Naturally, with the hot weather comes a slew of "news" reports about how mankind is actually the culprit behind global... er... climate change, as well as a bunch of "news" reports that say the exact opposite is true. I swear it's like these columnists are kept tucked away in a cubicle in some dank, dark corner of these news outlets, only to be let out whenever the climate starts to become a talker.
And it's silly. There is compelling proof on both sides of the issue. We are now producing unbelievable amounts of CO2 and other contaminates that are destroying our atmosphere. It was hotter back in medieval times than it is now. You've shown me study after study that prove you are both right and the other is wrong. The question is, who cares?
Who cares whether or not we are in fact to blame for the warmer climate? Who cares if it's actually just a natural event or cycle that the planet goes through? Is that really the debate we should be having right now? Don't answer, I'll do it for you. No. WHO or WHAT is causing the climate to change is not important. What's important is that for the first time in the history of mankind, we are at a point where we can actually make a difference and do something about it.
Yet we are not.
Why do we still have cars that run on oil? Why do we still prefer coal power over wind or solar? Why do we still throw our bottles and wrappers in the trash instead of sending them to the recycling center? I'll tell you why: because it's not cool to do any of those things yet.
You could probably have asked this same question about our health back in the 80s or 90s. Why is no one jogging three miles every day? Why are people stuffing their faces with McDonald's instead of smoothies? Why don't we take better care of ourselves? That was then, this is now. Just look around you. You can't go for a walk without seeing three or four "spas." Everything you buy at the grocery store has some sort of note on it now... Gluten free! Sugar free! Flavor free! Screw french fries, McDonald's is now trying to hand out fresh fruit. It's a complete flip from what we saw just 15 or 20 years ago. But now it's cool to be in shape. It's cool to eat bland soy protein bars and post updates of your totally rad workout routine.
The problem is, it's too late. While yes, it may be cool to be thin and in shape now, there are many many people who didn't get on board soon enough or were already too far gone by the time the trend kicked in. We've got a lot of fatties running around, is what I'm getting at. But fatties will grow old, weak, and dead. A new generation of Earthicans will pop up and we will all be healthier from here on out, because of the framework we have laid in place.
We don't get that opportunity with the environment. "Too late" is too late, and that's it. We don't get another chance. Unless we leave Earth, which would be awesome. But we probably won't be doing that, Titan A.E. style. Instead we're going to have to figure this one out, and hopefully before it's too late.
I come back to my original question: who gives a shit whether or not we are responsible for global warming? The bottom line is, we're capable of making real, effective changes right now, and we're not doing it. Oil is easy, but it is not the right answer. Coal is cheap and plentiful right now, but it's not the right answer. Plastic containers that take a thousand years to biodegrade (if at all) are convenient, but they are not the right answer. This is all stuff that we have the answers to right now, but we are too afraid to move on any of them. Things are being set in motion. Even though the Prius is a hideous car, it is gaining in popularity. Hybrids are actually okay for most people now, and some of them aren't too shitty. I still think Hydrogen is the way to go, but that's another argument for another time. The boulder has started rolling, but it is rolling WAY too slow.
Will moving forward with cleaner energy and waste be the answer to solving global warming? Maybe, maybe not. But who cares? It needs to happen regardless. We have the technology. We can rebuild it.
Romney's Race Card
The NAACP are having a convention in Houston right now. They were kind enough to invite Mitt Romney to speak, as well as President Obama. Obama declined, which is understandable. He does have a country to run, after all. But Romney accepted, which I have to say surprised me. "Why would he go into such hostile territory?" I asked myself. "Why would he even bother trying to gain African American votes?" I wondered. "Why even bother?"And of course, the media so far has agreed with me. All I heard about yesterday was "Mitt Romney trying to steal black votes." And today, after the speech, headlines are reading "Mitt Romney booed at NAACP convention." He was. Incidentally, he was also applauded on a couple of points.
This is all sad. I'm ashamed to admit that I thought those things. That's stereotyping, and it's wrong. It's also sad that the media would try to turn something like this into a race play. Mitt Romney trying to "steal" black votes? Why would he have to steal anything? Are African Americans not intelligent enough to make up their own minds? Just what is the media suggesting?
Media, of course, is just after ratings. Can you blame them? That's how they make their bread and butter. It's like telling a dog not to fetch. Sure it can get annoying, but it's what they do. At least it's what mine does. It's ALL mine does. Anyway, I think we can call say that we fully expect this type of behavior from media. But what has disappointed me is something that I will probably catch a lot of flack for. What has disappointed me is that I have seen people who are proving the media right.
If you want to vote for President Obama in November, fine, go right ahead. I won't try to stop you. He is an intelligent, well-spoken guy with a clear and defined plan for this country. I may not agree with that plan, but I can see that he has one and he does have a way of carrying it out. Mitt Romney is also a smart man, and he also has a plan for this country. And I would never ask any of you to agree with his plan or my support of it. But what I will ask you is that you base your voting decision on THESE topics, NOT race.
In other words, vote for Obama because he is smart. Vote for him because you like his character, you believe in him, you think he is honest, you agree with his plans for this country, you think he is a good leader, etc. NOT because he is black. And don't vote AGAINST him because he is black, either.
Do we seriously not recognize that we are all falling into the exact trap that Martin Luther King begged us NOT to fall into? We are judging the president of our country on the color of his skin. Not the quality of his character. Not because of what he is or what he stands for, but because of what he LOOKS like. Pathetic.
So if you are planning on voting for Obama, or voting against him for that matter, all I ask is that you please think long and hard about WHY you are making the decision you are making. Do you know what the issues are? Do you know what his stand is on those issues? Do you know how either of these candidates' plans would affect you moving forward? Or are you just voting for someone because of his race? It's a tough question to ask, and for some it will be an even tougher question to answer... but until we can get past these types of issues, our country will remain divided on race.
I for one think it's fantastic that Romney went to speak at the NAACP. Why wouldn't he? It'd be like him not speaking at a church or a school or a car dealership. It's another convention, another podium for him to use to get his message out. Why wouldn't he use it? And I'm also glad to hear that he got some applause and even a standing ovation when he left. That tells me that the majority of people who attended that convention are intelligent, equality-loving people who may not agree with what Romney is saying, but will agree that he is still a human being and deserves to be treated like one. Let's do the same for Obama, and then we'll have ourselves a nice little election here in a few months. Deal?
Jeff, Who Lives At Home
From Netflix: Siblings Jay and Mark Duplass direct this comedy focusing on two brothers -- one a moderate success, the other still living with Mom. A trip to the store for glue, however, turns into an encounter with destiny for the stay-at-home slacker.My take: so "Marshal" from "How I Met Your Mother," and "Andy" from "The Office," are in a movie together. Sounds good. Sounds funny. Sounds worth a try. Well, after watching it, I can say "meh, I guess." I don't know what it was about this movie, but it just wasn't quite there. Maybe it was the timing of everything... like the humor was a little off. Maybe these two actors just don't meld together... I mean they don't look very much alike, yet they are supposed to be brothers. Or maybe it was the roles they played... Marshal was good, but Andy being a dick? Kind of weird. Or maybe it was all the fucking snap-zooms that happen in every fucking shot and ruined the entire fucking movie. Yeah it was probably that.
This movie committed the cardinal sin for me: it tried to be quirky and funny and weird, when it had no need to be. It reminded me of "Garden State." There's one scene in that movie where Natalie Portman suddenly throws her arms up in the air and starts squealing like a little piglet. It only goes on for a second, but in that second I (a) almost vomited, and (b) almost turned off the movie. It's because that movie was trying to make some grand statement, but it was completely unfounded, completely out of place, and completely forced. "Garden State" was not a good movie, and if you think it was then you are not my friend.
But "Jeff" COULD have been a good movie. It HAD the powerful story. It HAD a great idea, and great characters, and great emotion, and a nice twist. It had all the pieces, but it was executed so poorly that it ruined the entire experience. Why shoehorn in all this snap-zoom lesbian screwy marriage quirkiness that doesn't need to be there? Just let the story breathe and be its own thing. Let it all play out the way it looked on paper, and you've got yourself something great. Something along the lines of "Stranger Than Fiction." Instead you force all this shit and ruin the thing with your poor taste and even poorer camera skills.
"Jeff Who Lives At Home" is a pretty decent movie. I made it all the way through, and I have no regrets. But it's frustrating to see something that could have been great, and yet all it does is "good" and roll credits. Too bad.
WHO WANTS CHOWDA?
No comments:
Post a Comment