These were my results from an online test of political beliefs. I was in the same box as Ghandi, so I figure that's a good thing. But I was also pretty close to Bono, so I can't rule out the possibility that I am a giant tool. You are a Social Liberal and an... Economic Liberal You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
My Political Beliefs
The Stock Racist
Few things sink a film as fast as a two-dimensional stock character, be it the gay best friend, the renegade cop or the hooker with the heart of gold. But in the last few months I've discovered a new stock character who’s soiling the screen. I’m talking about The Racist.
I’ve known some fairly racist individuals, but I’ve never met anyone like The Racist of modern cinema, who struts around with guns blazing and a racial slur tattooed on his forehead.
It started when I finally saw Paul Haggis’ film Crash. It’s a film about race, and it certainly had some powerful moments, but several characters seemed to be speaking the subtext of bigotry rather than anything I could believe as dialogue. I believe that many white people feel intimidated when they’re approached by young black men; I don’t believe they turn to their companions and say, "these young black men are probably criminals."
Crash isn’t that over-the-top, but at times it veered pretty close. In one particular scene, Don Cheadle’s character meets with a white political operative who throws out black stereotypes like he’s talking about the Knicks game. It’s so brazen that the scene feels like an indictment of bigots rather than a portrayal of one.
It’s that indictment quality that really makes these Racist characters so insufferable. Not that racism shouldn’t be indicted, but most actors or writers worth a damn will tell you that if you judge a character while you’re creating them all you’ll get is cardboard.
Another film long on my to-see list, A Day Without a Mexican, tried to construct an entire film around the stock Racist. The ingenious plot, that one morning all Mexicans living in America suddenly vanish, is spoiled by the banal honkeys left in the wake. It’s a world where uber-ignorant millionaires spew vitriol about Mexicans while their Mexican housekeeper serves them breakfast.
The Racist character has apparently never been to a mandatory staff meeting on multiculturalism, or for that matter ever been told that "wet back" isn’t a term one should shout at the mall food court. It just doesn’t reflect anything I’ve seen in the real world.
There are plenty of racists – don’t get me wrong. But racism tends to be right below the surface. The manager at Denny’s may not hire the black kid, but he’s not so likely to announce to the wait staff "I’m not hiring this kid because he’s black." The Racist character on the other hand is more than happy to make such a proclamation, then go back to shining his belt buckle.
It’s not just that the covert racist is more real, from a writing standpoint he’s a hell of a lot more interesting. Show me a character who says exactly what they feel and I’ll show you a boring ass film. Unfortunately, that’s what I’ve been seeing.
I’ve known some fairly racist individuals, but I’ve never met anyone like The Racist of modern cinema, who struts around with guns blazing and a racial slur tattooed on his forehead.
It started when I finally saw Paul Haggis’ film Crash. It’s a film about race, and it certainly had some powerful moments, but several characters seemed to be speaking the subtext of bigotry rather than anything I could believe as dialogue. I believe that many white people feel intimidated when they’re approached by young black men; I don’t believe they turn to their companions and say, "these young black men are probably criminals."
Crash isn’t that over-the-top, but at times it veered pretty close. In one particular scene, Don Cheadle’s character meets with a white political operative who throws out black stereotypes like he’s talking about the Knicks game. It’s so brazen that the scene feels like an indictment of bigots rather than a portrayal of one.
It’s that indictment quality that really makes these Racist characters so insufferable. Not that racism shouldn’t be indicted, but most actors or writers worth a damn will tell you that if you judge a character while you’re creating them all you’ll get is cardboard.
Another film long on my to-see list, A Day Without a Mexican, tried to construct an entire film around the stock Racist. The ingenious plot, that one morning all Mexicans living in America suddenly vanish, is spoiled by the banal honkeys left in the wake. It’s a world where uber-ignorant millionaires spew vitriol about Mexicans while their Mexican housekeeper serves them breakfast.
The Racist character has apparently never been to a mandatory staff meeting on multiculturalism, or for that matter ever been told that "wet back" isn’t a term one should shout at the mall food court. It just doesn’t reflect anything I’ve seen in the real world.
There are plenty of racists – don’t get me wrong. But racism tends to be right below the surface. The manager at Denny’s may not hire the black kid, but he’s not so likely to announce to the wait staff "I’m not hiring this kid because he’s black." The Racist character on the other hand is more than happy to make such a proclamation, then go back to shining his belt buckle.
It’s not just that the covert racist is more real, from a writing standpoint he’s a hell of a lot more interesting. Show me a character who says exactly what they feel and I’ll show you a boring ass film. Unfortunately, that’s what I’ve been seeing.
Must See TV
Have you seen R. Kelly's "Trapped in the Closet" music video, "urban opera," or whatever the hell it is? If not, you make damn sure that you do.
I realize this thing was released over the summer, so please excuse my belated awe. But if, like me, your finger's not on the hip-hop pulse, you are in for a treat. "Trapped in the Closet" is like a movie serial mixed with the worst song you've ever heard in your life.
In twelve parts, R. Kelly narrates a story by singing everything that's happening on screen exactly as it's happening. As in: "I'm standing in the closet, now I'm opening the door..." Meanwhile, on screen, R. Kelly's character stands in a closet and opens a door. It's not so much storytelling as it is narrative for the blind.
The DVD goes even one step further, with interviews with the actors as their characters. So you can actually watch R. Kelly, with "Sylvester" on the bottom of the screen, say "yeah, I was standing in the closet. Then I opened the door."
As bad as the concept is, the story is worse. The epic serial seems to be about a group of people linked only by the fact that they're all cheating on their spouses with each other. After what Kelly obviously thinks is the gritty truth about love and human nature, the story reaches a moving climax when a midget shits himself. Seriously. But I guess it's the type of romantic advice you should expect from a guy who likes to pee on teenagers.
It's impossible to really describe "Trapped in the Closet." If you were to pause it at any point, and imagine the most ridiculous thing that could possibly happen, you would be surprised to resume and watch something even more absurd. It is so shockingly bad, only the wannabes at Rolling Stone could love it.
I've already said too much. If you want to watch a piece of pop culture trash so sad that you'll laugh, so funny that you'll cry, I cannot reccomend "Trapped in the Closet" highly enough.
I realize this thing was released over the summer, so please excuse my belated awe. But if, like me, your finger's not on the hip-hop pulse, you are in for a treat. "Trapped in the Closet" is like a movie serial mixed with the worst song you've ever heard in your life.
In twelve parts, R. Kelly narrates a story by singing everything that's happening on screen exactly as it's happening. As in: "I'm standing in the closet, now I'm opening the door..." Meanwhile, on screen, R. Kelly's character stands in a closet and opens a door. It's not so much storytelling as it is narrative for the blind.
The DVD goes even one step further, with interviews with the actors as their characters. So you can actually watch R. Kelly, with "Sylvester" on the bottom of the screen, say "yeah, I was standing in the closet. Then I opened the door."
As bad as the concept is, the story is worse. The epic serial seems to be about a group of people linked only by the fact that they're all cheating on their spouses with each other. After what Kelly obviously thinks is the gritty truth about love and human nature, the story reaches a moving climax when a midget shits himself. Seriously. But I guess it's the type of romantic advice you should expect from a guy who likes to pee on teenagers.
It's impossible to really describe "Trapped in the Closet." If you were to pause it at any point, and imagine the most ridiculous thing that could possibly happen, you would be surprised to resume and watch something even more absurd. It is so shockingly bad, only the wannabes at Rolling Stone could love it.
I've already said too much. If you want to watch a piece of pop culture trash so sad that you'll laugh, so funny that you'll cry, I cannot reccomend "Trapped in the Closet" highly enough.
A kidnapping by any other name...
I understand that journalists, like the rest of us, are often saddled with the bullshit terminology invented by the Government, particularly the Bush administration. It’s why this disaster in Iraq, titanic federal incompetence and human rights violations are called "Operation Enduring Freedom." But we’ve got to draw the line somewhere, and I think it’s got to be at "rendition."
"Rendition" is the word those heroes at the CIA have employed to describe their policy of pulling people off the street in Baghdad, Kabul (and probably Chicago) and flying them to secret bases around the world to interrogate them. That’s kidnapping, plain and simple. There’s just no other way to call it.
Not to get all high school graduation, but Webster’s dictionary defines "rendition" as … well, a lot of things – and none of them have to do with kidnapping. The closest definition seems to be "a surrender." Is that really what’s happening here? I suppose when you put a black bag over some guy’s head and throw them into the back of an unmarked van, the victim does "surrender." But to label that entire chain of events "rendition" is missing the forest for the giant pile of steaming bullshit.
Why not just rename assassination "happy love hugs." Is that any less ridiculous?
Fearless Leader has responded to questions about kidnapping by re-iterating that the United States does not torture, as if by the force of his declaration all photographic evidence to the contrary will disappear into the ether. But even if we give Dubya the benefit of the doubt, does that make things any better? Kidnapping people without even formal charges and flying them to secret prisons seems pretty damn reprehensible to me whether their nuts are hooked up to car batteries or not.
But as reprehensible as government officials have been in this whole affair, we don’t exactly come out smelling like a rose, either. We aren’t bound by royal decree to adopt the doublespeak of the Bush administration. Just because their corporate masters don’t like additional taxation of multi-millionaires doesn’t mean we all have to call it the "death tax."
And no matter what their internal memos and slippery press officers say, we sure as hell shouldn’t start calling kidnapping "rendition."
"Rendition" is the word those heroes at the CIA have employed to describe their policy of pulling people off the street in Baghdad, Kabul (and probably Chicago) and flying them to secret bases around the world to interrogate them. That’s kidnapping, plain and simple. There’s just no other way to call it.
Not to get all high school graduation, but Webster’s dictionary defines "rendition" as … well, a lot of things – and none of them have to do with kidnapping. The closest definition seems to be "a surrender." Is that really what’s happening here? I suppose when you put a black bag over some guy’s head and throw them into the back of an unmarked van, the victim does "surrender." But to label that entire chain of events "rendition" is missing the forest for the giant pile of steaming bullshit.
Why not just rename assassination "happy love hugs." Is that any less ridiculous?
Fearless Leader has responded to questions about kidnapping by re-iterating that the United States does not torture, as if by the force of his declaration all photographic evidence to the contrary will disappear into the ether. But even if we give Dubya the benefit of the doubt, does that make things any better? Kidnapping people without even formal charges and flying them to secret prisons seems pretty damn reprehensible to me whether their nuts are hooked up to car batteries or not.
But as reprehensible as government officials have been in this whole affair, we don’t exactly come out smelling like a rose, either. We aren’t bound by royal decree to adopt the doublespeak of the Bush administration. Just because their corporate masters don’t like additional taxation of multi-millionaires doesn’t mean we all have to call it the "death tax."
And no matter what their internal memos and slippery press officers say, we sure as hell shouldn’t start calling kidnapping "rendition."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)