Reality Stars are this era's Gladiators.
Hear me out.
During Roman times, Gladiators were either captured or enslaved and the forced to combat each other, wild animals, weird machines, etc, in order to "entertain" the Roman people. It was violent, it was brutal, but it was all the people had... and they put a lot of stock into their respected warriors in the ring. We Americans like to think of ourselves as being more civilized than all that... and as far as the violence thing goes, we may be right. But we are no more mature than that civilization. The only difference we now have more toys.
But surely there are better examples of gladiators. Football players? Ultimate Fighters? Even "Pro" Wrestlers fit the bill better than Reality Stars, right? Well, I beg to differ.
Even though the whole concept of "reality" star is flawed, they are much closer to the idea of a Gladiator. They are put on display every week, standing in front of millions of people, making complete asses of themselves. They shame each other, they embarrass themselves, they put up with all kinds of challenges. And for what? Some money? "Fame?" I don't get it.
Actually I do. It's because they don't have anything better going for them, and because we as a society have come to love watching them fail. Sure someone wins at the end of "The Amazing Race" or "Survivor," but that's not really why people watch those shows. They watch for the drama, for the fighting, for the failures. And shows like "Jersey Shore" are simply a "best of" in those departments. There is no objective for "Jersey Shore" other than to entertain people who like watching a bunch of mildly intelligent people act like morons.
I'm not saying we should be ashamed of this. I'm not saying anything about it, really. You can all be your own judges. I know I'm guilty. I watch "Hell's Kitchen" even though it's one of the more ridiculous shows on television. I know it, yet I sit in front of the TV and watch it religiously. Why? Because I'm no better than the Romans. The only difference is when I try to eat grapes lying down I choke.
Come Out Swinging...
Finally, a debate worth watching. I sat through the whole thing expecting yet another round of throwing insults at one another, challenging each other on non-issues based on non-facts, slinging charges at one another that neither could answer. But I'm happy to say that I was pleasantly surprised by both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama during this first debate. Both men were civilized, presenting intelligent arguments, not getting nasty (well, not really), and in the end I think it turned out to be a healthy discussion.
There are two big things about this debate to take away. First, we have to very smart and well-spoken men running for office. Second, this is going to be the easiest election ever, because never have I ever seen a bigger gap in the beliefs between the two candidates. But before I delve any deeper, I owe you some back story.
I'm going to tell you my political beliefs. You may not care. That's fine, feel free to skip this bit. But I feel like if I'm going to sit here and talk about politics and speeches and debates, then you deserve at least to know my stance on the whole thing. For starters, I consider myself a true middle-grounder. I have voted both ways in past elections (sometimes during the same election), and I tend to base my votes on character. I do that because I believe a man or woman can sit there and tell you what you want to hear all day, but ultimately his or her character is going to determine what kind of President he or she will be.
In social issues I tend to be very liberal. You have the right to live your lifestyle the way you see fit, and so long as you aren't harming or harassing anyone else, you can do whatever you want. If you think you can lead a productive life and do drugs, go right ahead. If you think abortion is fine and you can live with that on your conscience then by all means do what you think is right. If you want to worship God, or if you want to insult Him, that is your choice and your right.
In fiscal issues I am definitely more conservative-leaning. I believe that the free market should determine its own fate. I don't think the government has any right or does any good by over-regulating or sticking its nose into private enterprise. I think the smaller the government is, the better.
In matters of defense I am very much isolationist. We have no right and no business policing the world. The world has a pretty negative view of us, but I think that's because they don't realize what we do for them on a daily basis. If our troops and our funds left their country, think about how much more secure and rich we would be. And think about what would happen when those countries realized just how badly they need us. We would become the heroes of the world once again, and we would not have families split because one member is a soldier stationed overseas.
Of course, all of these issues become very cloudy and are much more complicated than I just wrote them out. And that's why, even though I say this election should be the easiest one ever, it has me more on the fence than I have ever been before.
It would be great if the free market could truly regulate itself... if competition truly kept prices down. But the fact is that it doesn't. Just look at cell phone companies. They are making money hand-over-fist. They are so big and so controlling of the assets that no little company stands any chance of serving up real competition. And they have "gentlemens' agreements" which prevent them from directly competing with one another on several levels. In the meantime their prices have only gone up, charging more and more for data, for their phones, for features that we don't need. The same thing is happening with electricity. In Houston, power used to be regulated. Then it privatized, and the argument was that the competing companies will keep the costs down. That certainly has not happened. I don't care how much more expensive energy has become, when I was paying almost $200/month for electricity in Houston and then moved to a bigger apartment in Sacramento (where power is regulated), and the most I ever paid was $45... there's something wrong here. We lose those fights, and there's no one to stop these companies except for the government. That brings up a whole other issue. HOW does the government stop it? Should the government directly influence and control those prices? Or is it enough for government to simply enter the private world as another competitor, the "Wal-Mart" of cell phone companies for example? Well, I suppose that depends on who you vote for.
The real issue is that there are two very smart, very capable, very passionate men running for office. They both have good morals, and they both want what's best for this country. They have very different views on how to get there, but they both want the same end result. And I think when you put the two of them up against each other, it makes for a very good and compelling argument.
Obama had some good knocks going after Romney on specifics. He accurately pointed out that Romney has made grand statements about what he wants to do, but he has not revealed how he plans to do those things. I thought he had Romney cold, but then Romney responded well by saying that he doesn't have specifics because he's waiting to see what happens when he approaches congress. I'm not quoting him directly here, but I thought it was very interesting when he said that in order to truly compromise you have to approach these things with an open mind and no "my way or the highway" mentality. Great defense for a great argument.
Another good one was the whole Obamacare issue. I thought Obama was going to corner Romney when he started talking about how Romney had the same healthcare system when he was Governor of Massachusetts. But again Romney dodged the bullet by saying that it worked for his state, and that's what he planned to do (give healthcare back to the states).
On the flip side, I think Obama did a great job of appealing to the people. He made it very clear that he is trying to watch out for them, that his main goal is to make sure none of us are taken advantage of and that we all get a fair shake. I think he did a better job of that than Romney.
Ultimately this is probably the most important election I've ever been a part of. It's not just our country -- it's the entire world that will be affected by the outcome of this election. Both of these guys have good ideas, and both of them have flaws. But the good news like I said, they are both smart, and there's not a wildcard that could get us launched into a nuclear war... at least I hope not.
My Wife Is Not The Issue Here Dude
Wow what a commotion over a tiny little piece of papyrus. Or canvas. Or whatever that thing is that someone wrote on claiming that Jesus had a wife. Now there's talk of blasphemy and people freaking out because they are realizing that -- shocker -- their religious leaders may have at best been mistaken, and at worst been flat-out lying to them about Jesus and the religion that they have followed so dearly.
I'm going to just say something here, and you can call me a blasphemer and you can hate me and you may never speak to me again if you like, but I'm going to say it anyway. There is a difference between being religious and being spiritual. It may sound like a small difference, but it is a very important difference. Let me just remind you that when Mohammed walked the Earth, when Jesus was around, there was no Christianity. There was no Islam. These are religions created by MAN, based on something that is basically IMPOSSIBLE for man to ever comprehend.
I can only really speak for Christianity because that's how I was raised and I have at least a fundamental understanding of that religion. You know how the stories go... when Jesus was risen, a bunch of religious leaders convened and said "okay how are we going to do this Bible thing?" They took a bunch of scriptures and put them together, and some they left out. Why? What gave them the right to choose what went in and what was left out? These were imperfect beings trying to understand perfection. And yet, these imperfect beings determined an entire religion based on their beliefs!
That religion, along with many others, has been the instigator of wars. Religion has caused death, it has caused bribery, it has caused people to do terrible, terrible things, and all in the name of someone who probly would be very upset about this fact.
And suddenly here comes this little piece of paper which challenges everything. Just a few simple words that are now getting attention in Time Magazine and threaten to turn religion on its head. It's causing denials from church leaders, calling it a fake, saying that there's no way it can be true, etc etc etc.
So what if Jesus had a wife? Who cares? What really is the damage that causes? Other than the fact that Catholic Priests will probably feel a little ripped off for staying single and celibate, I just don't see the big issue here. Is the Christian religion really that afraid to admit that it might have been wrong about something? Is that really what religion is all about?
If you've never seen "Kingdom of Heaven," I HIGHLY recommend that you watch it. Watch the Director's Cut. It's long, it's epic, it covers a lot of ground. But in my opinion there is no better move to describe the differences between spiritualism and religion. In its most simple terms, religion is man-made. Spiritualism goes beyond. And spirituality does not fight wars over land or "holy" relics. It does not lead to hatred over beliefs. It does not segregate or separate. It accepts all comers. It is moral. It holds certain universal truths: be kind to others. Be a good person. Be generous. Do the right thing. It's ingrained in all of us (even though some of us have a harder time with it than others). And it doesn't ruin your world if you find out that one of the most spiritual and amazing people that ever lived, may have had a wife.
Hoo man we've covered some serious ground so far in this one. How about some movie reviews?
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
From Netflix: This reboot of the Planet of the Apes franchise is a prequel set in modern-day San Francisco, where scientists are conducting genetic research on apes. The evolved primates develop advanced intelligence and revolt against being used as lab rats.
My Take: I've actually never sat through the old "Planet of the Apes" movies. I know the story, I know the iconic scenes. But I just was never really that interested in the concept. It just never did anything for me personally. I watched this movie for two reasons: one, because Colin said it was really good. And two, because I have the movie channels right now and I have just been DVRing like a mad-man.
The very first thing I noticed was the CGI. It was good in most parts, but horrific in others. I heard a lot of ballyhooing about how great the CGI was in this movie, and while it was cool, I certainly wouldn't put it up against "Transformers" or "Avatar." What they did do very well was capture the emotion in the facial expression of the computerized apes. I'll give 'em that much.
This movie was actually surprisingly good. It took a concept that really is kind of ridiculous and made lemonade out of those lemons. Of course, you can't escape certain things... like the fact that there's no way a bunch of smart apes could defeat armed police. It's silly to think that there wouldn't be better security at the pharmaceutical company where this guy worked. Forget the fact that he was just able to walk out of there with experimental drugs... let's talk about the fact that there was apparently NO safety glass in that entire building and the apes could just break it with no problem.
And yet, while there were several flaws in this movie, and while some of those flaws were laughably bad, I did have a good time watching it. I actually sort of wanted the apes to win in the end. And I really liked how they tied this in to the story of the "Planet of the Apes" that was such a big deal back in the day. Props to the creators for paying respect to their elders.
You might as well see this movie. Why not? It's fun, it's got some cool moments. It also has some good (unintentional) laughs. And it's got one of the worst titles for a movie I've ever seen in my life. Seriously.
The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
From Netflix: After Robert Ford joins the most notorious gang in the West, he grows tired of the charismatic Jesse James and begins to resent his widespread fame. But by hatching a scheme to gun down James, Ford risks forever being branded a coward.
My Take: I absolutely love movies like this. Movies like this one don't take any shame in the fact that they are reading more like a book than a movie. That doesn't always work, but to me Westerns are your best chance at success. Plus you had some fantastic actors in this movie. Even Sam Rockwell, who I thought for sure was going to be the weak link, surprised me.
I actually started this movie a while back. I rented it from Netflix, got about an hour into it, and then the disc skipped. I pulled it out to reveal a giant scratch that I couldn't fix. So I sent it back in disgust and never finished it... until now.
I'm glad I gave it another shot. I didn't really understand the movie last time I watched it, but this time it all made sense. There's a lot going on here. A lot of deep character development. You have to know names. You have to pay attention. The movie is pretty merciless in that regard. But it's a great story, and a very interesting look into the way things worked back in those times. It's amazing the power one man can wield over another -- how that man can seem invincible despite the fact that he is just another human being like me or you. But it happens. It even happens today. And that is fascinating.
The music in this movie is also very moving. Sort of odd, just like the movie itself... but it just has an interesting tone to it that fits perfectly and is also beautiful to listen to. Unfortunately it's just weird enough that I can't justify buying it ha ha.
And also unfortunately, I'm afraid I can't recommend this movie. It's good, but it's definitely not for everyone. It's slow, it plods, it has a definite pace that may or may not work for you. If you like movies that hold your attention but also require your attention, or if you like westerns, or if you think Brad Pitt is a badass (which I happen to think), then sure, give it a shot. But if you don't make it through, don't say I didn't warn you.
The Sitter
From Netflix: Jonah Hill stars in this giddy comedy about a student whose suspension from college leaves him available to baby-sit his mom's neighbors' children. The poor guy, however, has no idea what fate and the kids have in store for him.
My Take: This movie showed me one thing: Jonah Hill is not good as a standalone actor. He is just one of those guys who needs to support. He was hilarious in "Superbad." In "Cyrus?" Scary... weird... awesome. But in this movie he just never pops the way he should. He's funny, sure, but he never reaches the level that he can when he's bouncing off another actor. And having the tag-along kids just wasn't good enough.
The good news is, the kids were pretty cool. They were funny and they were good actors -- but I don't know if I would have let my kid star in a movie like this. This is definitely not a kids movie. It's no "Tooth Fairy," starring The Rock, that's for sure. There are some very adult, very ridiculous situations in this movie.
I think where "The Sitter" loses me is when it gets so unbelievably ridiculous and there is just no attempt to tie up any of the loose ends. The guy steals two cars. No cops. They break into and blow up a jewelry store. Where's the police presence? Oh there they are -- no wait, they are corrupt and now there are no cops again. Crazy drug lord with a gun? Sure makes sense, and yet again, no cops. You have to tie up the loose ends. Even "Stealing Harvard," which gets absolutely ridiculous, ties up the loose ends. What about the suing that would surely take place once the family found their van? What about his Dad whose son just stole his car AND blew up his jewelry store? We just never see any of that, and instead we're treated to some borderline racism and a half-attempt at Hill trying to instill confidence in a bunch of kids who he really doesn't know and went from hating to loving in all of 15 minutes.
My point is, this movie is funny, but it just never gets "there." It doesn't have that certain special something that makes it worth watching. Or recommending. Better luck next time.
Whew, let's try to lighten up on the next entry, huh folks? I'll do my best. Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment