Noone is going to read my blog.
But that's ok because I shalt have this meager plane of the internet to get some ideas out.
Most likely ideas that will lead my girlfriend to either growl and/or criticize my inability to accept various things.
But genetically speaking, the music world is a mess.
Hidden among layers and layers of utter bullshit lie the diamonds of the various genres and non-genres of the aural universe, waiting for the greedy drill of the true music fan to penetrate and recover.
But until then we are left standing on what ostensibly appears to be crap.
Why is it that people insist on shunning perfectly good, well-crafted songs to pursue what has now because the 10 commandments of the Satanist's Book of Music, the Billboard charts? (Probably an insult to Satanists). What exactly happened to the 60's? Much like a parent of a runaway rebel, where the bloody hell did the music industry go wrong? It seemed to be that the Beatles were, for the longest time, the most popular artists out there. You know it from the first note: culturally significant, experimental, introspective, music, with all of the coveted "catchiness" you could want. But instead we turn to, say...
Who do I get to pick on now?
Britney Spears.
It wouldn't make any sense to compare Britney Spears to the Beatles. But there are loads of girls who write music that sounds a bit like Britney Spears' stuff, but you know, with depth. Rule 1: Noone is ever allowed to write a song about their lives if we've all read it in the shitty tabloids. That includes you, Lohan, you whore. Rule 2: someone needs to unplug ever goddamn turntable and mixer that isn't being used to produce original beats and/or hooks. Hitting a trashcan in 7/4 would make me want to kill myself less than hearing the repetitive, lame beep-beeping of some of these songs.
In fact, the only popular artist right now I can probably commend is Justin Timberlake, for having the balls to associate with black artists and music that much, without looking like a moron. In fact, he's probably blacker than Michael Jackson by now, which, to be fair, isn't saying much.
Is it socially acceptable to say that popular black music went from revolutionary to a cesspool of toxic waste? Or does that make me racist? While the Mos Defs and the Talib Kwelis of the world are sitting in relative obscurity, we have retarded, retarded songs like Hypnotized that girls apparently find oh-so-charming, which makes me think that either the artists who create these kinds of songs are either complete fucking idiots or complete fucking geniuses for wooing over a bunch of white girls with lines involving a whole fucking lot of fucking.
I would like to be reborn in a generation where music was progressive.
Please.
Without political reform to ban some of this stuff, I may die from a musical cancer.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Friday, May 4, 2007
director - exodus/lit circle
For my lit circle on Exodus, I chose to be a director. Exodus would be an interesting chapter to direct because of all the different settings (the characters all get split up.) I chose to do a scene with Leah because she's in the most exotic place. My second choice would be Rachel because she's also in a pretty different place (compared to the rest of the book.) Adah and Orleanna are pretty boring in terms of blocking a scene, however.
The scene I want to portray is the chapter when she is in Bulungu. She is escaping the Congo with Anatole, her mother, and Adah, and I think the way I would film the scene (starting from when she gets into the truck - "The truck was orange. I do remember that...") would be to mount the camera using a headpiece onto the actor playing Leah (in the style of Darren Aronofsky's "snorri-cam"), which allows for a freer close up shot without having the boring, rock-steady lock-down shot of a tripod or crane. The colors used would portray a somber environment to the point of being almost frightening - think the latter segments of "Apocalypse Now" (haunting) mixed with "the Mission" (lush, but muted).
The next part would begin with a long shot showing the width of the river, then cutting to the situation with the ferry and the truck battery. I would track the camera (as hard as it would be) alongside Leah one or two inches under the water, with a lot of "sloshing" to reflect the conditions that Leah is experiencing. It would cut between these shots and shots looking towards the canoe from a boom attached to the bow, to parallel the camera style of the earlier truck scene.
The scene I want to portray is the chapter when she is in Bulungu. She is escaping the Congo with Anatole, her mother, and Adah, and I think the way I would film the scene (starting from when she gets into the truck - "The truck was orange. I do remember that...") would be to mount the camera using a headpiece onto the actor playing Leah (in the style of Darren Aronofsky's "snorri-cam"), which allows for a freer close up shot without having the boring, rock-steady lock-down shot of a tripod or crane. The colors used would portray a somber environment to the point of being almost frightening - think the latter segments of "Apocalypse Now" (haunting) mixed with "the Mission" (lush, but muted).
The next part would begin with a long shot showing the width of the river, then cutting to the situation with the ferry and the truck battery. I would track the camera (as hard as it would be) alongside Leah one or two inches under the water, with a lot of "sloshing" to reflect the conditions that Leah is experiencing. It would cut between these shots and shots looking towards the canoe from a boom attached to the bow, to parallel the camera style of the earlier truck scene.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
What the freaking hell is going on here?
I woke up that morning to finish up my math homework and to catch some CNN, as I always do on mornings where I wake up early. I was expecting some news on Iraq, some on political campaigns, etc. Instead, I got 40 good minutes of some basketball coach talking.
This was annoying enough, especially because the same footage was playing on both CNN AND CNN Headline News.
Of course, at this moment I had no idea what was going on. A few seconds later I would find out that Don Imus, famous radio personality, had called the Rutger's Women's basketball team "nappy headed hos".
Uhm.
Ok?
I was bewildered by the ensuing controversy. I did not know why controversy existed. What Imus said in the beginning held true for me till the very end - "some idiot comment meant to be amusing." So ok, it's offensive that he called them nappy headed hos. It was wrong. I thought "well, maybe 2 weeks suspension is more than enough punishment for him".
...Then he got fired.
At this point, I was pretty flaming pissed off.
We live in a vulgar world. No other way to get around that fact. In the TIME magazine article about Imus and the cultural lines that exist (and that he stepped over), the author points out a lot of things. For instance, Lenny Bruce used to repeat the word nigger (I'm not going to censor that...) over and over again until it had no real meaning to him or his audience. Lenny Bruce was considered avant-garde.
Carlos Mencia trots onto a set every week and, in front of a live audience, talks about stereotypes of spics and the subtle difference between niggERS and niggAS. He is considered funny. He gets paid a healthy sum by Comedy Central.
Countless numbers of rappers talk about pimipin' hos and slappin' bitches and all that other crap. Three Six Mafia won an Oscar for their song, It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp. Uhm.
So, yes, there is a difference between a rapper saying that and, well, Imus saying that. But how much of a difference?
By even creating this much controversy in the first place, aren't we acknowledging racial differences in our culture? Oh, it's ok for a black guy to say the N-word but when a white guy says it, holy sh*t call jesse jackson and al sharpton, it's going down. Is this really the example we want to create for the younger generations to come who would otherwise be ignorant to the idea of race?
What do lines do? Lines separate things. Creating different lines (that cannot be crossed) for different cultures and different people merely amplifies the fact that we're different. Great. Just what we wanted.
So why isn't there a standard? Isn't it arguable that Don Imus was merely trying to be funny in the same way that Carlos Mencia is? What would have happened if Imus was twenty-something years old? Would it make a difference? What if he was black? I'm willing to bet that the fact that he is a 66 year old white male had a lot to do with this. A lot.
It appears MSNBC is just trying to wash their corporate hands of this controversy, but it's so ironic because these are the same corporations which are defining the "trendy", the "allowable", the "funny". Damn. Imus already apologized once. Was it really, truly necessary to fire him?
It just seems to me that this logic is laced with so much BS that it's hard to see what's what. America might be a great place to live, but damn, it seems there are more than a few hypocritcal assh*les in here.
This was annoying enough, especially because the same footage was playing on both CNN AND CNN Headline News.
Of course, at this moment I had no idea what was going on. A few seconds later I would find out that Don Imus, famous radio personality, had called the Rutger's Women's basketball team "nappy headed hos".
Uhm.
Ok?
I was bewildered by the ensuing controversy. I did not know why controversy existed. What Imus said in the beginning held true for me till the very end - "some idiot comment meant to be amusing." So ok, it's offensive that he called them nappy headed hos. It was wrong. I thought "well, maybe 2 weeks suspension is more than enough punishment for him".
...Then he got fired.
At this point, I was pretty flaming pissed off.
We live in a vulgar world. No other way to get around that fact. In the TIME magazine article about Imus and the cultural lines that exist (and that he stepped over), the author points out a lot of things. For instance, Lenny Bruce used to repeat the word nigger (I'm not going to censor that...) over and over again until it had no real meaning to him or his audience. Lenny Bruce was considered avant-garde.
Carlos Mencia trots onto a set every week and, in front of a live audience, talks about stereotypes of spics and the subtle difference between niggERS and niggAS. He is considered funny. He gets paid a healthy sum by Comedy Central.
Countless numbers of rappers talk about pimipin' hos and slappin' bitches and all that other crap. Three Six Mafia won an Oscar for their song, It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp. Uhm.
So, yes, there is a difference between a rapper saying that and, well, Imus saying that. But how much of a difference?
By even creating this much controversy in the first place, aren't we acknowledging racial differences in our culture? Oh, it's ok for a black guy to say the N-word but when a white guy says it, holy sh*t call jesse jackson and al sharpton, it's going down. Is this really the example we want to create for the younger generations to come who would otherwise be ignorant to the idea of race?
What do lines do? Lines separate things. Creating different lines (that cannot be crossed) for different cultures and different people merely amplifies the fact that we're different. Great. Just what we wanted.
So why isn't there a standard? Isn't it arguable that Don Imus was merely trying to be funny in the same way that Carlos Mencia is? What would have happened if Imus was twenty-something years old? Would it make a difference? What if he was black? I'm willing to bet that the fact that he is a 66 year old white male had a lot to do with this. A lot.
It appears MSNBC is just trying to wash their corporate hands of this controversy, but it's so ironic because these are the same corporations which are defining the "trendy", the "allowable", the "funny". Damn. Imus already apologized once. Was it really, truly necessary to fire him?
It just seems to me that this logic is laced with so much BS that it's hard to see what's what. America might be a great place to live, but damn, it seems there are more than a few hypocritcal assh*les in here.
defined as the purest and most concentrated essense of something...
There are a lot of things I believe are quintessential. The one I want to focus on for the purposes of this blog is the Quintessential Guitar. This is one of those common questions that are explored in massive arguments on forums. The two packs -gangs, if you will, are the Gibsons v. the Fenders. After a long (long) time of deliberating, I've decided that I'm going to go with the Fenders.
Ah, the Fender Stratocaster. One of the earliest electric guitar models, it was thrown into the spotlight after being adopted by many a famous rock star. It is the quintessential electric guitar because, for one, it is arguably the most classic design, and two, because it's been copied SO MUCH!
Developed by Leo Fender in the early 50's, the guitar sported many revolutionary features, including the ubiquitous guitar shape and the single-coil pickups. Just one feature that was copied exponentially from the moment the guitar was created was the spring-tensioned tremolo bridge, known to non-guitarists as "the whammy bar thing that changes the pitch".
The guitar's 3 single-coil pickups allowed for numerous tone-changes simply by flicking the 5-way blade, which allowed for versatility. Even today, a Fender can be used for practically any genre ever created: blues, rock, soft rock, pop, country, progressive, indie, even head-bashing metal (with some pickup changes). By simply changing the pickups to those of a heavier output or by modifying small things such as the type of bridge, a Strat can be made to play anything you can think of. This versatility is what makes the Fender Strat so quintessential. It can be found all over the music scene.
Ask a random stranger on the street about what first comes into their mind when you say the word "electric guitar". Generally, most people will say "Fender" or "Strat". Just this fact alone is evidence of how big the Stratocaster really is. The guitar has been adapted so much that it can be made to be perfect. And really, what more could you ask for?
Ah, the Fender Stratocaster. One of the earliest electric guitar models, it was thrown into the spotlight after being adopted by many a famous rock star. It is the quintessential electric guitar because, for one, it is arguably the most classic design, and two, because it's been copied SO MUCH!
Developed by Leo Fender in the early 50's, the guitar sported many revolutionary features, including the ubiquitous guitar shape and the single-coil pickups. Just one feature that was copied exponentially from the moment the guitar was created was the spring-tensioned tremolo bridge, known to non-guitarists as "the whammy bar thing that changes the pitch".
The guitar's 3 single-coil pickups allowed for numerous tone-changes simply by flicking the 5-way blade, which allowed for versatility. Even today, a Fender can be used for practically any genre ever created: blues, rock, soft rock, pop, country, progressive, indie, even head-bashing metal (with some pickup changes). By simply changing the pickups to those of a heavier output or by modifying small things such as the type of bridge, a Strat can be made to play anything you can think of. This versatility is what makes the Fender Strat so quintessential. It can be found all over the music scene.
Ask a random stranger on the street about what first comes into their mind when you say the word "electric guitar". Generally, most people will say "Fender" or "Strat". Just this fact alone is evidence of how big the Stratocaster really is. The guitar has been adapted so much that it can be made to be perfect. And really, what more could you ask for?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
SAT Practice Essay
Here is the SAT practice essay we did in class. The first line should give a decent enough outline about what it's about. I think my downfall is that I don't like to think in concrete examples but more via rhetorical means. Oh well.
In a quote, a writer states that “I am concerned that learning for learning’s sake is no longer considered desirable, that everything we do and think must be directed towards the solution of a practical problem.” This is true in many ways, and even is evident in the hectic atmosphere of high school. It can be seen in classes of all types; many students are apathetic about anything that does not contribute to them getting an A. Why is this, exactly? When did the love of learning, which the majority of us had in our younger years, begin to dissipate?
In English class, we are all assigned literature to read and discuss in class and for homework. Many times, students admit that the books we read are generally enjoyable. But even with that response, does it mean that they would have read that book in the free time? The Poisonwood Bible is a good example of this. It is a well-written book that is dramatic, riveting and well-paced. However, if this book was not assigned as a text, what percentage of the Sophomore class would go borrow or buy it? It is most likely that majority would ignore even the most extravagant acclaim for the book and go on doing schoolwork.
The reason for this is probably because of our constrictive high-school environment. In school our grades are emphasized, not our discovery of new and novel information. Sure, we might learn something unique off hand in a class, but most of our academic lives are spent worrying about our exams and our GPA. Because of this expectation or goal hovering above our heads, it is an inherent fact that there is a tendency for students to ignore “frivolous” information that, in real life, can be very enriching. For much of our lives, we have goals to reach on a constant basis. It is not only in high school that we are pressured to be efficient and pragmatic. We all have necessary actions, such as doing well on a test, paying off a loan, etc. that restrict the learning of things not related to these tasks. In the chaos of attempting to streamline our lives, the will to learn new things also get thrown out.
The problem with this, however, is that it can be taken to extremes. Technically speaking, nothing is really necessary but the skill set needed to work in a specific occupation. This provides the money in order to live without going destitute. It would also be the most efficient route of living. From birth, kids could be placed on a specific track towards an occupational goal. But could you imagine that? What an Orwellian existence that would be! We would be more like robots from a factory than humans. It is simply human nature to be curious about the unknown. Through this learning, we have created the world we know today. Without this curiosity, we would become solitary, single-minded beings, ignorant to the world around us.
Of course, it is important to prioritize and question the necessity of the things that could potentially complicate our lives. The modern world is complex and in the search to find purpose in our lives, many people shut out things they deem do not apply to them. However, it is important to realize that our understanding and learning of things outside our own lives is what makes us human. So yes, maybe reading a new book or exploring art or anything like that might not give us an advantage in the future. And yes, people might say that it is necessary to focus on practical skills in order to succeed in life. But there will always be time to knick back, pick up a novel, and explore a completely foreign world. Life is not always predictable, efficient, and pragmatic. In the same way, we should not lock ourselves in a world where practicality reigns. The question here is not one about if we are pressured to learn practical skills – this is an inevitable fact in a world where working is the primary method of living happily and successfully. The real question is: Will you spend your days in accordance to what practicality dictates, or will you go out and live, learning for learning’s sake?
In a quote, a writer states that “I am concerned that learning for learning’s sake is no longer considered desirable, that everything we do and think must be directed towards the solution of a practical problem.” This is true in many ways, and even is evident in the hectic atmosphere of high school. It can be seen in classes of all types; many students are apathetic about anything that does not contribute to them getting an A. Why is this, exactly? When did the love of learning, which the majority of us had in our younger years, begin to dissipate?
In English class, we are all assigned literature to read and discuss in class and for homework. Many times, students admit that the books we read are generally enjoyable. But even with that response, does it mean that they would have read that book in the free time? The Poisonwood Bible is a good example of this. It is a well-written book that is dramatic, riveting and well-paced. However, if this book was not assigned as a text, what percentage of the Sophomore class would go borrow or buy it? It is most likely that majority would ignore even the most extravagant acclaim for the book and go on doing schoolwork.
The reason for this is probably because of our constrictive high-school environment. In school our grades are emphasized, not our discovery of new and novel information. Sure, we might learn something unique off hand in a class, but most of our academic lives are spent worrying about our exams and our GPA. Because of this expectation or goal hovering above our heads, it is an inherent fact that there is a tendency for students to ignore “frivolous” information that, in real life, can be very enriching. For much of our lives, we have goals to reach on a constant basis. It is not only in high school that we are pressured to be efficient and pragmatic. We all have necessary actions, such as doing well on a test, paying off a loan, etc. that restrict the learning of things not related to these tasks. In the chaos of attempting to streamline our lives, the will to learn new things also get thrown out.
The problem with this, however, is that it can be taken to extremes. Technically speaking, nothing is really necessary but the skill set needed to work in a specific occupation. This provides the money in order to live without going destitute. It would also be the most efficient route of living. From birth, kids could be placed on a specific track towards an occupational goal. But could you imagine that? What an Orwellian existence that would be! We would be more like robots from a factory than humans. It is simply human nature to be curious about the unknown. Through this learning, we have created the world we know today. Without this curiosity, we would become solitary, single-minded beings, ignorant to the world around us.
Of course, it is important to prioritize and question the necessity of the things that could potentially complicate our lives. The modern world is complex and in the search to find purpose in our lives, many people shut out things they deem do not apply to them. However, it is important to realize that our understanding and learning of things outside our own lives is what makes us human. So yes, maybe reading a new book or exploring art or anything like that might not give us an advantage in the future. And yes, people might say that it is necessary to focus on practical skills in order to succeed in life. But there will always be time to knick back, pick up a novel, and explore a completely foreign world. Life is not always predictable, efficient, and pragmatic. In the same way, we should not lock ourselves in a world where practicality reigns. The question here is not one about if we are pressured to learn practical skills – this is an inevitable fact in a world where working is the primary method of living happily and successfully. The real question is: Will you spend your days in accordance to what practicality dictates, or will you go out and live, learning for learning’s sake?
A Critical Response
In the beginning of the Poisonwood Bible, in Leah's chapter, we find out that Tata Ndu demands an election from the people to vote whether they should worship Jesus or not. I found this ironic to the point of comedy that Tata Ndu used the democratic process, which is generally known as a concept from the "western civilizations". I felt it was a bit of clever social commentary.
In the end, of course, Nathan's church of Jesus loses out to the tradtional deities. I thought Nathan had it coming, basically, since the villagers weren't exactly enthusiastic about praising Jesus in the first place, and only really started believing in Christianity as a gimmick (thinking it would give them good luck).
I felt that there was a certain bit of hypocrisy in it all, because the Price family came to Africa in order to try and convince the people of the village that Christianity could save them, instead of being happy with what the democratic process creates.
In the end, of course, Nathan's church of Jesus loses out to the tradtional deities. I thought Nathan had it coming, basically, since the villagers weren't exactly enthusiastic about praising Jesus in the first place, and only really started believing in Christianity as a gimmick (thinking it would give them good luck).
I felt that there was a certain bit of hypocrisy in it all, because the Price family came to Africa in order to try and convince the people of the village that Christianity could save them, instead of being happy with what the democratic process creates.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Carlos Mencia and our SAT Practice...
We wrote our practice SAT essay today in class, and it dealt about if people put too much emphasis on practical skills in our lives. I, of course, agreed with the quote/statement, because it is obvious that our environments our fueled by the need to simply get through the day in the most efficient way possible. But another big idea present in statement, however, was one of how we are influenced by our surroundings. Both of these ideas connect to popular stand-up comic and Mind of Mencia host, Carlos Mencia. Many of you know him as the 'provacative' comic who deals with racial issues.
I used to think that Carlos Mencia was funny. This was when his first stand up special was on Comedy Central. I remember laughing at his joke about a US tank full of black guys being basically a giant drive-by machine. This lead to slight disappointment when I realized his jokes were starting to get recycled. Hah-hah, beaners jump fences, h-ok. White people are chraaaayzheeee. Got it.
I have officially lost all respect for Carlos Mencia.
Those of you who don't know him won't care. Those of you who know him probably still won't care. But those of you who love him will be perplexed.
The reason I have lost all respect for him is not only because I realized his jokes were basically all the same, but also because he did the one thing that really, truly offended me:
He insulted the death of Steve Irwin.
Now, Carlos' signature style is where he makes fun of people doing stupid things. But when I was listening to him tell this "joke" about Steve Irwin getting killed, I was mostly just getting pissed off. Why? Well, for one, Mencia made it sound like Steve Irwin was playing frisbee with the damn stingray. He went on to mock what Steve Irwin had done on his TV shows, implicating that all he did was go around playing with dangerous animals, saying "Now I'm gonna go touch it's balls".
How does this relate to the SAT?
I was walking away from english when it came to me that Carlos Mencia is influenced solely by practicality.
He doesn't have the sophistication of a comic like Christopher Titus or the true edginess of someone like Richard Pryor. Instead, he takes the most superficial information from sources with a lot of depth and uses shock value to get laughs. For instance, he had a segment where he made fun of what he believe to be retarded headlines. An example? "Ethanol gas, produced from corn, goes up in production".
What was his mastermind joke?
"When I eat corn, I make gas too, ahahahah."
Fantastic.
The worst part of it all, though, was the audience. I was just blown away by the fact that someone didn't stand up and say "Dude...you're sort of wrong". Really? Steve Irwin died from literally playing with a sting ray? Really? He DESERVED to die? He literally said that! "The Croc Hunter deserved to die!"
So what was wrong? Was the audience brain-dead? Is the average group of Americans really as ignorant as some foreigners say? Maybe it was just a bad batch, but I was just reeling from this. I guess it was mob-mentality? How are we this influenced by our environment? Maybe the crowd really did enjoy Mencia screaming "He deserved to die" about a man passionate about helping animals. But I doubt it. In every audience member there HAD to be a little bell going "ding-a-freaking-ling, that was inappropriate...right?".
Carlos knows that he can get laughs. And I really do think he manipulates whatever he can to get those laughs. But honestly, is being this pragmatic about humor necessary?
This blog post is probably just showing how two things, practicality and influence, connected in our essay question, can be negatively seen in real life.
Or maybe I'm just pissed off at Carlos, I don't know.
I used to think that Carlos Mencia was funny. This was when his first stand up special was on Comedy Central. I remember laughing at his joke about a US tank full of black guys being basically a giant drive-by machine. This lead to slight disappointment when I realized his jokes were starting to get recycled. Hah-hah, beaners jump fences, h-ok. White people are chraaaayzheeee. Got it.
I have officially lost all respect for Carlos Mencia.
Those of you who don't know him won't care. Those of you who know him probably still won't care. But those of you who love him will be perplexed.
The reason I have lost all respect for him is not only because I realized his jokes were basically all the same, but also because he did the one thing that really, truly offended me:
He insulted the death of Steve Irwin.
Now, Carlos' signature style is where he makes fun of people doing stupid things. But when I was listening to him tell this "joke" about Steve Irwin getting killed, I was mostly just getting pissed off. Why? Well, for one, Mencia made it sound like Steve Irwin was playing frisbee with the damn stingray. He went on to mock what Steve Irwin had done on his TV shows, implicating that all he did was go around playing with dangerous animals, saying "Now I'm gonna go touch it's balls".
How does this relate to the SAT?
I was walking away from english when it came to me that Carlos Mencia is influenced solely by practicality.
He doesn't have the sophistication of a comic like Christopher Titus or the true edginess of someone like Richard Pryor. Instead, he takes the most superficial information from sources with a lot of depth and uses shock value to get laughs. For instance, he had a segment where he made fun of what he believe to be retarded headlines. An example? "Ethanol gas, produced from corn, goes up in production".
What was his mastermind joke?
"When I eat corn, I make gas too, ahahahah."
Fantastic.
The worst part of it all, though, was the audience. I was just blown away by the fact that someone didn't stand up and say "Dude...you're sort of wrong". Really? Steve Irwin died from literally playing with a sting ray? Really? He DESERVED to die? He literally said that! "The Croc Hunter deserved to die!"
So what was wrong? Was the audience brain-dead? Is the average group of Americans really as ignorant as some foreigners say? Maybe it was just a bad batch, but I was just reeling from this. I guess it was mob-mentality? How are we this influenced by our environment? Maybe the crowd really did enjoy Mencia screaming "He deserved to die" about a man passionate about helping animals. But I doubt it. In every audience member there HAD to be a little bell going "ding-a-freaking-ling, that was inappropriate...right?".
Carlos knows that he can get laughs. And I really do think he manipulates whatever he can to get those laughs. But honestly, is being this pragmatic about humor necessary?
This blog post is probably just showing how two things, practicality and influence, connected in our essay question, can be negatively seen in real life.
Or maybe I'm just pissed off at Carlos, I don't know.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Ally Fox is Nathan reincarnated. Really.
As the title of this post states, I think that Ally Fox/Harrison Ford is basically the same person as Nathan. If I was naive I might even say that Barbara Kingsolver ripped the Mosquito Coast off. The similarities between these two movies are staggering. There are a few differences, however. It seems more like Ally left the US because he was sick of the "junk" that the country was made of, while Nathan WENT to Kilanga to "save" people. Therefore it would make Ally an emigrant and Nathan an immigrant, in technical terms. Either way, they are both men of (very strong) conviction. They believe in their purpose, however ridiculous it gets in the end. Ally is set on finding a new home in the jungle and living completely autonomously; Nathan is commited to bringing salvation to the African village and in turn basically guaranteeing a place in Heaven for him. They both act without needing feedback from their families. In many cases, they seem like asses.
Much like the argument for Nathan, it could be said that Ally Fox is not to blame for the hardships that his family must deal with. In some ways, he is innocent because it's possible he truly believes that every little thing he is doing is to better his family in the end. Just like Ally, Nathan believes that all his preaching really will save the Africans. Yet when we watch (literally or figuratively) them go about their goals, it seems they are extremely ignorant and selfish. How can someone not see that their entire family just wants to go back home? In both cases, it is an extreme case of blind fanaticism. The only difference is that Nathan's goal is to bring salvation to the Africans through Christ, and Ally is an independent inventor who is a smartass about...well, everything. He does not believe in the Bible, for one. Although it may seem like this one fact contradicts the statement that Nathan and Ally are the same, it is merely a superficial characteristic. With a few fix ups, they both could be exactly the same.
Much like the argument for Nathan, it could be said that Ally Fox is not to blame for the hardships that his family must deal with. In some ways, he is innocent because it's possible he truly believes that every little thing he is doing is to better his family in the end. Just like Ally, Nathan believes that all his preaching really will save the Africans. Yet when we watch (literally or figuratively) them go about their goals, it seems they are extremely ignorant and selfish. How can someone not see that their entire family just wants to go back home? In both cases, it is an extreme case of blind fanaticism. The only difference is that Nathan's goal is to bring salvation to the Africans through Christ, and Ally is an independent inventor who is a smartass about...well, everything. He does not believe in the Bible, for one. Although it may seem like this one fact contradicts the statement that Nathan and Ally are the same, it is merely a superficial characteristic. With a few fix ups, they both could be exactly the same.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
i can't believe i procrastinated about the dalai lama
So a month or so back there was this little contest at our school, and it consisted of submitting artwork, essays, and poetry. The people who got picked would get a chance to fly to Maui and meet the Dalai Lama. I was all hyped up, figuring I would focus on the Buddhist philosophy that one must accept that all life is suffering, yet that the goal was to follow a path of inner peace (attained by making others happy, but that's for another post...).
The problem was I forgot to do it and submit it on time.
Oh well, here's my poem:
peace
an everlasting notion
that only exists
in the presence of
b
l
o
o
d
s
h
e
d
for with out up there is no
down
with the symptoms of our suffering
lies our longing for triumphant
tranquility.
balance - with the absence of gun barrels
lie our dreams
hopes
wishes of a slate wiped clean of
the systematic genocide of
cooperation via the ammunition that is ignorance
no longer shall peace be
a goal out of the reach of our greedy hands
irony - with our ignorance towards definition
comes the climactic
calm.
In essence what it's saying is that the notion of peace would not exist without the existence of violence, since if there was no bloodshed peace would simply be the status quo. Noone would know better. This is sort of reflected in the line "with our ignorance towards definition". It's saying that if we don't know what peace means, we've acheived a state where there is no violence, since these terms are relative to each other (just like up is relative to down).
If I had to put a title to it, I would probably name it sil vis pacem, para bellum.
In latin it means "if you want peace, prepare for war".
Of course I'm not being completely serious with this title. It's sort of the irony/paradox of that statement that resonates with me.
Anyway it's not a polished poem, but oh well.
The problem was I forgot to do it and submit it on time.
Oh well, here's my poem:
peace
an everlasting notion
that only exists
in the presence of
b
l
o
o
d
s
h
e
d
for with out up there is no
down
with the symptoms of our suffering
lies our longing for triumphant
tranquility.
balance - with the absence of gun barrels
lie our dreams
hopes
wishes of a slate wiped clean of
the systematic genocide of
cooperation via the ammunition that is ignorance
no longer shall peace be
a goal out of the reach of our greedy hands
irony - with our ignorance towards definition
comes the climactic
calm.
In essence what it's saying is that the notion of peace would not exist without the existence of violence, since if there was no bloodshed peace would simply be the status quo. Noone would know better. This is sort of reflected in the line "with our ignorance towards definition". It's saying that if we don't know what peace means, we've acheived a state where there is no violence, since these terms are relative to each other (just like up is relative to down).
If I had to put a title to it, I would probably name it sil vis pacem, para bellum.
In latin it means "if you want peace, prepare for war".
Of course I'm not being completely serious with this title. It's sort of the irony/paradox of that statement that resonates with me.
Anyway it's not a polished poem, but oh well.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Nathan's Ignorance...or Brilliance?
One of our essential questions is "how should we live in our world?". Many people do not know the answer to this question, yet Nathan seemingly does. He knows what he has set out to do, which is to bring salvation to the Congolese in Kilnanga. Yet is that sort of self-righteousness appropriate? Many will say that he is being ignorance and insensitive to the history and culture of the villagers in Kilanga. But what if he's right? What if he is saving all these people from the fiery depths of Hell? It might be a stretch but you'll never truly know, right?
In Revelations, there is a scene where a man named Anatole comes bearing the message of the village leader, Tata Ndu. Basically, what it boils down to is that Ndu is grateful for the fact that Nathan's church is taking away the "outcasts" of the village, per se, but that Ndu is also worried that this church might be corrupting and angering the gods because of the fact that so many other villagers are going to church.
Nathan seems like he is going to explode.
To him, of course, these are false idols - pagan gods, in other words. They do not exist and are a part of evil because worshiping them is a travesty against God.
Fair enough, but then again...
In the same way that Nathan believes that our Lord is the only path for salvation, Tata Ndu believes that the path for success and happiness lies in placating the african gods which Nathan looks down upon in contempt.
Who is he (Nathan) to say that they are wrong?
Imagine if someone came to your house claiming to be a prophet, stating that only by worshipping a sacred unicorn will you be blessed in the afterlife.
You can't possibly say that you would be hooked, right (well, maybe you unicorn lovers out there...)?
This is basically why I think someone needs to slap Nathan across the face.
His intentions are decent. He wants to save these people. However, his reasoning is terrible. He hasn't the faintest idea of what these people might perceive his church to be. Also, in many cases, it seems like he's just doing it so he cant beam his way up to heaven.
It doesn't really matter whether he's right or wrong about salvation.
What matters is that he has an elitist attitude about it all.
PS.
Try not to think about my theory of religion too much ("what if ____ is right, and _____ is wrong?")
It's basically saying that at least some of us are going to some unpleasant place after death.
PPS. I don't agree with my theory of religion and the afterlife.
In Revelations, there is a scene where a man named Anatole comes bearing the message of the village leader, Tata Ndu. Basically, what it boils down to is that Ndu is grateful for the fact that Nathan's church is taking away the "outcasts" of the village, per se, but that Ndu is also worried that this church might be corrupting and angering the gods because of the fact that so many other villagers are going to church.
Nathan seems like he is going to explode.
To him, of course, these are false idols - pagan gods, in other words. They do not exist and are a part of evil because worshiping them is a travesty against God.
Fair enough, but then again...
In the same way that Nathan believes that our Lord is the only path for salvation, Tata Ndu believes that the path for success and happiness lies in placating the african gods which Nathan looks down upon in contempt.
Who is he (Nathan) to say that they are wrong?
Imagine if someone came to your house claiming to be a prophet, stating that only by worshipping a sacred unicorn will you be blessed in the afterlife.
You can't possibly say that you would be hooked, right (well, maybe you unicorn lovers out there...)?
This is basically why I think someone needs to slap Nathan across the face.
His intentions are decent. He wants to save these people. However, his reasoning is terrible. He hasn't the faintest idea of what these people might perceive his church to be. Also, in many cases, it seems like he's just doing it so he cant beam his way up to heaven.
It doesn't really matter whether he's right or wrong about salvation.
What matters is that he has an elitist attitude about it all.
PS.
Try not to think about my theory of religion too much ("what if ____ is right, and _____ is wrong?")
It's basically saying that at least some of us are going to some unpleasant place after death.
PPS. I don't agree with my theory of religion and the afterlife.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Latin Choirs and How to Judge a Book By It's Cover
I was at the movie theatre on Sunday. I sat down with a bag of popcorn, getting ready to watch 300, a brilliantly bloody, epic mess of a movie. The previews came on. Now, I am a big fan of trailers - they are extremely entertaining and get me excited over movies about to come out. However, there is always the chance that a terrible looking movie will be previewed. Tonight was the night for that, apparently.
Next is a movie featuring Nicholas Cage in the role of a guy that can see the future. Now, if that premise isn't a turn off already (it's BY FAR the most original plot that a movie can present, right...?), just hold on. The trailer then attempted to climax with a montage (also, not cliche at all...) featuring choral voices singing indecipherable latin lyrics.
I wanted to throw up.
Latin Choral music is fantastic, assuming that you're creating the next Passion of the Christ. It's tolerable for possibly huge, epic movies that feature 100,000 warriors killing each other. But it is unacceptable for a Nicholas Cage movie to venture into latin choir territory. In fact, I would prefer that all movies never feature latin choral music in the trailer again, unless it actually is a movie pertaining to Latin.
Anyone who has been to the movies since they were a kid has seen this phenomenon. Usually it's action movies who are the greatest perps. Sometimes it's sports films. Either way, though, it now officially annoys me.
Why is it that when I hear this choral stuff blasting out for a trailer, I immediately attempt not to gag? Why do I shun these movies with seemingly crap plots and even crappier, campy sound editing? We're told since we're kids that we should never judge a book by it's cover, but I definitely do (although it's technically a movie, not a book).
Many guys disregard romantic comedies as chick flicks even though they may be clever, witty, and genuinely funny. Many girls disregard action movies even though they might be thought-provoking and dramatic. Why is this?
to be continued...
Next is a movie featuring Nicholas Cage in the role of a guy that can see the future. Now, if that premise isn't a turn off already (it's BY FAR the most original plot that a movie can present, right...?), just hold on. The trailer then attempted to climax with a montage (also, not cliche at all...) featuring choral voices singing indecipherable latin lyrics.
I wanted to throw up.
Latin Choral music is fantastic, assuming that you're creating the next Passion of the Christ. It's tolerable for possibly huge, epic movies that feature 100,000 warriors killing each other. But it is unacceptable for a Nicholas Cage movie to venture into latin choir territory. In fact, I would prefer that all movies never feature latin choral music in the trailer again, unless it actually is a movie pertaining to Latin.
Anyone who has been to the movies since they were a kid has seen this phenomenon. Usually it's action movies who are the greatest perps. Sometimes it's sports films. Either way, though, it now officially annoys me.
Why is it that when I hear this choral stuff blasting out for a trailer, I immediately attempt not to gag? Why do I shun these movies with seemingly crap plots and even crappier, campy sound editing? We're told since we're kids that we should never judge a book by it's cover, but I definitely do (although it's technically a movie, not a book).
Many guys disregard romantic comedies as chick flicks even though they may be clever, witty, and genuinely funny. Many girls disregard action movies even though they might be thought-provoking and dramatic. Why is this?
to be continued...
Friday, March 9, 2007
My name is Adah...
There are a lot of cliques here. From video game geeks to jocks to the artists to the stsitra eht ot skcoj ot skeeg oediv. But either way, there's no place for the half-brain. No clique of niarb-flahs that I can just walk up to. I'm not surprised. The entire place is big and green, like the Congo on steroids. It takes me 10 minutes to walk from the other side of the high school campus to the other. The plentiful stairs are mountains and I don't have my climbing gear - owt doog sgel. At least I'm not surrounded by preacher's kids anymore. These people aren't all blessed sons and daughters of our one and only doG. They're more the followers of the prophet I know to be Telev Ision. They curse, they laugh, they say the Lord's name in vain. Father would have a fit if he saw all these wicked sinners, no doubt. I feel right at home. There is no pretentiousness here, merely pragmatic thought.
Coincidentally, the chapel that the school does have is practically the farthest common point away from the academy campus. I say it's better. Better for the sinners to make their weekly pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Hah.
Rachel would fit right in here, I suppose. These girls are probably her type, wearing the newest fashions and what not. And I guess I could get used to this new Congo. There are things to see here. Places to go. Things to do. And the last thing I need is some Catholic school that spouts Fire and Brimstone. No, what father would perceive to be a pseudo-Sodom is fine with me. This school has the right environment. It takes you in instead of leaving you out. Ironic, since that seems like what my family does sometimes. Strange how bizarre, new locations can feel more like home than my house ever does. Yeah, this school is good. Even a half-brain dluoc ees taht.
Coincidentally, the chapel that the school does have is practically the farthest common point away from the academy campus. I say it's better. Better for the sinners to make their weekly pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Hah.
Rachel would fit right in here, I suppose. These girls are probably her type, wearing the newest fashions and what not. And I guess I could get used to this new Congo. There are things to see here. Places to go. Things to do. And the last thing I need is some Catholic school that spouts Fire and Brimstone. No, what father would perceive to be a pseudo-Sodom is fine with me. This school has the right environment. It takes you in instead of leaving you out. Ironic, since that seems like what my family does sometimes. Strange how bizarre, new locations can feel more like home than my house ever does. Yeah, this school is good. Even a half-brain dluoc ees taht.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Cinematographer Part II
I think another memorable scene from the book is when Mama Tataba was telling Nathan Price (the father) that he was planting everything wrong. In the book, Nathan plants in long, straight, flat rows. Mama Tataba comes out, telling him that he needs to make mounds. She also notices that he has stuck his hand in the sap of the poisonwood while attempting to cut it down. He ignores both of her statements.
After he is done tilling (or whatever he has done to prepare the garden, I can't seem to remember whether he put the seeds in or not yet), Mama Tataba changes the entire layout of the garden, creating the little mounds that look like burial sites (she had told him that the plants would not grow without them). Nathan later changes it back patiently.
This scene is an interesting one because it is one of the first "conflicts" that a member of the Price family has with a local. This, of course, leads to the devastation of the garden when the rain comes.
In terms of filming it, I would desaturate the colors. I've always like desaturation along with black and white and Super 16 mm film (instead of the industry-standard 35 mm) because of the atmosphere it brings. If you watch movies such as Saving Private Ryan, you'll notice that the skies are grey instead of blue. This is because of desaturation in the editing process and also because they used a filter on the cameras to take out most of the blue in the picture. If you watch many movies based in africa, such as Black Hawk Down (coincidentally, another war film), you'll notice the high levels of yellow and red. I think that using this and accentuating the hot colors would be almost contrived or cliche...therefore, I would desaturate the colors, leaving more of a dead picutre with more emphasis on the cold colors. I think this is appropriate from a symbolic standpoint as well, showing the relative coldness to the African lifestyle of the Price family from the get-go. Much like how Martin Scorsese subtlely used sharp blue and red contrasts in the Departed, I would attempt to slowly crank up the color spectrum as the movie progressed.
In terms of actual camera work, I would, again, use a wider shot, never overlapping Nathan and Mama Tataba in the same frame together. This would symbolize the separation the two have in matters of planting the garden (for this particular scene - of course, they are separate in other times as well, since they do not really "know" each other). The scene would begin with the camera on the ground, going for the "Hoth" look (a reference to the Empire Strikes Back, where the camera shows the vast expanse of flat, snow-covered terrain). This would emphasize Nathan's plans for making the garden flat, obviously. After Mama Tataba's "improvements", the camera would be poking out of a hole in the ground between two of the "burial mounds". It would show Nathan, from the POV of the ground, sighing and then breaking up the mounds. Dirt would be flung onto the camera, blacking out the picture (a trick using plexiglas over the lens).
After he is done tilling (or whatever he has done to prepare the garden, I can't seem to remember whether he put the seeds in or not yet), Mama Tataba changes the entire layout of the garden, creating the little mounds that look like burial sites (she had told him that the plants would not grow without them). Nathan later changes it back patiently.
This scene is an interesting one because it is one of the first "conflicts" that a member of the Price family has with a local. This, of course, leads to the devastation of the garden when the rain comes.
In terms of filming it, I would desaturate the colors. I've always like desaturation along with black and white and Super 16 mm film (instead of the industry-standard 35 mm) because of the atmosphere it brings. If you watch movies such as Saving Private Ryan, you'll notice that the skies are grey instead of blue. This is because of desaturation in the editing process and also because they used a filter on the cameras to take out most of the blue in the picture. If you watch many movies based in africa, such as Black Hawk Down (coincidentally, another war film), you'll notice the high levels of yellow and red. I think that using this and accentuating the hot colors would be almost contrived or cliche...therefore, I would desaturate the colors, leaving more of a dead picutre with more emphasis on the cold colors. I think this is appropriate from a symbolic standpoint as well, showing the relative coldness to the African lifestyle of the Price family from the get-go. Much like how Martin Scorsese subtlely used sharp blue and red contrasts in the Departed, I would attempt to slowly crank up the color spectrum as the movie progressed.
In terms of actual camera work, I would, again, use a wider shot, never overlapping Nathan and Mama Tataba in the same frame together. This would symbolize the separation the two have in matters of planting the garden (for this particular scene - of course, they are separate in other times as well, since they do not really "know" each other). The scene would begin with the camera on the ground, going for the "Hoth" look (a reference to the Empire Strikes Back, where the camera shows the vast expanse of flat, snow-covered terrain). This would emphasize Nathan's plans for making the garden flat, obviously. After Mama Tataba's "improvements", the camera would be poking out of a hole in the ground between two of the "burial mounds". It would show Nathan, from the POV of the ground, sighing and then breaking up the mounds. Dirt would be flung onto the camera, blacking out the picture (a trick using plexiglas over the lens).
Hussein
I stumbled upon a video on youtube the other day.
It was the controversial camera-phone video of Saddam Hussein's execution. He was hanged on Dec. 30, 2006. As I was watching the video, I felt a bit sad. Sad for a dictator who killed thousands of his own people? Strange, I know.
But the fact is that Saddam really did help Iraq progress. I mean, he started this whole modernization movement by creating programs to stop illiteracy and providing far superior healthcare (landing him an award from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). He helped Iraq become the only arab nation in the middle east to not follow the traditional Islamic laws of Sharia (in turn giving more freedom to women and allowing them higher-level positions in government occupations and so on). He created stability in Iraq by using an iron fist. This is arguably the most controversial of his actions, since he used a repressive security system to kill any uprisings or movements from the Shi'a or the Kurds. By doing this, he created economical stability (which was affected, again, by the sectarian violence of that time).
So then, it seems that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy at all, right? You know, disregarding the fact that his security programs repressed a lot of people, and the fact that he gassed 5,000 mostly innocent Kurds.
So where do we draw the line, here?
I think this relates to our essential question of "How should we live in this world?". What is really better? How you act here and now, or how your actions will affect the big picture in the future?
Also, how can someone be defined? Many arabs in Iraq right now remember Saddam as a hero, while others remember him as a dictator who did horrific things?
Once again, I think that it all depends on perspective. And doesn't everything? How you were raised, what you've been through, what you've seen...it can change everything, from how you live to how you see things in the future. Someone who was timid can become contumacious after dealing with authority in a big way, for instance.
I think that much of Iraq's positive aspects today can be imputed to Saddam's actions in the past.
But it's also fair to say that without a doubt, his hanging was justified.
We'll have to see who makes a difference next.
It was the controversial camera-phone video of Saddam Hussein's execution. He was hanged on Dec. 30, 2006. As I was watching the video, I felt a bit sad. Sad for a dictator who killed thousands of his own people? Strange, I know.
But the fact is that Saddam really did help Iraq progress. I mean, he started this whole modernization movement by creating programs to stop illiteracy and providing far superior healthcare (landing him an award from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). He helped Iraq become the only arab nation in the middle east to not follow the traditional Islamic laws of Sharia (in turn giving more freedom to women and allowing them higher-level positions in government occupations and so on). He created stability in Iraq by using an iron fist. This is arguably the most controversial of his actions, since he used a repressive security system to kill any uprisings or movements from the Shi'a or the Kurds. By doing this, he created economical stability (which was affected, again, by the sectarian violence of that time).
So then, it seems that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy at all, right? You know, disregarding the fact that his security programs repressed a lot of people, and the fact that he gassed 5,000 mostly innocent Kurds.
So where do we draw the line, here?
I think this relates to our essential question of "How should we live in this world?". What is really better? How you act here and now, or how your actions will affect the big picture in the future?
Also, how can someone be defined? Many arabs in Iraq right now remember Saddam as a hero, while others remember him as a dictator who did horrific things?
Once again, I think that it all depends on perspective. And doesn't everything? How you were raised, what you've been through, what you've seen...it can change everything, from how you live to how you see things in the future. Someone who was timid can become contumacious after dealing with authority in a big way, for instance.
I think that much of Iraq's positive aspects today can be imputed to Saddam's actions in the past.
But it's also fair to say that without a doubt, his hanging was justified.
We'll have to see who makes a difference next.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Cinematography - Poisonwood
In class, for our literature 8 discussions, I play the role of devil's advocate. However, I find that a bit difficult to do on my blog, since I do not have opinions to argue against (unless my classmates post their ideas). Therefore, for our blogging purposes, I am a cinematographer.
I think one of the pivotal scenes in the Poisonwood Bible is the moment when the Price family touches down on the airstrip at Kilanga, where they will be spending the rest of their time. If I made a movie out of this, the first scene would be this. There would be no music, only the sound of the wind blowing the red dirt (assuming the dirt is red - that's what I imagained).
The camera would be a wide angle shot, showing the family emerging on one side and the African villagers on the other side. I believe in the book that Rachel states that the Africans soon surrounded them, or something like that. This pause would show the incredulity on the faces of the Prices and the curiosity of the Africans, cutting back to a wide shot to symbolize the disassotiated attitude the family has at that moment. I would start the movie with this shot because I believe that it would be a unique and engrossing scene - a bunch of white people stepping out of a plane, overstuffed with personal belongings and wearing layers and layers of clothing (since they could not legally put it in their luggage).
At this point I would use a dolly, along with a crane, to suspend the camera 2 inches or so off the ground, and do a close-up shot of the feet of the family and the African villagers as they approach each other. I like this shot because of the fact that it agains shows the differences between the villagers and the family - the villagers are wearing worn out slippers or are barefoot while the family is wearing their proper shoes. It would cut between these two shots until they meet. At this moment, I would make the screenplay so that an African man, assumably a leader, greets them jovially as the expression on the Prices stays the exact same.
Written in a screenplay and marked up for camera work this would appear as
EXT Airfield in Killanga, noon (External scene, location, time of day)
We see the Price family emerge from the airplane, exhausted and wearing all the implements and neccesities that they could not carry via luggage.
wide shot, pan l-r
The africans are excited to see the newcomers and start the approach the Prices. We see the Prices approaching them as well.
close up, following footsteps
I think one of the pivotal scenes in the Poisonwood Bible is the moment when the Price family touches down on the airstrip at Kilanga, where they will be spending the rest of their time. If I made a movie out of this, the first scene would be this. There would be no music, only the sound of the wind blowing the red dirt (assuming the dirt is red - that's what I imagained).
The camera would be a wide angle shot, showing the family emerging on one side and the African villagers on the other side. I believe in the book that Rachel states that the Africans soon surrounded them, or something like that. This pause would show the incredulity on the faces of the Prices and the curiosity of the Africans, cutting back to a wide shot to symbolize the disassotiated attitude the family has at that moment. I would start the movie with this shot because I believe that it would be a unique and engrossing scene - a bunch of white people stepping out of a plane, overstuffed with personal belongings and wearing layers and layers of clothing (since they could not legally put it in their luggage).
At this point I would use a dolly, along with a crane, to suspend the camera 2 inches or so off the ground, and do a close-up shot of the feet of the family and the African villagers as they approach each other. I like this shot because of the fact that it agains shows the differences between the villagers and the family - the villagers are wearing worn out slippers or are barefoot while the family is wearing their proper shoes. It would cut between these two shots until they meet. At this moment, I would make the screenplay so that an African man, assumably a leader, greets them jovially as the expression on the Prices stays the exact same.
Written in a screenplay and marked up for camera work this would appear as
EXT Airfield in Killanga, noon (External scene, location, time of day)
We see the Price family emerge from the airplane, exhausted and wearing all the implements and neccesities that they could not carry via luggage.
wide shot, pan l-r
The africans are excited to see the newcomers and start the approach the Prices. We see the Prices approaching them as well.
close up, following footsteps
AFRICAN MAN
Hello! We are pleased to have you in our village!
(or something adapted from the novel).
Hello! We are pleased to have you in our village!
(or something adapted from the novel).
FADE TO BLACK.
After the fade I would probably cut to the beginning of the story, as they prepare in America. Although the introduction to the actual book is fine (the picnic), I believe it's almost too detatched from the sequential order of things. I would add this somewhere later in the movie, since I do think it would make a good shot (camera floating high, top-down shot in the jungle?).
I'm a big fan of Quentin Tarantino, so I really love movies that start off in the middle-ish.
I'm a big fan of Quentin Tarantino, so I really love movies that start off in the middle-ish.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
A reflection: SAT Essays
I took a more decisive route this time, ignoring my usual "find my own answer" technique. What I really wanted to do was to talk about how although media is a reflection of reality, it is still only through the media that we realize much of the information that we currently do. Although I touched upon this concept I think I could have focused it more on the fact that it truly depends on how you look at the subject. It's a bit of the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" - which do you consider first, that media is a just a transport method for information, or that information only can come via the media?
If there's one thing that worries me most about SATs it's the essay, just because of the fact that I doubt my own ability at thinking up 1) an answer to the question and more importantly 2) examples that are unique and significant. The fact that the people who grade your essay has just around 3 minutes to read your writing just puts more pressure upon you to make something from your essay to pop out and make memorable, along with all the other compulsory things such as a developed idea and so on.
I guess the best way to go about it is to just retain as much information about your experiences and your readings and things in class so that you can bring up examples that are personal yet deep.
I do enjoy writing SAT essays, though, unlike many (most?) of the other people in English. I'm not sure why, and I get annoyed when my essay sounds shallow, but there's something about being taken by surprise with a prompt or a quote to reflect upon. It's very challenging, in a way, and I like just tackling it head-on. While people can just study and study and study and do well on the multiple choice, I really do think essays are a curveball. It's a bit like how rain in F1 racing is called "the great equalizer". However much of a fantastic driver you are in the dry, the wet knocks everyone down to the same notch (it's like driving on glass, supposedly...). From that point on, you either shine or you don't. Michael Schumacher, who just retired, is fantastic in the dry.
But when it rains, Schuey is an absolute god.
I would like to be a Schumacher in writing essays.
(Like that's really gonna happen.)
If there's one thing that worries me most about SATs it's the essay, just because of the fact that I doubt my own ability at thinking up 1) an answer to the question and more importantly 2) examples that are unique and significant. The fact that the people who grade your essay has just around 3 minutes to read your writing just puts more pressure upon you to make something from your essay to pop out and make memorable, along with all the other compulsory things such as a developed idea and so on.
I guess the best way to go about it is to just retain as much information about your experiences and your readings and things in class so that you can bring up examples that are personal yet deep.
I do enjoy writing SAT essays, though, unlike many (most?) of the other people in English. I'm not sure why, and I get annoyed when my essay sounds shallow, but there's something about being taken by surprise with a prompt or a quote to reflect upon. It's very challenging, in a way, and I like just tackling it head-on. While people can just study and study and study and do well on the multiple choice, I really do think essays are a curveball. It's a bit like how rain in F1 racing is called "the great equalizer". However much of a fantastic driver you are in the dry, the wet knocks everyone down to the same notch (it's like driving on glass, supposedly...). From that point on, you either shine or you don't. Michael Schumacher, who just retired, is fantastic in the dry.
But when it rains, Schuey is an absolute god.
I would like to be a Schumacher in writing essays.
(Like that's really gonna happen.)
Monday, February 26, 2007
SAT-tastic
In class we wrote a practice SAT essay. It dealt with the question of "does the media shape our views?"
Every day, we wake up to a barrage of information. We read the newspaper, watch the news, and view movies, among other things. Yet the real question is, "how do these things affect us?" A quote says that "The media not only transmit information and culture, they also decide what information is important. In that way, they help to shape culture and values". The truth of the matter is, it truly depends.
It depends on the specific nature or topic of the medium. When people read the newspaper every morning, what are they reading, exactly? It is certainly not pages of arbitrary information. The information on the pages are a reflection of the things that already have happened. In this case, there is ostensibly nothing to "shape" our culture or our views. Many will argue that because of this, most media do not truly have an effect on us. In reality, however, it does- simply because of the fact that even the news is selective. Headlines obviously do not portray everything that has happened in the world. Instead, they dictate what they (the editors) believe to be of importance to us. Imagine if we did not read anything about the Middle East, instead reading mostly about endangered panda bears every morning. This would undoubtedly shape our perceived level of importance for pandas v. middle east.
Many forms of media do not only have potential of changing our minds, but do so on a regular basis. For instace, if Vogue and other fashion magazines did not exist, would we be truly caught up with the newest trends from Milan? Sure, we would know eventually from word-of-mouth, but the currently-evident wildfire of trends that occur would probably not exist. Although in this way, the transmission of tis info is not truly restricted (people would figure it out via word-of-mouth), it is hampered - media has an affect on what we perceive to be important, therefore shaping our culture.
The hardest example is fiction. Although fiction many times portrays thigns or situations that do not and will not exists, that does not mean we will not be affected by the underlying messages of it. There are some extreme cases of this, one being Nazi germany's propaganda machine during World War II. Propaganda is a good example because the actual information is aimed at changing our views and opinions. In reality, the truth is usually not so distinct, yet propaganda can be a very powerful tactic to use during times of war, etc. In a more subtle way, fiction allows us to ponder and realize values that have already been acknowledged. Movies such as Apocalypse Now allow us to "see" the horrors of war, and even modern movies, such as Martin Scorsese's the Departed, depict moral dilemmas and question our identity. Many works of fiction pose concepts and questions which shape our morality in life.
In obvious or subliminal ways, the media has an effect on how we live. Whetere it be through what we wear, or how we live, the media permeates our everyday lives.
Every day, we wake up to a barrage of information. We read the newspaper, watch the news, and view movies, among other things. Yet the real question is, "how do these things affect us?" A quote says that "The media not only transmit information and culture, they also decide what information is important. In that way, they help to shape culture and values". The truth of the matter is, it truly depends.
It depends on the specific nature or topic of the medium. When people read the newspaper every morning, what are they reading, exactly? It is certainly not pages of arbitrary information. The information on the pages are a reflection of the things that already have happened. In this case, there is ostensibly nothing to "shape" our culture or our views. Many will argue that because of this, most media do not truly have an effect on us. In reality, however, it does- simply because of the fact that even the news is selective. Headlines obviously do not portray everything that has happened in the world. Instead, they dictate what they (the editors) believe to be of importance to us. Imagine if we did not read anything about the Middle East, instead reading mostly about endangered panda bears every morning. This would undoubtedly shape our perceived level of importance for pandas v. middle east.
Many forms of media do not only have potential of changing our minds, but do so on a regular basis. For instace, if Vogue and other fashion magazines did not exist, would we be truly caught up with the newest trends from Milan? Sure, we would know eventually from word-of-mouth, but the currently-evident wildfire of trends that occur would probably not exist. Although in this way, the transmission of tis info is not truly restricted (people would figure it out via word-of-mouth), it is hampered - media has an affect on what we perceive to be important, therefore shaping our culture.
The hardest example is fiction. Although fiction many times portrays thigns or situations that do not and will not exists, that does not mean we will not be affected by the underlying messages of it. There are some extreme cases of this, one being Nazi germany's propaganda machine during World War II. Propaganda is a good example because the actual information is aimed at changing our views and opinions. In reality, the truth is usually not so distinct, yet propaganda can be a very powerful tactic to use during times of war, etc. In a more subtle way, fiction allows us to ponder and realize values that have already been acknowledged. Movies such as Apocalypse Now allow us to "see" the horrors of war, and even modern movies, such as Martin Scorsese's the Departed, depict moral dilemmas and question our identity. Many works of fiction pose concepts and questions which shape our morality in life.
In obvious or subliminal ways, the media has an effect on how we live. Whetere it be through what we wear, or how we live, the media permeates our everyday lives.
Writing Like Kingsolver...
Intro: In class we are reading the Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver. We were told to write a paragraph or so in the same style as her first words. This is my attempt:
The dirt-laced air bites your eyes like acid. The ground is bare, rocky, without a trace of fertility in it. The sky looms, infinite and blue, overhead. Your vision is compromised, tunneling in a single direction, peering, searching. The shoes crunch on the terrain as the others make their way towards you, slowly lining up. Metallic clicks of triggers on safety ping through the dense air. It becomes silent. People dig in, tense, ready.
The mind-shattering blow of the referee's whistle cracks the calm in half. Everyone is scrambling, jumping, diving as puffs of dirt fly. You must find cover behind a bunker or dare to be stung by the bees rocketing out of the guns of your opponents, 15 per second. The air is rife with paintballs as they explode, sending blood-like paint spraying on your face. The once statue-like bunkers, standing tall and strong, take the brunt of the force, weaving to and fro from the impact of the paintballs. The sound is so cacophonous as to be numbing - the screaming of metal gun bolts accompanied by an orchestra of screaming ammunition with a solo by a screaming player yelling expletives like noone else's business as he stomps off the field, freshly covered in the abstract art of his opponent.
10 minutes pass. You look at the bunker across from you and make a break for it.
10 feet seems like 100 arduous miles as you sprint. The end is near...and then...
The ground deceives you at the very last second, grabbing your ankle with it's imaginiary hand, dust clouds flying as you fight for traction. As you fall you see the bees once more, flying at you. Sting after sting comes as your opponent becomes painter, neon blue staining your hands, chest, face. The rocks on the ground punch you in the kidneys on impact and you are now officially dead.
---------------------
I used to love writing like Kingsolver's, but lately I've been leaning more towards the sparse, to-the-point writing of people like Nick Hornby. Kingsolver's descriptions are by no means pretencious, but I really do believe that writing laced with metaphors doesn't always work. Thankfully, the entire PB is not written in the fierce narrative of the first page.
The dirt-laced air bites your eyes like acid. The ground is bare, rocky, without a trace of fertility in it. The sky looms, infinite and blue, overhead. Your vision is compromised, tunneling in a single direction, peering, searching. The shoes crunch on the terrain as the others make their way towards you, slowly lining up. Metallic clicks of triggers on safety ping through the dense air. It becomes silent. People dig in, tense, ready.
The mind-shattering blow of the referee's whistle cracks the calm in half. Everyone is scrambling, jumping, diving as puffs of dirt fly. You must find cover behind a bunker or dare to be stung by the bees rocketing out of the guns of your opponents, 15 per second. The air is rife with paintballs as they explode, sending blood-like paint spraying on your face. The once statue-like bunkers, standing tall and strong, take the brunt of the force, weaving to and fro from the impact of the paintballs. The sound is so cacophonous as to be numbing - the screaming of metal gun bolts accompanied by an orchestra of screaming ammunition with a solo by a screaming player yelling expletives like noone else's business as he stomps off the field, freshly covered in the abstract art of his opponent.
10 minutes pass. You look at the bunker across from you and make a break for it.
10 feet seems like 100 arduous miles as you sprint. The end is near...and then...
The ground deceives you at the very last second, grabbing your ankle with it's imaginiary hand, dust clouds flying as you fight for traction. As you fall you see the bees once more, flying at you. Sting after sting comes as your opponent becomes painter, neon blue staining your hands, chest, face. The rocks on the ground punch you in the kidneys on impact and you are now officially dead.
---------------------
I used to love writing like Kingsolver's, but lately I've been leaning more towards the sparse, to-the-point writing of people like Nick Hornby. Kingsolver's descriptions are by no means pretencious, but I really do believe that writing laced with metaphors doesn't always work. Thankfully, the entire PB is not written in the fierce narrative of the first page.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Criticisms
I've heard a lot of things about these new blogs. I've heard people say that they love it, that it allows them a lot more freedom in how they write. But I've also heard people say that a journal is a lot better.
Well, we'll get back to this.
I don't know what it is about this blogging thing, but it has completely freed up my writing.
I'm no longer constrained by deadlines or rubrics, nor am I forced to complete sometimes seemingly arbitrary assignments.
For some strange reason, I write about the things that I would not write if I were to turn in a paper for english.
All the things my friends ostensibly do not care about, all the things that seem overly opinionated, all the things that I cannot rant about in the middle of math class - they are free to roam here.
Obviously, it's practically the same thing as turning in a paper or talking about it in class - people are reading my posts, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Watson has perused all of our sites as well.
Although our thoughts are more public than ever now, there's something about the net that makes it seem like we're anonymous.
Edit:
Remember how I said "We'll get back to that"?
Well, here we go.
One of the complaints that I've heard about the blog system is that they cannot personalize or doodle or anything on what they write, and that it's too public for what they are writing. Well, it seems like if we were doing purely introspective writing, a journal would be more appropriate. But the entire purpose of a blog is the share and connect with others, right? How would we use a journal in class? Swap books with others? A journal is fundamentally different than a blog.
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of analyzing people's opinions is.
Well, I guess that's the point of a blog, isn't it?
Well, we'll get back to this.
I don't know what it is about this blogging thing, but it has completely freed up my writing.
I'm no longer constrained by deadlines or rubrics, nor am I forced to complete sometimes seemingly arbitrary assignments.
For some strange reason, I write about the things that I would not write if I were to turn in a paper for english.
All the things my friends ostensibly do not care about, all the things that seem overly opinionated, all the things that I cannot rant about in the middle of math class - they are free to roam here.
Obviously, it's practically the same thing as turning in a paper or talking about it in class - people are reading my posts, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Watson has perused all of our sites as well.
Although our thoughts are more public than ever now, there's something about the net that makes it seem like we're anonymous.
Edit:
Remember how I said "We'll get back to that"?
Well, here we go.
One of the complaints that I've heard about the blog system is that they cannot personalize or doodle or anything on what they write, and that it's too public for what they are writing. Well, it seems like if we were doing purely introspective writing, a journal would be more appropriate. But the entire purpose of a blog is the share and connect with others, right? How would we use a journal in class? Swap books with others? A journal is fundamentally different than a blog.
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of analyzing people's opinions is.
Well, I guess that's the point of a blog, isn't it?
Friday, February 16, 2007
A summary
We're supposed to talk about all the posts we've made on our blogs. I'm not sure what to say, but I can tell you that my posts seem to have a general theme to them - how do we view the world around us?
Mainly I tend to revert back to politics and international crisises, mostly because it's the most absurd yet the most real thing that exists. People are dying in the Middle East, children are being exploited in China, and I'm living perfectly happy in Hawaii. If you think about it, and you realize that all humans are inherently born the same (ignoring our respective financial situations at time of birth), it's almost surreal to see what goes on around us. So much can change when we're under pressure - 'playing in the clutch', if you will.
So how should we live our lives? This is the important question here. I've realized, even more so than before, that the answer to this question is practically a puddle of grey matter. Should we risk ourselves by working with others or should we just strive to create the best life for ourselves in the short time we are alive? I'm not necessarily talking about making money here, but who is the focus? Do we make up the world together as a single entity, or is "our world" just how each of us perceive an arbitrary environment?
Ironically, while trying to answer our essential questions, I've managed to create more.
Mainly I tend to revert back to politics and international crisises, mostly because it's the most absurd yet the most real thing that exists. People are dying in the Middle East, children are being exploited in China, and I'm living perfectly happy in Hawaii. If you think about it, and you realize that all humans are inherently born the same (ignoring our respective financial situations at time of birth), it's almost surreal to see what goes on around us. So much can change when we're under pressure - 'playing in the clutch', if you will.
So how should we live our lives? This is the important question here. I've realized, even more so than before, that the answer to this question is practically a puddle of grey matter. Should we risk ourselves by working with others or should we just strive to create the best life for ourselves in the short time we are alive? I'm not necessarily talking about making money here, but who is the focus? Do we make up the world together as a single entity, or is "our world" just how each of us perceive an arbitrary environment?
Ironically, while trying to answer our essential questions, I've managed to create more.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
This is Reality:
I just read Colt's post about giving money to homeless folks on the street.
My morality, combined with my judgement, makes this a decently complicated situation. It doesn't even always apply to homeless people, though. I do remember a time when I was leaving after a movie with a friend at Ward, and a guy came up to me.
He told me he was just assigned to Schofield and that he needed 5 bucks to make his way there.
He wasn't in uniform.
What can you do in this situation? Yeah, I could've just lied, but aside from that...
I'm not sure what the threshold for my altruism is when in situations with strangers.
Sure, I'd take a bullet for a friend, but $5 dollars?
To a random guy who says he's military?
Not in uniform, no less?
I've been conned before. I gave money to a guy who insisted on needing money for food. Then I saw him buying booze with that same money 2 minutes later.
The fact of the matter is, generosity needs limits. Maybe it's because I'm a cynical bastard, but I'm not won over by overly optimistic feel-good situations. Like Colton, I'm not sure if giving money to a beggar makes me feel any better about anything. I'm pretty sure even if I had bought a 'genocide' shirt I would've rolled my eyes at anyone who told me I was "saving darfur". And, knowing me, I'm pretty sure I would not feel anything if I went into a slaughterhouse.
This isn't a very pretty example or answer to our essential question of "how should we live in this world?"
Take world peace. Logically, it should be possible. It should just be a simple matter of letting go of our preconceptions and losing some of the extreme prejudices that we apply to other people. So then why has the, for the lack of a better term, s*** hit the fan in the middle east? Why are the Palenstinians and Israelis even fighting? What's so difficult about a Palestinian state?
If only the answer was so easy.
I used to feel, in terms of world politics, that we should intervene to maintain some order in the Middle East.
Now I have moments where I feel that we should haul ass out of there and let that entire portion of the world systematically implode.
Right now, the United State's intervention process is basically a small, brittle plastic kayak.
The Middle East (Palestine, Iran, Iraq, etc.) is a Class-5 whitewater rapid system. Nice metaphor, right?
The US gov't is, apparently, showing evidence that Iran is supplying Shi'a groups in Iraq with explosive devices.
Why even bother? So what if we invaded Iran and made a mess of finding their WMD's? Apparently people are having a hard time pulling up similarities between this and Iraq.
As my friend Michael Minkin jokingly said whilst discussing Iran at open lab:
"We should just team up with Russia and nuke the crap out of everybody."
PS.
Speaking of reality, I was really...well, I'm not sure what the word is quite right now, but I was shocked to hear about Mr. Johnson's death. I feel that I should put this up here because I had him last year and he was a great teacher, but also a great person to just joke about with. I'm sure everyone has or has had a class where you watch the clock, hoping to get out. Well, Mr. Johnson was on the other side of the spectrum - I had a great time in bio. I'm not sure what's up with this year, but it's tragic that both Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Johnson have passed away. I really do hope that his wife and daughter will be alright. You always do hear about these things, about people dying while swimming and stuff, but you never expect it to happen to someone you know - hell, it's practically a cliche. And to think, I said hi to him on Friday and looked at the pictures in his office. Man.
RIP
My morality, combined with my judgement, makes this a decently complicated situation. It doesn't even always apply to homeless people, though. I do remember a time when I was leaving after a movie with a friend at Ward, and a guy came up to me.
He told me he was just assigned to Schofield and that he needed 5 bucks to make his way there.
He wasn't in uniform.
What can you do in this situation? Yeah, I could've just lied, but aside from that...
I'm not sure what the threshold for my altruism is when in situations with strangers.
Sure, I'd take a bullet for a friend, but $5 dollars?
To a random guy who says he's military?
Not in uniform, no less?
I've been conned before. I gave money to a guy who insisted on needing money for food. Then I saw him buying booze with that same money 2 minutes later.
The fact of the matter is, generosity needs limits. Maybe it's because I'm a cynical bastard, but I'm not won over by overly optimistic feel-good situations. Like Colton, I'm not sure if giving money to a beggar makes me feel any better about anything. I'm pretty sure even if I had bought a 'genocide' shirt I would've rolled my eyes at anyone who told me I was "saving darfur". And, knowing me, I'm pretty sure I would not feel anything if I went into a slaughterhouse.
This isn't a very pretty example or answer to our essential question of "how should we live in this world?"
Take world peace. Logically, it should be possible. It should just be a simple matter of letting go of our preconceptions and losing some of the extreme prejudices that we apply to other people. So then why has the, for the lack of a better term, s*** hit the fan in the middle east? Why are the Palenstinians and Israelis even fighting? What's so difficult about a Palestinian state?
If only the answer was so easy.
I used to feel, in terms of world politics, that we should intervene to maintain some order in the Middle East.
Now I have moments where I feel that we should haul ass out of there and let that entire portion of the world systematically implode.
Right now, the United State's intervention process is basically a small, brittle plastic kayak.
The Middle East (Palestine, Iran, Iraq, etc.) is a Class-5 whitewater rapid system. Nice metaphor, right?
The US gov't is, apparently, showing evidence that Iran is supplying Shi'a groups in Iraq with explosive devices.
Why even bother? So what if we invaded Iran and made a mess of finding their WMD's? Apparently people are having a hard time pulling up similarities between this and Iraq.
As my friend Michael Minkin jokingly said whilst discussing Iran at open lab:
"We should just team up with Russia and nuke the crap out of everybody."
PS.
Speaking of reality, I was really...well, I'm not sure what the word is quite right now, but I was shocked to hear about Mr. Johnson's death. I feel that I should put this up here because I had him last year and he was a great teacher, but also a great person to just joke about with. I'm sure everyone has or has had a class where you watch the clock, hoping to get out. Well, Mr. Johnson was on the other side of the spectrum - I had a great time in bio. I'm not sure what's up with this year, but it's tragic that both Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Johnson have passed away. I really do hope that his wife and daughter will be alright. You always do hear about these things, about people dying while swimming and stuff, but you never expect it to happen to someone you know - hell, it's practically a cliche. And to think, I said hi to him on Friday and looked at the pictures in his office. Man.
RIP
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
What I Believe:
I'm not completely sure as whether to post an actual draft of it or to outline it, but since we still have time I'm going to throw out my basic ideas.
I want to talk about my belief in art. I say this because art is one of those rare things that can show the true spirit of a person. Art cannot be judged, although people try - although there is a difference between the art of a 4 year old and Van Gogh, you cannot say that expressionism is better than abstraction in terms of quality. Art allows a person to portray his emotions in a tangible, honest form. There are not a lot of things that allows a person to do that.
I think I would elaborate on that for like, 3 minutes.
I want to talk about my belief in art. I say this because art is one of those rare things that can show the true spirit of a person. Art cannot be judged, although people try - although there is a difference between the art of a 4 year old and Van Gogh, you cannot say that expressionism is better than abstraction in terms of quality. Art allows a person to portray his emotions in a tangible, honest form. There are not a lot of things that allows a person to do that.
I think I would elaborate on that for like, 3 minutes.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Essential:
I've read other people's posts about their own essential questions and I decided that I want to create a more focused one for the question "...and how should we live in [the world]?"
I want to know, basically, how we should live in relation to other people.
I'm not talking about protecting the environment or anything else, I'm strictly talking about something like "how should we act towards the guy standing next to me on the bus?".
I thought of this because some of us stumbled onto the subject of racism and such. But there are a lot of situations where the idea of your fellow man coming into play. If you're on a rise of success, is it allowable to sacrifice some friendships or relationships to reach the top? Buddhist philosophy tells us that we can only find happiness in helping others, yet I'm sure some people would disagree - they would say to acheive true happiness, something has to give.
In this fast-paced world of cell phones and constant progress, it seems that we're a bit too caught up in our own selves to care about others sometimes. Think of the last time you really helped a stranger. I'm talking about direct help, not as in canned-food-drive sort of help.
It's hard, right?
What's the thing that keeps us from jumping up and getting napkins for the unfortunate person who spills their coffee? If your best friend did that, you'd obviously help, yet at the Starbucks not many people look up from their newspapers and iPods. Isn't it of human nature to want to help others? And it's not like we're being territorial here - there's no explicit aggression to the other people at Starbucks.
Any ideas as to why?
I want to know, basically, how we should live in relation to other people.
I'm not talking about protecting the environment or anything else, I'm strictly talking about something like "how should we act towards the guy standing next to me on the bus?".
I thought of this because some of us stumbled onto the subject of racism and such. But there are a lot of situations where the idea of your fellow man coming into play. If you're on a rise of success, is it allowable to sacrifice some friendships or relationships to reach the top? Buddhist philosophy tells us that we can only find happiness in helping others, yet I'm sure some people would disagree - they would say to acheive true happiness, something has to give.
In this fast-paced world of cell phones and constant progress, it seems that we're a bit too caught up in our own selves to care about others sometimes. Think of the last time you really helped a stranger. I'm talking about direct help, not as in canned-food-drive sort of help.
It's hard, right?
What's the thing that keeps us from jumping up and getting napkins for the unfortunate person who spills their coffee? If your best friend did that, you'd obviously help, yet at the Starbucks not many people look up from their newspapers and iPods. Isn't it of human nature to want to help others? And it's not like we're being territorial here - there's no explicit aggression to the other people at Starbucks.
Any ideas as to why?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Think of the Polar Bears, Man!
I was reading Time magazine today at school. I bought it at a staggering 10 dollars, but it was worth it - it was the 'Year In Review' issue.
One of the saddest things I saw in the entire thing was a polar bear forlornly looking at the water as it perched on top of a floating piece of tiny ice.
It's hard especially for me because I just love fast cars. I can't help it. I love the sound of a BMW straight-six growling under throttle. I love the sound of a well-executed downshift. I love the smell of burning brakes and tires. But then I end up looking at the MPG stats for the car. 10/12 MPG City/Hwy? Jesus. I know it's a Ferarri. I know what Al Gore told me. But there are some things that I can't help but feel torn about.
I think that we all have a problem with facing reality of the world around us sometimes. The world is heating up, the air is getting more polluted, Iran's meddling with Iraq, and Hugo Chavez just got more power. What a mess. But...there are tests at school. Broken relationships and new love interests. A Chem lab coming up. So what deserves priority here?
I personally do feel a bit hopeless. I wish I could have voted, I wish I could give blood, I wish I could do something besides study for Alg.
It's strange, though, because priorities can be very elusive. Why haven't we ratified Kyoto, for one? Why aren't we spending more time and money on alternative methods of energy? Everyone can make promises. I promised that I would do a bunch of clubs this year. I ended up swimming and visiting Chess Club once in a while. Bush promised that we'd take care of the global warming situation, yet it's only very recently that we've started plans to do that.
The problem lies in pointing fingers at people. Is the polar bear on that sliver of ice because of a bunch of people who drive Porsches? Or is it all of our faults? I read about a ridiculous lawsuit targeting GM, Ford, Toyota and the other big auto companies for causing global warming. What? That's like saying all street crime is due to a few black dudes from Compton. Yes, I'm sure the car companies aren't helping, and I'm pretty sure there have been a few black guys from Compton who mugged somebody, but to blame a far-spanning problem on such a small cause doesn't even make sense.
The answer probably has to do with balance.
Yeah, that chem test is coming up, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't read about the Middle East. I personally do think everyone should be thinking about these things.
One of the saddest things I saw in the entire thing was a polar bear forlornly looking at the water as it perched on top of a floating piece of tiny ice.
It's hard especially for me because I just love fast cars. I can't help it. I love the sound of a BMW straight-six growling under throttle. I love the sound of a well-executed downshift. I love the smell of burning brakes and tires. But then I end up looking at the MPG stats for the car. 10/12 MPG City/Hwy? Jesus. I know it's a Ferarri. I know what Al Gore told me. But there are some things that I can't help but feel torn about.
I think that we all have a problem with facing reality of the world around us sometimes. The world is heating up, the air is getting more polluted, Iran's meddling with Iraq, and Hugo Chavez just got more power. What a mess. But...there are tests at school. Broken relationships and new love interests. A Chem lab coming up. So what deserves priority here?
I personally do feel a bit hopeless. I wish I could have voted, I wish I could give blood, I wish I could do something besides study for Alg.
It's strange, though, because priorities can be very elusive. Why haven't we ratified Kyoto, for one? Why aren't we spending more time and money on alternative methods of energy? Everyone can make promises. I promised that I would do a bunch of clubs this year. I ended up swimming and visiting Chess Club once in a while. Bush promised that we'd take care of the global warming situation, yet it's only very recently that we've started plans to do that.
The problem lies in pointing fingers at people. Is the polar bear on that sliver of ice because of a bunch of people who drive Porsches? Or is it all of our faults? I read about a ridiculous lawsuit targeting GM, Ford, Toyota and the other big auto companies for causing global warming. What? That's like saying all street crime is due to a few black dudes from Compton. Yes, I'm sure the car companies aren't helping, and I'm pretty sure there have been a few black guys from Compton who mugged somebody, but to blame a far-spanning problem on such a small cause doesn't even make sense.
The answer probably has to do with balance.
Yeah, that chem test is coming up, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't read about the Middle East. I personally do think everyone should be thinking about these things.
So maybe I will drive my Porsche.
But I'll feel better with the new solar panels on my (hypothetical) roof.
I just hope the bears will be alright.
This I Believe...
For a homework assignment we were told to write about three of NPR's This I Believe short essays. The three I picked were Just Like Pastrami, All the Joy the World Contains, and The Right to Be Fully American .
Just Like Pastrami dealt with how a good life is "marbled" like the meat - how everything is interconnected and well-mixed as opposed to just layed and piled on. I found this metaphor extremely interesting because we often deal with the fact that our personal relationships and family life and school life conflict instead of being harmoniously woven. Mr. Schulman, the author of the piece, discusses the fact that you can never separate the different aspects of life and expect it to be perfect.
The second piece, All the Joy the World Contains (by Jimmie Dale Gilmore) talked about Jimmie's experience with a life of finding something to believe in, which lead to him jumping from states of inspiration to cynicism. He talks about how after the drugs, sex, and the rock lifestyle, he only found solace in being genuinely interested in others' welfare. I found this extremely insightful, if not quite as metaphoric as the Pastrami piece. Here's a man who hit rock bottom, but found something that was worth believing in. It made me think about how sometimes, we all need something to believe in, even if it may be nothing to another person.
My favorite piece was The Right to Be Fully American, by Yasir Billoo. Yasir is a Pakistani Muslim who immigrated here. It made me really think about the "politics" of our culture - many of us say that we treat everyone with the same respect, but is that really true? Noone can deny (well, maybe the FAA might...) that those 'random' security checks at the airport are just slightly biased in many cases. Yasir had dealt with both his religion and his nationality here, even though he is an American citizen (and a lawyer, no less). The piece made me think about how anyone can be an American, but Americans can't necessarily be, say, Italian.
Edit;
I think that racism probably is caused by either a) Ignorance or b) fear.
Usually it's a combination of both. America's conflicts with the middle east prevent us from being closer to the truth of the matter of things such as Islam - what we know, we basically only see on the TV. Usually they are negative images - Hamas militants blowing up markets, firefights, etc. Just as Germans and Japanese were prosecuted during WWII, many of us are subtly prejudiced against Arabs. And to make matters worse, many people are ignorant of the difference between Arabs, Kurds, Pakistanis, etc. What would you be more afraid of in a dark alleyway? A white guy with glasses, or a black guy with a bandana on? Never mind that the white guy could chop off your limb and eat your flesh, you'd probably be more worried about the black guy mugging you. Why is this? It's not like we see the color black and go *ding!* "That is dangerous". It's because of our preconceptions of black people - on Cops you see them running, on the news you see them getting jailed for drive bys, etc. Fear is also related - just as we might be afraid of being mugged by the black dude, we're also wary of people from the Middle East because of, well, 9/11. Fear can control us - just look at the government's color-coded system, one of the greatest examples of something stupid that money was wasted on. There was absolutely no basis for the color code system, yet we were all frozen in our seats because we were in the Red. 9/11 also scared the crap out of us, prompting us to throw reason out the door and not question the war on Iraq.
So that's the reason why I think racism exists.
Just Like Pastrami dealt with how a good life is "marbled" like the meat - how everything is interconnected and well-mixed as opposed to just layed and piled on. I found this metaphor extremely interesting because we often deal with the fact that our personal relationships and family life and school life conflict instead of being harmoniously woven. Mr. Schulman, the author of the piece, discusses the fact that you can never separate the different aspects of life and expect it to be perfect.
The second piece, All the Joy the World Contains (by Jimmie Dale Gilmore) talked about Jimmie's experience with a life of finding something to believe in, which lead to him jumping from states of inspiration to cynicism. He talks about how after the drugs, sex, and the rock lifestyle, he only found solace in being genuinely interested in others' welfare. I found this extremely insightful, if not quite as metaphoric as the Pastrami piece. Here's a man who hit rock bottom, but found something that was worth believing in. It made me think about how sometimes, we all need something to believe in, even if it may be nothing to another person.
My favorite piece was The Right to Be Fully American, by Yasir Billoo. Yasir is a Pakistani Muslim who immigrated here. It made me really think about the "politics" of our culture - many of us say that we treat everyone with the same respect, but is that really true? Noone can deny (well, maybe the FAA might...) that those 'random' security checks at the airport are just slightly biased in many cases. Yasir had dealt with both his religion and his nationality here, even though he is an American citizen (and a lawyer, no less). The piece made me think about how anyone can be an American, but Americans can't necessarily be, say, Italian.
Edit;
I think that racism probably is caused by either a) Ignorance or b) fear.
Usually it's a combination of both. America's conflicts with the middle east prevent us from being closer to the truth of the matter of things such as Islam - what we know, we basically only see on the TV. Usually they are negative images - Hamas militants blowing up markets, firefights, etc. Just as Germans and Japanese were prosecuted during WWII, many of us are subtly prejudiced against Arabs. And to make matters worse, many people are ignorant of the difference between Arabs, Kurds, Pakistanis, etc. What would you be more afraid of in a dark alleyway? A white guy with glasses, or a black guy with a bandana on? Never mind that the white guy could chop off your limb and eat your flesh, you'd probably be more worried about the black guy mugging you. Why is this? It's not like we see the color black and go *ding!* "That is dangerous". It's because of our preconceptions of black people - on Cops you see them running, on the news you see them getting jailed for drive bys, etc. Fear is also related - just as we might be afraid of being mugged by the black dude, we're also wary of people from the Middle East because of, well, 9/11. Fear can control us - just look at the government's color-coded system, one of the greatest examples of something stupid that money was wasted on. There was absolutely no basis for the color code system, yet we were all frozen in our seats because we were in the Red. 9/11 also scared the crap out of us, prompting us to throw reason out the door and not question the war on Iraq.
So that's the reason why I think racism exists.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Commonplace
I was listening to some music today, and I realized that some of the stuff I listen to has a lot of significant messages in them. No offense, but mainstream music these days doesn't exactly try to tell us much. It also doesn't help that people insist on spelling the word 'tasty' as 't-a-s-t-e-y' (haha, just kidding...well, not really.)
So what then? I'm not being uptight, I do recognize that some music is for fun...but it can't all be that way, right? I was listening to Thrice, which is a rock/experimental band, and some of their lyrics from the song Cold Cash and Colder Hearts stuck out to me. Here they are:
"They are sick, they are poor
And they die by the thousands and we look away
They are wolves at the door
And they're not gonna move us or get in our way
'Cause we don't have the time
Here at the top of the world
Feeling alright
Here at the top of the world
We hold our own by keeping our hearts cold."
The song ends with the verse
"They are no one
They are nowhere
They are not our problem
Not worth saving
Nonexistent if we keep our hearts cold
They are no one
They are nowhere"
This is the part with the indecipherable screaming. I found this song to be especially fitting with the things we have been discussing in class and via our blogs. Obviously, a way to help relieve world poverty is right in front of us, but the majority of the United States has not contributed and, to be honest, do not care. It shows a lot of hypocrisy to croon at Oprah's work in Africa on TV and then immediately turn a blind eye as soon as we recieve a new iPod. It reaches a new low, of course, when you see the kind of spoiled, ignorant kids on TV a capitalist system has inadvertently supported- a maddening example being MTV's classy My Super Sweet Sixteen. Congrats, you forced your father into buying you a $75,000 Range Rover in which you'll be riding in alone (key word here being "alone").
The example continues with one of my favorite bands, Rage Against the Machine. I'm sorry if this particular musical example is a bit too "leftist" for your taste; however, RATM does not care about political affiliation (they have said that they do not belong to the right or the left; they do not agree with either side and are in more of a socialist position). So if you're a fan of Bush, just hold on. They dislike Al Gore too.
RATM has a song, titled "Sleep Now in the Fire", which was filmed on Wall Street even though it was an illegal act. This lead to the director of the video, Michael Moore, almost being arrested, along with the members of RATM being escorted off the premises. The song parodies how ignorant American people can be. It's really not a joke - CNN had a reporter out on the streets, asking questions about the Middle East. Can you guess some of the responses?
CNN: What do you think about the Hezbollah situation right now?
Woman: I dunno...who cares about those towelheads, anyway?
CNN: Do you think Bush was justified in invading Iraq?
Man: Of course he was! Weren't like, Saddam going to nuke L.A. or somethin'?
And it goes on.
The song's lyrics are a bit cryptic:
"The world is my expense
The cost of my desire
Jesus blessed me with its future
And I protect it with fire
So raise your fists
And march around
Don't dare take what you need
I'll jail and bury those committed
And smother the rest in greed
Crawl with me into tomorrow
Or I'll drag you to your grave
I'm deep inside your children
They'll betray you in my name"
It's told from the point of view of the hypothetical "Man". I think all of you will get the basic meaning of it.
Finally, in order to please some of the non-rock fans, I've found a song from one of my favorite, and most talented rap artists around today - Mos Def. He is an absolutely brilliant lyricist and has really, really good flow. Talib Kweli is also a brilliant rapper. Both of them don't constantly stray towards the kind of crap that some other mainstream rappers talk about, and it's truly refreshing. Here is a song by Talib Kweli, titled "Get By", which is about the harsh realities of the day-to-day for many people. Another song is by Mos Def, named "Katrina Klap", in which he discusses the government's pathetic reaction to Katrina.
I think that it's important to get involved in the events of our nation in any way possible, whether it be by protesting Guantanamo or listening to music with a message. And how can you not have strong opinions sometimes? When someone like Amadou Diallo gets murdered by policemen, how can people just sit there and not react? 41 shots! For Chrissake!
So what then? I'm not being uptight, I do recognize that some music is for fun...but it can't all be that way, right? I was listening to Thrice, which is a rock/experimental band, and some of their lyrics from the song Cold Cash and Colder Hearts stuck out to me. Here they are:
"They are sick, they are poor
And they die by the thousands and we look away
They are wolves at the door
And they're not gonna move us or get in our way
'Cause we don't have the time
Here at the top of the world
Feeling alright
Here at the top of the world
We hold our own by keeping our hearts cold."
The song ends with the verse
"They are no one
They are nowhere
They are not our problem
Not worth saving
Nonexistent if we keep our hearts cold
They are no one
They are nowhere"
This is the part with the indecipherable screaming. I found this song to be especially fitting with the things we have been discussing in class and via our blogs. Obviously, a way to help relieve world poverty is right in front of us, but the majority of the United States has not contributed and, to be honest, do not care. It shows a lot of hypocrisy to croon at Oprah's work in Africa on TV and then immediately turn a blind eye as soon as we recieve a new iPod. It reaches a new low, of course, when you see the kind of spoiled, ignorant kids on TV a capitalist system has inadvertently supported- a maddening example being MTV's classy My Super Sweet Sixteen. Congrats, you forced your father into buying you a $75,000 Range Rover in which you'll be riding in alone (key word here being "alone").
The example continues with one of my favorite bands, Rage Against the Machine. I'm sorry if this particular musical example is a bit too "leftist" for your taste; however, RATM does not care about political affiliation (they have said that they do not belong to the right or the left; they do not agree with either side and are in more of a socialist position). So if you're a fan of Bush, just hold on. They dislike Al Gore too.
RATM has a song, titled "Sleep Now in the Fire", which was filmed on Wall Street even though it was an illegal act. This lead to the director of the video, Michael Moore, almost being arrested, along with the members of RATM being escorted off the premises. The song parodies how ignorant American people can be. It's really not a joke - CNN had a reporter out on the streets, asking questions about the Middle East. Can you guess some of the responses?
CNN: What do you think about the Hezbollah situation right now?
Woman: I dunno...who cares about those towelheads, anyway?
CNN: Do you think Bush was justified in invading Iraq?
Man: Of course he was! Weren't like, Saddam going to nuke L.A. or somethin'?
And it goes on.
The song's lyrics are a bit cryptic:
"The world is my expense
The cost of my desire
Jesus blessed me with its future
And I protect it with fire
So raise your fists
And march around
Don't dare take what you need
I'll jail and bury those committed
And smother the rest in greed
Crawl with me into tomorrow
Or I'll drag you to your grave
I'm deep inside your children
They'll betray you in my name"
It's told from the point of view of the hypothetical "Man". I think all of you will get the basic meaning of it.
Finally, in order to please some of the non-rock fans, I've found a song from one of my favorite, and most talented rap artists around today - Mos Def. He is an absolutely brilliant lyricist and has really, really good flow. Talib Kweli is also a brilliant rapper. Both of them don't constantly stray towards the kind of crap that some other mainstream rappers talk about, and it's truly refreshing. Here is a song by Talib Kweli, titled "Get By", which is about the harsh realities of the day-to-day for many people. Another song is by Mos Def, named "Katrina Klap", in which he discusses the government's pathetic reaction to Katrina.
I think that it's important to get involved in the events of our nation in any way possible, whether it be by protesting Guantanamo or listening to music with a message. And how can you not have strong opinions sometimes? When someone like Amadou Diallo gets murdered by policemen, how can people just sit there and not react? 41 shots! For Chrissake!
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Water Buffaloes v. Killing Babies.
4 Generations is a short video about how an American living in China, Robert Thompson, helped set up a gift of a water buffalo to a family in a small Chinese village. They picked one water buffalo and one family that seemed to need it most. It ended up going to a family with a great-grandmother, grandmother, father, and daughter.
The first difference that I was aware of between Singer's essay and this video was the immediate emotional response. Unlike the essay, in which I was skeptical and a bit annoyed, to be honest, this short video was very moving. This is the sort of thing that just might inspire us to help out people in need around the world. Again, unlike Singer's essay, this video did not point fingers and try to guilt-trip us into compliance - instead, it highlighted the greatest aspects of human kindness. Instead of showing the consequences, it showed the rewards.
There was none of the forced logic that made me raise an eyebrow to the Singer Solution to World Poverty. While the essay told us that in order to lead morally correct lives, we needed to donate all the money that we didn't absolutely need (which is rubbish), the video showed us that we had the ability to change a life in a positive manner. The best part, for me, was the lack of pretenciousness. There were no statistics, twisting logic, questioning of our morality, or "clever" analogies. It was just the documentation of the action. This was the most powerful bit, because unlike Singer's theoretical argument, they actually went out and helped a family. Because of this, there was never a time where I questioned what Robert Thompson was trying to do. Singer's essay left me feeling jaded and wondering whether Singer was a hypocrite (after all, there was no evidence of him donating $200).
So, in essence, 4 Generations is everything the Singer Solution isn't, but should have been. There's an analogy in all of this, somewhere. The closest one seems to involve my favorite institution to rag on, PETA. Singer's method of changing the world is basically the same as PETA's. He makes us feel like we're killing African babies by eating an expensive dessert, just like PETA makes us feel like we're lining up baby cows and beating them with police batons whenever we consume veal (strangely enough, both of them involve delicious food). I don't know if it's just me, but I would rather see PETA advertising puppies getting new homes, and cattle roaming freely in the fields than to see cattle flopping around on the blood-stained floor of a slaughterhouse. Yes, it's the same message, but with two hugely different executions.
I'm sure both the Singer Solution and 4 Gen. had the same well-meaning intentions in mind. But in this world of apathetic materialists, it's all about how we convince people. And while guilt may work in police confessions, I have a feeling that seeing the joy a water buffalo can bring to a family might help us get involved a little bit better.
The first difference that I was aware of between Singer's essay and this video was the immediate emotional response. Unlike the essay, in which I was skeptical and a bit annoyed, to be honest, this short video was very moving. This is the sort of thing that just might inspire us to help out people in need around the world. Again, unlike Singer's essay, this video did not point fingers and try to guilt-trip us into compliance - instead, it highlighted the greatest aspects of human kindness. Instead of showing the consequences, it showed the rewards.
There was none of the forced logic that made me raise an eyebrow to the Singer Solution to World Poverty. While the essay told us that in order to lead morally correct lives, we needed to donate all the money that we didn't absolutely need (which is rubbish), the video showed us that we had the ability to change a life in a positive manner. The best part, for me, was the lack of pretenciousness. There were no statistics, twisting logic, questioning of our morality, or "clever" analogies. It was just the documentation of the action. This was the most powerful bit, because unlike Singer's theoretical argument, they actually went out and helped a family. Because of this, there was never a time where I questioned what Robert Thompson was trying to do. Singer's essay left me feeling jaded and wondering whether Singer was a hypocrite (after all, there was no evidence of him donating $200).
So, in essence, 4 Generations is everything the Singer Solution isn't, but should have been. There's an analogy in all of this, somewhere. The closest one seems to involve my favorite institution to rag on, PETA. Singer's method of changing the world is basically the same as PETA's. He makes us feel like we're killing African babies by eating an expensive dessert, just like PETA makes us feel like we're lining up baby cows and beating them with police batons whenever we consume veal (strangely enough, both of them involve delicious food). I don't know if it's just me, but I would rather see PETA advertising puppies getting new homes, and cattle roaming freely in the fields than to see cattle flopping around on the blood-stained floor of a slaughterhouse. Yes, it's the same message, but with two hugely different executions.
I'm sure both the Singer Solution and 4 Gen. had the same well-meaning intentions in mind. But in this world of apathetic materialists, it's all about how we convince people. And while guilt may work in police confessions, I have a feeling that seeing the joy a water buffalo can bring to a family might help us get involved a little bit better.
Monday, January 22, 2007
World Poverty
I found Peter Singer's article very interesting.
He makes some extremely good points which make a lot of sense. And yes, the only way to really live a morally correct life is to live without any luxuries. Zero.
The problem is that basically, that will lead to a (theoretically) communist state for all first-world nations.
Think about it.
Whether you are a middle-class family living in North Carolina, or your name starts with 'D' and ends with 'Onald Trump', you will be giving all the luxuries you have (the Donald would have to give a massive amount of money away, it seems). Everyone would basically be living in the same conditions, unless, of course, you are below the average even at this point. And while this makes for saving hundreds of thousands of lives in third-world countries, it also demolishes what we've known as life since...well, what seems to be forever.
It's not exactly impressive human progress.
Oh, sure, it's moral progress.
Peter Singer tells us near the end of the paper, "That's right: I'm saying that you shouldn't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1000 suit could save five children's lives." Of course, a untold point is that this would still destroy our economy, our culture, and it would also have a massive effect on our infrastructure (again, tied to the economy). It'd be a mess. People cannot be attached to this idea of giving infinitely. It's impossible. Bono and Oprah might have donated loads of money, but you don't see Bono selling his very valuable estate or his Maserati. He goes on to say that we should at least know what we are not leading "a morally decent life".
It's pretty easy to judge from behind a pen (keyboard?). While we should be aware of the repercussions of our actions (or inaction, to be more accurate), there is no reason to feel guilty. Did I stick the muzzle of a well-oiled AK-47 at the head of a child in Namibia and pull the trigger? Of course not. I just ate a steak. And it's this kind of thinking that can be toxic. It is almost akin to the way that the PETA describes life: "A boy is a dog is a rat." Eating a dry-aged steak is like letting a kid get run over by a train? What the hell is going on here?
It's the same thing with global warming - yes, we're causing it. Yes, we can solve it...but I'll be damned if you don't think I'm gonna be driving a fast car in the near future. Although group thinking can be extremely dangerous in the long run (Nazi Germany, as mentioned in the essay?), there's no doubt in my mind that someone high up (e.g. our administration?) needs to be addressing these things (both world poverty as well as global warming). Yeah, I do feel bad that we're destroying the earth. But does that mean everyone should go buy a Prius? God, no!
Our government's not listening, for one (poor Al Gore). We could be creating more opportunities to integrate solar power, wind power, biofuels, etc. Even a Public Service Announcement would help! The exact same applies to world poverty. Do you think most people are going to care after a long day at work? You're a fantastic optimist if you said 'yes' to that question.
Again, it is the same with genocide. I'm sure many people enjoyed the chapel, bought the shirts. I thought that it was all a bit ridiculous. Yes, you're contributing to help feed some of the refugees. Save Darfur? Not happening. Unless you go in there with a fireteam of Delta Force operators and kill a few warlords, it is not happening. Feeding someone and stopping genocide are two different things. Does that mean I shouldn't buy a shirt? Of course not, it's for a good cause. But just because you didn't, it doesn't mean you're killing hundreds of refugees. The bottom line is, we need to get inspired somehow. Throw out some of the aforementioned PSAs. Create programs. Make us feel like dirtbags. But until then, we don't have many choices, nor do we really have any reasons to take action. Until something happens, the general message seems to be:
Have you bought a Prius, or donated $200?
Join the revolution, friend. Leave those yuppie gas-guzzling bourgeoisie pigs behind.
With this in mind, please, if you can, give that $200. It'll help alot.
But don't cry about it when you're eating at Alan Wong's.
Does that sound a bit heartless? Well...maybe it is. But if you're not gonna finish that plate of 30 dollar foie gras because you think you're destroying a child in Africa...you might as well give it to me.
He makes some extremely good points which make a lot of sense. And yes, the only way to really live a morally correct life is to live without any luxuries. Zero.
The problem is that basically, that will lead to a (theoretically) communist state for all first-world nations.
Think about it.
Whether you are a middle-class family living in North Carolina, or your name starts with 'D' and ends with 'Onald Trump', you will be giving all the luxuries you have (the Donald would have to give a massive amount of money away, it seems). Everyone would basically be living in the same conditions, unless, of course, you are below the average even at this point. And while this makes for saving hundreds of thousands of lives in third-world countries, it also demolishes what we've known as life since...well, what seems to be forever.
It's not exactly impressive human progress.
Oh, sure, it's moral progress.
Peter Singer tells us near the end of the paper, "That's right: I'm saying that you shouldn't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1000 suit could save five children's lives." Of course, a untold point is that this would still destroy our economy, our culture, and it would also have a massive effect on our infrastructure (again, tied to the economy). It'd be a mess. People cannot be attached to this idea of giving infinitely. It's impossible. Bono and Oprah might have donated loads of money, but you don't see Bono selling his very valuable estate or his Maserati. He goes on to say that we should at least know what we are not leading "a morally decent life".
It's pretty easy to judge from behind a pen (keyboard?). While we should be aware of the repercussions of our actions (or inaction, to be more accurate), there is no reason to feel guilty. Did I stick the muzzle of a well-oiled AK-47 at the head of a child in Namibia and pull the trigger? Of course not. I just ate a steak. And it's this kind of thinking that can be toxic. It is almost akin to the way that the PETA describes life: "A boy is a dog is a rat." Eating a dry-aged steak is like letting a kid get run over by a train? What the hell is going on here?
It's the same thing with global warming - yes, we're causing it. Yes, we can solve it...but I'll be damned if you don't think I'm gonna be driving a fast car in the near future. Although group thinking can be extremely dangerous in the long run (Nazi Germany, as mentioned in the essay?), there's no doubt in my mind that someone high up (e.g. our administration?) needs to be addressing these things (both world poverty as well as global warming). Yeah, I do feel bad that we're destroying the earth. But does that mean everyone should go buy a Prius? God, no!
Our government's not listening, for one (poor Al Gore). We could be creating more opportunities to integrate solar power, wind power, biofuels, etc. Even a Public Service Announcement would help! The exact same applies to world poverty. Do you think most people are going to care after a long day at work? You're a fantastic optimist if you said 'yes' to that question.
Again, it is the same with genocide. I'm sure many people enjoyed the chapel, bought the shirts. I thought that it was all a bit ridiculous. Yes, you're contributing to help feed some of the refugees. Save Darfur? Not happening. Unless you go in there with a fireteam of Delta Force operators and kill a few warlords, it is not happening. Feeding someone and stopping genocide are two different things. Does that mean I shouldn't buy a shirt? Of course not, it's for a good cause. But just because you didn't, it doesn't mean you're killing hundreds of refugees. The bottom line is, we need to get inspired somehow. Throw out some of the aforementioned PSAs. Create programs. Make us feel like dirtbags. But until then, we don't have many choices, nor do we really have any reasons to take action. Until something happens, the general message seems to be:
Have you bought a Prius, or donated $200?
Join the revolution, friend. Leave those yuppie gas-guzzling bourgeoisie pigs behind.
With this in mind, please, if you can, give that $200. It'll help alot.
But don't cry about it when you're eating at Alan Wong's.
Does that sound a bit heartless? Well...maybe it is. But if you're not gonna finish that plate of 30 dollar foie gras because you think you're destroying a child in Africa...you might as well give it to me.
Friday, January 19, 2007
The Beginning
This is the first post.
I like blogs because they allow people to rant about anything at all without seeming insane. I sort of forgot what else to put in this first post.
I like blogs because they allow people to rant about anything at all without seeming insane. I sort of forgot what else to put in this first post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
