true and her intentions pure. Through her character Hardy espouses a religion of morals rather than of propositions. Clare rejects the religion of his father - the very same religion that Alec embraces, but to no avail for his spirit - suggesting that traditional Christianity is vanity, perhaps even destructive (but I am not sure if Hardy takes it this far).
     All three main characters - Tess, Clare and Alec - come into contact with natural religion - primarily moral and wonderfully simple in nature. Tess embraces it from the start, and at most the thicket shrouding the truth in darkness is hacked away. Clare experiences a true battle between the two - his mind embraces natural religion, but when confronted with social law returns to the ungodly propriety taught falsely as religion. In the end he realizes the error of his ways and turns around - too late, alas, to save his wife. The damage had been done and nothing could undo it.
     Last, Alec was Tess's opposite, in that he was fundamentally irreligious or immoral. For a while religion hid his true nature, but never had the power to change it. He pondered both propositional religion and moral religion, could never understand the latter, and in the end rejected the former as being equally incomprehensible.
     Ultimately all three characters are true to their inner identity, and no professing or pondering will change it. What a different story it would have been if Tess had given up her religion (and if anyone had just cause to do so, it was her), or if Alec had converted his heart to the religion of grace, or if Alec had never grasped Tess's true quality and rejected her finally.
   Much like Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamozov, Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles can be read as a guide to the three kinds of people in the world: those who embrace moral (true) religion, those who embrace propositional (false) religion, and those who live in confusion and contradiction by attempting to use the rules of the latter to grasp the former. It is only when you finally let go of your need to understand everything that you can experience true morality.
     Romantic? Absolutely. Simple? In theory, yes. But the book displays age-old wisdom beautifully and that's what's most important.

Django Django (2012)

2012-03-10T21:28:00.003-06:00

     django django is a new psychedelic quartet out of Edinburgh, Scotland. They released their debut album in January after three years of hype and waiting. It's an upbeat electronic sound with great harmony, a modern rendition of the Beach Boys, fused with modern minimalism you find in many Scottish indie bands. The band name, I like to think, is supposed to be similar in sound to "jingle jingle," just like they have a song called "wor" about "war." It captures what these guys are about, namely, music. Repetition. Sonic creativity.
     Listen to these guys. I don't know if they have more than a single album in them... but it doesn't really matter. This one's a goodie in itself. Together the thirteen tracks clock in at just under 50 minutes. If you're feeling simultaneously chill and ready to dance (and who doesn't?) give it a spin.
     If you have Spotify you can listen to the whole album at your leisure by selecting one of the tracks here and opening the relevant link. Additionally the three music videos for this album are linked below.
     Lyrics: Go here. Currently only four songs are covered but more are sure to be added over time.

     "Hail bop" has a dreamy feel and talks about the experience of creating art as gloriously surreal. This marks a strong opening to the album.
     "Default" challenges the artistic norm and condemns those who believe they hold the keys, who stop listening to other voices not working in the same vein. This is their strongest music/video combo.
     "Firewater" is extremely catchy and I love the natural imagery in tandem with this almost hallucinogenic experience of alcoholic camaraderie. I wish I could catch all the lyrics. The line "look what we've become" seems somewhat bittersweet. A subtle critique of a civilization drummed up on booze? It fits the bill, considering where they're from.
     "Waveforms" No idea what it's about (music, maybe?) but, sound-wise, a strong track.
"Zumm Zumm" verges on techno and doesn't really do it for me. Echoes, pops, and the ever-present koochie keyboarded and snared beat. Bleh.
     "Hand of man" is the first acoustic track of the album. Short, simple, a song of friendship and mutual respect.
     "Love's dart" returns to the standard electronic sound but now joined to a strong acoustic element.
     "Wor" i.e. war. The western twang of the hook, the thrilling drum beats, the fast-moving and war-like drive to this song -- it works.
     "Storm" Love it. It's a about someone who can't decide what she wants or how she wants it.
     "Life's a beach" I love the slowly percolating complexity this track achieves -- and then suddenly releases as if it were nothing.
     "Skies over Cairo" now adds an Arabic flavor to what is by now a signature sound. Along with "introduction" it's the only track unmarred by words.
     "Silver rays" The final track closes the album with a smooth dance and pronounces an intimate goodbye to fans.

The pill or the cross? A trumped-up debate

2012-02-29T22:34:00.000-06:00

This is a carefully balanced proposal. I think it's high-minded, but I think it's fair-minded. In other words, it's got something to offend everyone. -The Firm (1993)
     Today in the teacher workroom one of my colleagues declared that President Obama is attacking the Catholic Church with a vengeance. And this teacher is not alone. Obama is currently envisioned by many as the contemporary incarnation of the Roman emperor Nero, burning Christians in the backyard of the White House, feeding them to starving circus beasts at the local amphitheater, and cackling gaily all the while. Recent polls show more than half of Catholics taking issue with the President's recent decision regarding enforced health care coverage of contraception.
     Nevertheless, there is no great conspiracy by the current administration to aggravate one of the largest voting bodies in the country. There is no secret plan to undermine the Amendments to the Constitution in order to install an oppressive bureaucracy to control hard-working American men and women. Obama is not a Jew-hating, anti-papal Muslim brother. For the record, he's an intellectual Christian drawing from many traditions. He's not Jacobean.
   What is going on is a centuries-old war between the current liberal landscape, whose crown jewel is the utterly dispassionate and fair medical establishment, and the awkwardly-defunct-but-in-denial religious establishment, codified supremely as the Catholic (=universal! at least claiming such) Church. Sadly, this much more interesting issue will not be addressed in this article. Another time, perhaps. (In the meantime I will refer you to a related issue I wrote about last month.) The scope of this post is simply to outline the facts of the debate and argue its present status as being no longer front-page news material.
     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which constitutes the chief legislative reform to the American health care system, is known pejoratively as "Obamacare." It requires health care providers to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions and preventative services. It also increases nationwide coverage by thirty million. The majority of states have appealed PPACA as unconstitutional, hearings in the Supreme Court will take place in late March, and a decision is supposed to be reached by June.
     The health care controversy is obviously complicated enough to reach the highest Court in the land, and I only wish to address the issue of requiring religious organizations to provide contraceptive coverage. This issue has been raising hell for a month or so, now, and like the proverbial bad penny, won't take a hint and go away.
     Let's look at the facts first.
     Before PPACA, women were protected from paying higher premiums for medical coverage just for being women if they received that coverage through their employer. However, if they were shopping for individual coverage, no such protection existed. Women paid higher premiums on average (legal in 37 states), even though they did not receive a corresponding increase in service. Since women are more likely to be unemployed or only employed part-time and in 2010 made up 55% of the individual health care market, this is a substantial problem.
     Let's be clear why. Women who got pregnant could suddenly lose their health insurance coverage without remuneration. Other cost sharing such as additional deductibles because they were treated as a rape victim or got a C-Section (regularly required by a medical doctor as the safest procedure for both mother and infant). Because of this legal discrimination, many women chose not to get any health coverage at all.
     I believe that one of the fundamental marks of authentic civilization, alongside universal education and transparent political system, is a universal health care system. When a society lets its poorer and more vulnerable members suffer physiologically, it is violating their right as human beings to physical dignity. I don't care if you're a crack addict, a pedophile or a jobless ninny. As long as you're a citizen of my country, if you have a disease - even one you suffer from because of your vice - you have the right to receive quality medical treatment for your ailments.
     PPACA stopped this gender-discrimination and requires all employers to provide women with preventative services such as gestational diabetes screening, regular gynecological checkups, contraceptives and related counseling, breastfeeding supplies and relevant support. An exemption to this rule (for contraceptive coverage only) exists for for employers defined as religious institutions.
   The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
     This exemption is rife with potential for abuse. Let's say I'm a health care provider and I want my individual rates (not through an employer) to be competitive. Covering women raises the average cost of my plans because women require more medical service than men. I need to find a way to offset that additional cost. PPACA prevents me from raising premiums for women simply for being women. However, if I can legally choose to withhold certain medical coverages that women typically want, they will be less likely to purchase health care coverage from me. In this way I can still encourage them to find coverage elsewhere. To benefit from the exemption clause, all I have to do is claim that I morally oppose contraception on religious grounds. According to the First Amendment, the government cannot legally force me to freely exercise my religious beliefs. I get to exert my religious beliefs over my employees' and beat my competitors' rates.
     Thankfully the writers of the PPACA were smart enough to limit the exemption to religious employers. To qualify as a religious employer, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, the institution must "(1) Have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization[,in other words,] churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order."

   In the case of a religious employer and a woman who needs contraceptive care we have a conflict of interest. Both parties have rights. Women as human beings have a right to quality health care (as stated above) and that includes contraceptive treatment. If you are an employer and you deny that coverage, you are discriminating against an employee. That's illegal. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs." Many women sincerely believe that it's morally right to have an active sexual life without overpopulating the planet with additional mouths to feed, that it's morally right to enjoy sex for the purpose of interpersonal intimacy rather than procreation. An employer must respect that belief. That's the law. Otherwise, why shouldn't an employer choose not to hire you because of your religion? your lifestyle? your ethnicity? your sexual orientation?
     The EEOC has been around for more than fifty years, and it's the reason employers are no longer allowed to discriminate in covering their employees. In 2010 PPACA took that same principle and extended it to health care providers, because even though they aren't employers, they shouldn't have the right to discriminate either.
     So how do we uphold both the woman's individual rights and the institution's rights? The solution is simple. Provide coverage to the woman without going through her religious employer at all. The health care provider must offer it without charging the church. Now the church is not spending its monies for what it perceives to be a sinful action. No cost sharing on the part of the employer or the employee.
     And that's exactly what the rules are.
     So why are people still accusing Obama of attacking the church?
1. People think the definition of "religious employer" is too narrow. Catholic universities and hospitals should be included, it is said.
Response. Maybe the definition could be widened. But we still need to provide contraceptive coverage to the woman. She has her rights too, as explained earlier. And in no way does the nuance of the definition of "religious employer" constitute "an attack" on Catholics. It's something to be considered by people of intelligence and experience.
2. People generally want to blame the President for everything. This is especially bad during a recession, and especially especially bad during the last year of his first term in office.
Response. People love to complain and find someone to blame. Frankly I can't think of a perfect solution to this problem, but I certainly can't think of a better solution than the one currently in place. Every alternative I've seen crushes the rights of either the employer or the employee.
3. The President doesn't have a positive religious identity. As a Democrat, Obama is already on the back foot, and worse, was labeled a closet Muslim, despite clearly being a liberal Christian. Contrast Obama with Bush Jr., who during his first term claimed to read Oswald Chamber's classic My Utmost For His Highest (a daily reading of wishy-washy Christian moralisms) on a regular basis.
Response. Personally I don't think Obama's religious beliefs are a problem. I'm betting he's fairly non-committal, which means as a politician he's looking to create and maintain a system in which the beliefs of all are respected, as long as they don't impinge on the beliefs of others. And that's exactly what the government of a religiously free country is supposed to do.
     Since representatives of the Catholic Health Association and Mount St. Mary's University not only accepted the accommodation (while reserving the right to negotiate certain minor details), but praised the President's willingness to listen and respond to legitimate concerns, we can confidently declare that the rest of this nonsense is no different than the long-winded spectacles of Obama's birth certificate, Solyndra, and the Ground Zero Mosque.
   Ongoing questions: The battle between the medical establishment and the old, defunct religious establishment.

Untitled Short Story (Part 2)

2012-02-28T23:05:00.003-06:00

Nigel pushed open the swinging door and entered a dimly lit and poorly ventilated room. He bore a backpack, brown and thread-bare, and with every step the muffled clanking of canisters filled the silence. Head held high, he walked to the back wall, where a dusty red block of four lockers sat. The two on the left were decorated with combination locks; the two on the right were empty. Nigel opened the door of the end locker, slung off his backpack, and placed it inside. He reached into the zippered pouch and grabbed his own lock, closed the door and clicked the shackle shut.

He turned toward the door and saw someone seated in an antique rocking chair in a particularly dark corner of the room. The man's face was silhouetted and he brought a cigarette to his mouth. A shttt and a flame suddenly breathed to life.

"You're not allowed to smoke in here."

"So you're Vowler." The man spoke with the cigarette between his teeth as he worked to light it. His voice was husky with a touch of derision. "The superintendent told me you might be dropping off your shit before the end of the shift."

"I believe there's a designated smoking area one floor down. There's also the..."

"I'm Hutchinson," the man interrupted as he finished his first drag. "I'm the head of the windows team." He got up slowly and stepped into the light. He was dressed in jeans and white, short-sleeved shirt loosely tucked in, and his gut tugged at the bottom. "Shut the hell up about the cigarette."

Chastened and unsure how to proceed, Nigel silently watched the trails of smoke wander upward. He closed his eyes and visualized the sooty ash on the floor, the slight, mucomembranous coating built up on the white paint, the musty after-smell. His lips tightened.

Hutchinson continued, "Enrique works under me. We do fine. I'm not sure that we need a third man. Where were you set up before?"

"General indoors custodial."

"Why'd you get moved?"

Nigel hesitated to give Hutchinson too much information so quickly. "I... I requested it. I wanted a change of scenery."

Snort. "You have problems playing with others? That's usually why people move."

"I work well with my peers."

"You do what you're told?"

"When what I'm told is reasonable."

Smirk. "Who decides what's reasonable? You?"

Nigel couldn't think of an amicable response and remained silent. Mercifully, Hutchinson was undeterred. His eyes were fixed on Nigel's, as if Nigel were a lock that inexplicably would not open and was enjoying the brute challenge of prying and prodding, searching with worn and dirtied fingers and thumbs for weaknesses.

Nigel tightened his lips again, a sign of his determination not to speak next, but as a consolation dropped his eyes to Hutchinson's cloying mouth, visibly putrid, unshaven, with coarse, solitary hairs jutting out from charred moles. He sucked again on the cigarette.

"I don't want to dally. It's almost seven. But this is it. You want to work under me, you do what you're told. No arguing. Unreasonable or not." He paused to let his words sink in. "I know the buildings like the back of my hand and I know my business like that, too. Your business is to be my fucking squeegee, ok? You do that and my department stays in the clear, we're paid well and no one interferes."

Nigel remained entirely still and expressionless. "I understand."

"Report here at noon tomorrow and I'll give you the tour. You'll work with me until you've got a handle on things."

"Good night, sir."

As if on cue, Hutchinson bristled with pleasure and his eyes softened. "Good night." He flicked his cigarette between thumb and forefinger. Ash plunged down onto the tiled flooring.

Nigel immediately turned on his heel and walked out the door. He marched down a long corridor toward the pair of elevators, and decided he positively hated Hutchinson, that power-monger, falsely ebullient, sans pedantry, without nuance or delicacy in words – and hence, it was clear, without the philosophical spirit that lent itself to a true, immaculate fastidiousness. How could he possibly be a professional cleaner? And how could he work with such a clumsy goon? No. Hutchinson had to go.

And this Enrique was the key. Nigel closed his eyes and let his fingers trace the white stucco beside the call button. He would start to work tomorrow at noon.

Untitled Short Story (Part 1)

2012-02-25T21:53:00.001-06:00

Without fully knowing how or why, Nigel had stepped over the Rubicon, as Julius Caesar had two thousand years ago. There was nothing he could do to undo what he had done. As a matter of fact, were Nigel aware of the irreparable and unavoidable consequences of his decision, it is doubtful he would have chosen differently. He was like that.

His boss, a rather homely woman with a prominent mid-riff, stared into the space directly up and left from his eyes, her mouth slightly agape. Perhaps God would miraculously intervene and puppeteer Ms. Galski into offering Nigel an encomium for the rare honesty she had just witnessed in her carefully manicured, window-less office. Her breath was audible and deep, and the purple buttons on the front of her rose cardigan glimmered rhythmically in the white fluorescent light. He could almost hear the fabric stretching in an obedient effort to contain her girth.

Absent-mindedly, Nigel glanced over his shoulder to see if Galski was, in fact, looking at something. He saw on the wall by the door a framed photograph. In the center were two elderly women smiling gaily at him. One wore a bright blue sweater with two flamingos in Santa costumes, each holding a colored stocking in its beak. The other wore a white, short-sleeved blouse with green polka-dots. Why is one dressed for winter and the other for summer, he wondered as he turned back toward his superior. Perhaps she was related to them. He considered asking her but could not decide in time.

"Mr. Vowler." She licked her lower lip in earnest. "It is unfortunate that you feel so antagonistic toward your colleagues." She swallowed and kept her eyes on the flamingos.

"Yes, I agree." Nigel watched Galski as she scratched the inside of her thumb with her index finger with short, quick flicks.

"Have you told them what you told me?"

"No."

"Are they in any way aware that you hold no respect whatsoever for them?"

"That's not accurate." Nigel finally gave up waiting for Galski to meet his gaze, and let his eyes wander along the wall behind her. "I respect them as people. I simply don't respect them as professionals."

"Are they aware that you do not respect them as professionals?"

"I don't think so."

Galski creased her brow in consternation, apparently disappointed that Nigel had not yet taken the opportunity of his short shrift. She was finding him less malleable than she had anticipated.

He felt sorry for her and decided to offer some help. "I didn't tell them precisely because I don't respect them as professionals. They can't change. Their incompetence is..." He paused, trying to think of the appropriate word. "... plenary."

"Yes, you have already communicated your opinion of their work." She hurried and gave the impression Nigel's opinion made her uncomfortable. She took a deep breath, and her cardigan shuddered visibly. She finally looked directly at him, and with a stentorian delivery made her formal inquiry. "Mr. Vowler, are you able to continue to work alongside your colleagues?"

He allowed himself a small smirk but matched her tone. "I cannot." Does she think I'm mocking her?

"Do you wish to be transferred to another department?"

"It depends who I would be working with."

"Who do you want to work with?"
"Professionals."

Galski probably wanted to roll her eyes but instead let out a thick sigh. Her eyes fell to the carpet and she resumed scratching her thumb. "Do you have anything in mind?"

Finally, he could let his guard down! An unashamed smile formed over his frowsy visage. "As a matter of fact, I do."

And so, just as the army clamored up the river bank into Gaul to begin a decade-long war, Nigel, too, readied himself to enter a new territory and chapter of his life. The ramifications of his decision would, likewise, be war and death, the transfer of power and the remuneration of old debts - although of these eventualities both Nigel and Ms. Galski were entirely ignorant.

Film in 2011 (Part 3)

2012-02-22T22:01:00.000-06:00

     Behold! the final six movie reviews of 2011, a comparative chart of all eighteen reviews for your convenience, and my predictions for the Academy Awards this weekend. If you missed the last six, you're welcome to check them out.
     Despite my tireless efforts, I still missed several key nominees - Albert Nobbs, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Transformers, Harry Potter Part Sixty Three - and I never did review The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, although in my opinion, it was entirely redundant - it didn't have anything to add to the 2009 Swedish iteration - so why talk about it?
     Let me state once for the record that my rating system is somewhat unusual and I leave a lot of room at the top so as to properly distinguish the merits of true classics. For more information, go here.
     Did I mention spoilers? There will be some small ones. Ok, here we go.

A Separation. ★★★★★ (an Iranian drama and an all-time classic) It's rare that a soap opera-styled story over two hours long will keep you on the edge of your seat, but this one succeeds, and with gusto. Acting so heartfelt and camera work so transparent it feels like a documentary. The narrative seamlessly weaves together intra-familial conflict with inter-familial conflict, judicial law with Shariah law, religious piety with filial loyalty. It keeps you guessing as to who is telling the truth, and where each character's motivations truly lie. That this film was filmed and produced in Iran is a testimony to the true creative potential of a people stereotypically unimaginative and bound by censorship. It is an true opportunity to be told a story like this from a native storyteller, and I guarantee you, you will consider in depth a side of the Muslim middle east you never even knew existed. The Western world could watch a hundred more and still not possess the sympathy and understanding our fellow human beings across ocean and desert deserve. But it's a start. Nominations: Best foreign language film, Best original screenplay.

Midnight in Paris. ★★★ 1/2 (a drama deserving widespread acclaim) I am a lover of France, its language, culture, and the streets and places of Paris. I am also a lover of literature, poetry, and art in general. This Woody Allen film was an unexpected delight. Owen Wilson, whose acting is always somewhat surreal, fits well in the City of Light. He plays Gil, a nostalgic American writer, who climbs into a magic motorcar and escapes to 1920s France. The material is treated lightly and it's a joy to watch Gil begin to realize his true passions. We play the spectator with him as he interacts with the intellectual cusp of bygone eras and meet great authors firsthand, before the world deigned to pronounce them great, and we chuckle at the audacity of the situation, as we are meant to. We watch Gil stumble around in a life he shouldn't be living, slowly gaining the understanding and confidence he needs to break out. The music keeps the wool over our eyes and we, too, don't want to leave this magical world - but in the end, we must, and hopefully we, like Gil, recognize the tragic necessity of embracing our own world instead of pining for an illusion. Nominations: best picture, best director, best original screenplay, best art direction.

The Help. ★★★ (a drama deserving some acclaim) This is a bit of a tear-jerker. Emma Stone plays Skeeter Phelan, a recent graduate returning to Mississippi to care for her sick mother as she attempts to establish a career in writing and reconnect with her uppity troupe of well-to-do ladies. Seeing her old world through new eyes, she discovers the untold story of the black maids as they daily bear the brunt of racial prejudice, still at almost full force in the 1960s. Stone has her moments but in general was a questionable choice for first billing. Thankfully she is surrounded by an exceptional supporting cast, including Davis and Spencer, who carry the story as the featured maids, Aibileen and Minny. Also doing a fantastic job is Chastain, who plays a small-town girl trying unsuccessfully to live as a proper southern lady. That the story centers around the publication of a book is an unworthy frame to the real drama of these women and their true stories. As the civil rights movement unfolds before them on the television, we see them caught between two worlds and attempting to survive, yet pining for that basic human dignity almost in their grasp - and we long for them to finally take hold. Nominations: Best picture, Best actress (Viola Davis), Best supporting actress (Jessica Chastain), Best supporting actress (Octavia Spencer).
Crazy. Stupid. Love. ★★ (a comedy probably worthy of a single viewing) I watched this film with French dubs and English subs so I can't comment on the acting. Suffice it to say that the plot is what makes this comedy great. There's one particular scene near the end where everything comes to light, and it's one of the most hilariously written in recent history. The transformations of our leading characters are fairly sudden but feel reasonably authentic - after all, love has been known to make those involved seem decidedly pathetic, as Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling) confesses. Sadly, the Gosling/Carrell subplot, blessed with the movie's most talented comedic and dramatic actors, falls flat. Chalk it up to an over-used storyline. Still, though the build-up is slow, the ending is worth the wait. I might even pull it out again next Valentine's Day. Nominations: none.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. ★★ (a drama probably worthy of a single viewing) The story explores the emotional heartache of the families who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks. The central figure, stricken with Asperger Syndrome (or mild autism), in an attempt to rid himself of the pain and guilt of his loss, goes on what is essentially a scrap-booking quest through the five boroughs of New York City. Thomas Horn, the actor, really does suffer from Asperger's, which explains the credibility of his performance. Surprisingly the voice and idiosyncrasies borne from his disability render him the perfect everyman to represent the people of NYC. Alas, his quest is rather boring and unrealistic, and we discover at the end it was, actually, even more so than we'd thought along the way. Further, the same conclusion robs the story of its emotional force by effectively saying everything outright, just in case you weren't paying attention along the way. It felt cheap. So did his mother's acting. She is a completely uninspired character. So if you want to get inside an autistic boy's head, read Mark Haddon. And if you want to get incredibly close to the Twin Towers, go visit the memorial and museum at Ground Zero. This movie almost had both, and it's a shame it didn't end up delivering on either. Nominations: best picture, best supporting actor (von Sydow)

War Horse. ★ 1/2 (a drama of negligible aesthetic and moral value) This review was written before the second half because it was already clear it wasn't going to say or do anything else. Here's my big question. How can a film be nominated for Best picture when the story is dull and the acting is terrible? Answer? Get Spielberg to direct it. With few exceptions, the actions or words don't feel like they belong in any reality other than the instinctual imagination of a director whose best days have come and gone. Sure, some of the equestrian-centered scenes are beautifully breathtaking, but that's not what makes a movie. Every line feels scripted and and mini-moral unto itself. Not once did I feel convinced that any of the characters would actually give two shits about the equine. Every character is a type and every element of plot rehashed from greater stories of long ago. Black Stallion. Black Beauty. It's as if actors were chosen for looks rather than ability and then told to move and speak as if they were on a multi-million dollar film set. To make matters worse, the story centers on the English at war with the Germans, and alternates starring cheerful peasants and fearless soldiers. And if you guessed that the German officers are heartless and the English are warm and laid-back - you'd be right. This is a film destined to say nothing because everything's already been said and everyone involved in its production knows it. I don't mind old-fashioned, but - think The Actor - even something looking old should say something new. Well. At least it's pretty. Nominations: Best picture, Best cinematography, four more.

COMPARATIVE CHART

Title	Genre	Rating	Noms.
A Separation	Foreign Drama	★★★★★	2
Hugo	Family Drama	★★★★1/2	11
Tree of Life	Modern Drama	★★★★	3
Mid. in Paris	Modern Drama	★★★1/2	4
The Artist	Silent Drama	★★★1/2	10
Descendants	Adult Drama	★★★1/2	5
The Help	Adult Drama	★★★	4
Moneyball	Sports Drama	★★★	6
Young Adult	Modern Drama	★★★	0
Drive	Adult Action	★★★	1
Ides of March	Political Drama	★★1/2	1
Bridesmaids	Comedy	★★1/2	2
Crazy.S.Love	Comedy	★★	0
Extremely Loud	Modern Drama	★★	2
Super 8	Family Thriller	★★	0
Rango	Children's Animated	★★	1
Adjustment B.	Drama/Thriller	★1/2	0
War Horse	Drama/Action	★1/2	6

MY PREDICTIONS

Award	My choice	Winner
Best picture	Hugo	The Artist
Best director	Terence Malick (The Tree of Life)	Michael Hazanavicius (The Artist)
Best actor	Jean Dujardin (The Artist)	Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
Best actress	?	Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady)
Best supporting actor	?	Chris Plummer (Beginners)
Best supporting actress	Octavia Spencer (The Help)	Octavia Spencer (The Help)
Best original screenplay	A Separation	Midnight in Paris
Best adapted screenplay	Hugo	The Descendants
Best foreign film	A Separation	A Separation

Who cares about the other awards, right? And anyway, in most of the other categories I didn't see many nominees - or any, in some cases.

No Child Left Behind, left behind

2012-02-21T23:16:00.003-06:00

     It's the end of an era.
     The 2002 law dubbed No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which mandated states to set measurable standards for public school education and rendered federal funding contingent on achieving them, is no longer binding. As 2014 looms ever nearer, states may apply individually for relief from NCLB provisions, providing they demonstrate they are on track to improving education even if they won't attain freakishly high proficiency levels tomorrow in English and Math. On February 9 ten states (including Oklahoma) were granted such wavers.
   Thank God, right?
     NCLB asked every state to find a way to climb Mount Everest without telling them how or giving them any equipment. Only two years after the bill was signed into law, a series of meetings were held to identify its flaws and pave the way to its reform. 135 national organizations originally signed the Joint Organizational Statement, which recommended we:
   1. emphasize academic growth alongside objective and universal standards;
     2. move from relying solely on standardized testing to employing multiple types of assessment;
     3. find effective ways to increase accountability on all levels;
     4. design effective methods of assessment and decrease the frequency of national tests;
     5. increase quality of professional development for teachers and administrators;
   6. apply sanctions only if they don't undermine existing, effective reform efforts, and otherwise replace them with constructive interventions;
     7. ensure necessary state funding to meet federal requirements, especially with respect to schools serving low-income populations.
     20 more organizations appended their signatures since the statement was originally published.
   It's been eight years since then. With all these great recommendations and practically the whole country in agreement on them, it should be a fairly straight and sunny path to reform, right?
     Wait. What exactly has Washington done since 2004 to address the education crisis and salvage NCLB?

      2009: Race to the Top. Over $4 billion dollars of Obama's Stimulus were allocated to reward states able to execute specific educational policies and demonstrate high quality education through testing. Result? Most importantly, nearly every state adopted common national standards. Monies were split between twelve winning states, each receiving between $75 and $700 million. Certain states changed their education policies to be more competitive in the Race. (By the way, the Race is over, in case no one told you.)
   And... that's it? Sorry, President. Big speeches don't satisfy me here. The DREAM Act was never signed into law. And even if it had been, it would have joined a painfully short list of approved bills that address secondary issues. Student loans. Various re-authorizations and extensions of older legislative material. Nothing revolutionary.
     Of course, due to the current political climate, Obama has no choice but to remain largely inactive with respect to his grand promises to reform education. In this, he follows in the footsteps of those before him -- every president since... Nixon?... has promised to deliver in this area, and nevertheless, in every term education continues to stagnate. One by one, countries around the world pass the United States.
   NCLB will remain my generation's cautionary tale for education. Everyone's optimistic right now, because the general consensus is NCLB was a Big Mistake, and that admission creates possibility for the future - at least on paper. NCLB, we say, reacted impulsively and even destructively to a disappointing reality. It saw the problems, yes - but did it understand them? Did it take the time necessary to see the true nature behind the nation's failings? Like doctors, a law can address symptomatic pain or structural problems. If you see a long line of infants floating down a raging river toward a waterfall, you can wade in a save a couple babies from certain death, or you can head up the bank and stop the one who's sending them down the river in the first place.
   As an inner-city educator, what do I see? I see a lot of frustration in our students and in our teachers. I see huge administrative paychecks and little accountability. I see lot of people so used to failure that they have lost the confidence needed to step forward without stumbling backward. I see a broken network between families and schools. I see a lot of passing the buck and finding someone else to blame. I see children (who were, legally, considered property of their parents not long ago) rebelling openly against those whose vocation it is to oversee their transformation into adulthood, whose hands are tied, who are thus unable to effectively direct their own institution.
     And what, then, is the solution? As educators, we've been patient but not pragmatic. We've been dedicated but not diligent. We need to raise the teaching profession to the same level of dignity and expertise as doctors and lawyers. This, in turn, requires a complete overhaul of the way teachers are trained, and the kind of people hired to teach. Earning the responsibility to oversee the development of the mind should be no less taxing than earning the responsibility to oversee the health of the body. (After all, don't these two areas together constitute the chief evidence of a truly civilized society? Why isn't Obama putting the same energy into education that he put into health care?) Let master teachers be supported by apprentice teachers still studying for full certification. And so on.
   In terms of ongoing bureaucratic issues, well, I don't think the problems caused by unions and lobbyists and poorly-constructed hierarchies and departments can be addressed satisfactorily until our political system is reformed. Until then, money will continue to have more power in deciding the fate of our children than it deserves.
     This is my gut instinct. I'll be the first to admit that I'm still pretty ignorant about the systems that determine who and what gets funding and what rules the games are played by. When I look at countries with higher student academic achievement, the same frustrations exist but on a significantly smaller scale.
   The Joint Organizational Statement is something I'd sign, but unless we find people strong enough to create a road map of how to get there, and give them the resources and authority to do so, it's not worth the paper it was written on.

Tae Kwon Do: how to compete and win

2012-02-18T22:00:00.000-06:00

     In the past three years I've competed in five Tae Kwon Do tournaments - and just today experienced my first as a Black belt. I didn't do as well as I'd hoped, mostly because I didn't prepare as much as I should have. Now, at least, I have some goals to meet so I can place more highly in next year's big tournament.
    While I did train in TKD as a kid, I never went to tournaments, not even to watch. I was intimidated and I felt inadequate. I've since realized that those are terrible reasons to skip competition. The only way to get better is to make risks by trying something new. The only way to overcome your fear is to face it. So now, as an adult, I started competing at the very first tournament held at our gym. And it was a big confidence booster to defeat opponents who were complete strangers, perform well under pressure, and win big trophies.
    I compete in forms and sparring and have little interest in other categories (board breaking, weapons, self-defense, etc.). Mine are the most traditional - and the most competitive - categories.
     The tournaments I attend follow the rules of the World Tae Kwon Do Federation (WTF - a great acronym, right?) with very few modifications - mostly to discourage inexperienced fighters from making too many head shots. Besides Judo (which is more like wrestling anyway), this is the only martial art that is recognized at the Olympic Games. In other words, Tae Kwon Do is a sport just as much as it is a discipline and an art form.There are standards and there are rules, and you can't just do it any way you like and expect to become successful.
     Identify your weakness and work on it every day you practice - not just when you're about to compete, but whenever you kick, imagine yourself sparring, imagine yourself doing your form, even if you're just kicking the air. Skills are mastered through intense, meaningful repetition.
     I don't pretend to be an expert, and I don't win every sparring match. But I do think about Tae Kwon Do a lot, I ask lots of questions to my senior instructors, I'm pretty observant, I'm deemed competent enough to be a corner judge or a center referee, and I've got six years' experience. So for what it's worth, here's my opinion on how to prepare yourself for a martial arts competition.

     Poomsae. To win a forms competition, your priorities are as follows, in descending order:
     1. Form. Maintain good posture. Correct stance, straight back, good angles, both feet flat on the ground, and so forth. Eyes toward your (imaginary) opponent. Take the time to develop good habits.
     2. Snap. Every movement (except for the less common slow movements) should cause your uniform to audibly sound, whether your sleeve (if you're attacking or blocking) or your pant leg (if you're kicking). This constitutes the tangible evidence that your moves have speed and power and are technically correct. The judges are listening.
     3. Understanding. Live and breathe the significance of your form. Each form has a philosophical and spiritual meaning, and each movement has practical application. Knowing the deeper concept behind the moves and focusing on it while you practice your form will result in a form that looks right.
     4. Timing. Don't be too fast or too slow. Each move should be held, frozen, for a full second, so your judges can see your posture. More than a second is unnecessary and may give the impression that you've forgotten the next move.

   Sparring. To win a sparring competition, however, your priorities are very different.
     1. Knowledge of the tournament rules. The deduction system, which is basically: no punches to the head, avoiding the match, leaving the ring, being unsafe or unsportsmanlike. The point system, which varies, but is approximately as follows: 1 for a regular attack, 2 for a head shot, +1 if you land a spinning kick, +1 if your attack knocks down your opponent. And the biggest thing is what counts as a point. Most 90-second rounds have dozens of kicks, but only a handful of points. Parents and competitors get really angry because they think the score should be three zillion to two zillion.
     2. Speed. Your kicks need to be like lightening. The fastest kick is the roundhouse so you should be doing some variation of that 90% of the time. And your blocks (for head or chest) need to be nearly as fast. You need to be able to move in and out of the "danger zone" (in kicking range) like lightening, too. Speed requires surprise. Learn not to telegraph your moves with tells, which warn your opponent as to your intentions.
     3. Endurance. Be in shape - enough for two intense back-back 90-second rounds (or two minutes for adult Black belts). Don't waste your energy by being overly aggressive. Relax. You don't want to tire first.
   4. Control. Don't get hurt by overextending or throwing a power kick into your opponent's elbow. Be smart. Leave emotion outside of the ring - don't get angry. Don't get scared. You've trained your body into a living weapon - to some degree or another - and you have to think of your body that way.
     5. Strategy. Look for an opening. Wait for your opponent to make a move, dodge or block it, and counter. Fake. Execute different kinds of attacks. Don't punch unless you can knock down your opponent. Don't do jumping or spinning kicks unless you're countering and capitalizing on an opponent's mistake. Don't even kick unless you expect to get a point. Any kick that is blocked or only hits air is a waste of your energy, and even worse, could set up your opponent to score a point, while you're off-balance or in a forward position.
     6. Power. If you can hurt your opponent, even if you don't score a point, you're more likely to score a point next time. If you can knock out your opponent, it doesn't matter how many points they have - you win. Note:for colored belts or young fighters, don't try to hurt your opponent if you're bigger or stronger than them - and full contact to the head is against WTF tournament rules.

Rage against the music industry: Grammy report

2012-02-15T21:43:00.002-06:00

     "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." -Rhett Butler, Gone with the Wind
     Ok, maybe that's not as true as it once was. Nearly 40 million tuned in to watch the Grammy Awards this year, the second most-viewed in its fifty-four year run, and 50% higher than in 2011.
   More important than viewer volume are significant and long-overdue changes that will take effect in 2013. Last year music executive Steve Stoute became the unofficial Voice of Reason when he paid $40,000 to run a full-page open letter in the New York Times, addressed to NARAS (the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, i.e. The Academy) and its president, Neil Portnow. In it he complained that the Grammy Awards, in an attempt to be a popular show, has lost touch with popular culture and has failed to correct strong prejudices against cultural shifts in art form.
   The Academy responded and is now on track to make amends. Fewer categories. A cleaner and fairer voting process. Still, it's irritating that alternative music is recognized in all of one award, and most other categories get at least four. Ironically there's more innovation here and more independent albums released in this genre than any other. About half the music reviews on Metacritic would only be eligible for this one award, besides the general awards.
     Recording Academy President/CEO Neil Portnow says that the Grammy award is chosen by fellow music professionals (not fans) and is thus highly regarded. He also says that half of the entries last year were independently produced, and that there's a lot of talent in that field. Then why are they reluctant to give more of these artists more of the actual awards? Shouldn't the ratio of entries to genre-specific awards be somewhat consistent from genre to genre? Portnow says it's complicated. I believe that much.
   Here's what the powers-that-be did think was spicy-hot. Adele won Record of the year, Album of the year, Song of the year, Best pop solo performance, Best pop album, and Best short form music video. Everything she was nominated for, she won. Stoute, tweeting live from the show, was happy with the result, but felt that hip hop was not getting the same respect as pop. I'll agree to that, and extend the bias to other genres, too. High production value, right?

     Let's look specifically at rock. The Foo Fighters were nominated for six and won five. Wasting Light wasn't a bad album, but it certainly wasn't the greatest alternative / rock / non-pop achievement of 2011. On the Metacritics poll it ranked 19th. That's a big disconnect, people.
     On the other hand, I'm glad Bon Iver was honored as the best up-and-coming artist and won Best alternative music album. I'm glad Mumford & Sons were honored with nominations for both Album of the tear and Song of the tear. I'm glad Alisson Krauss won Best bluegrass album and I'm glad South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone won Best musical theater album for The Book of Mormon. All this is evidence that NARAS is cleaning up its act.
     But if I was ready to give a damn about the Grammy Awards, I'd still be disappointed in the great talent that was barely mentioned or ignored entirely. El Camino by the Black Keys. Let England Shake by PJ Harvey. St. Vincent's Strange Mercy. Not a single nomination for any of them - yet ranked #3, #5 and #8, respectively, in Metacritic's User Poll for the best overall music albums of 2011. Pitchfork's user 2011 lists aren't much different: St Vincent is 6th, PJ Harvey is 8th, Black Keys (oddly) comes in at 29th. And I'm sure if I was more familiar with the year's music, many more discrepancies like these would readily present themselves. Let me predict that St. Vincent might soon rank among the likes of Lady Gaga and Adele in terms of fame and acclaim.
     Not even mentioning other albums I personally loved but failed to garner the same widespread acclaim (such as TV on the Radio's Nine Types of Light, Yuck's debut eponymous, Mother Mother's Eureka), why is there an ongoing disconnect between the Grammy Awards and the peasant audiophile?
     Interestingly, a similar distance exists between film lovers and the Academy Awards - but in this case it's manageable. The same Metacritic poll cited earlier shows that out of the top twenty films of 2011, three were snubbed - Melancholia at #8, 50/50 at #10, and Source Code at #19. Well, since most award categories are limited to five nominations, a few could be easily missed. (Coincidentally, two of the three are Sci-fi thrillers. Prejudice?) But more significantly, there are fewer Oscars to award (only 24!), there are very few genre-specific categories, and none of the top five popular picks were snubbed. As opposed to two (or 40%!). Are the fans really so misguided?
     To clarify, we're not talking about music and film of greatest "critical acclaim." Rotten Tomatoes lists the top 100 movies of the year according to professional movie-reviewers. Most of them I've never heard of, much less seen. And only a handful received nominations. I think that's fine. There are many films that don't make a box office showing or are released in very few theaters. There are oodles of great documentaries and short films most people will never watch. That's a different issue. I'd never expect these televised award ceremonies to cater to the artistic elite. I would just expect a greater agreement between critical acclaim and popular opinion. Production value be damned (in a perfect world).
     And we're all aware that neither ceremony picks nominees and winners based on a clear and objective rubric. You gotta pay your respects, yo. If Radiohead packaged their own vomit in vinyl and plastic, it'd still get a nomination somewhere. On the other hand, the Oscars are no less political. Think Spielberg and Transformers - neither it (3 nominations) nor War Horse (six nominations) even broke Metacritics' top 20.
     Perhaps the shortcomings of the Grammy Awards can be explained numerically. After all, 35,000-40,000 albums, EPs and singles are released each year, but less than 1,000 new films are shown in theaters. The playing field is so much bigger, so a lot of greatness is missed almost of necessity.
Whatever the reason for its existence, the disconnect between the audiophile and the music industry continues to exist, and consequently most music nerds continue to snub the ceremony, if for no other reason than to exact some vengeance on the institution that first snubbed a highly significant and personally favored artist.
   That's life.
     Some forgiveness might be at hand, were NARAS to create a category to honor innovation and experimentation. Even if the final product didn't have the same glossy finish as so many radio-ready Pop and R&B singles, at least the monied community would be supporting the advancement of its own art form. After all, art by its very nature is constantly evolving. Sadly, when an institution throws all its accolades at traditional forms, money follows fame, and evolution is slowed, if not stopped. And if the powers-that-be don't give a shit about that, then why should anyone with half a brain tune in anyway?
   I think that's why I didn't. Maybe next year.

Acts of God (Part 2)

2012-02-13T18:18:00.000-06:00

As promised, behold! the second and final set of natural disasters, each rated in terms of:

1. chance of pants-, uhh, sullying (CPS),

2. wake of destruction (WOD),

3. badass requirement for survival (BRS).

If you didn't catch the first installment, read it first! At the end of this post you can find a table useful for comparative analysis. You are welcome to agree - or disagree! - with my conclusions, provided you've already accepted that your conclusions are wrong.
So, without further ado...

Earthquake (tremor): the shaking of the ground caused by a sudden release of seismic energy in the earth's crust.

CPS 80% A fissure in the ground itself - reaching to the very depths of hell?? No one's comfortable with the idea of falling down one of them. Worse than that is the distortion of reality. Everything around you shaking. You can't see the danger, you have no idea where it might be safe - and these come without warning, despite ongoing efforts to discover a scientific means of prediction. The moment a vibration begins, you freeze like a deer caught in headlights, trying to figure out if it's just a passing truck. Aww, shit. It's not.

WOD 50% We've been told that the Big One is going to sink half of California. Not to mention earthquakes can in some cases cause volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, avalanches, and probably wildfires, too, if power lines were to fall down. However, a single earthquake isn't gonna do it all - either tsunamis or huge gaping fissures, not both. You'll probably still be able to drive your car - just be extra careful of potholes.

BRS 70% Sorry, kids, but hiding underneath your school desk just isn't going to cut it. Without working electricity, water and gas, the world is essentially turned into a post-apocalyptic zombie fest. While it's happening, you have to jump from side to side to avoid heavy things crushing you. And afterward, cleaning up sucks, but you may not even have the option if a gas line has been ruptured and your home suddenly catches fire. And if you're away from civilization, as we know from Descent, even a simple cave-in can trap you in the darkness with dozens of hungry human-like creatures.
Total score: 200

Viral epidemic (pandemic): An unstoppable outbreak of a new or unusual disease in a large human population not localized to a particular region.

CPS 80% Depends what the virus does, and so many possibilities exist. Children of Man came slowly but decisively; 28 Days Later and I Am Legend came swiftly and biting your face. Most seem to turn ordinary postal workers into violent and angry denizens of an ever-growing zombie army. (Well, maybe not so unfamiliar after all!) Regardless, a virus is another invisible foe, and worse still, one who attacks from the inside and the outside. The flu isn't scary, but the flu that causes you to eat your dog's genitals is another matter.

WOD 50% Human civilization? Gone. Everything else? Eerily intact. The only hope is to establish a quarantine area in time, but by the time you've slowed down an epidemic you've typically let it spread to multiple continents.

BRS 100% This has the potential to be absolutely the most demanding survival test of all time. Not everyone's infected, but the majority are, but you can't always see who is and who isn't. You have to become completely self-sufficient, yet still looking for friends. And once they've all died off, you are king of the world!
Total score: 230

Gamma ray burst (GRB): an explosion from another solar system in our galaxy, cooking the earth with radiation.

CPS 30% No one talks about this one. There's not really anything we could do about it. If it were to happen, we'd see a bright light flash, equivalent to a second sun. People would make inquiries, and our leaders would be reluctant to tell us what happened - at least until we had trouble breathing. Suffocating at an almost imperceptibly slow speed without knowing why might not be a bad way to go, actually.

WOD 100% In the unlikely event that a burst were to occur close enough to our solar system to affect us, the Nitrogen Oxide produced would destroy the Ozone layer. Just apply more sun block, right? Tell that to the countless trillions of photosynthetic plankton in the oceans that provide well over half of earth's oxygen. After that, the food chain must somehow reconstitute itself, a process that probably won't happen fast enough to stop us all from starving to death.

BRS 10% Even the biggest badass needs food to survive. The only human beings that might survive this one are scientific minds who find a way to turn rocks into hamburgers, or figure out how to individually coat each little plankton with sun screen. It'd have to be the water-proof kind, too - none of that cheap stuff.
Total score: 140

Plague of locusts: normally solitary grasshoppers swarming by the billions

CPS 60% People who are afraid of giant flying bugs (and that's most people) will be absolutely horrified. Thankfully, you can shut the door until they pass. But that doesn't stop the incessant buzzing, which I doubt many home stereo systems could block out. Not to mention the particularly biblical flavor of this disaster - Prince of Egypt-style, right? If you believe God's out on a warpath, you're going to be trembling even if you're safely inside.

WOD 60% Locusts eat their body mass each day. Which means a swarm a billion strong, each weighing about two grams, consume two million kilograms daily. They will consume nearly any food crop, including pearl millet, rice, maize, sorghum, sugarcane, barley, cotton, fruit trees, date palm, vegetables, rangeland grasses, acacia, pines, and banana. Did I mention their feces are toxic? Can you imagine how much there'd be? Bleh. The famine that follows will devastate any pre-industrial civilization. I guess that means we're ok.

BRS 30% Well, I guess you're gonna be hungry, and you might starve unless you can stomach locust droppings or kill that fatted calf in the back yard. Scrounging for food doesn't sound very badass to me. Eating grasshopper poop even less so. No wonder there's never been a successful film about it.
Total score: 150

Impact event (asteroid collision): the earth's collision of a sizable meteor or comet.

CPS 70% Since this has never happened in our lifetime it's difficult to be afraid. Or maybe it's that much easier. Deep Impact, right? Humanity panics, riots break out, the government starts putting all the scientists and professors and artists (only the good ones) in caves. People who aren't chosen are entitled to soil themselves. Still, you might not even see the asteroid coming, much less hit. And its effects would take hours to manifest themselves over the entire planet.

WOD 90% Well, life as you know it is over. If a big one hits (think Melancholia). Thankfully, none is expected until 2880, and hopefully the scientists are right. But what do they care? They know they'll be safe in the underground bunkers a mile below the surface with six gazillion frozen dinners. This remains the most likely cause of the human race's extinction. If the asteroid hits land, a dust cloud blocks out all sunlight for years, basically equivalent to a global nuclear winter - extinction. If it hits water, we get tsunamis and a lot of extra rain, minor earthquakes and volcanic eruptions - no extinction.

BRS 90% In the worst case - a ground impact - I'm thinking something like The Postman, where the world's a desert inhabited by violent tribal societies? Governmental control goes to hell after the bullets and the hot dogs run out, and after fifty or a hundred years of rotting inside a cave, people get impatient and come back out. Then we finally get down to business - survival of the badassest.
Total score: 250

	Chance for Pants-Shitting	Wake of Destruction	Badass Requirement for Survival	Total
tsunami	90	60	40	190
hurricane	40	80	20	140
tornado	100	30	50	180
wildfire	50	30	80	160
eruption	90	70	80	210
earthquake	80	50	70	200
epidemic	80	50	100	230
gamma rays	30	100	10	140
locusts	60	60	30	150
impact event	70	90	90	250

And the winner goes to: impact event, by a nose!
Runner-up: viral epidemic.
Scariest : tornado.
Most destructive: gamma ray burst.
Most challenging: viral epidemic.

Film in 2011 (Part 2)

2012-02-12T23:23:00.001-06:00

     The 84th Academy Awards are awarded in two weeks. This year I've decided to attempt to watch the Oscars with an awareness of the nominees, and my own set of expectations. However, since there are about twenty films of interest nominated for important awards, I've definitely got my work cut out for me.
     I've already seen and discussed six titles up for nominations (or not). Here are my personal reviews of six more. I've seen all these films exactly once and have not read any professional reviews to inform my opinion. "It's all me," in the words of Mr. Kruger.
     The final set of six I plan to review before February 26 are War Horse, The Help, Midnight in Paris, The Muppets, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, and A Separation. I'm working on it. I'll also include my own nominations (and predictions). Stay tuned for this final installment.

The Tree of Life. ★★★★ (a drama deserving universal acclaim) During a recent interview, Daily Show host Jon Stewart told Brad Pitt, "I've seen it five times and still have no idea what it's about." Well, I do, and I plan to revisit it in more depth in the near future. Basically it's somewhere between Steinbeck's East of Eden and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Its subject matter is as ambitious as its title, and it's too bad that will make it inaccessible to most of the people who have seen it. Its dramatic and endless montages will confuse viewers and make them uncomfortable; its scrutiny into the truth of the 1950s American Dream lifestyle will leave them morose and disillusioned. For me, it became gripping with a small act of defiance, and after that I was sitting on the edge of my seat. Between this movie and Hugo, I'm starting to expect children to possess the acting skills their roles deserve (and soon I will wish I was unfettered from this foolish dream). Spectacular performances from all leading roles. Beautiful cinematography depicting the natural environment, which is intended simultaneously as fact and marvel, given the film's message. Grace beats nature, we're told in the opening. Keep that in the forefront of your mind and you won't stray far from the point of it all. Nominations: best picture, best director, best cinematography.

The Artist. ★★★ 1/2 (a drama deserving widespread acclaim) My opinion here doesn't matter much, since I've never seen an actual silent movie from the early twentieth century. I'd think I'd need to, if I wanted to fully appreciate what French director Hazanavicius is doing. At the same time, most modern viewers probably haven't seen a single silent film, either, so we're all in the same boat. I was impressed at how well the story was told without hearing the characters speak. I was also impressed at the ways in which the story plays with the concept of silence, especially how it's used as a window into the eroding psyche of the title character. The acting was impeccable and the climax will have you second-guessing your better judgment. And I'll never forget that exploding feather. In terms of what it was trying to achieve it was undoubtedly successful, although personally it doesn't suit my tastes - I am and will remain happily addicted to sound. Nominations: best picture, best director, best original screenplay, best actor (Dujardin), best supporting actress.

Moneyball. ★★★ (a drama deserving some acclaim) I love sports movies and I loved this one. It's a feel-good film, a story of doubt followed by success, with a few water coolers thrown across the room in between for good measure. Not to mention it's based on a true story, which for me is a bright red cherry on top. Solid acting. Jonah Hill's ability in this regard has grown so much since Superbad, and Brad Pitt deserves some sort of extra award for starring in two very different movies that both deserve such high acclaim. As his character struggles with ongoing defeat both in past and present, we find that we too want his luck to finally change. The irony is that his method isn't supposed to leave anything to chance. The best scene, though, is one in which he's haggling and bluffing to buy or trade for undervalued players. Nominations: best picture, best actor (Pitt), best supporting actor (Hill), best adapted screenplay, 2 more.

The Ides of March. ★★ 1/2 (a drama probably worthy of several viewings) Good writing made great by strong acting all around. Still, for the first hour, this film is nothing more than a glorified West Wing episode. Politicking on the phone, walking in pairs while hammering out polling data and strategies, the candidate's choice to be honest or cunning. Then the heat's turned up, and by the final scene you are face to face with the inherent corruption everyone playing the political game confronts. In this regard, Ides is a tale of defeat, but one in which the viewer is not allowed to judge too harshly - reminiscent of The Flaming Lips' opening track on At War with the Mystics, "The Yeah Yeah Yeah Song (With all your Power)". The movie doesn't bite off more than it can chew. In this regard it almost feels as if it was produced independently, and might even pass as such if it were stripped of its glossy finish and all-star cast. A particularly suitable film to see before the Republican presidential nomination is decided this summer. Nominations: best adapted screenplay.

Bridesmaids. ★★ 1/2 (a comedy funny for several viewings) The Hangover for the ladies. Well, not nearly as over the top. This film needed some tightening - two hours is a bit much - but you won't regret spending an evening watching a psychopathic maid of honor reach rock bottom. Funny, especially Melissa McCarthy, who plays the equivalent of the "Alan Garner," and is equally revolting and obnoxious. While all the characters and their interweaving relationships are fairly stereotyped, I didn't find it jarring, since the characters don't take themselves too seriously, either. A good comedy needs to be consistent in this respect. You'll love, pity, and despise the women who populate the screen, but more than anything, you'll be eagerly anticipating the next hilarity. Nominations: best supporting actress (McCarthy).

Super 8. ★★ (a thriller perhaps worthy of a single viewing) Proof that it's always dangerous to cast children in lead roles. These ones are better than, say, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, but not good enough to make me care about what happens to them. The scary parts aren't scary enough, the sappy parts don't quite hit home, the funny parts fall flat. Is it supposed to be a real disaster flick or just a light-hearted imitation of one? The director, J. J. Abrams (Cloverfield, TV show Lost), can't seem to decide. The film works best before everything goes crazy, but the actors struggle to express an appropriate sense of fear and frustration. They're too comfortable with an extremely dangerous and utterly foreign situation. The mysterious accident that starts the movie moving and the strange disappearances that pepper the opening act keep you guessing, but others seem awkward and unclear as to their significance (e.g. dogs fleeing en masse for dozens of miles). The best part is during the closing credits, when you finally get to see the film you've really been waiting for. And that one does not disappoint. Shortlisted for best visual effects.

Acts of God (Part 1)

2012-02-09T19:21:00.003-06:00

I've been living in Oklahoma for almost four years now. Whenever I travel people ask me about the tornadoes. They seem to have the impression that at any given time, there are a few dozen tornadoes ambling around the state, devouring small farms and vaulting cars, houses, people and chipmunks into the stratosphere.

Wherever you're living, certain natural disasters will plague your existence. But at the same time, people get used to the dangers they face every day. Some coastal citizens would personally castrate their firstborn before relocating to Tornado Alley. On the other hand, when there's a twister nearby, most Oklahomans are stretched out in a deck chair or even perched on a rooftop hoping for a good view. Ironically, I've heard many Oklahomans say they'd rather live here than in California. After all, you can't see an earthquake coming. And both the West and the Midwest are baffled by the people in Florida who rebuild their million-dollar homes each year, only to watch it be dismantled by what is sure to be a dozen serious hurricanes that will travel through the area.

Given our penchant for fear of the unknown, we need an objective and thorough comparison to determine what is truly the most awesome type of natural disaster?

I submit that we can describe it as follows. It's the one that haunts you when you sleep, the one where everything around you is utterly demolished, and if you're in the thick of it, it will absolutely take you down UNLESS you're a real badass and can survive through skill and know-how to prove your epic prowess and, you know, take pictures to post on Facebook. The most awesome kind of natural disaster will scare the bejesus out of the average Joe, wipe out everything in its path, and separate the quintessential Survival Man from his bumbling counterpart.

So, to reiterate, there are three factors:

1. chance of pants-, uhh, sullying (CPS),

2. wake of destruction (WOD),

3. badass requirement for survival (BRS).

(Analysis will be based both on Internet data as well as on notable disaster films.)

Tsunami (tidal wave): a series of huge water waves, usually caused by earthquakes or underwater volcanic eruptions.

CPS 90% A freakishly gigantic wall of water traveling over 500 mph that you can't see until it's too late? Ok, it compresses and slows down to about 50 mph near the shore, but by then you're screwed anyway. Remember that scene from Deep Impact with the father-and-daughter team willing waiting for a 100-foot wave to appear? Say no more.

WOD 60% Less than ten years ago a tsunami killed 230,000 people in one fell swoop. The first incoming wave will destroy pretty much everything in its path, and the flooding that follows is ridiculous, able to make its way inland a mile or more, causing long-term disease and infrastructural disruption. Still, what's a mile of prime real estate? Just walk to the beach instead of living beside it! Problem solved.

BRS 40% If you've ever seen Deep Impact, you know that as long as you have a dirtbike handy and hills are nearby, you can simply motor your way to safety. Tsunamis come from the sea so Oklahomans and the like are safe. Warning systems are better so you'll probably have a few hours to relocate, and that won't take much skill.

Total score: 190

Hurricane (tropical cyclone): a spinning storm system causing strong winds and heavy precipitation.

CPS 40% Anything that has an eye even though it's not alive is creepy, but as long as you're not out in a boat (think: Perfect Storm) you're gonna go inside and wait it out. Rain and wind pounding on the windows is frightening, but not petrifying.

WOD 80% Basically, the water-aspect of a hurricane is outdone by a tsunami, and the wind-aspect is outdone by a tornado. In terms of flooding, much more area will be affected than in the case of a tsunami, but it won't be affected anywhere near as bad. And if there's a drought going on, celebrate! A disaster that people can be grateful for isn't much of a disaster, people. And as for wind, it lasts longer and (again) will cover a much larger area, but the winds won't be as strong.

BRS 20% Unless you live in a hut out in the middle of nowhere, you're gonna be warned days ahead of time and will be able to prepare like a mother.

Total score: 140

Tornado (cyclone): a spinning column of air contacting both a cumulonimbus cloud and the ground.

CPS 100% The sky darkens into a sickly, almost toxic hue. Death is in the air, and it's so dark you can't see an approaching funnel – you have to feel it, you have to smell it. A tornado is a bit like a reverse "The Claw" from Toy Story. We can see it's passing through, but no one knows who will be "chosen." The suspense is terrifying. A tornado is a serial killer passing through the neighborhood, and God knows how he chooses his victims.

WOD 30% The big one that hit Moore ten years ago was two miles wide, much like the one in the movie Twister. Many tornadoes can track (stay on the ground) for dozens of miles. However, the damage is only severe within a narrow channel. Being a block away can make all the difference.

BRS 50% Not a lot of people have their own tornado hidey-hole, even in Oklahoma. You can't outrun or outmaneuver a funnel – it's too fast. So most people play the odds and sit inside watching the news. But even if fate were against you one day, even the dumbest trailer-park trash can think of about ten precautionary steps to take. Stay away from windows. Stay low. Tie yourself down. It'll be intense, but probably not fatal.

Total score: 180

Wildfire (brush fire): An uncontrolled burn in a forested or grassy wilderness.

CPS 50% With dry conditions and high winds these babies can be freakishly fast. And there's no worse way to go than being burned alive. However, most people live in cities and, besides Chicago 150 years ago, fires have a hard time scaring urbanites. Also, if you can fight the disaster itself and not just repair it, it can't be that scary. (There aren't any tornado- or volcano- fighters.)

WOD 30% The worst one ever, in the 1800s, caused 1500 deaths and burned 3.8 million acres (equivalent to a square with 80-mile sides). However, some trees depend on wildfires to seed and populate, and others to eliminate fast-growing but less hardy competitors. The life-giving nature of fire is too well-known to give a high score here.

BRS 80% Only you can prevent forest fires. Which means, if you're not a moron and avoid places for morons to tent and start campfires, you probably won't ever have to deal with one. On the other hand, if you were in the middle of a wildfire – flaming trees crashing down around you (a la Bambi), having to run through brush and jump over logs and weave your way to safety, outrunning sparks flying between 7 mph (in forests) and 14 mph (in grasslands) – you'd be a definite badass.

Total score: 160

Volcanic eruption: lava, ash, and various gases are violently propelled through a crack in the earth's crust.

CPS 90% Magma is, conceptually, the scariest stuff there is. "Don't touch the floor – it's lava!" How many of us played that game as kids? And the fact that this is coming directly from the earth's mantle. The sun can be blotted out for weeks from the noxious smoke. And the eruption is really, really loud. There are reports of people 3000 miles away hearing Krakatoa explode. And yet, whole cities of people choose to test fate and live right next door to active volcanoes. Weird.

WOD 70% Contrary to the vision popularized by Dante's Peak, rivers of lava isn't typically the big problem, nor is the sudden skin-melting acidity of nearby hot springs. What is, then? Toxic gases pour into the atmosphere, increasing CO₂concentrations, producing acid rain, and generally damaging plants and animals alike. Ash falls from the sky over a huge area, covering buildings, fields, disrupting machinery and human routine. But when those babies let loose, the shaking of the eruption can cause landslides, and worse still lahars – basically a mud-and-rock version of an avalanche, and much more deadly, since more people typically live nearby.

BRS 80% Thank God I don't live near a volcano. But if I did, and it exploded, believe me, I'd find out that the end of Return of the King, where Frodo and Sam are sitting on the slopes of an erupting volcano having a Kodak moment, was pretty unrealistic. Frodo and Sam weren't badass, but if you'd never seen the film and just saw that scene, you'd absolutely think they were badasses both.

Total score: 210 (currently in the lead)

Staytuned for similar inquiries into hailstorms, avalanches, gamma ray bursts, and two mystery-disasters! We'll also table the results and announce a winner.

Film in 2011 (Part 1)

2012-02-06T22:46:00.002-06:00

The 84th Academy Awards are awarded in twenty days. This year I've decided to attempt to watch the Oscars with an awareness of the nominees, and my own set of expectations. However, since there are about twenty films of interest nominated for important awards, I've definitely got my work cut out for me.
I'll post additional installments by the end of February to complete the picture. Until then, here are the six 2011 films I have seen, in descending order of quality:

Hugo. ★★★★ 1/2 (a family drama and an instant classic) You'd have to be in an terrible mood not to love this film. Especially suited for families and couples, and anyone else who's willing to get misty-eyed from a story about hope. There are several levels to the interpretation of the film, for those paying close attention. It's a rarity to see children who can act this well. It's surreal, to be sure, but intentionally so, and given it is a tribute to film-making, it could hardly be any other way. Scorsese's been working cinematic wonders for thirty years and this is no exception. See it in 3D if you can. The best new film I've seen for a long time, and that includes Toy Story 3. Nominations: best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay, best cinematography, 7 more (most nominated film of the year).

Descendants. ★★★ 1/2 (a drama deserving widespread acclaim) George Clooney has the great talent that marks all top-tier actors - he acts with his eyes. Unfortunately for Clooney, it's his voice marks him as a celebrity hunk and he doesn't fit the role he's playing here. Maybe it would have been forgivable if the film didn't begin with his narrating the exposition. Other than that, and a few small sequences when the story dragged, everything about this movie was a success. Setting the story in modern Hawaii was refreshing. Even more memorable was the complex set of relationships between the four family members. The family felt as real as any fictional family could, and the crisis they managed brought them closer together. The end is touching. Nominations: best picture, best actor (Clooney), best director.

Young Adult. ★★★ (a modern drama deserving some acclaim) This is certainly not a film that will appeal to the blockbuster crowd. However, the acting is exceptional and the story is compelling. The characters' motives are ambiguous, and intentionally so. Diablo Cody has clearly graduated from Juno to a subtler level of film-making that a sympathetic (albeit perhaps pretentious?) crowd will appreciate. If you saw Hugo and absolutely loved it, this film is the counterpart to take you back down to earth. Nominations: snubbed.

Drive. ★★★ (an action movie deserving some acclaim) It's a good film, but I don't see what the big deal is. All my friends rave about it. As far as action flicks go, the plot is original and compelling. It's the characters I just find disappointing. I'm a big fan of Ryan Gosling, too. After watching it a second time, though, I don't think he gives a performance at the same level of his earlier work - Blue Valentine and Lars and the Real Girl come to mind. In fact, none of the characters possess much heart. Carey Mulligan and her kid are adorable but flat; the mobsters are equally two-dimensional. The whole thing reminds me of the male vocals on the indie album The xx - sounds great during the first spin, but the second time around there's nothing more to it. The great appeal of this film lies in its ability to go from 0 to 60 mph in about three-and-a-half seconds - much like the hot cars Gosling is seen pealing through the streets of L.A. Not just the gratuitous violence, but also Gosling's character, either a complete deadpan or screaming at people and killing them. The film's music and cinematography are reminiscent of a classic 1980s action flick, but for me, an homage to a classic genre of film does not, by itself, constitute a classic film. Nominations: best sound editing.
Rango. ★★ (a children's animated film worthy of a single viewing) Beautiful animation. I was endlessly entertained by the wide assortment of desert critters employed to tell a story of the Old West. The strength of this film is its creativity. When squadrons of bat-riding gophers - chasing a water-cooler-laden wagon drawn by a panicked piglet - fly in shooting Gatling guns to the tune of Flight of the Valkyries - you're simply going to be mesmerized. However, as compelling as the world was, in terms of story, I was left wanting more. While the film sets itself up for a wonderful conclusion and simply doesn't deliver. The climax is quite simply nonsensical. First, the title character gets lucky and escapes his prison purely by accident. Then, the film's romantic storyline jumps three steps forward without any explanation. Finally, the villains are suddenly and inexplicably afraid of Rango and choose to bow out of a situation in which they could not possibly lose. The reason the story kept my attention for so long was my attempt to figure out how Rango could successfully beat the incredible odds stacked against him. Apparently the script-writer couldn't think of anything, either. Nominations: best animated feature.

     The Adjustment Bureau. ★ 1/2 (a drama and thriller with negligible aesthetic and moral value) The chase scenes are mediocre, the romance clichéd, and the pitiful absence of philosophic acuity lost my interest. In fact, I fell asleep for fifteen minutes. On the other hand, if you're only looking for a fun thriller with a feel-good moral at the end, check it out. Matt Damon's acting for the first thirty minutes is magisterial. After the action takes over, however, the character's values, ambitions and personality are completely eroded by an overwhelming love interest. This would have made a great drama. As it is, I want the two hours of my life back. Nominations: none! ha!
     2011 Films I wouldn't be opposed to seeing: Gnomeo & Juliet, Water for Elephants, Thor, X-Men: First Class, Winnie the Pooh, Captain America: The First Avenger, Cowboys & Aliens, The Help, The Adventures of Tintin, War Horse.
     2011 Films I intend to never watch: The Green Hornet, Fast Five, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, The Hangover Part II, Green Lantern, Bad Teacher, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Zookeeper, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II, The Smurfs, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

Probably; after all, they're poor

2012-02-05T18:05:00.001-06:00

     Humanity is increasingly becoming a civilization that tries to control complex social patterns so the race progresses. We try to find ways to intentionally encourage desirable traits and discourage undesirable traits. In essence, now that we've adopted the Darwinian vision of natural evolution, we seek to control our own evolution to ensure our future existence.
     The primary way to understand large-scale traits and patterns is through statistical analysis. While often useful, this technique is fundamentally at odds with the rights of the individual as enshrined, for example, in the Bill of Rights.
     That is why, for at least the past couple of years, American legislators and judges have been fumbling with the vague language employed in our Fourth Amendment (the prohibition of "unreasonable" searches and seizures).
     Let's look at an example in the news right now.
     In 2010, Governor of Florida Rick Scott introduced state legislation that would require those seeking welfare (under the federal program TANF, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) to submit to a drug test. Applicants must pay for the $30 screening but are reimbursed afterward, provided they don't fail. This bill was signed into law in June 2011.
     Scott said that it was unfair for taxpayers to support the addictions of drug users; conversely, welfare can now act as an incentive to not use drugs.
     Shortly after Scott signed the bill, a delegation of Democratic representatives attacked the new legislation, calling it "downright unconstitutional." Rep. Alcee Hastings argued that the bill could set a precedent to require drug testings for all federal assistance programs, from Medicaid to education to emergency relief.
     Similar legislation in Michigan was overturned in a federal court in 2003. Moreover, in 1998 a pilot project in Jacksonville, Fl., tested almost 9000 applicants and found that less than 4% failed the test. Given that each test costs around $50 and applicants are awarded, on average, $250 per month, the program would be lucky to pay for itself.
     Besides the financial cost of the program, what about human rights? The Fourth Amendment states:
     The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
     "Probable cause" is a term that has been debated, but most agree that a warrant must be obtained as a result of information submitted by a law enforcement officer who has sworn an Affidavit. (A minority view suggests that "probable cause" means the same thing as "reasonable cause" and no evidence need be submitted or sworn in.)
   On Thursday The Daily Show ran a special segment that highlighted the sheer prejudice and hypocrisy of Scott's program. The stereotype is that, as Daily Show correspondent Aasif Mandvi put it so well, "The poor love drugs," which is actually false. (I wonder if this suggests that there is, in fact, "class warfare" raging in America.) The inconsistent behavior is that state dollars spent on welfare deserve the attention of drug screening - but what about state and federal employees, and social service programs whose benefits are not reaped primarily be the poor? A dollar is a dollar, and if Rep. Scott wishes to make sure no taxpayer money is rerouted to fund destructive and addictive habits, everyone who receives state monies should be required to submit to similar screening.
     Of course, that's not the case, and that's why the bill was rightly overturned. Preliminary results show that 2.5% of applicants tested positive for drug use and 2% declined to take the test, whereas around 6% of Americans use drugs. (Earlier research revealed that government-assisted families were 50% more likely to report drug use than families receiving no assistance.) Scott is appealing the decision and I'm guessing that the case will end up in the Supreme Court, which means it will finally get the attention it deserves.
     In the meantime, Pennsylvania is advancing similar legislation - but in this case, drug testing is only required of felons with a drug-related conviction in the past five years. Does this constitute "probable cause"? In terms of statistical likelihood, absolutely. People with a history of drug abuse are more likely to return to drugs - that correlation is practically uncontested.
     But how likely? Is over 50% enough? What constitutes "probable"? Am I as an individual ready to be defined legally by the normative behavior of my supposed social class? I don't think I am. Regardless of what people like me have done, I want to be judged according to my own behavior. And if there's not much to go on, give me the benefit of the doubt.
     Ironically, I'm siding with the Democrats (who normally champion social engineering) against the Republicans (who normally champion the rights of the individual). The reason for this reversal, I suggest, may be because Republicans treat poor people as an isolated group and not as individuals. But what do I know?
     So, there are three questions to ponder:
     1. Does statistical probability count as probable cause? Read these two articles (1) (2) if interested. (This is the same problem in Arizona with respect to identifying "likely suspects" of illegal immigration).
     2. Are poor people really more likely to use drugs? My very brief online research, linked earlier in this article, turned up conflicting results.
   3. Is class warfare a myth or a reality? This is a pretty polarized issue right now so it's probably best just to mull it over and not post on it.
   You're welcome to share your thoughts and opinions - I'd like to hear them!