Palin’s Subservience

For those wondering about Sarah Palin being a beacon of hope for women in the world, well, here’s another Chris Hedges article: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080915_for_palin_its_a_christian_mans_world/

Sorry to just keep posting other people’s things, but it’s well worth reading.  And, yeah, I get more scared every day that McCain might win it.

The Scary Future, Now.

Chris Hedges has a new article about some of the scary things that happened in St. Paul during the RNC.  You can read it here.

If it scares you, then that’s good.  It should.  We may not be as far away from the world of movies like V for Vendetta as we think.

Please read the article.  It tells of some very scary things already happening in our own country.

Politics(Business) as Usual

Toyota recently unveiled a new ad campaign for the Corolla. People cheer the car on as it makes its slow way through a parade. Children wave, an elderly woman holds the side-mirror, like holding hands, as she walks slowly next to the car. It’s a mock political ad, literally campaigning the car. It’s clever and well made. It’s also unintentionally (as far as I know) apt. The election season is not much different than two companies putting forth their new product line. Two new models, probably not much different than last year’s. The rival companies throwing everything they can into the marketing of their new products.

I’m certainly not the first to make the connection between politics, marketing, and big business. There are far smarter people than I, who’ve explored this issue. These are merely my own personal observations.

When it comes down to it, money is truly the center of all things. Politics, religion, nationalism-they all become means to an end. This is not to say each individual involved in these things is only out for monetary gain. No, I’m talking about the larger picture of things. If you zoom out to the macro level, to the highest points of these institutions, then monetary goals become the most important.

The Republican and Democratic parties are organizations built on money. They accept money from the public as well as from corporations, in order to further themselves politically. The more they further themselves politically, the more money they get from public and corporate sponsorship. This becomes an immediate circular problem. The question now comes in as to whether these political parties are operating in political or monetary interest. These two parties are seen as the only two political parties who can effectively compete on the national (presidential) level. They are effectively two super companies fighting for the same goal, with only each other as competition, and with every other smaller competitor put out of business or ignored to the point where the effectiveness is inconsequential.

Except, these parties do not truly act like companies. They do not just have the support of individual investors (party members and supporters), but the support of many large corporations. In effect, the Republican and Democratic parties act more like stock markets. The companies that perform better on these party-based stock markets are the ones that contribute the most money. The more money contributed, the more likely that stock market (party) will work for you, yielding a bigger return, by supporting laws, amendments, bills, and motions that will work in that companies favor.

The only difference is the public. The parties also need public support in order to get elected, so theoretically they have to also support the public’s interests. As previously stated, more public support equals more corporate sponsorship, which equals more money. So the public must mean more than the corporate money because it’s the first step toward that money, right? Well, the thing is … that corporate money happens to be a lot of money, and a lot of that money can be useful in garnering public support.

So this again becomes an issue of marketing. Obviously, the parties are trying to attract different markets at the ends of the spectrum, but they are also trying to attract the undecided middle. Those ends of the spectrum tend to make up the major base of the party’s supporters.

The Republican’s major target is “the right,” while the Democrats target “the left.” The right tends to be made up of social and religious conservatives interested in moral reforms, lax gun control, pro-life legislation, and less federal interference, while the left tends toward progressives interested in women’s rights, gay/lesbian rights, protecting pro-choice legislation, stricter gun control laws, universal healthcare, more socialized benefits, and more federal constraints on corporations. The Republicans therefore market themselves as moral crusaders and heroes of the religious right, while Democrats market themselves as reformers trying to look out for the middle and lower classes through welfare programs and by supporting civil rights.

These are marketing strategies. While Republicans often champion small town values, their legislature consistently makes it harder for lower and middle class families to live. They give token tax cuts to the poor, while they give huge tax cuts to the rich, imposing the consistently debunked trickle-down theory. Democrats pander to the progressive left, promising true progressive reform, but without ever truly following through.

While the public loses out, the private corporations win. The Republicans and Democrats do vote on behalf of their supporters, but only the ones that can do for them as well. Just like a company trying to please its stock-holders, these parties are only trying to please their biggest investors. It’s just good business.

The only difference being that not only are the investors (corporations) effectively running the company (the political parties) by proxy, they are also running a country. These are not maniacal plans for power, though. It’s much simpler. These are just companies trying to work as effectively as possible within a (uncontrolled) capitalist system. Controlling a country just allows them to make a larger profit by controlling legislature in their favor.

And after all most of these companies either are or are owned by large multi-nationals, with only a handful of them controlling most of the world’s business. These corporations are entities larger than the bounds of a single government, and far more powerful.

Seen in these macroscopic terms, the 2008 presidential election seems far smaller and unimportant. Regardless of the choice it seems like an inevitable more of the same. While I personally would prefer a democratic president, and I do think with enough pressure from progressive groups that Barack Obama may be one of the better presidents in recent history, I also have to look at that history and accept some indisputable evidence that most things will likely not change much. There have of course been some memorable polices made in US history (emancipation proclamation, the new deal, the civil rights movement), but they have been few and very far in between. So I do hope, but I am also realistic. Even those memorable policies only happened with compromise, and those compromises were always made in the name of capitalism. Combine these facts with the fact that all of the major media outlets are also owned by corporations (the very same making the campaign contributions), and the presidential election starts to seem more like an elongated season of American Idol. Or like a Toyota commercial. So, will you vote for Corolla? See your local Toyota dealership today.

Back to School, Sex Dolls, Redbelt, and the RNC

Okay, it’s been about a week since I’ve posted, so this is going to be a sort of amglam of different topics and such.

First, I went to NYC last weekend, which was great.  I haven’t been there since I was a little kid, which is weird seeing as I live within three hours of it.  But the best part was the reason I went: I got to meet Chuck Palahniuk.

Yes, Chuck.  But not just him.  I also got to meet one of my other writing heroes Amy Hempel.

If you’re not familiar with Chuck, he’s the author of Fight Club, Survior, Invisible Monsters, Choke, among others.  His new book, Snuff, is out now.  The reason I got to meet my writing idol is that he’s on a tour for Snuff.  But this event was special.  Not only was he promoting his new book, he’s also helping to promote the new movie based on his book Choke. The director of the movie, Clark Gregg was in attendance, as well as his surprise guest SAM ROCKWELL!!  Yeah, I was exicited.

The whole event was fanfuckingtabulous.  They gave out tons of free stuff, including a signed autograph dog, a signed blow-up doll (male and female; I got a female one), a poster signed by Clark Gregg, and a Choke anal bead bookmark.  Plus, there was a book signing, so I got books signed by Chuck and Amy Hempel, which was awesome.

If you don’t know Amy Hempel, she’s the author of four collections of short stories, Reasons to Live, At the Gates of the Animal Kingdom, Tumble Home, and The Dog of Marriage.  All four are in her new book, Amy Hempel: The Collected Stories.  And they’re all great.  I mean she’s really good.  Too good.  She’s Chuck Palahniuk’s writing god, which was why it was so great to see them together.  He praised her the whole time, which she, being very humble, deflected, and instead tried to praise him.  They had a really good question and answer session with each other.

And then I got to talk to Chuck and Amy, and all I can say is that they’re two of the nicest people I’ve met.

Here are Chuck’s awesome signatures:

Okay, now for a completely different topic.

I watched Mamet’s Redbelt last night, a movie that I really wanted to catch in theaters, but never got a chance to.  It was great, as expected.  One of his best movies I think.  A lot of people criticize the acting styles in his movies for being emotionless, but I never got that impression, I always thought the acting matched the tone of the film (the only exception maybe being his first film,  House of Games, which can still feel a little too much like a play being filmed.  But, hey, I still love that movie).  Tim Allen has a great small role, as well.

And then there’s the RNC.  I just end up laughing now whenever I hear republicans speak.  But then I have to bring myself back and realize that they’re serious.  So then I get scared.

Same thing here.

On the upside, The Daily Show’s coverage has been amazing.  Ditto Colbert.

Oh, and I’m back in school.  Hurray …

Angel Orgasms at the DNC

“Every time Barack Obama speaks, an angel has an orgasm.”

This is why I love the Daily Show.  And they have been seriously awesome in their coverage of the DNC.  So start watching the DNC episodes online because “hope don’t park your mother fucking car!”

And then there was John Stewart’s awesome exclamation: “Everyone knows Republicans love America, they just hate half the people in it!”

Brilliant stuff.

Oh, and Colbert too.  He’s been reporting from Denver (New York) too.

Flag Humping

Just finished watching Obama’s speech. It was very good, per usual. The man can speak.

But I gotta say, there was way too many shots of people waving giant American flags. I have nothing against American flags nor against people waving them. I do get a little uncomfortable around fervent nationalism, but whatever, people are into it. But it’s just so awkward to watch these guys trying to wave these giant flags on poles so big that they have to brace it up against their crotch just to get any leverage. I mean who wants to watch some guy hump an American flagpole?

Then there was an outbreak of shouts from the crowd at one point. Obama was speaking of America’s low standing in the eyes of the rest of the world. He spoke of how he would improve that standing, and make the United States a beacon of hope once again. But then the crowd began the chant. Mixed in with the voices screaming “yes we can” was another, older slogan. “USA! USA!” the crowd cheered. I’m sorry, but is this Rocky IV ?  Who chants USA?  It’s not the Olympics.   This isn’t the miracle on the ice.  I’m sorry, but these people are at the Democratic National Convention.  What other country would anybody possibly cheer for there?

Silly people.

But yeah, Barack gave a great speech—one that will be very hard for McCain to follow next week.

War, Bad Stuff, Civillian Deaths, and Keeping Pressure

60 Afghani children have died is a US led air strike. It’s said that out of the 700 civilian deaths so far this year in Afghanistan, 255 of them were caused by US coalition or Afghani forces.

That’s not right.

This will be forgotten within a matter of days. These things always are.

Chris Hedges’s article about it here.

The war in Afghanistan is steadily getting worse. The war in Iraq is already a disaster. Yet the numbers of the innocent lost in these wars glaze over us. Over 600,000 dead in Iraq, yet nothing has changed. Where’s the outrage? I don’t know.

While it’s obvious the current presidential administration isn’t going to do anything to stop these wars, it’s time to start pressuring the next administration. If Obama is elected president, then pressure needs to be placed on him from all sides to end these wars, because Washington and Obama’s corporate backers will pressure him to do the opposite. I have faith that Barack Obama can do good. At the very least, he’s our only chance to get the country back on track. But we still need to pressure him to do so. If there’s no pressure, then nothing will get done.

Here’s an interview with Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine, talking about whether or not to give a free ride to Obama. I like her point because she’s also realistic about things. She doesn’t support Obama bashing, but does think that if he’s elected, then progressive groups need to immediately switch gears from cheerleaders to critical thinkers pushing Obama forward to make real change.

The Perks of Being a Badass

There was a man.

A simple man.

He rode in this town on a big ‘ol steed.

There was this man.

I say this man.

And he looked out and saw a town in need.

Where is this man?

This simple man.

The man sent here to do his simple deed

—anonymous

The lone stranger. The strong, silent type. The man with no name. The anti-hero.

These are the characters I want to watch in films or read about in books. They can be men or women. They can be of any race or religion. The only requirement is to be a badass. They range all over from Clint Eastwood in the Dollars trilogy, to Uma Thurman in Kill Bill. Korean films like Old Boy and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, British Films like Point Blank (well, British director at least), and even Kurosawa films like Yojimbo.

The protagonists in these films have something over characters (see: normal characters) in other films. These characters are always cooler. They are, in fact, the coolest. And the reason for their coolness is their apparent apathy—their lack of a normal conscience. They are slightly morally corrupt. Just a little bit off-kilter. They could kick the normal hero from some other movie’s ass, or if that hero starts beating them to a bloody pulp, they’ll look up into his eyes, cough out a splatter of blood on the floor in front of him, and smile. They’re tough.

These are the characters I love. The ones with no moral compass. The ones who are real assholes, but you love them anyway. And when you watch them or read about them, you get to live that life for just a little bit. For the length of that movie or book, you’re them, and you’re a badass. For that little slice of your life, you’re that guy or girl that no one wants to get in the way of. All you have to do is give a look and people watch out.

The best of these characters (Walker in Point Blank or the Samurai in Yojimbo) never falter in their badass-itude. They go through hell and back, but they’re attitude does not change. Their character goes against any conventional wisdom of storytelling. Characters are always supposed to change, whether for better or for worse, but these ones don’t. Characters are supposed to learn and grow. These ones do not. The man with no name is exactly the same at the end of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly as he was in the beginning, just richer. These characters defy terms like “character development.” The only thing that develops is whether or not they achieve their goal. Walker looking for his ninety-three thousand dollars, the Samurai subverting the rival gangs, the bride out to kill Bill, Tyler Durden trying to bring the world back to zero … it’s all about what they want and how they’re going to get it.

It’s storytelling brought down to the simplest degree. It’s the stripped down language of James M. Cain, or the hard boiled criminals in a Jim Thompson book. It’s about having fun and letting loose.

It’s about examining the corrupt world around these characters. Because we always like the anti-hero, and there’s a reason. They maybe amoral, but they’re never as corrupt as the people around them. They’re surviving in a corrupt world, not by hiding or by making due or by trying to change it, but by making it work for them. They know the world is shit, but they don’t care. They know the angles and they’ll get what they want. And maybe this is why we like them so much. Because we see the corrupt world around us too, only we wish we could turn the world around on itself, make it work for us.

But it’s also just fun to be a badass.

The Amazing Link of Awesomeness

Okay, all I got is a YouTube link today.  I know how annoying it can be sometimes to get links to YouTube because, well, everybody always has a YouTube link to some stupid thing or something or other, but this one is good … I swear.  The only requirement before watching is probably that you’re somewhat familiar with Requiem for Dream. Other than that, just enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1qihwMN0JM

Staring Down the Barrel

There are many dogs barking as I write this, so forgive any nonsensicalness.

I’ve come here today to talk about my likes and dislikes.  This happens to be what I do every time on my blog, but so it goes.  What I really want to talk about, what I really want to dig down deep into is … well, I don’t know.

Yes, this is what I want.  I don’t know.  My constant mind struggle as of late.  Why don’t I know?

I’m staring down the barrel of the real world.  The non-college world.  The job world.  The whatthehellamIgonnado world.  This is all pointless complaining, yes, but what’s a blog for other than complaining?

My likes?

Well there’s the whole film thing … I can’t seem to breathe without movies.  I like to pretend I know how to make them, too.  I like everything about them really.  I like to study them and think about them and talk about them.  And about everything that has to do with them.

Then there’s the whole writing thing, which sometimes happens to line up with the whole film thing.  I’m an English major, and I think there’s probably a reason for that other than it seemed like a good idea in 2005.  I respect language and the power it has (heavy), and I want to learn more about it and learn to use it better.

Those are the big ones: writing, books, and film.  My desert island list, really.  Give me some movies, something to watch them on, some books, some paper, a pen, and if you’re being really nice, and this island has electricity (well I guess that was assumed with the TV), then give me a camera and some editing software too.  That’s what I enjoy.  That’s the stuff I’ll do without anybody asking me to.

Dislikes?

Corporations (hard to get away from these days, though), the nine to five grind (I can do it, but don’t ask me to like it), country music (except Cash, of course), social injustices (arguably includes country music), and such and such.  Normal stuff, but, still, things I’d like to stay away from.

Oh, and all that emo stuff.  And people who say they love horror movies, but their favorite one is Prom Night or some other piece of crap.  And … okay, well, a lot of things I guess, but I’m getting off topic.

Which brings us back to I don’t know.  What to do, what to do … that’s my question really.  Not really looking for an answer I guess, but typing out loud.

My random musing for the day.

Oh and the dogs stopped.  For now.