If you’ll excuse a snooty generalization, promoting dialogue among artists is a good thing. That said, we’ve got to come up with something better than the proverbial Q&A.
If you’ve ever stuck around after an advance showing of a film or play, you probably know what I’m talking about. Some writer, director or actor sits on a stool while the least intelligent people in the room hurl inane questions. The typical Q&A is arranged like a firing squad and about as comfortable to watch.
The most obnoxious moments occur when some misdirected soul begs the artist to read their script or give them an audition. The rest of us squirm in our seats and resent the questioner’s lack of tact and the fact that we all want to ask the same thing. Other moments transcend awkward to reach the level of theater of the absurd. During a Q&A with Oliver Stone at the University of Iowa, one student asked the director: Did he like Ween? Did Woody Harelson like Ween? Does the director have any plans to work with Ween? This line of questioning continued until the student’s microphone was turned off.
Just as out of place, though less entertaining, are those whose "questions" are just grandstanding to show off how much they know. These questions generally last several minutes and include references to things like mis ‘en scene, lesser-known films by Goddard and recent New Yorker articles. When the question finally ends, there are a few moments of silence before the person on the stool asks, "I’m sorry, what was your question?"
But the assholes aren’t only to be found in the crowd – many times they sit on the stool. I certainly understand that sitting up there and suffering the questions of what are often fools is no pleasant task. But if you’re going to bother to show up it should be for some higher purpose than to convince a roomful of fans what a cocky jerk you are.
On the other end of the spectrum is the guy on the stool who nobody wants to talk to. I think the best way to avoid that is not to overestimate your intellectual cache. I’ve been to uber amateur 10-minute plays that ended with a Q&A. Why? Did these well-meaning folks honestly believe that my mind would be so blown in those ten minutes that I would want to discuss it for an hour? Often, these type of events are organized by people who think too highly of themselves and have produced a steaming pile of crap. And I feel it would be poor etiquette to ask "why was your film/play/whatever so terrible?"
In fact, etiquette is the rope that binds me to these events in the first place. Somewhere in my polite Midwestern circuitry, I’m hard wired to believe it would be rude to just get up and leave. Instead, I remain in my seat with teeth and fists clenched praying for it all to be over.
And the truth is, for all the banality of the Q&A, there is almost always at least one insightful comment, be it from the artist or the gallery. At one recent event, playwright Craig Lucas said he never allows anyone to loiter around the stage/set unless they are watching the actors. He feels they throw off the energy of the performances. That clicked with me – something I’ve been aware of but never crystalized into thought. That is a Q&A at its best. Unfortunately, those moments tend to be few and far between.
The spirit of the Q&A is right on, but I just don’t think it plays out in practice. I’ve been to sessions with artists I greatly admire, but I don’t have anything to ask them. I’m not so baffled by the minutia of their technique as I am dazzled by the whole of their achievement. If you actually had the chance to sit down with Bob Dylan, what would you really ask except "how come you’re so fucking good?"
I don’t know what the alternative is, so let’s just look for a way to connect artists and aspiring artists that doesn’t involve a stool.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
After writing with glee when the Cardinals pulled within one game of the NL Championship, several folks have been kind enough to ask my thoughts now that they're out of it and that team from Houston is in.
The truth is this: I am not happy about it.
I am a Cardinal loyalist, and I believe in following that to its logical extension - being a National League loyalist. I root for the NL in the All-Star Game and in the World Series. After all, what's good for the league is good for the team, etc., etc. Not to mention the whole Designated Hitter thing, which taints the AL like an assault conviction on a preschool teacher.
But I am also a petty, petty man. Therefore, I find myself pulling for the White Sox and reveling in the Astros recent disasters. In a month, or maybe even two weeks, I think I'd be cheering for the 'Stros. But the wound is so fresh that I want to see those punks get their asses flogged.
It has been pointed out to me that an Astros win would look better for the Cardinals. It would mean that they were only beaten by the very best team in baseball. I accept this logic but refuse to follow it. The power of reason cannot satiate my thirst for revenge.
Enjoy the World Series ... unless you're an Astros fan.
The truth is this: I am not happy about it.
I am a Cardinal loyalist, and I believe in following that to its logical extension - being a National League loyalist. I root for the NL in the All-Star Game and in the World Series. After all, what's good for the league is good for the team, etc., etc. Not to mention the whole Designated Hitter thing, which taints the AL like an assault conviction on a preschool teacher.
But I am also a petty, petty man. Therefore, I find myself pulling for the White Sox and reveling in the Astros recent disasters. In a month, or maybe even two weeks, I think I'd be cheering for the 'Stros. But the wound is so fresh that I want to see those punks get their asses flogged.
It has been pointed out to me that an Astros win would look better for the Cardinals. It would mean that they were only beaten by the very best team in baseball. I accept this logic but refuse to follow it. The power of reason cannot satiate my thirst for revenge.
Enjoy the World Series ... unless you're an Astros fan.
The Great Pujols
Monday was the kind of a night that makes being a team fanatic worthwhile.
The evening began with my beloved Cardinals (a.k.a. The Greatest Team in America) trailing 3 games to 1 to some punk team from George W. Bush's home state. I slumped into my couch with a beer and a sense of impending doom.
Just before the game began, the phone rang. It was my parents calling to remind me that baseball is just a game and not worth causing damage to my heart, mind and soul. I appreciated their concern, though it made me realize my fanatacism must reach the realm of addiction to cause such an intervention. I also suspected they had spoken to my wife.
Maybe it was the phone call, but I watched Game 5 with much less passion than the first part of the series. When the Astros went ahead 1-0, and then again 4-2, I didn't cuss with a ferocity that caused the cat to hide in the bedroom and my neighbors to consider calling the police. The Astros success seemed like more of a foregone conclusion at that point. Call it a defense mechanism.
I stayed passive when David Eckstein punched out a base hit with two strikes and two outs in the ninth. When Jim Edmonds stepped to the plate, I didn't pray for a homerun. I just watched each pitch as intensely as I could, expecting every one to be the last of the season. Every honest Cardinal fan will tell you they saw Jim Edmonds striking out as clearly as if it happened - but it didn't.
Few times are fans rewarded with something as mythic, as perfect as Albert Pujols titanic homerun. It wasn't a fly ball that carried into the seats. This thing was epic. I swear it was still rising when it hit the plexiglass windows on the other side of the train tracks.
That's the flip-side of true fan devotion. For suffering countless moments of rage, humiliation, frustration, despair, not to mention the concerned intervention of loved ones, the true fan is rewarded with moments of unchecked euphoria. It's like mainlining adrenaline.
It's a common justification of abusive relationships to say you need the lowest lows to feel the highest highs, but at least in baseball it is true. And don't try to tell me Albert Pujols isn't the greatest player you've ever seen.
The Worst of LA: The Best of LA
The stacks of what look like phone books at every bus stop can mean only one thing: LA Weekly's annual "Best of LA" issue has hit the news stands. Some of the southland's hippest writers have indexed what's what in the City of Angels - now if I could only understand what the hell they're talking about.
Simply dividing the gargantuan issue into sections like "restaurants" or "bars" apparently wouldn't have been hip enough. Instead, the issue is marked with headings like "encounters" and "terrain" - each chapter sounding like the name of a shitty bar. I've got nothing against a little creative design, I just don't want to flip through 200 pages of porno ads to find where to get a cheeseburger.
But it's not just the spine of the issue that lacks coherence. Rather than highlighting the best spot to take a hike, or the best taco stand, each entry is a stream-of-conscious rant only tangentially associated with some person, place or thing in LA. It's like reading a AAA Guide written by Jack Kerouac - or rather, a AAA Guide written by twentysomethings who won't shut up about Jack Kerouac.
Every entry seems to be a navel-gazing first-person essay on the beautiful pain of being artistic, poor and underappreciated ... oh yeah, and in Los Angeles. Here's my favorite opening line: "Distraught, displaced, dispossessed individuals walk in a zombie-like daze." See what I mean?
I realize that I'm just a hopeless square for failing to see the beauty of this "Best of LA" issue. Can't I see that the truly great things about LA are the little moments we pass by every day, like a paper bag blowing in the wind? No, what I'm advocating is just another boring "Best of" list. I can't deny that the five pounds of pulp I hold in my hand is more inventive than that. But if the editors wanted to publish a 400-page undergraduate literary journal, why call it the LA Weekly's "Best of LA 2005"?
I enjoy reading Hunter Thompson or Tom Wolfe, but not every written word can be gonzo. If someone writes down directions for me, I hope to God they don't start with "It was already midnight and the mescaline was beginning to wear off."
Lord knows there's a lot wrong with the mainstream press. So I often turn to the alternative press in hopes of finding something better, but sadly, I rarely do. If they take on issues the mainstream rags won't touch, I say thank God. If they want to blend in more literary approach, I say fine. But the tone and content tend to be so self-congratulatory, so smugly "alternative," that the information often boils down to nothing but "we're hip, are you?"
If only the alternative press would dazzle us by being plugged-in, not aloof, with sharp observation instead of vague musing, with plain-spoken truths instead of abstract cliche. That might be a phone book worth picking up - porno ads and all.
Simply dividing the gargantuan issue into sections like "restaurants" or "bars" apparently wouldn't have been hip enough. Instead, the issue is marked with headings like "encounters" and "terrain" - each chapter sounding like the name of a shitty bar. I've got nothing against a little creative design, I just don't want to flip through 200 pages of porno ads to find where to get a cheeseburger.
But it's not just the spine of the issue that lacks coherence. Rather than highlighting the best spot to take a hike, or the best taco stand, each entry is a stream-of-conscious rant only tangentially associated with some person, place or thing in LA. It's like reading a AAA Guide written by Jack Kerouac - or rather, a AAA Guide written by twentysomethings who won't shut up about Jack Kerouac.
Every entry seems to be a navel-gazing first-person essay on the beautiful pain of being artistic, poor and underappreciated ... oh yeah, and in Los Angeles. Here's my favorite opening line: "Distraught, displaced, dispossessed individuals walk in a zombie-like daze." See what I mean?
I realize that I'm just a hopeless square for failing to see the beauty of this "Best of LA" issue. Can't I see that the truly great things about LA are the little moments we pass by every day, like a paper bag blowing in the wind? No, what I'm advocating is just another boring "Best of" list. I can't deny that the five pounds of pulp I hold in my hand is more inventive than that. But if the editors wanted to publish a 400-page undergraduate literary journal, why call it the LA Weekly's "Best of LA 2005"?
I enjoy reading Hunter Thompson or Tom Wolfe, but not every written word can be gonzo. If someone writes down directions for me, I hope to God they don't start with "It was already midnight and the mescaline was beginning to wear off."
Lord knows there's a lot wrong with the mainstream press. So I often turn to the alternative press in hopes of finding something better, but sadly, I rarely do. If they take on issues the mainstream rags won't touch, I say thank God. If they want to blend in more literary approach, I say fine. But the tone and content tend to be so self-congratulatory, so smugly "alternative," that the information often boils down to nothing but "we're hip, are you?"
If only the alternative press would dazzle us by being plugged-in, not aloof, with sharp observation instead of vague musing, with plain-spoken truths instead of abstract cliche. That might be a phone book worth picking up - porno ads and all.
Sportscaster Correction #153979
Sportscasting has somehow become the one bastion of journalism where it is completely acceptable at all times to make observations and statements of fact that have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Before Game 3 of the ALDS Friday night, Joe Morgan (among others) remarked that Yankee's Starter Randy Johnson is a "big game pitcher." For the record, Johnson's post-season record is 7-8, and his ERA in division series is well over 4.00. Those numbers are not particularly impressive, but because Johnson is a big-time superstar pitcher, he must also be a "big game pitcher," right? After Johnson gave up five runs in less than three innings, of course the talk was that this was a very unusual outing for Mr. Reliable.
An incident during Thursday's Cardinals/Padres game was even more wince-enducing. The Cards went to the bullpen for a left-hander late in the game, with Tony LaRussa going to Randy Flores instead of his usual guy, Ray King. Steve Phillips and the others in the ESPN booth spent about the next five minutes talking about how Ray King must have fallen out of favor with LaRussa, and how a manager can't worry about hurting a player's feelings. Then, after the game it was learned that Ray King's father died the night before the game. So I suppose that could have been the reason Tony LaRussa didn't ask him to pitch, but screw the facts, let's just do some more speculatin'!
Before Game 3 of the ALDS Friday night, Joe Morgan (among others) remarked that Yankee's Starter Randy Johnson is a "big game pitcher." For the record, Johnson's post-season record is 7-8, and his ERA in division series is well over 4.00. Those numbers are not particularly impressive, but because Johnson is a big-time superstar pitcher, he must also be a "big game pitcher," right? After Johnson gave up five runs in less than three innings, of course the talk was that this was a very unusual outing for Mr. Reliable.
An incident during Thursday's Cardinals/Padres game was even more wince-enducing. The Cards went to the bullpen for a left-hander late in the game, with Tony LaRussa going to Randy Flores instead of his usual guy, Ray King. Steve Phillips and the others in the ESPN booth spent about the next five minutes talking about how Ray King must have fallen out of favor with LaRussa, and how a manager can't worry about hurting a player's feelings. Then, after the game it was learned that Ray King's father died the night before the game. So I suppose that could have been the reason Tony LaRussa didn't ask him to pitch, but screw the facts, let's just do some more speculatin'!
Saturday Night Dead
For at least as long as I've been watching Saturday Night Live, people have complained that the show isn't as good as it used to be. Some of the complaints can be chalked up to simple nostalgia, but in the last few years it has grown impossible to deny that the flagship of sketch comedy is sinking.
As a true believer in the beauty of sketch, I take offense at the standards of writing and performance that air Saturday nights at 11:30. I've done my tour in the bush leagues of sketch and have friends who are still cutting their teeth at the Groundlings and elsewhere. So, am I a pro? No. But I do know what good sketch comedy looks like.
Most sketches are either character or concept pieces. A few years ago, SNL became obsessed with trying to turn concept sketches into character sketches. Take the cheerleader sketch Will Ferrel and Cheri Oteri - a funny one-off concept sketch. But because the bit hit once, they did a dozen or so more variations of exactly the same skit. Same jokes, same setup, same everything. Goth Talk, Mango, The Lovers - it's tough to recall a funny concept that didn't turn into a never-ending loop of the same damn thing.
But the days of repetition gave way to something even worse. The dominant structure for recent sketches seems to be to come up with a zany character and then just have them clown around. What the hell is supposed to be funny about Tracy Morgan's Brian Fellows character, or Maya Rudolph's Donatella Versace, or anything performed by Horatio Sanz? These skits have all the comic sophistication of one of the fraternity brothers putting on a wig and a skirt.
There will always be skits that bomb, or concepts that look better on paper, but in many recent SNL sketches it's impossible to tell what the joke is even supposed to be. If you watch closely, you'll notice a few seconds of pause between when the sketch ends and when the crowd applauds. Why? Because the sketches are so directionless, so lacking in structure, so wholly unsatisfying that it's hard to know when they're over.
I know what most of you are thinking - if SNL is so lousy, why don't you just stop watching? You're right and I wish I could. But as bad as it gets, I keep coming back for more. I'm in an abusive relationship with SNL. I just wish the writers and performers would go to counseling so things would be like they used to be.
As a true believer in the beauty of sketch, I take offense at the standards of writing and performance that air Saturday nights at 11:30. I've done my tour in the bush leagues of sketch and have friends who are still cutting their teeth at the Groundlings and elsewhere. So, am I a pro? No. But I do know what good sketch comedy looks like.
Most sketches are either character or concept pieces. A few years ago, SNL became obsessed with trying to turn concept sketches into character sketches. Take the cheerleader sketch Will Ferrel and Cheri Oteri - a funny one-off concept sketch. But because the bit hit once, they did a dozen or so more variations of exactly the same skit. Same jokes, same setup, same everything. Goth Talk, Mango, The Lovers - it's tough to recall a funny concept that didn't turn into a never-ending loop of the same damn thing.
But the days of repetition gave way to something even worse. The dominant structure for recent sketches seems to be to come up with a zany character and then just have them clown around. What the hell is supposed to be funny about Tracy Morgan's Brian Fellows character, or Maya Rudolph's Donatella Versace, or anything performed by Horatio Sanz? These skits have all the comic sophistication of one of the fraternity brothers putting on a wig and a skirt.
There will always be skits that bomb, or concepts that look better on paper, but in many recent SNL sketches it's impossible to tell what the joke is even supposed to be. If you watch closely, you'll notice a few seconds of pause between when the sketch ends and when the crowd applauds. Why? Because the sketches are so directionless, so lacking in structure, so wholly unsatisfying that it's hard to know when they're over.
I know what most of you are thinking - if SNL is so lousy, why don't you just stop watching? You're right and I wish I could. But as bad as it gets, I keep coming back for more. I'm in an abusive relationship with SNL. I just wish the writers and performers would go to counseling so things would be like they used to be.
Jaa Rule
The thing about kung-fu pictures is, you either get them or you don't. Or, perhaps it should be put that you either love watching people kick ass or you don't. Me? I love watching people kick ass.
And few people kick ass like Tony Jaa. I recently got around to watching Ong-Bak: The Thai Warrior, and the feeling is like the first time I saw Jackie Chan in Rumble in the Bronx. Like Chan, Jaa does things with his body that have to be seen to be believed - all without wires or stuntmen.
In addition to Jaa's superb athleticism, the physicality is striking because Jaa practices Muay Thai. I'm far from an expert in the martial arts, so I'll sum up Muay Thai by simply saying it involves a lot of knee and elbow strikes and is stunning to watch.
Ong-Bak does the genre right by framing the spectacular fight sequences with a simple, straight-ahead folk tale. A valuable object is stolen from a small village. The villagers are forced to send their best fighter to the city to retrieve it, etc., etc. The characters are all familiar archetypes, but they all do just enough to keep the story moving and the focus on the action.
It's not an "important film" or something that will resonate in your soul days after, but for a graceful and fresh martial arts film, you'd be hard pressed to find its equal.
Even if the Saints go marching in
I love metaphor as much as the next guy, but I am convinced that even if the New Orleans Saints win the Super Bowl, the city will not magically emerge from rubble and wipe away all memory of Hurricane Katrina.
Most sportscasters do not seem to share my view. From one side of their mouth, they muse how insignificant sports seem in the wake of human tragedy. But from the other side, they suggest that a win by the Saints or the LSU Tigers could inspire the huddling masses yearning to be dry. I don’t doubt that a Saints win could boost the spirit of a displaced Saints fan, but the sentiment seems too close to sending Rambo back to Vietnam so that "this time we can win."
The same thing happened in the wake of 9/11, with many suggesting that a New York Yankee win in the World Series would be good for America. But it belies the tragedy of these events to try to cast a rematch as Yankees vs. Terrorists or Saints vs. Hurricane. Recovering from these events is complex and impossible to quantify. But that doesn’t mean we should throw our hands in the air and be satisfied with "Saints win."
I guess it shows that even in times of national crisis, we can find a reason to throw our unqualified support behind enormous corporate interests. I don’t find that comforting.
Most sportscasters do not seem to share my view. From one side of their mouth, they muse how insignificant sports seem in the wake of human tragedy. But from the other side, they suggest that a win by the Saints or the LSU Tigers could inspire the huddling masses yearning to be dry. I don’t doubt that a Saints win could boost the spirit of a displaced Saints fan, but the sentiment seems too close to sending Rambo back to Vietnam so that "this time we can win."
The same thing happened in the wake of 9/11, with many suggesting that a New York Yankee win in the World Series would be good for America. But it belies the tragedy of these events to try to cast a rematch as Yankees vs. Terrorists or Saints vs. Hurricane. Recovering from these events is complex and impossible to quantify. But that doesn’t mean we should throw our hands in the air and be satisfied with "Saints win."
I guess it shows that even in times of national crisis, we can find a reason to throw our unqualified support behind enormous corporate interests. I don’t find that comforting.
Bio
Ben is a filmmaker, freelance writer and Professor of Theater & English. Born and raised in Iowa, he earned a BA from Iowa State University and later an MFA from the School of Film & Television at Chapman University.
His short films have been screened at independent festivals and on television, while his screenplay Cooking Live won the Cecil B. DeMille Award from Chapman University. As a columnist and film reviewer, his work has appeared in such publications as Television Week and Film Threat. He has also worked as a staff writer for daily newspapers including the Los Angeles Times.
Since 2005, Ben has taught courses in film, theater and English at several colleges. He currently lives with his wife Naura in the Los Angeles area.
His short films have been screened at independent festivals and on television, while his screenplay Cooking Live won the Cecil B. DeMille Award from Chapman University. As a columnist and film reviewer, his work has appeared in such publications as Television Week and Film Threat. He has also worked as a staff writer for daily newspapers including the Los Angeles Times.
Since 2005, Ben has taught courses in film, theater and English at several colleges. He currently lives with his wife Naura in the Los Angeles area.
Personal (2006)
HD video
Color
5:13
George spends his days alone in the house he shared with his mother. He tries to reach out through a personal ad, but when a real woman comes into his life, will he be able to respond?
Written & Directed by Ben Godar
Cast: Alex Fernandez, Melody Doyle
The Persecution of Al Kida
2004
16mm
Color
4:30
Al always lived a normal life. Now he can't leave the house without causing a commotion. After learning he's not alone, Al tries to regain control of his life.
Cast: Dan Cole, Maximilian Mastrangelo, Di Burbano, Sean Kehoe
Screenings:
New York Short Short Festival, 2006
Cedar Rapids Independent Film Festival, 2005
Aired on statewide television as part of Iowa Independent Filmmaker Showcase, 2006
The Persecution of Al Kida on IMDB
Nefarious Design
Like most sound-minded Americans, I stand in awe of this newly hatched scheme THEY call "Intelligent Design." But it's becoming clear to me that there are two distinct parts to this movement, and the more harmless sounding one is the one we should be worried about.
The core "theory" behind intelligent design is just a more sanitized version of the creationism pill they've been trying to get us to swallow for years. After reading several explanations of the theory, I think it can best be described as: "Dude, the world is, like, so complex, there must have been some super dude that created it all." The notion is so anti-scientific in its reasoning, I just don't see it as a serious threat to our national sanity. If anything, it's the last salvo of the extreme Christian right to force their origin story on the general public.
But there's something more covert in these intelligent design arguments. The theory itself is being swept under the rug as proponents play the "all points of view should be taught" card. It's a clever way to throw the pluralists own arguments back in their faces. George W. employed the tactic during his recent, highly-publicized remarks. Despite some reports that Bush layed alms at the altar of intelligent design, all he really said was "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." It sounds harmless, but it's not.
Many Americans still hold deeply racist beliefs. That does not mean that their opinions, based solely in bigotry, should be taught as an "alternative" during a history lesson on the civil rights movement. But that's the logical extension of this intelligent design rhetoric. The fact that so many Americans believe in some kind of God means that belief has a place in society, not necessarily in a science class. Bringing intelligent design into a science class doesn't introduce an alternative scientific theory, it introduces an alternative to science. It's the equivalent of a math teacher saying "Don't believe in geometry? Try sociology."
Or what about a lesson on ghosts? Most people believe in ghosts, so why not follow a lesson on human physiology with a lesson on ghosts? "Okay, now that we're done talking about mitosis, who knows how to kill a Wolfman?"
As someone currently teaching middle and high school students, I can also say that this argument is completely impractical. There's a reason that Comparative Religion classes are taught in college, even then at the 300 or 400 level. Middle and High School students don't generally have the intellectual maturity to juggle these concepts. The average high school student is able only to follow a basic chain of causality, with an understanding that there is more than one point of view. They work hard to grasp concepts like evolution from just the scientific standpoint, let alone some other paradigm.
There's a big difference between being open-minded to all viewpoints and demanding your viewpoint is presented in every situation. If you want to believe something akin to intelligent design, fine, more power to you. That's what Sunday School is for. But if you want your religious beliefs presented in every class, including science and P.E., that's what home schooling or Utah are for.
The core "theory" behind intelligent design is just a more sanitized version of the creationism pill they've been trying to get us to swallow for years. After reading several explanations of the theory, I think it can best be described as: "Dude, the world is, like, so complex, there must have been some super dude that created it all." The notion is so anti-scientific in its reasoning, I just don't see it as a serious threat to our national sanity. If anything, it's the last salvo of the extreme Christian right to force their origin story on the general public.
But there's something more covert in these intelligent design arguments. The theory itself is being swept under the rug as proponents play the "all points of view should be taught" card. It's a clever way to throw the pluralists own arguments back in their faces. George W. employed the tactic during his recent, highly-publicized remarks. Despite some reports that Bush layed alms at the altar of intelligent design, all he really said was "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." It sounds harmless, but it's not.
Many Americans still hold deeply racist beliefs. That does not mean that their opinions, based solely in bigotry, should be taught as an "alternative" during a history lesson on the civil rights movement. But that's the logical extension of this intelligent design rhetoric. The fact that so many Americans believe in some kind of God means that belief has a place in society, not necessarily in a science class. Bringing intelligent design into a science class doesn't introduce an alternative scientific theory, it introduces an alternative to science. It's the equivalent of a math teacher saying "Don't believe in geometry? Try sociology."
Or what about a lesson on ghosts? Most people believe in ghosts, so why not follow a lesson on human physiology with a lesson on ghosts? "Okay, now that we're done talking about mitosis, who knows how to kill a Wolfman?"
As someone currently teaching middle and high school students, I can also say that this argument is completely impractical. There's a reason that Comparative Religion classes are taught in college, even then at the 300 or 400 level. Middle and High School students don't generally have the intellectual maturity to juggle these concepts. The average high school student is able only to follow a basic chain of causality, with an understanding that there is more than one point of view. They work hard to grasp concepts like evolution from just the scientific standpoint, let alone some other paradigm.
There's a big difference between being open-minded to all viewpoints and demanding your viewpoint is presented in every situation. If you want to believe something akin to intelligent design, fine, more power to you. That's what Sunday School is for. But if you want your religious beliefs presented in every class, including science and P.E., that's what home schooling or Utah are for.
Just read the scores, monkey
Talk radio is full of barking idiots, but even the Rush Limbaughs of the world must cower before the awesome ignorance that is sports talk radio.
From time to time, I'll flip the dial to 710am, our local ESPN Radio affiliate, in the misguided hope of hearing some scores or other useful information. But I've come to realize that it's only called "Sports Radio" because "a bunch of jackasses talking about nothing" wasn't catchy enough. Whether it's a nationally syndicated show or some local scrubs, every show is nothing but some guy running his mouth with nothing to back up his argument. Opinions are like assholes, and so are Sports Radio DJs.
I don't even mind so much when their groundless rants are at least about sports. The other day I heard Colin Cowheard assert at least a dozen times that football coaches make a bigger impact than baseball coaches. I don't know that there's much of a point to that argument, and it seems to be contradicted by guys like Tony LaRussa and Sparky Anderson, but whatever. The thing is, 90% of the time these buffoons aren't even talking about sports.
Tonight I listened to 10 minutes of these guys reading the names of bizarre phobias and then making asinine comments. "Did you know there's such thing as Papaphobia, fear of the Pope?" (Sound effect of a cow mooing for no f***ing reason) They topped that only by making a joke about how the French always surrender during war. If that's biting social commentary, I don't know what isn't.
But nothing tops a recent episode of the Joe McDonnell show, during which the hosts read an account of six people being killed at a cock fight in Mexico and giggled like school girls. Now I admit a cock fight can be a great source of comedy, but graphic accounts of people being stabbed to death isn't the best source for lame-ass one-liners.
You will hear more misinformation about politics in 45 minutes of Sports Radio than Fox News can cram into an entire day - and they're really trying. Why is the debate over the supposed bias of news agencies like CBS and NPR when these sports DJs blurt out something that is blatantly false every 15 seconds?
I don't begrudge a man for being ignorant. In truth, most of us are when it comes to most things. And if you feel the need to share your crackpot theories with those around the lunch counter - more power to you. But to spout that garbage over the airwaves in the second-largest media market in America - that just makes you an asshole.
From time to time, I'll flip the dial to 710am, our local ESPN Radio affiliate, in the misguided hope of hearing some scores or other useful information. But I've come to realize that it's only called "Sports Radio" because "a bunch of jackasses talking about nothing" wasn't catchy enough. Whether it's a nationally syndicated show or some local scrubs, every show is nothing but some guy running his mouth with nothing to back up his argument. Opinions are like assholes, and so are Sports Radio DJs.
I don't even mind so much when their groundless rants are at least about sports. The other day I heard Colin Cowheard assert at least a dozen times that football coaches make a bigger impact than baseball coaches. I don't know that there's much of a point to that argument, and it seems to be contradicted by guys like Tony LaRussa and Sparky Anderson, but whatever. The thing is, 90% of the time these buffoons aren't even talking about sports.
Tonight I listened to 10 minutes of these guys reading the names of bizarre phobias and then making asinine comments. "Did you know there's such thing as Papaphobia, fear of the Pope?" (Sound effect of a cow mooing for no f***ing reason) They topped that only by making a joke about how the French always surrender during war. If that's biting social commentary, I don't know what isn't.
But nothing tops a recent episode of the Joe McDonnell show, during which the hosts read an account of six people being killed at a cock fight in Mexico and giggled like school girls. Now I admit a cock fight can be a great source of comedy, but graphic accounts of people being stabbed to death isn't the best source for lame-ass one-liners.
You will hear more misinformation about politics in 45 minutes of Sports Radio than Fox News can cram into an entire day - and they're really trying. Why is the debate over the supposed bias of news agencies like CBS and NPR when these sports DJs blurt out something that is blatantly false every 15 seconds?
I don't begrudge a man for being ignorant. In truth, most of us are when it comes to most things. And if you feel the need to share your crackpot theories with those around the lunch counter - more power to you. But to spout that garbage over the airwaves in the second-largest media market in America - that just makes you an asshole.
Turn Off the News
One popular assumption I've never bought into is that when you have a television in a public place, it should be turned to a news channel - usually CNN. Hotel lobbies, airport terminals, even the waiting room at Jiffy Lube broadcast nothing but a stream of headline news garbage.
I'm sure news is the official programming of waiting rooms because it's something everyone has some interest in, and I admit there's reason in this argument. But let's take a step back and think about what topics dominate the news - politics and religion. Not exactly the best waiting room conversation.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't want to have a debate over international terrorism with the guy next to me at the airport. They always seem to end with me either nodding and smiling, swallowing my rage, or calling the guy an ignorant bigot - which also tends to make things a bit uncomfortable.
But I'm not one of these people who complains without offering a solution. Those televisions need to have something on, something that won't spark hostility. I think I've come up with the answer: The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. What show sparks less debate than The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air? There isn't one. The only real potential for comment is if some guy mutters "this show sucks." That will only lead to the simple response "yes, this show certainly does suck." Consensus.
And if people still insist on tuning these TVs to the news, maybe we could at least segregate our waiting rooms a bit. People of sound mind could sit on one side, while uninformed Bush drones could sit on the other. Yes, I know, we need more of a dialogue if we're ever going to achieve unity in this country. But I'm not in the mood to start it while I'm waiting for an oil change.
I'm sure news is the official programming of waiting rooms because it's something everyone has some interest in, and I admit there's reason in this argument. But let's take a step back and think about what topics dominate the news - politics and religion. Not exactly the best waiting room conversation.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't want to have a debate over international terrorism with the guy next to me at the airport. They always seem to end with me either nodding and smiling, swallowing my rage, or calling the guy an ignorant bigot - which also tends to make things a bit uncomfortable.
But I'm not one of these people who complains without offering a solution. Those televisions need to have something on, something that won't spark hostility. I think I've come up with the answer: The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. What show sparks less debate than The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air? There isn't one. The only real potential for comment is if some guy mutters "this show sucks." That will only lead to the simple response "yes, this show certainly does suck." Consensus.
And if people still insist on tuning these TVs to the news, maybe we could at least segregate our waiting rooms a bit. People of sound mind could sit on one side, while uninformed Bush drones could sit on the other. Yes, I know, we need more of a dialogue if we're ever going to achieve unity in this country. But I'm not in the mood to start it while I'm waiting for an oil change.
Imploding Towers
Ah, who doesn't relish those carefree memories of college? Well, mine exploded on Tuesday. Part of them anyway.
Iowa State University demolished half of the Towers dormitory complex - the fabled "suitcase" buildings. Urban legends about the origins and fate of the Towers have floated around for years. Several people told me the 39-year-old buildings were only intended to last for eight years. Somehow, I always doubted that the 11-story concrete structures were ever intended as "temporary" housing. But the final bell tolled for Knapp-Storms when the concrete facades began crumbling, dropping chunks of concrete on the students below.
Having lived for two years in the Towers, a time when I learned a lot about the world and about myself, watching the buildings come down made me think "WHAT A SWEET EXPLOSION!"
Do you like to watch things blow up? Of course you do. Check out some great video footage from KCCI-TV.
George W. Nixon
Few things are as pervasive or annoying as the proverbial Watergate comparisons that accompany every presidential scandal. Remember Lewinskygate? Travelgate? It's as if "gate" were the Latin root for scandal, not just the name of a hotel that happened to be the piece of rope Tricky Dick hung himself with.
But the developing story of Bush officials leaking the name of a CIA operative as an act of revenge recalls the Nixon days in more than name alone. The crown jewel of Nixon's undoing was, of course, the Republican orchestrated break-in to Democratic campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. But the break-in was far from the only seedy thing going on. The investigation revealed a pattern of abuse-of-power. Nixon and his cronies regularly ordered surveillance and generally made trouble for anyone they considered a political enemy. In fact, the articles of impeachment make more mention of Nixon's use of White House power to bully than the break-in itself.
What does this have to do with George W. Bush? Quite a damn bit, actually. Administration officials may not be accused of anything so obviously criminal as the Watergate break-in, but the intent is the same. Bush and friends are clearly using their power to threaten anyone who gets in their way. Revealing the identity of an undercover agent because her husband (correctly) told the world you were full of shit about WMDs is absolutely despicable. And that's what the Bush people have done. They put an American agent in danger to protect their ability to send us to war over a lie. Call me a moral relativist if you will, but I find that more deplorable than schtoinking an intern in the Oval Office.
The White House is already fortifying its position of plausible deniability, and it's exactly the type of spineless leadership you'd expect from this President. The question of who knew and who authorized this leak of information is going to be forced as low down the food chain as possible. But it strains common sense to believe that the man known as "Bush's Brain" would have orchestrated this without the W. knowing what was going on.
And even if Bush didn't know, he's still on the hook - just like he's on the hook for the Iraq war. Harry Truman had that great slogan for leadership - Presidential or otherwise. "The buck stops here." All it really means is when you're the boss, you take responsibility for the good and the bad. This President made a case for war based on false information, then tried to excuse himself by saying he was only presenting what was given to him by intelligence officials. Now he's in the process of laying the blame for the CIA agent leak on his underlings. It doesn't work that way, Chief.
The Talking Heads (and by all accounts the Special Prosecutor) seem to be debating whether or not a crime was committed with this leak, and if so who is guilty. That seems like a moot point. What's clear is that our top executives are at best incompetent, and at worst using their power to push around those with a different point of view, often known as the truth.
For a great primer on the whole Karl Rove/CIA agent leak story, check out this article in today's San Francisco Chronicle.
But the developing story of Bush officials leaking the name of a CIA operative as an act of revenge recalls the Nixon days in more than name alone. The crown jewel of Nixon's undoing was, of course, the Republican orchestrated break-in to Democratic campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. But the break-in was far from the only seedy thing going on. The investigation revealed a pattern of abuse-of-power. Nixon and his cronies regularly ordered surveillance and generally made trouble for anyone they considered a political enemy. In fact, the articles of impeachment make more mention of Nixon's use of White House power to bully than the break-in itself.
What does this have to do with George W. Bush? Quite a damn bit, actually. Administration officials may not be accused of anything so obviously criminal as the Watergate break-in, but the intent is the same. Bush and friends are clearly using their power to threaten anyone who gets in their way. Revealing the identity of an undercover agent because her husband (correctly) told the world you were full of shit about WMDs is absolutely despicable. And that's what the Bush people have done. They put an American agent in danger to protect their ability to send us to war over a lie. Call me a moral relativist if you will, but I find that more deplorable than schtoinking an intern in the Oval Office.
The White House is already fortifying its position of plausible deniability, and it's exactly the type of spineless leadership you'd expect from this President. The question of who knew and who authorized this leak of information is going to be forced as low down the food chain as possible. But it strains common sense to believe that the man known as "Bush's Brain" would have orchestrated this without the W. knowing what was going on.
And even if Bush didn't know, he's still on the hook - just like he's on the hook for the Iraq war. Harry Truman had that great slogan for leadership - Presidential or otherwise. "The buck stops here." All it really means is when you're the boss, you take responsibility for the good and the bad. This President made a case for war based on false information, then tried to excuse himself by saying he was only presenting what was given to him by intelligence officials. Now he's in the process of laying the blame for the CIA agent leak on his underlings. It doesn't work that way, Chief.
The Talking Heads (and by all accounts the Special Prosecutor) seem to be debating whether or not a crime was committed with this leak, and if so who is guilty. That seems like a moot point. What's clear is that our top executives are at best incompetent, and at worst using their power to push around those with a different point of view, often known as the truth.
For a great primer on the whole Karl Rove/CIA agent leak story, check out this article in today's San Francisco Chronicle.
To the moon Alice ... I mean, Andy
My gay upstairs neighbors have started fighting very loudly, and I must say it's a culturally confusing situation.
Of course it's awkward - it always is when couples start referring to each other as "you f***ing asshole!" So it's got that whole COPS, white trash domestic disturbance flair. But the fact that it's two dudes puts the whole thing in a different light.
If a husband and wife are fighting, you think to yourself "if he hits her, I'm going to have to call the cops." But with two men I find myself thinking "sweet, maybe there's going to be a fight." Instead of "I hope Judy can get out of that awful situation," we neighbors ask questions like "do you think Ken could kick Gary's ass?" They seem pretty evenly matched to me, and believe it or not they're both in really good shape.
Let's face it, there's a rhythm to how men and women fight. The woman's voice will generally reach a very high pitch, and she'll unload a litany of complaints at blinding speed. Then the man will say something to the effect of "well, f*** it then", tip over a piece of furniture and slam the door on his way to the bar. Instead, I'm getting two guys saying "f*** it" and tipping something over. I just hope they've worked out different bars to go to.
Of course it's awkward - it always is when couples start referring to each other as "you f***ing asshole!" So it's got that whole COPS, white trash domestic disturbance flair. But the fact that it's two dudes puts the whole thing in a different light.
If a husband and wife are fighting, you think to yourself "if he hits her, I'm going to have to call the cops." But with two men I find myself thinking "sweet, maybe there's going to be a fight." Instead of "I hope Judy can get out of that awful situation," we neighbors ask questions like "do you think Ken could kick Gary's ass?" They seem pretty evenly matched to me, and believe it or not they're both in really good shape.
Let's face it, there's a rhythm to how men and women fight. The woman's voice will generally reach a very high pitch, and she'll unload a litany of complaints at blinding speed. Then the man will say something to the effect of "well, f*** it then", tip over a piece of furniture and slam the door on his way to the bar. Instead, I'm getting two guys saying "f*** it" and tipping something over. I just hope they've worked out different bars to go to.
Live Strong Etc.
Maybe it's just my Midwestern sense of modesty but I cringe every time I see one of these "I gave money to a cause" wrist bands.
You know what I'm talking about. As far as I know, it all started with those yellow, rubber, Lance Armstrong "Live Strong" bracelets. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in the City of Angels you couldn't cross the street without running into some hipster/hipstette who was wearing one. It got so big there were even people selling phony yellow wristbands to make a profit. I thought the whole thing had run its course, but now I see people wearing blue, green, red, whatever. And each one apparently denotes that the wearer has the high moral standing of having donated a couple bucks to some worthy cause.
I don't begrudge these charities for attempting to raise the old awareness, but is that really what's happening here? Hats off to Lance for raising all that money for cancer or cycling or living strong or whatever the hell that was all about. But sporting a piece of jewelry to alert the world that you donated some money to charity makes you kind of a tool in my book.
I guess I have an old fashioned notion of charity, where you give to a worthy cause because it feels like the right thing to do. Demanding recognition cheapens the transaction. The wrist band phenomenon pisses me off for the same reason I can't stand wealthy people donating money to have buildings named after them. It's great when our financial superiors lay down the cash for a new concert hall or University building. But then naming the building after yourself turns it into something other than a selfless act.
Give to charity - whatever your means. But do it for some satisfaction other than your name on a building or a trendy wristband.
You know what I'm talking about. As far as I know, it all started with those yellow, rubber, Lance Armstrong "Live Strong" bracelets. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in the City of Angels you couldn't cross the street without running into some hipster/hipstette who was wearing one. It got so big there were even people selling phony yellow wristbands to make a profit. I thought the whole thing had run its course, but now I see people wearing blue, green, red, whatever. And each one apparently denotes that the wearer has the high moral standing of having donated a couple bucks to some worthy cause.
I don't begrudge these charities for attempting to raise the old awareness, but is that really what's happening here? Hats off to Lance for raising all that money for cancer or cycling or living strong or whatever the hell that was all about. But sporting a piece of jewelry to alert the world that you donated some money to charity makes you kind of a tool in my book.
I guess I have an old fashioned notion of charity, where you give to a worthy cause because it feels like the right thing to do. Demanding recognition cheapens the transaction. The wrist band phenomenon pisses me off for the same reason I can't stand wealthy people donating money to have buildings named after them. It's great when our financial superiors lay down the cash for a new concert hall or University building. But then naming the building after yourself turns it into something other than a selfless act.
Give to charity - whatever your means. But do it for some satisfaction other than your name on a building or a trendy wristband.
The 4th of July
The 4th of July is here again, and so is my annual rant on how misdirected our celebration has become.
It's gotten to the point where every Independence Day celebration begins and ends by remembering the noble veterans who fought and even died in armed conflicts. Should we remember those who fought for this country? Absolutely. That's what we have Veterans Day for. And we even have Memorial Day to specifically remember those who died. The 4th of July is something different.
Today is supposed to be a day we celebrate our nation as a whole - especially our stated values of freedom and equality. And our nation is more than just a sum of its armed conflicts - justified and otherwise.
When I think about the men and women who made this country great, I think about those who fought unarmed battles on our own shores. If you really hold the ideals of freedom and equality high, how can you not honor those who waged war for labor and civil rights? Many of these people also gave their lives, and without the benefit of the popular and federal approval that comes with fighting in a war.
And yes, we do have Labor Day and to some extent Martin Luther King Day to remember these sacrifices. But our disingenuous fixation on the sacrifices of war threatens to turn every holiday into the same faux patriotic lip service. We're not far from a time when Labor Day is the day we remember the men and women who work hard and then give their lives defending this country. Or perhaps Groundhog Day will become the day a small rodent tells us if there will be six more weeks of winter in which we can remember the men and women who gave their lives defending this country. You see where it's going.
We've gotten to the point where we honor the fighting more than we honor the cause, and that's just not right. So as you indulge in charred meat and beer, please take a moment to remember all the great things about this nation other than shooting people from other nations.
It's gotten to the point where every Independence Day celebration begins and ends by remembering the noble veterans who fought and even died in armed conflicts. Should we remember those who fought for this country? Absolutely. That's what we have Veterans Day for. And we even have Memorial Day to specifically remember those who died. The 4th of July is something different.
Today is supposed to be a day we celebrate our nation as a whole - especially our stated values of freedom and equality. And our nation is more than just a sum of its armed conflicts - justified and otherwise.
When I think about the men and women who made this country great, I think about those who fought unarmed battles on our own shores. If you really hold the ideals of freedom and equality high, how can you not honor those who waged war for labor and civil rights? Many of these people also gave their lives, and without the benefit of the popular and federal approval that comes with fighting in a war.
And yes, we do have Labor Day and to some extent Martin Luther King Day to remember these sacrifices. But our disingenuous fixation on the sacrifices of war threatens to turn every holiday into the same faux patriotic lip service. We're not far from a time when Labor Day is the day we remember the men and women who work hard and then give their lives defending this country. Or perhaps Groundhog Day will become the day a small rodent tells us if there will be six more weeks of winter in which we can remember the men and women who gave their lives defending this country. You see where it's going.
We've gotten to the point where we honor the fighting more than we honor the cause, and that's just not right. So as you indulge in charred meat and beer, please take a moment to remember all the great things about this nation other than shooting people from other nations.
Lemon Chicken, Pissing and Freedom
Opposition to the horrifying, Kafka-style catastrophe that is Guantanamo Bay is finally getting some ink. So why is everybody so fixated on the accommodations?
A few months ago outrage surged when it was reported that interrogators flushed a Koran down a toilet. The Pentagon later clarified that no such flushing had occurred, some guy just pissed on one a little. Then about a week ago, Rep. Duncan Hunter tried to refute all allegations of torture by revealing to the world that lemon chicken is on the detainee menu.
If you are taken from your family in secret and held without being charged, does it really matter what you're eating or who's pissing on what? I would have thought this point was obvious, but most news reports on the issue seem to shift quickly into a lifestyle piece on a day in the life of a detainee.
I've heard at least two dozen pundits debate what constitutes torture (usually it's agreed to be somewhere between an uncomfortable chair and a kick in the nuts). That's an interesting conversation to toss around the old water cooler, but it's not even relevant here. Taking a prisoner without any charge and denying them access to the outside world is a human rights violation on an even higher order than torture.
Why this obsession with how the other half (detainees) live? Is there really some guy eating Chef Boyardee out of the can who hears these prisoners are eating lemon chicken and thinks "the bastards, lock 'em up forever"? Unfortunately, I'm sure that there is. People make the same gripes about our home grown felons. How many times have you heard some yahoo complain that those guys down at the prison have cable TV? When I toured the new jail in Glendale, they told me the TVs helped keep the inmates calm and less likely to stab the guards. That seemed like a pretty good reason to me.
If you're locked up, it doesn't really matter which channels you get or what's on the dinner menu.
A few months ago outrage surged when it was reported that interrogators flushed a Koran down a toilet. The Pentagon later clarified that no such flushing had occurred, some guy just pissed on one a little. Then about a week ago, Rep. Duncan Hunter tried to refute all allegations of torture by revealing to the world that lemon chicken is on the detainee menu.
If you are taken from your family in secret and held without being charged, does it really matter what you're eating or who's pissing on what? I would have thought this point was obvious, but most news reports on the issue seem to shift quickly into a lifestyle piece on a day in the life of a detainee.
I've heard at least two dozen pundits debate what constitutes torture (usually it's agreed to be somewhere between an uncomfortable chair and a kick in the nuts). That's an interesting conversation to toss around the old water cooler, but it's not even relevant here. Taking a prisoner without any charge and denying them access to the outside world is a human rights violation on an even higher order than torture.
Why this obsession with how the other half (detainees) live? Is there really some guy eating Chef Boyardee out of the can who hears these prisoners are eating lemon chicken and thinks "the bastards, lock 'em up forever"? Unfortunately, I'm sure that there is. People make the same gripes about our home grown felons. How many times have you heard some yahoo complain that those guys down at the prison have cable TV? When I toured the new jail in Glendale, they told me the TVs helped keep the inmates calm and less likely to stab the guards. That seemed like a pretty good reason to me.
If you're locked up, it doesn't really matter which channels you get or what's on the dinner menu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)