I Don't Care About Fox News

I'm serious, I don't.

I'm no longer bothered by the biases, the bullshit, not even Bill O'Reilly.

You know why? Because Fox News shouldn't exist. It does, but it shouldn't. Like a fairy-tale demon, it exists because people believe in it.

"At the risk of sounding unpopular, I'm putting the blame for this squarely on you, the viewers!"
~Kent Brockman~

I, my friends, my family, knew that the case for war in Iraq was total crap. We know about McCain's insane pastors. How could we possibly know this?

Too much blame gets put on the media for not reporting things that they ought. It doesn't matter, because certain news organizations and blogs--mainstream ones, not outlying conspiracy nuts--do report things. The New York Times reported on the use of military experts to spread disinformation, and Daily Kos complains, rightly, that most news organizations, notably Fox News, have ignored the story. Another diarist tells us about the deaths of four soldiers in Iraq, a story that CNN hasn't mentioned. But he's telling us. The information is out there.

What's the problem, then? Why does Fox News still exist?

Because some people--maybe even most people--are really, really stupid. Not to mention gullible.

What's sicker than Bill O'Reilly?

The fact that people watch his show, and not ironically.

Democracy is about respecting the will of the majority of the people. If the majority of the people want to believe, slack-jawed and unquestioned, what Fox News wants to tell them, then fine. It's not really fair that they're dragging the rest of us down with them, but that's democracy. If people are honestly swayed by unfair media coverage that haloes McCain and pretends that the 'bitter' comments were relevant, if they really think that the savagery of a campaign indicates toughness and not blinding ambition, then they deserve the fruits of their votes.

I don't mean to indicate any specialness on my part, or on the parts of my friends. But I can watch Keith Olbermann and sift through the shameless Obama homer-ism* to the core of the stories. Some people can do this. Some people swallow everything they hear.

To quote Kent Brockman once again:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again. Democracy just doesn't work."


*Which, honestly, bothers me just about as much as blatant homering for Michigan football does. Tsk tsk, Keith Olbermann!

Political Identity Politics

There's nothing more I hated at college than the widespread obsession with identity politics. I'd sort of wished it was a thing irrelevant in the rest of the world--turns out, I was mistaken.

All the same, individual identity, as opposed to the necessarily sweeping, incorrect, and potentially dangerous notions of group identity, is still neato.

Political candidates have an interesting relationship with their personal identity, because, like actors, they have to tailor their projected identity to a specific character. But actors usually play many different people throughout their careers, except for confused hacks like this guy, whereas politicians generally pick a character--often some sort of mythological archetype--and stick with it. (Except for chameleon politicians, who I'll get to.)

These characters can be extensions of their own natural personalities, or something completely different, depending on the situation, the honesty of the politician, and the perceived desires of the people.

Our current president, for example, is a blue-blood Yankee who ran as a Texas Cowboy. To his credit, he genuinely seems to like the cowboy thing, and New England snobs generally affect some display of intelligence and that's clearly beyond him. But The Cowboy is a powerful image in our culture, and a lot of people responded to it.

Kerry lost for a lot of reasons, but for one, he never could match the cowboy archetype. Who he was--probably genuinely--was The Senator; it was even his nickname at Yale. But when people started going for The Cowboy, due to its mythological resonance and the general disdain of Americans for intellectualism, he tried on all kinds of 'man of the people' personality traits. He rode a motorcycle, etc...and none of it dismissed his obvious, possibly condescending intelligence and his billionaire batshit wife.

Our current presidential candidates have all chosen--and in one case, somewhat discarded--some interesting personalities. I'm going to blather about them now.


Barack Obama: The Young Hero

After all, only he can wield the Sword of Destiny and return the Crystal of Reason to the Orchard of Hope.

This is a really powerful and useful image for him and his supporters to cultivate. (I'm not going to talk about whether or not his earnestness is genuine--his supporters believe it is, his detractors believe it isn't, and that's that.) Many fantasy and science fiction stories have The Young Hero, and for good reason--he's brave, he's usually brilliant, and represents in his youthful strength the hope of change for the world. You can probably trace this archetype to the Fisher King myths--the old king and the land are dying, and the king is resurrected and restored to the form of a much younger man/and or replaced by an actual younger man. (Not to majorly geek out, but this is what happens to Theoden. The whole Rohan episode in The Two Towers is a terrific riff on the Fisher King.)

Another interesting detail about The Young Hero is that the question of his parentage is always extremely important. He's often a prince in disguise, raised away from his royal parents for some reason. His parentage, prince or not, is nearly always a hybrid. Most of the Greek heroes, not to mention Jesus, are a mixture of god and man. Harry Potter (and Voldemort) are half wizard and half Muggle/Muggleborn. Tiger Woods, etc.--the list goes on.* Hybridity represents something extremely interesting to us, a quality that the hero must naturally possess. The quest to discover this--usually hybrid--identity is what drives a lot of these stories.

There are certain problems with assuming this identity, of course, or Obama would be clearly in the lead. One problem is that The Young Hero is not a guy you can have a beer with. Everyone wants to be The Young Hero, and secretly believes that they are, but you only get one per story. That can breed resentment among those who can't stand the idea of someone being better than them. So Obama's been trying to bowl and things like that, because politicians, if they want to win, have to do those sorts of things to win the support of morons. And I think the fact that, like Kerry, he's so desperately bad at dumbing himself down is a good sign that he really is a genuine person.

Another huge problem with being The Young Hero is that he is always a creature of fantasy or spiritual belief, not immediate reality. A real person has failings and makes mistakes and can't possibly fix the world. If Obama wins, there are going to be a lot of exasperating losers who will be disappointed in him for not being the Messiah.


Hillary Clinton: The Queen

This was her initial persona--remember "Miss Bill? Vote Hill!"--the person with the 'on-the-job' White House training. But Hillary, thanks to Mark Penn, is a chameleon politician, who thinks that the best way to handle a two-point dip in the polls is to reinvent herself for whatever micro-group looks ripe. Like Obama, she's in the rough spot where, due to Americans hating smart people, it's honestly good political sense for her to take shots of whiskey and talk about her Scranton grandpa.

The Queen persona was dangerous to begin with. There simply aren't a lot of good Queens or older women of power in mythology and stories: The Queen in Snow White, the evil fairy in Sleeping Beauty, the stepmother in Cinderella, the White Witch, Gertrude, Margaret Thatcher, Lady Macbeth, etc. Queens--or stepmothers--are often witches or murderers, because of an ancient terror of powerful women. Good women are usually frail, virginal girls. I'm not one of those people who's willing to vote for Hillary because I'm so annoyed at this lingering terror, but I do recognize her difficulties.

However, she never should have run as The Queen, for other reasons. The Queen is rarely a power in her own right, but the spouse of the powerful man. Even if she doesn't like to admit it, the First Lady is essentially a ceremonial position, and much of her activities as First Lady, while groundbreaking, were honestly undemocratic. She wasn't elected by the populace or confirmed by Congress--she simply usurped powers which historically belonged to the vice president. So she's in a complicated position while presenting herself as Queen.

What she did after that was represent herself as the The Senator, the fairest and most accurate identity she assumed. I think initially she tried to run not as a woman senator, but as an honest, tough, experienced politician who just happens to be a woman. (This made certain people question her femininity, which is just charming.) This persona lasted until New Hampshire, where she started to play like a victimized woman, relying on the stereotypical weaknesses of the gender (weeping, complaining when attacked) as opposed to its strengths. The Senator persona didn't work because she simply isn't charismatic enough (though much more so that Kerry) and fair or not, that counts for a lot, especially when faced with The Young Hero.

And now--her concern isn't with self-definition, but with trashing The Young Hero, no matter what the cost.


John McCain: The Old Warrior

McCain cultivates this for obvious reasons. We have an innate respect for warriors, especially someone who has suffered as much as he does. (We either respect or revel in suffering, depending on the situation, our mood at the time, and our particular levels of cruelty.) Unlike The Young Hero, we can look up to him without feeling inferior, because he's older and more experienced than us. And, The Old Warrior persona sure takes away from the fact that McCain knows nothing whatsoever about anything about any other topic, especially the economy, which, you know, is kinda important. It even cloaks the fact that he's been dead wrong about this particular war from the start.**

In terms of myth, The Old Warrior has a tendency to die before the end of the story. He might be wise and noble, but his primary function is to educate The Young Hero before kicking the bucket. There's Obi Wan Kenobi, Dumbledore and Mad-Eye Moody, even Gandalf in a way. The Old Warrior is often a wizard or some other kind of sage, but McCain isn't a magic man, just a plain old soldier.

And there aren't many personas besides The Old Warrior that McCain can cultivate. He lacks Hillary's chameleon ability, as evidenced by his half-hearted efforts to support Bush's policies.

At best, McCain the venerable and ailing Fisher King, once competent but about to be replaced by The Young Hero. Or by a chameleon Senator/Queen. The abject failure of the press corps to predict anything useful about this election--at all--is an important demonstration of the limits of archetype, narrative, and myth--we use them to make sense of our present world and the people who inhabit it, but they are inaccurate predictors of future reality. After all, an archetype is just an image, nothing more.


*Notable exceptions, interestingly enough, include most superheroes. Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and the X-men, are not hybrids by birth. But, there is a different kind of hybridity in their stories--they embody two separate personas. Superman is an alien raised by humans with a human identity that he can assume, and of course the superhero stories are all about the interplay of the divided self...Ok. Enough geekage.

**Gah, he's such an easy mark.

Too Soon

The ever-awesome Frank Rich has a really interesting article on the country's Iraq war fatigue.

There's just one point I disagree on, and it plays into an argument I've been having with the crew lately. Rich blames the box-office failure of movies like Rendition and Stop-Loss primarily on war weariness. It's entirely possible that these movies did badly because they were terrible, as I've heard; but he mentions that remarkably few people went to see them in the first place.

I think another possibility exists--we're naturally wary of the too-soon factor, which is more than a joke. Is it possible that you can't do these movies until after the historical moment has passed, and there's room for reflection?

The obvious counter-example is Casablanca, my favorite movie. It came out in the early 1940s just after the U.S. entered the war, and you can read it as a summons for the U.S. to abandon isolationism. This isn't just an English major's pipe dream--Rick, the American protagonist, goes from "I stick my neck out for nobody" to helping Laszlow the resistance leader to escape. Laszlow's near-last words to him are, "Welcome back to the fight. This time, I'm sure our side will win."

But there are a lot of important differences between Casablanca and the bevy of Iraq war movies, such as:

1. Casablanca is set overseas, and involves only two Americans--Rick and Sam. The Iraq war movies are set mostly in America and are almost exclusively about Americans. This means Casablanca has important physical and psychological removal from our current lives.

2. If the main political thrust of Casablanca is 'isolationism is insupportable and ultimately self-destructive', then it was old news to this country, which had already joined the war in part for those reasons. But with the distortion this war's reasons have undergone, it's impossible to do a movie about the war's reasons that isn't politically charged (not to mention depressing.)

3. The Iraq war movies are mostly political stories. But Casablanca is as much a love story as a topical political story. The call to arms remains reasonably subtle beneath the major plot, and the characters are symbolic instead of allegorical. (If it was a pure allegory, then the U.S. had an affair with Norway and still loves her even though she seemingly betrayed him.*)

4. Casablanca is pro-war, and the Iraq movies are anything but. 'Pro-war' makes all liberals post-Vietnam cringe, but I think it's important to keep in mind how completely unique WWII was. I can't think of very many wars in history where the right side and the wrong side were that obvious (which is why it's so irritating and ignorant when people compare anything they don't like to Nazis.) Clear good and evil make for good cinema (Star Wars!). On the other hand, complex and ambivalent wars where neither side is right are hard to do well in movies, or in any other forum for that matter. A pro-war Iraq movie would be even more terrible, as no one sensible would believe a word of it.

5. Casablanca is one of the best movies of all time.

It's too bad, because rendition and stop-loss as concepts are so shocking and fascinating that they have the potential to spawn very powerful movies. The problem isn't historical distance--it's political distance. The Iraq war movies are consistently described as 'heavy-handed' and 'obvious' because they're bent on making a political point. Casablanca, which is more a product of its time than a propaganda piece, doesn't run into that sort of trouble.

However, the documentaries that Frank Rich also mentions--that's another can of worms. Fiction is one thing, but documentaries are supposed to collect facts (theoretically, anyway.) I think we don't watch the Iraq documentaries simply because they're depressing, and we already know it's rotten over there. We don't watch them for the same reason there hasn't been much mass protest of the war--we're just not that angry.

I mean, we're angry. But we've entered a kind of pure and lazy democracy, where we say, "This president is terrible! Let's work hard to elect the next guy who will fix it." To be honest, this is probably a healthier and more humane response than rioting. It also demonstrates just how much power the executive branch has abrogated to itself in that we can only see a change in our country's policy through the election of one person.


*Norway is such a tramp.

Explanation

No, I haven't been posting in a two hour Red Bull frenzy.

I've just finished moving some of my favorite old posts to this new blog of mine. I promise, from now on, all my news and ranting will be topical.

Lies and the Lying Liars

"If you commit perjury I don't care. Don't give a shit. I don't think you should because you grade murder, you have Murder 1, Murder 2; you realize there can be a difference in the level of murder. So there must be a difference in the level of perjury. Perjury 1 is when you're saying there's no Holocaust when, you know, 10 million* people have died in it, and Perjury 9 is when you said you shagged someone when you didn't." - Eddie Izzard

I think it's time, this presidential campaign season, that we institute Eddie Izzard's perjury scale. The fact is, every lie does not equal every other lie.

PERJURY 1: The Holocaust didn't happen.

A Perjury 1 lie must be something hurtful, dangerous, and also OBVIOUSLY, provably false.

Another lovely one in this category is: Iraq had ties to 9/11. Getting people killed on the basis of a lie? Smells like Perjury 1 to me.

The punishment: IMPEACHMENT AT LEAST, for chrissakes.

PERJURY 2: 9/11 was God punishing us for homosexuals.

Hurtful and dangerous, though not nearly as much so as Perjury 1. What really makes this a separate gradation is that it's harder to disprove, as are all religious and/or conspiracy theories. Then again, it's the nature of conspiracy theories to be hard to disprove, hence their appeal for the paranoid.

Another one designed to give you a headache: 9/11 was an inside job.

The punishment: If you take violent action, could be hate crime or treason charges! If not, there's always no one outside the internet taking you seriously.

PERJURY 3:

Accused: "I didn't kill her."

Grissom from CSI: "Well, all this evidence here says you did."

Accused: "Shit."

Captain Brass: "Your balls are mine."

Lying to the cops about committing a crime only warrants a three because it affects fewer people--i.e. your victim or victims and the family or families. At least you have the extremely limited excuse of trying to protect yourself.

The punishment: I think Captain Brass said it best.

PERJURY 4: Evolution is a fraud.

It's always nice when lies further perpetrate ignorance. Disbelieving in evolution and other valid scientific theories probably won't lead to violence, but if you're on the Kansas school board, you can always use it to further mislead the kiddies.

The punishment: Your state not losing its reputation for being full of idiots.

PERJURY 5: Hillary Clinton was shot at in Bosnia. No idea why Sinbad doesn't seem to remember it.

Oh, Hillary. This one is so high up because there's no way, considering the amount of times it was repeated and the fact that her own book contradicts it, that it was a mistake. As lies go, this isn't that major--though it's rather insulting to people who do get shot at for the sake of this country--but the real damage lies in its intentions. This is an attempt to make someone seem much cooler than they are, and frankly, if they were traveling with Sinbad, that's well-nigh impossible.

The punishment: Viral viral video.

PERJURY 6: Bill Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman.

Oh, Bill. This one is complicated, as it only should have affected Bill and Hillary, making it a lie that lots of people tell. But because Bill said it to the nation, he doomed the Democratic party, ushering in the glorious era of Captain Bush and the Neocon Parade. However, it really wasn't his intention to do that, so it only ranks a 6, which are obvious personal lies with horrific unintended consequences.

The punishment: Impeachment, I guess?

PERJURY 7: Obama claiming the Kennedys aided his father in coming to the U.S. to study.

Turns out the Kennedys only started supporting that particular program the following year. Someone should have fact-checked. The reason for the lie hasn't yet been offered by the Obama people, but it will probably be, "Oops, that's what Obama's dad told him. Guess he was wrong--keep in mind that Obama and his dad rarely saw each other." Or, "Obama's sleep-deprived." This is ranked a 7 because, while it's really not much of a lie and may just have been an accident, its intentions aren't fabulous, as it's trying (too hard) to link Obama and the mystique of Camelot.

The punishment: Having to endure Hillary supporters cackling online that this totally cancels out the Bosnia thing.

PERJURY 8: Hillary Clinton claiming that on 9/11, she was panicked because Chelsea was jogging near the World Trade Center.

Turns out Chelsea was in Union Square. *gasp!* Let's see, when your only baby is in the general vicinity of a major national disaster, does the exact neighborhood really matter? It's all lower Manhattan. I remember being freaked out because my older sister and my best friend were in Massachusetts, and as far as I was concerned, that was the same general area too.

This only actually ranks on the perjury scale at all, once again, not because of content but because of intention. Bringing it up in this campaign links Hillary to 9/11 heroism, more subtly than Obama linking himself to the Kennedys but with no less devious intentions.

The punishment: Having to endure Obama supporters insisting online that this is CLEARLY another example in a long line of Hillary's duplicitousness.

PERJURY 9: Saying you shagged someone when you didn't.

This one could have potential damage to someone else's reputation--until they find out. And then, the howls of laughter and the, "You think I shagged WHO?" hurts no one but you.

The punishment: See above.

Perjury 10: I'm a natural redhead.

This lie doesn't hurt anyone, but it does help to maintain a certain desperate illusion that I'm clinging to right now, so leave me alone.

The punishment: Only the permanent damage to my scalp and my conception of reality.

Btw, I'm not taking on any lies Obama may or may not have told about Reverend Wright. It may be partisan, but I've just heard so many different stories that I don't know what to believe.

*It was actually 11 million, making this just a misspeaking. Occasionally, those do happen for reals.

Things That Make Me Angry

Today's topic? Gloria Steinem.

I know, it sounds crazy. I never would have thought that a brilliant thinker and feminist icon could fill me with as much rage as a Rush Limbaugh rant, but here we are.

Steinem wrote an op-ed piece in the Times today that's worth reading. Even more worth reading, perhaps, are some of the comments following.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It's not interesting because it's a good article. It's interesting because it's a terrible article--divisive, manipulative, stuffed with tedious identity politics, and frankly obvious holes in logic.

Here in brief are my problems with Steinem's piece, much of which is better articulated in some of the brilliant commentary following the article:

In the first few paragraphs, Steinem skimps on Obama's resume and fails to point out that the glass ceiling for black women is a lot heavier than the one above white women and black men. It also ignores the existence of black congresswomen, including one from Illinois who somewhat resembles Steinem's 'imaginary person.'

She doesn't cite this study: "This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy."

Cite your damn study, Gloria.

Black men did get the vote long before all women, that's true. But Jim Crow laws essentially prohibited that right until the 50's, well after white women got the unhindered right to vote. Something of an important detail, there.

Obama's and Bill Clinton's styles are not merely 'emotional.' They are charismatic, passionate, inspiring. If Hillary talked like that, probably some people would dismiss her as emotional, but others would see her as, I dunno, charismatic and passionate.

Racism is still confused with nature. See the exiled Dr. Watson's idiotic comments about IQ.

Steinem can say she's not pitting race against gender, but when you're saying white women have it tougher than black men, then you're pitting race against gender and that's that.

Let's go phrase by phrase here:

"...unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House..."

The First Lady, even a First Lady as active as Hillary was, is not an elected position. It does not have the responsibilities, the accountability, the importance of an elected position. Basically, you get to host dinners, go to events, and talk nice to foreign dignitaries. When there's a First Gentlemen, he'll have to do the same things, and rightly so. Being married to someone does not qualify you to do their job, even if you forayed into their field (in her case, with disastrous consequences.)

"[Hillary has]...no masculinity to prove..."

To channel Sheila Braflowski for a moment: What what WHAT?

What has Obama done to show us that he feels a need to prove his masculinity? I can't think of any particular statement or action.

But I don't think Obama did or said anything to warrant this comment. I think it's just unbelievably sexist on Steinem's part. I never thought I'd say that phrase, but there it is.

As for the gender card vs. the race card: Obama does not use his race as either a weapon or a shield. He rarely even mentions it, one way or the other. That's because race--and gender--should be irrelevant to candidacy. All that should matter is the strength and intelligence of the candidate's positions.

If Obama (or Edwards, dealing with his wife's cancer) cried, people would have called them wimps, because we still see femininity/emotion as weak. That's bad, but Hillary wept for weakness, deliberately, to generate sympathy for this poor woman so put upon in running a campaign. Her tears embodied the frustration of every woman who's had a tough time breaking into a man's world. But a sense of solidarity against those bad people who have mistreated us is unfair, divisive, and disingenuous. If you don't like the heat, Hill, get out of the kitchen.

And last: "What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age."

...Voting for someone other than the lone female candidate means that we young women love and accept the sexual caste system? Do you mean to imply, Gloria, that we should vote for candidates based mostly upon their race or gender?

"We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”"

Oh, Gloria. So that's exactly what you're implying.

But maybe it's a brave new world, where I can feel free to vote for a black man or a white woman or a Mormon or a Baptist preacher or an elf (Kucinich) based solely on their ideas, not on identity politics and misplaced ideas of solidarity.

El Rey

Who says the era of constitutional monarchs ought to be over?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vyN-5ilDGSA

soxoxoxoxoxox

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to announce that I have a huge Papelboner right now.

You heard me.

Turdblossom

Karl Rove leaving the White House doesn't really mean anything, but it still makes me happy that all the rats are fleeing the ship.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: The Thug Awards

Voted on by an esteemed panel of judges, we now bring you the final installment of The Thug Awards.

I pity the fool who reads this before finishing the book.

1. Neville Longbottom

What happens when you cross an awkward Herbology nerd with: an enormous snake, the ability to pull the legendary sword out of the hat at just the right moment, and the best St. George impression of all time?

You get Neville "I've had it with these motherfucking snakes in motherfucking Hogwarts" Longbottom.

2. Mrs. Weasley

Because every time Bellatrix showed up, we all said, 'Damn, she's a bitch. Someone should really let her know."

I'm going to make a t-shirt with Mrs. Weasley's face on it that reads, "Don't Mess with Momma."

3. Professor McGonagall and the Hogwarts teaching staff, a.k.a. The Cavalry

Turns out, they like, know what they're doing with magic and stuff.

Also, that duel with Snape? Short, but balls-in-the-mouth-legendary.

4. George Weasley

Gets his ear sliced off, but instead of being all self-pitying like some other emo kid we know, he turns right around and makes bad puns.

However...how did he handle Fred dying? That's sort of an important detail, J.K.

5. Kreacher and Dobby

Turns out that the secret to getting servants to like you and to lead armies of angry elves in your defense is just to be nice. Who knew?

Also--Mrs. Weasley avenged you, Dobby. She avenged you.

6. Aberforth Dumbledore

More honest and decent than his big brother while still managing to be a goatfucker? My hat is off.

7. Neville's grandmother

'"Little old witch living alone, they probably thought they didn't need to send anyone particularly powerful. Anyway," Neville laughed, "Dawlish is still in St. Mungo's, and Gran's on the run."'

Don't Mess With Grandma.

8. The blind dragon

Because you're never too blind to DESTROY THE OPPRESSORS.

9. The Malfoys

Turning against Voldemort while he's at the height of his power, all to save your son? Seriously butch of you.

10. Harry

I'm not always a fan of little Captain Emo, but he managed to impress me. Walking straight toward death in borrowed C.S. Lewis fashion--but unlike Aslan, not knowing that he'd live? For all that Harry's a whiner sometimes, he gets the job done.

Epiphany

"The attempted bombings, as well as the potential for further violence, posed an immediate challenge to the newly installed prime minister, Gordon Brown, who convened a meeting of Britain’s top security committee — called Cobra, for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A — to assess the severity of the situation."'

The new Prime Minister of England is COBRA COMMANDER.

I have an opinion!

Here's a very interesting article, courtesy of me lil' brother:

http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/71/Generation_Fcked_How_Britain_is_Eating_Its_Young.html

The writing is superb, as are many of the insights (and the comments are maybe even more illuminating) but the perspective of the author bugs me. In short, the origin of her thought is: materialism is bad. Most people will agree with this statement immediately, but since Oberlin has soured me toward easy liberal attitudes, I now want to explore this a little more.

Things, in themselves, are not evil. One of things that makes us human is the fact that we create tools in order to make our lives easier. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool treehugger has to get those Birkenstocks from somewhere. The fact is, there's really nothing wrong with making our lives easier and making ourselves more comfortable. I'm sitting on a very comfortable couch at the moment, which I bought at a cultural consumer wasteland (Ikea) because it's what I could afford. If I could have afforded it, I would have bought something much shiner, more comfortable, and maybe even in a color I liked instead of this light grey which means I have to freaking paint the walls one of these weekends...

The important point here is this: I want, like many people want, to surround myself with beautiful, convenience-making things. *GASP* I know, I sound like a suburban housewife, but it's true. So I have a lovely wood bookshelf that holds nearly all of our books, an ipod, a nice gas stove. Here's the thing--we place different values on our objects depending on what they do. A hippie would look at my bookshelf and say, 'well, I don't approve of the fact that it's made of wood, but I like how many literary classics you have. Well done there, surrounding yourself with culturally appropriate things." But the ipod--now that is a perfect example of our mass consumer culture. But is it still an example of our mass consumer culture if I walk around listening to Beethoven? Or Thomas Tallis, like I've been doing a lot lately? What about Cake or The Decemberists or Gorillaz?

The problem isn't materialism, it's cultural snobbery. The 'Chavs' in the Adbusters article are villified because they're loud, rude, like expensive gadgets, and dress in a way that seems to embody all aspects of their soulless, material-driven culture. Or, is the problem is that their idea of culture is utterly different from more traditional notions of culture, which stress classical music, Earl Grey tea, and plain suits as ideals? Those are all 'things', and they all need to be bought

Materialism, meaning the frenzied acquisition of goods in order to fit in with accepted subcultures, is bad if only for these reasons--fitting in with accepted subcultures requires the self-denial of individuality, the homogenization of opinions, and the forgetting of beauty. Any time that you buy anything or say you like something because you think it will help you fit into a group, then you're not being genuine. If you listen to Beethoven because you want other people to think you're the kind of person that listens to Beethoven, then you're one of Holden Caulfield's phoneys. The only reason to listen to Beethoven is if you like him.

(This means all of us are phoneys sometimes, definitely including me, and inculding Holden Caulfield himself, as he admits.)

"The forgetting of beauty" is, I think, the greatest evil. I think it explains a lot of what we find 'wrong' in our culture, like unrealistic standards of physical attractiveness, skimpy clothing, etc. I was at work the other day when I saw a couple out the window--an older man, 60s-ish, and what looked like a twenty-year old girl. It's not the first time I've seen couples like that in this fantasy world* (though I'm pretty sure that one I saw a few weeks ago was call-girl and client.) Anyway, this couple entered the store and I immediately realized that the twenty-year-old was at least 45. I almost laughed out loud. This woman had a very fine-boned face, and she'd decided to stretch the her skin painfully tight over her little bones and then paint it with fake-tan cream. She was also very thin and wearing clothes that she was a good 20 years too old for.

No one in the world would find this woman attractive. You'll never find her face on the cover of a magazine (except the 'Coney Island Freak Show Newsletter.) But in her haste to conform to an ideal of beauty, she spent tons of money on excessive surgeries.

The women you do see on covers of magazines are generally our most beautiful people--models and actresses. Many of them get the same type of procedures performed as that poor fashion victim. But there's an important difference--most of them are still beautiful. Angelina Jolie may have had some collagen injections in her lips, but she hasn't forced her skin over her bones. Certainly some models and actresses are painfully thin and surgically altered to the point of absurdity, but not all. The most famous actresses, while still looking good, don't look 30 years younger than they are. Maybe ten years, but that's a little better.

The point is this: fashion magazines and the like don't create people like the woman I saw in the store--those people are self-created in their frenzied quest to conform to a standard. What makes people attractive is not how much they look like some ideal, but how well they figure out their individual style according to their body type and personality. It gets harder if the clothes you need aren't being sold in stores, but it's still doable with a sewing machine--yet another thing which, once acquired, makes life easier.

*The Upper East Side is a freaking fantasy world. See that Seinfeld episode.

I have an opinion. Actually, I have many. But I'm only going to inflict a little bit of my speculative ranting on you right now.

Here's a very interesting article, courtesy of me lil' brother: http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/71/Generation_Fcked_How_Britain_is_Eating_Its_Young.html

The writing is superb, as are many of the insights (and the comments are maybe even more illuminating) but the perspective of the author bugs me. In short, the origin of her thought is: materialism is bad. Most people will agree with this statement immediately, but since Oberlin has soured me toward easy liberal attitudes, I now want to explore this a little more.

Things, in themselves, are not evil. One of things that makes us human is the fact that we create tools in order to make our lives easier. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool treehugger has to get those Birkenstocks from somewhere. The fact is, there's really nothing wrong with making our lives easier and making ourselves more comfortable. I'm sitting on a very comfortable couch at the moment, which I bought at a cultural consumer wasteland (Ikea) because it's what I could afford. If I could have afforded it, I would have bought something much shiner, more comfortable, and maybe even in a color I liked instead of this light grey which means I have to freaking paint the walls one of these weekends...

The important point here is this: I want, like many people want, to surround myself with beautiful, convenience-making things. *GASP* I know, I sound like a suburban housewife, but it's true. So I have a lovely wood bookshelf that holds nearly all of our books, an ipod, a nice gas stove. Here's the thing--we place different values on our objects depending on what they do. A hippie would look at my bookshelf and say, 'well, I don't approve of the fact that it's made of wood, but I like how many literary classics you have. Well done there, surrounding yourself with culturally appropriate things." But the ipod--now that is a perfect example of our mass consumer culture. But is it still an example of our mass consumer culture if I walk around listening to Beethoven? Or Thomas Tallis, like I've been doing a lot lately? What about Cake or The Decemberists or Gorillaz?

The problem isn't materialism, it's cultural snobbery. The 'Chavs' in the Adbusters article are villified because they're loud, rude, like expensive gadgets, and dress in a way that seems to embody all aspects of their soulless, material-driven culture. Or, is the problem is that their idea of culture is utterly different from more traditional notions of culture, which stress classical music, Earl Grey tea, and plain suits as ideals? Those are all 'things', and they all need to be bought

Materialism, meaning the frenzied acquisition of goods in order to fit in with accepted subcultures, is bad if only for these reasons--fitting in with accepted subcultures requires the self-denial of individuality, the homogenization of opinions, and the forgetting of beauty. Any time that you buy anything or say you like something because you think it will help you fit into a group, then you're not being genuine. If you listen to Beethoven because you want other people to think you're the kind of person that listens to Beethoven, then you're one of Holden Caulfield's phoneys. The only reason to listen to Beethoven is if you like him.

(This means all of us are phoneys sometimes, definitely including me, and inculding Holden Caulfield himself, as he admits.)

"The forgetting of beauty" is, I think, the greatest evil. I think it explains a lot of what we find 'wrong' in our culture, like unrealistic standards of physical attractiveness, skimpy clothing, etc. I was at work the other day when I saw a couple out the window--an older man, 60s-ish, and what looked like a twenty-year old girl. It's not the first time I've seen couples like that in this fantasy world* (though I'm pretty sure that one I saw a few weeks ago was call-girl and client.) Anyway, this couple entered the store and I immediately realized that the twenty-year-old was at least 45. I almost laughed out loud. This woman had a very fine-boned face, and she'd decided to stretch the her skin painfully tight over her little bones and then paint it with fake-tan cream. She was also very thin and wearing clothes that she was a good 20 years too old for.

No one in the world would find this woman attractive. You'll never find her face on the cover of a magazine (except the Coney Island Freak Show Newsletter.) But in her haste to conform to an ideal of beauty, she spent tons of money on excessive surgeries.

The women you do see on covers of magazines are generally our most beautiful people--models and actresses. Many of them get the same type of procedures performed as that poor fashion victim. But there's an important difference--most of them are still beautiful. Angelina Jolie may have had some collagen injections in her lips, but she hasn't forced her skin over her bones. Certainly some models and actresses are painfully thin and surgically altered to the point of absurdity, but not all. The most famous actresses, while still looking good, don't look 30 years younger than they are. Maybe ten years, but that's a little better.

The point is this: fashion magazines and the like don't create people like the woman I saw in the store--those people are self-created in their frenzied quest to conform to a standard. What makes people attractive is not how much they look like some ideal, but how well they figure out their individual style according to their body type and personality. It gets harder if the clothes you need aren't being sold in stores, but it's still doable with a sewing machine--yet another thing which, once acquired, makes life easier.

*The Upper East Side is a freaking fantasy world. See that Seinfeld episode.

Just because I've graduated doesn't mean I can't do this anymore

From today's Maureen Dowd column about the Sopranos finale:

"After references in three shows to Yeats’s “The Second Coming” — the last allusion to the rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem by A.J. at the diner table in the final scene — the least Mr. Chase could have dished up was some “mere anarchy.”

Surely, after eight years with this family, we deserved some revelation better than “Life goes on. ... Or not.”

The only revelation was that Mr. Chase and James Gandolfini are keeping their options open for a Sopranos movie. Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic and a Sopranos aficionado who liked the might-or-might-not ending, tells me I made too much of the foreshadowing of the Yeats poem.

“It’s overused to express unhappiness,” he said. “If you’re at a restaurant and you want linguine and they only have manicotti, we’re slouching toward Bethlehem.” "

Mr. Wieseltier--the answer is no. Just no.

desire mutates upon desire

I have too many books and shoes.

And I just want more, more, more.

A real piece of good news

You know, I don't usually like to speak ill of the dead.

However--burn in hell, Jerry Falwell. Burn in hell.

Those Wacky Victorians

From "The Royal Path of Life, or Aims and Aids To Success and Happiness" (1882)

"Flirting"

The ostensible object of courtship is the choice of a companion. For no other object should any intercourse having the appearance of courtship be permitted or indulged in. It is a species of high-handed fraud upon the unsuspecting heart, worthy of the heaviest penalty of public opinion, or law. The affections are too tender and sacred to be trifled with. He who does it is a wretch. He should be ranked among thieves, robbers, villains, and murderers. He who steals money steals trash; but he who steals affections without a return of similar affections steals that which is dearer than life and more precious than wealth. His theft is a robbery of the heart.

Flirting is a horrid outrage upon the most holy and exalted feelings of the human soul, and the most sacred and important relation of life. It is a vulgarism and wickedness to be compared only to blasphemy. It had, and still has, its origin in the basest lust. The refined soul is always disgusted with it. It is awfully demoralizing in its tendency, and base in its character. It is true, any bandy their low jokes upon this matter in thoughtlessness; but if they would take one moment's sober reflection upon it, they would see the impropriety of jesting about the most delicate, serious, and sacred feelings and relations in human existence. The whole tendency of such lightness is to cause the marriage relation to be lightly esteemed, and courtship to be made a round of low fun and frolic, in which every species of deception is endeavored to be played off. Until it is viewed in its true light, in that sober earnestness which the subject demands, how can courtship be anything else than a grand game of hypocrisy, resulting in wickedness and misery the most ruinous and deplorable?

There is much trifling courting among the young in some portions of the country that results in such calamitous consequences; carried on sometimes when the young man means nothing but present pleasure, and sometimes when the young woman has no other object in view. Such intercourse is confined mostly to young men and women before they are of age. It is a crying evil, worthy of the severest censure.

A case was recently tried in Rutland, Vermont, in which a Miss Munson recovered fourteen hundred and twenty-five dollars of a Mr. Hastings for a breach of marriage contract. The curiosity of the thing is this: The Vermont judge charged the jury that no explicit promise was necessary to bind the parties to a marriage contract, but that long continued attentions or intimacy with a female was as good evidence of intended matrimony as a special contract. The principle of the case undoubtedly is, that if Hastings did not promise, he ought to have done so—the law holds him responsible for the non-performance of his duty. A most excellent decision. We think if there were more such cases there would be less flirting.

One of the meanest things a young man can do (and it is not at all of uncommon occurrence) is to monopolize the time and attention of a young girl for a year, or more, without any definite object, and to the exclusion of other gentlemen, who, supposing him to have matrimonial intentions, absent themselves from her society. The selfish "dog-in-the-manger" way of proceeding should be discountenanced and forbidden by all parents and guardians. It prevents the reception of eligible offers of marriage, and fastens upon the young lady, when the acquaintance is finally dissolved, the unenviable and unmerited appellation of "flirt." Let all your dealings with women, young man, be frank, honest and noble. That many whose education and position in life would warrant our looking for better things in them, are culpably criminal on these points, is no excuse for your short-comings. That woman is often injured or wronged, through her holiest feelings, adds but a blacker dye to your meanness. One rule is always safe: Treat every woman you meet as you would wish another man to treat your innocent, confiding sister.

William Blake

Since I've inflicted his madness on myself, I'm going to inflict him on you.

The shiny:

"...Our wars are wars of life, & wounds of love

With intellectual spears; & by long winged arrows of thought."

The sexy:

"Embraces are Cominglings from the Head even to the Feet

And not a pompous High Priest entering by a Secret Place."

The silly:

"(I call them by their English names: English, the rough basement.)"

To the Great* State of Ohio

Cute. Real cute.

73 degrees yesterday.

Today? Snowing. SNOWING.

What, do you think daffodils look adorable if they're limp and drowning in white powder? This isn't Vegas.

Like all decent Americans, I refuse to give in to terrorist threats. I know you saw me hang up my winter coat yesterday. Let me tell you something: I don't care what you throw at me, but I'm NOT taking that coat off its hanger. I'll freeze before I give you that satisfaction.

Two more months, Ohio. I'm going to outlast all your bullshit.

Sincerely,

~chun li~

*Title may or may not apply to all states. Seriously, look at Texas.

Political correctness is never itself offensive

From Poe-news.com

Church School Changes Three Little Pigs to Puppies for Fear of Offending Muslims

A junior school production of the popular children’s story the ‘Three Little Pigs’ has been changed to ‘Three Little Puppies’ to avoid causing any offence to Muslims.

Due to the multi-cultural nature of the youngsters involved and their parents in the audience, organisers of a children's music festival have altered the popular characters and lyrics.

But Muslim leaders recently condemned the politically correct move as misguided and said decisions like this were turning Muslims into 'misfits' in society.

"There's an issue about the eating of pork, which is forbidden, but there is no prohibition about reading stories about pigs. This is an unnecessary step," said Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, Muslim Council of Great Britain.

However, organisers of the Kirklees Primary Music Festival decided to change the script to be 'sensitive' to Muslims at a recent committee meeting.

Committee member Gill Goodswen, head teacher of Stile Common Junior School, defended the move.

She said: "We have to be sensitive if we want to be multi-cultural. It was felt it would be more responsible not to use the three little pigs. We feared that some Muslim children wouldn't sing along to the words about pigs," she said.

"We didn't want to take that risk. If changing a few words avoids offence then we will do so."

She stressed the decision was not prompted by a complaint from any school.

This one is really awful, but the ending is special:

Woman Pleads Guilty to Murder in Drowning, Beheading of Daughter

SEATTLE: A mentally troubled woman accused of drowning her 6-year-old daughter, cutting off her head and throwing the remains off a Washington state bridge has pleaded guilty to first-degree murder.

The father of Samara Laverne Spann, 32, told a newspaper in 2005 his daughter routinely called the girl a "devil child" and BELONGED TO A CULT THAT WORSHIPPED THE LATE RAPPER TUPAC SHAKUR AS THE REINCARNATION OF THE 16TH CENTURY POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER MACHIAVELLI.

Legends of The Red

Loyal readers, I now bring you part one of the famous saga: The Battle of the Cookware.

It begins on a dark and snowy night during winter term, as all tales of Oberlin must. Yours truly was baking focaccia over at Sir John's castle, because yours truly lacks an oven of her own, being only a poor knight from the distant north. Out of Sir John's oven was born much glorious focaccia, mountains of focaccia, cascades of focaccia. So much there was that this humble knight decided to take a small morsel back with her to her own castle.

But, yours truly had neglected to bring her own portion of the HOLY TUPPERWARE. So she borrowed a portion of the HOLY TUPPERWARE from Sir John's fellow knight and resident of the castle, known only as The Red.

Some weeks did pass. Then, while this humble knight was peacably reading a tome in Sir John's chamber, The Red burst through the door. He said, "Ummmm. Hi. Could you bring back the tupperware? Thaaanks," in a most unknightly tone.

Yours truly said that she would. But another week passed, full of jousts and tournaments and linguistics exams, and this humble knight tragically forgot to return the HOLY TUPPERWARE, now neatly washed, to The Red.

It came to pass that yours truly and Sir John dined at the Castle of Lord Brendan, a man who is much renowned for his generosity with his wine, mead, and other sundry liquors. Our heroes quitted the Castle of Lord Brendan at a late hour, bidding that kind lord a fond farewell. Sir John and this humble knight took horse for the long, cold ride back to Sir John's castle.

When our heroes arrived, there sat The Red, Lord Gabington, and the ever amusing Karl Lothario. "Um," said The Red, as we entered, without so much as a by-your-leave, "Ok. If you don't bring back the tupperware? like by 5 o'clock tomorrow? Then I'm going to charge you five bucks for it."

Yours truly, who admittedly had been imbibing Lord Brendan's excellent booze, replied, "I shall return the HOLY TUPPERWARE on the morrow. But, good knight, there is no need to plague me with pernicious threats. For, in sooth, that is not the manner in which I roll." Indeed, that is not the manner in which any true knight doth roll.

What followed was a somewhat regrettable incident, in which there was much shouting and clashing of spears. After this humble knight retired to Sir John's chamber, The Red proportedy implied that he 'didn't like it when women contradicted him.' When Sir John reported this, I could not but laugh, and say "Is it not the age when women can be knights as well?"

The HOLY TUPPERWARE was returned by the good auspices of Sir John the following morning.

On this Valentine's Day, I'd like to give a shout-out to the Mighty Snow Demons

The official measurements are in:

General snowfall: up to mid-thigh

Drifts: range from waist to shoulder-height.

Packing Quality: Registering a 9.2 on the Calvin/Hobbes scale.

As my linguistics professor would (and did) say,

"Holy cats!"