I'm writing this so that if I disappear without a trace at some point in the near future, you'll have some idea where to begin the search. It appears I am being heavily recruited by Jehovah's Witnesses lately. The problem is, I fear they have discovered that I am largely a captive audience. I was out walking about a month ago when a car pulled over as if to ask for directions. Instead, a tiny older gentleman in a suit hopped out, scurried across the road, shook my hand, introduced himself, and handed me some literature, which I then carried for three miles being environmentally concious. No harm, I've got a whole draw of New Testaments I picked up strolling the UMaine campus back in the day. The beginning of this week there was a knock on the door as I was coming out of the shower. I assumed it was the UPS guy or some reasonable fascimile, expect the guy was still knocking when I made it to the door a couple of minutes later. Seemed rather persistent for an Amazon order. Turns out it was my old friend from the side of the road, and he even remembered my name. He came bearing gifts of a bible study guide and inquired if he might return in a couple of weeks to "sit down with me." I was rather taken aback at this point, and stammered out an "ummmm....we'll see" or something equally non confrontational. Here's the thing, I'm afraid they might have zeroed in on me as the perfect mark. The Witnesses around here are normally quite passive, so I'm a bit concerned that they stayed at the door until I answered, and then dude even tried to set up a book club meeting. That's never happened before. It makes me think I've been scouted. I think they know I'm home most of the time, and that I don't run very fast. Couple all that with my aversion to confrontation and urge to avoid uncomfortable situations, and I'm already sweating about when these guys are going to show up again. Here's hoping I don't end up with a shaved head and purple sneakers.
Spotify.com. Check it out, and thank me later. It's Euro napster, except free and legal, and not run by Justin Timberlake. Do it now. It's like Google+, only useful...Torchwood: Miracle Day....great stuff. American Ninja Warrior starting Sunday night....yes please.
What is the point of a body double anyway? It just rewards hot ladies for not taking their clothes off...just sayin. Honestly though, they serve no purpose anymore. I feel like there are two different scenarios here, neither of which make much sense:
1. If it's just gratutitous and unecessary, take it out. Everybody edits their flip cam footage these days. Nobody's fooled anymore, in which case there's no point in marketing A-list skin. It's like pumping up a broadway show for opening night, and then going with the understudy. Just don't bother, and let the film stand on its own merits.
2. If it's a top notch film, where it's integral to the plot or character, suck it up ladies. It's sort of on the Mount Rushmore of Oscar cliches now: period piece, special needs, ugly it up.....and superstar sexy time. There are occasions where it's part of the craft, in which case those willing to take that script just might win statues of various shapes and sizes. Basically, if you demand a double in this situation, you're probably a bad actress with an inflated opinion of yourself, and also kind of a bitch.
Won't you all please join me in putting an end to stunt butts??
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
In Defense of Defense
I just flashed back to my 7th grade English class. We watched the OJ verdict on television (which kinda seems like a poor syllabus at this point.) As I recall, my old friend Thom McHugh and I made a tidy sum of extra lunch money standing all by our lonesome on one side of the verdict straw poll (One guess, which side) while our 30 or so classmates clustered confidently and sanctimoniously on the other side. Turns out I was either very mature back then, or just stubborn in my convictions..
Such a sense of deja vu comes not from the result itself, but from the reaction to it, and my apparent triumphant return to the wild outback fringes of public opinion. It distresses me to no end that people have such such little understanding of the justice system that they instead experience it as reality television. They rage with self righteous entitled indignation whenever a high profile "not guilty" verdict comes in as if Sopranos just cut to black or some douchebag is talking about the Bachelorette behind her back. People want their money back guarantee and the extended warranty on the media circus they've been consuming like rubberneckers at a car wreck. At the beginning of every megatrial there is a tacit agreement between the media and the public that everyone is on board for some Jack Bauer justice. The truth is that real life is more like an independent film festival: filled with flawed complex characters and conflicting or ambiguous endings.
Reasonable Doubt is not Dre's latest protege, it's the absolute cornerstone of our justice system. Just ask Amanda Knox, Middle Eastern women, or gays in Africa what happens if the system operated under the premise that if the police put you in handcuffs you must have done something wrong, and it's up to you to prove otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent is a dangerous road that we've been hurtling down for quite some time thanks to cable news hyberole and network tv crime procedurals that are equal parts Encyclopedia Brown and Jetsons. If Nancy Grace was the Grand Inquistor, we'd all be in jail. Seriously, every single one of us, no exaggeration.
That's sort of the problem though. I think most people have lost the capacity to comprehend the magnitude of such situations. I don't speak of empathy for the accused necessarily, but the ability to imagine oneself in a similar situation where your literal life hangs in the balance. The best you can hope for is that the basic tenents of the system, right to a fair and speedy trial, has not been corrupted by overzealous talking heads and societal group think.
I'll admit I did not pay the closest attention to the Anthony case, in particular. I'm aware your aunt and best friend handed down a conviction three years ago. However, it does seem clear to me that case was built ENTIRELY on circumstantial evidence, another aspect of the legal system apparently too complex for some folks to grasp. Even a mountain of such evidence is still circumstantial, which by the way, isn't useless. However, it does mean that an incompetent and preening prosecuter who assumes a slam dunk and is worried about where his book deal might come from, coupled with an active defense attorney can punch plenty reasonable sized doubt holes in such a case. Sometimes I think even the state forgets it holds the burden of proof.
Sometimes I'm awed into silence at the tightrope of civilization we walk with Lord of the Flies anarchy staring at us from the abyss on the either side. One fucking word was the space between freedom and death. Regardless of your opinion on the death penalty or the verdict, just close your eyes for a moment and let the gravity of the responsibility of such a decision. Those 12 jurors perform the modern equivalent of thumbs up or down in the gladitorial arena. Pause for a moment of introspection before you take the the torches and pitchforks out to put them on trial too.
The logical divide that people can't or won't bridge is the concept that it is entirely possible (in fact it SHOULD be far more common than it is) to believe it more likely than not a crime was committed and still render an accquital. (Wave to our old pal reasonable doubt.) Every system is flawed and every society has an essential decision to make about which inevitability is easier to live with and which should be weighted against: Guilty people occasionally going free or innocent people occasionally going to prison. As it turns out, I made my choice way back when, even if I wasn't fully aware of it at the time. It's an often unpopular choice. It's sometimes a difficult and painful choice, but I truly believe it to be the correct one. Civilization does not crumble and burn with a single injustice, but rather with a broken, unjust and corrupt system. Sometimes the right decision isn't the easy one folks, and sometimes the greater good doesn't make you feel good at all.
Such a sense of deja vu comes not from the result itself, but from the reaction to it, and my apparent triumphant return to the wild outback fringes of public opinion. It distresses me to no end that people have such such little understanding of the justice system that they instead experience it as reality television. They rage with self righteous entitled indignation whenever a high profile "not guilty" verdict comes in as if Sopranos just cut to black or some douchebag is talking about the Bachelorette behind her back. People want their money back guarantee and the extended warranty on the media circus they've been consuming like rubberneckers at a car wreck. At the beginning of every megatrial there is a tacit agreement between the media and the public that everyone is on board for some Jack Bauer justice. The truth is that real life is more like an independent film festival: filled with flawed complex characters and conflicting or ambiguous endings.
Reasonable Doubt is not Dre's latest protege, it's the absolute cornerstone of our justice system. Just ask Amanda Knox, Middle Eastern women, or gays in Africa what happens if the system operated under the premise that if the police put you in handcuffs you must have done something wrong, and it's up to you to prove otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent is a dangerous road that we've been hurtling down for quite some time thanks to cable news hyberole and network tv crime procedurals that are equal parts Encyclopedia Brown and Jetsons. If Nancy Grace was the Grand Inquistor, we'd all be in jail. Seriously, every single one of us, no exaggeration.
That's sort of the problem though. I think most people have lost the capacity to comprehend the magnitude of such situations. I don't speak of empathy for the accused necessarily, but the ability to imagine oneself in a similar situation where your literal life hangs in the balance. The best you can hope for is that the basic tenents of the system, right to a fair and speedy trial, has not been corrupted by overzealous talking heads and societal group think.
I'll admit I did not pay the closest attention to the Anthony case, in particular. I'm aware your aunt and best friend handed down a conviction three years ago. However, it does seem clear to me that case was built ENTIRELY on circumstantial evidence, another aspect of the legal system apparently too complex for some folks to grasp. Even a mountain of such evidence is still circumstantial, which by the way, isn't useless. However, it does mean that an incompetent and preening prosecuter who assumes a slam dunk and is worried about where his book deal might come from, coupled with an active defense attorney can punch plenty reasonable sized doubt holes in such a case. Sometimes I think even the state forgets it holds the burden of proof.
Sometimes I'm awed into silence at the tightrope of civilization we walk with Lord of the Flies anarchy staring at us from the abyss on the either side. One fucking word was the space between freedom and death. Regardless of your opinion on the death penalty or the verdict, just close your eyes for a moment and let the gravity of the responsibility of such a decision. Those 12 jurors perform the modern equivalent of thumbs up or down in the gladitorial arena. Pause for a moment of introspection before you take the the torches and pitchforks out to put them on trial too.
The logical divide that people can't or won't bridge is the concept that it is entirely possible (in fact it SHOULD be far more common than it is) to believe it more likely than not a crime was committed and still render an accquital. (Wave to our old pal reasonable doubt.) Every system is flawed and every society has an essential decision to make about which inevitability is easier to live with and which should be weighted against: Guilty people occasionally going free or innocent people occasionally going to prison. As it turns out, I made my choice way back when, even if I wasn't fully aware of it at the time. It's an often unpopular choice. It's sometimes a difficult and painful choice, but I truly believe it to be the correct one. Civilization does not crumble and burn with a single injustice, but rather with a broken, unjust and corrupt system. Sometimes the right decision isn't the easy one folks, and sometimes the greater good doesn't make you feel good at all.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Why Do I Dislike Oprah So Much?
I've been pondering this age old question, especially in recent weeks, now that the Color Pious is no longer sending forth decrees from on high every weekday at 4 in that place of honor between Let's Make a Deal and Inside Edition.
I don't blame you, Oprah (at least not entirely.) I realized my issue is not so much with Oprah, but with her insanely inflated place in society. Oprah shouldn't make you cry. She doesn't belong on the five dollar bill. I don't care who she thinks should be president. That book she just told you to read? It won the Pulitzer Prize 50 years ago. All those life changing epiphanies she's sharing with you either come directly from freshmen English or the keychain you uses to open house number 27. Beef was bad for you a decade before Oprah was a woman on a mission with a persecution complex.
See, I think what bothers me is not that there's anything wrong with Oprah, it's that there's nothing special about her either. Yet so many otherwise smart, self aware people are ready to sprinkle holy water and canonize her at a moment's notice. Oprah's not your friend. She's your used car salesman. She's the traveling preacher "healing" the guy in the wheelchair and passing the plate. She gained a national platform because she had a good television show not because she was full of wisdom. She started her own television network so she could buy her dog a third Mercedes, not so the two of you could go on a journey together to find the true you.
Kudos on the charitable work, of course that's wonderful. Just one quick thing: Most people who give money to good causes don't usually also spring for the camera crew and Tom Hanks narration.
You watch Oprah. I watch pro wrestling. You watch Oprah. I watch the Amazing Race and Survivor. You watch Oprah. I watch Lost and 24. It's all part of the same soup. By all means, enjoy her to the nth degree. Just please acknowledge that she does not exist on some higher plane and you'll make me feel SO much better. Oprah is not Ghandi. She's Sally Jesse Rapheal. Oprah is not Martin Luther King. She's Maury Povich. Do me one favor and next time she's imploring you to release your energy out into the universe, picture the love child of Phil Donahue and Ricki Lake with better ratings. That's all I ask.
I don't blame you, Oprah (at least not entirely.) I realized my issue is not so much with Oprah, but with her insanely inflated place in society. Oprah shouldn't make you cry. She doesn't belong on the five dollar bill. I don't care who she thinks should be president. That book she just told you to read? It won the Pulitzer Prize 50 years ago. All those life changing epiphanies she's sharing with you either come directly from freshmen English or the keychain you uses to open house number 27. Beef was bad for you a decade before Oprah was a woman on a mission with a persecution complex.
See, I think what bothers me is not that there's anything wrong with Oprah, it's that there's nothing special about her either. Yet so many otherwise smart, self aware people are ready to sprinkle holy water and canonize her at a moment's notice. Oprah's not your friend. She's your used car salesman. She's the traveling preacher "healing" the guy in the wheelchair and passing the plate. She gained a national platform because she had a good television show not because she was full of wisdom. She started her own television network so she could buy her dog a third Mercedes, not so the two of you could go on a journey together to find the true you.
Kudos on the charitable work, of course that's wonderful. Just one quick thing: Most people who give money to good causes don't usually also spring for the camera crew and Tom Hanks narration.
You watch Oprah. I watch pro wrestling. You watch Oprah. I watch the Amazing Race and Survivor. You watch Oprah. I watch Lost and 24. It's all part of the same soup. By all means, enjoy her to the nth degree. Just please acknowledge that she does not exist on some higher plane and you'll make me feel SO much better. Oprah is not Ghandi. She's Sally Jesse Rapheal. Oprah is not Martin Luther King. She's Maury Povich. Do me one favor and next time she's imploring you to release your energy out into the universe, picture the love child of Phil Donahue and Ricki Lake with better ratings. That's all I ask.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Intellectual Vegetarian
"Intellectual Vegetarian" is a phrase I used on social media the other day in an attempt to try and describe my current state of mind on the matter. (By the way, I've also decided that Facebook and Twitter are largely responsible for my blogging hiatus.) Learning to share my mind soup with others in such efficient snippets has sapped the need and motivation to flesh things out further. We'll see if I can change that. End of meta tangent.
The phrase "intellectual vegetarian" is rather self explanatory I suppose, though I'm proud of myself for coining it, at least in my own head. It really just means that it rationally is making more and more sense to me, but at the same time, I don't actually envision myself making the lifestyle switch.
I realize that people have very personal reasons for making such a decision, and there are any number of such reasons. I could be wrong, but I always thought the core of vegetarianism was the idea that as self aware members of the food chain, once we figure out that we don't need meat to survive, should probably not eat it, ethically speaking. In other words, of course it's nothing wrong with it, naturally speaking, and we have the teeth to prove it. Yet, some would argue that "we should know better," that once it becomes a concious choice, the empathetic decision is to avoid eating animals since we don't actually have to. There's always been one logical hurdle (or rationalization) for me on this front. All the animals I eat are already dead. I've never liked hunting because it seems unfair and unecessary to me. (Give the deer a gun too and see what happens, though my hunting friends always eat what they kill.) I figure if I stop eating delicious hamburgers, it's not as if the burger gets to go free in the countryside. So, while I largely find the effort to be futile, I find the intention more and more noble, having never actually met a vegetarian until grad school and having several years to mull it over.
Personally, there's another reason why my mind keeps coming back to the subject. Despite how good it tastes, I'm increasingly disconcerted with what is in my food. Everything is so processed and artificial that we no longer have the slightest clue what we are putting in our bodies. I gave up milk after one too many docmentaries, though it's more a symbolic decision than anything else. In a perfect world, I'd just eat less meat, and eat organically, but it's expensive. Plus, organic food is actually becoming easier to find, but mostly because corporations have realized how chic it is, and have co-opted it, campaigning to the FDA to get the guidelines for what is considered organic loosened and lowered. Point being, I don't have the energy to figure these things out,so vegetarian might be the path of least resistance.
I'd be shocked if I ever actually did it. There are probably plenty of less radical ways to eat healthier and more naturally. I just find it interesting that my head has been inching in that direction over a long period of time, while my taste buds have no idea. Maybe I should try being a pescatarian. Wait a minute...damn mercury poisoning
The phrase "intellectual vegetarian" is rather self explanatory I suppose, though I'm proud of myself for coining it, at least in my own head. It really just means that it rationally is making more and more sense to me, but at the same time, I don't actually envision myself making the lifestyle switch.
I realize that people have very personal reasons for making such a decision, and there are any number of such reasons. I could be wrong, but I always thought the core of vegetarianism was the idea that as self aware members of the food chain, once we figure out that we don't need meat to survive, should probably not eat it, ethically speaking. In other words, of course it's nothing wrong with it, naturally speaking, and we have the teeth to prove it. Yet, some would argue that "we should know better," that once it becomes a concious choice, the empathetic decision is to avoid eating animals since we don't actually have to. There's always been one logical hurdle (or rationalization) for me on this front. All the animals I eat are already dead. I've never liked hunting because it seems unfair and unecessary to me. (Give the deer a gun too and see what happens, though my hunting friends always eat what they kill.) I figure if I stop eating delicious hamburgers, it's not as if the burger gets to go free in the countryside. So, while I largely find the effort to be futile, I find the intention more and more noble, having never actually met a vegetarian until grad school and having several years to mull it over.
Personally, there's another reason why my mind keeps coming back to the subject. Despite how good it tastes, I'm increasingly disconcerted with what is in my food. Everything is so processed and artificial that we no longer have the slightest clue what we are putting in our bodies. I gave up milk after one too many docmentaries, though it's more a symbolic decision than anything else. In a perfect world, I'd just eat less meat, and eat organically, but it's expensive. Plus, organic food is actually becoming easier to find, but mostly because corporations have realized how chic it is, and have co-opted it, campaigning to the FDA to get the guidelines for what is considered organic loosened and lowered. Point being, I don't have the energy to figure these things out,so vegetarian might be the path of least resistance.
I'd be shocked if I ever actually did it. There are probably plenty of less radical ways to eat healthier and more naturally. I just find it interesting that my head has been inching in that direction over a long period of time, while my taste buds have no idea. Maybe I should try being a pescatarian. Wait a minute...damn mercury poisoning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)