This morning, I quick wrote a post about writing. At the close of it, I wanted to acknowledge the terrible events of the last week (pipe bombs, synagogue shooting), but I did not wish to relegate them to a footnote to a post about something as trivial as writing. At the same time, I really just don't know how to express my anger and frustration with what is happening to this country. I honestly fear for the future of this country more than ever, when we have politicians whose first impulse to the news of pipe bombs is to raise the specter of 'false flag operations,' or to immediately insist (yet again), that guns have nothing to do with a shooting in a synagogue, or that words don't matter. Words matter. They matter a lot. The President, the Vice President, and the lackeys in Congress are either flat-out lying when they say they don't, or are too stupid to see the connection between what they say and what people do. Either way, it's clear they are not people who should be running this country. My heart goes out to the people who lost family and friends in Pittsburgh, and I hope we can get through this time without worse.
***
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, October 29, 2018
Monday, September 24, 2018
Why did I bother?
I knew better.
I knew better, and I did it anyway.
Last week, a Facebook friend of a very conservative nature posted a graphic on Facebook. Unlike his usual postings, it wasn't even a share, it was a graphic he'd come across, downloaded, then posted. It was about Christine Blasey Ford.
If you do not know who Christine Blasey Ford is, look her up. Suffice to say, the graphic posted was not particularly complimentary, calling her an alcoholic, promiscuous and, possibly worst of all, a liberal activist. It then suggested that not only was her coming forward a desperate attempt to keep a conservative off the Supreme Court, but that Dr. Blasey Ford was looking for a book deal.
If they were making The Princess Bride today (heck, the way Hollywood is, they probably are), Vizzini might declare that the most famous blunder of all is "never get involved in a political discussion on Facebook." It's almost always a no-win situation for all. Most people have no interest in actual, informed debate about politics on Facebook. Most people just want to stake their position and fly their flag as high as possible for all like-minded people to see, and to piss off those who don't agree. The first time I saw this, I clicked in the comment box and was poised to strike, then thought better of it. It bothered me to pass it by, but it was sensible.
But two days later, based on whatever algorithms Facebook uses, it was there again, floating to the top of my news feed even though I am constantly telling Facebook I want it to sort by most recent, not what Facebook thinks is a 'Top Story' (why I have to change this every. Single. Time. I get on Facebook is beyond me). This time, I couldn't hold back.
All I wanted was an acknowledgment. What acknowledgment? This one: Dr. Blasey Ford may well be all of those things this Facebook graphic depicts her as. An alcoholic. Promiscuous. A liberal activist. Sure, maybe she's even an opportunist, hoping to catapult herself to riches and fame (though, please see this excellent post by John Pavlovitz about that). Yet, none of that precludes the possibility that Brett Kavanaugh did exactly what she says he did. Unsurprisingly, I got no admission of the sort. Instead, I got (and am still getting) the usual litany of Republican talking points, victim blaming, and straw men. In other words, pretty much what I expected. At least I haven't gotten any personal attacks. Yet. I haven't checked Facebook this morning. Meanwhile, I swear I'll stay out of it next time...
...maybe.
I knew better, and I did it anyway.
Last week, a Facebook friend of a very conservative nature posted a graphic on Facebook. Unlike his usual postings, it wasn't even a share, it was a graphic he'd come across, downloaded, then posted. It was about Christine Blasey Ford.
If you do not know who Christine Blasey Ford is, look her up. Suffice to say, the graphic posted was not particularly complimentary, calling her an alcoholic, promiscuous and, possibly worst of all, a liberal activist. It then suggested that not only was her coming forward a desperate attempt to keep a conservative off the Supreme Court, but that Dr. Blasey Ford was looking for a book deal.
If they were making The Princess Bride today (heck, the way Hollywood is, they probably are), Vizzini might declare that the most famous blunder of all is "never get involved in a political discussion on Facebook." It's almost always a no-win situation for all. Most people have no interest in actual, informed debate about politics on Facebook. Most people just want to stake their position and fly their flag as high as possible for all like-minded people to see, and to piss off those who don't agree. The first time I saw this, I clicked in the comment box and was poised to strike, then thought better of it. It bothered me to pass it by, but it was sensible.
But two days later, based on whatever algorithms Facebook uses, it was there again, floating to the top of my news feed even though I am constantly telling Facebook I want it to sort by most recent, not what Facebook thinks is a 'Top Story' (why I have to change this every. Single. Time. I get on Facebook is beyond me). This time, I couldn't hold back.
All I wanted was an acknowledgment. What acknowledgment? This one: Dr. Blasey Ford may well be all of those things this Facebook graphic depicts her as. An alcoholic. Promiscuous. A liberal activist. Sure, maybe she's even an opportunist, hoping to catapult herself to riches and fame (though, please see this excellent post by John Pavlovitz about that). Yet, none of that precludes the possibility that Brett Kavanaugh did exactly what she says he did. Unsurprisingly, I got no admission of the sort. Instead, I got (and am still getting) the usual litany of Republican talking points, victim blaming, and straw men. In other words, pretty much what I expected. At least I haven't gotten any personal attacks. Yet. I haven't checked Facebook this morning. Meanwhile, I swear I'll stay out of it next time...
...maybe.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Today's Recommended Reading
I came across this powerful piece in The Guardian last week. It is disturbing to say the least that we are staring down the same things--rampant nationalism, racism, authoritarianism--that we faced eighty-plus years ago. It disturbs me even more that the USA has gotten caught up in the same reprehensible tide. I only hope it can be resolved this time without a global war.
Monday, June 25, 2018
Oh, that jacket
First, let's get something straight: I don't follow fashion. I don't care what the stars wear. And on the occasions when I happen to see snippets from the runways at Fashion Week, my reaction is usually along the lines of, "Who in their right mind would wear that?" (the answer, of course, is pretty much "Nobody except the models at Fashion Week.")
And then Melania Trump wore that jacket. Well, this one:
In case you haven't been paying attention, it says on the back "I really don't care, do you?" and she did not write it herself, it is a designer jacket, and sales are likely to shoot through the roof.
This jacket would raise eyebrows if the First Lady wore it while strolling around the White House grounds on a lazy Sunday afternoon. It would raise eyebrows if she casually draped it over the back of her chair while sipping tea in the Rose Garden. In those settings, itwould raise eyebrows and draw jokes like the one Trevor Noah of The Daily Show made: "It is kind of sweet she made a jacket out of her and Donald's wedding vows." But she didn't wear it in those situations; she wore it while boarding Air Force One last week to travel to Texas, where she visited a detention center for children separated from their families for illegally crossing the border.
Now, it's good that Melania Trump visited these centers. More of our politicians should go and see what the President's "Zero Tolerance" for illegal border crossings has wrought. Maybe then they would do something substantial instead of just sniping back and forth across the aisle. And maybe Melania saw and heard things there beyond what was released in the highly-staged photo opp, something that she would take back to Washington, something that would enable her to push her husband into doing something thoughtful, something humane, something not written by Stephen Miller. I applaud her for making the trip, and for apparently wielding some sort of influence in the President's order of last week that reversed his policy.
But that jacket.
To her credit, the First Lady did not wear the jacket when she got off Air Force One in Texas, and she did not wear it when she toured the detention center, but she did wear it when she got off Air Force One on her return to Washington. Why did she select it? Maybe she just likes the way it looks (if you remove the awful lettering, it's actually a pretty sharp looking jacket). Maybe it was just the right weight for dealing with over-enthusiastic airplane air conditioning. Maybe it was her way of saying the trip was just for show, or was her way of trolling her husband, or her way of trolling the news media, as the President insists.
We will likely never know what she meant when she selected that jacket, but it is (Dare we say it? We do, we do) feckless of her, her staff, and Fox and Friends to insist it doesn't mean anything. Words matter, people. Image matters. And when you're the First Lady of the United States, you have to pay close attention not just to what you say, but what you wear and the images you project, because even if it doesn't mean anything to you, it means something to someone else.
Unless you just really don't care.
And then Melania Trump wore that jacket. Well, this one:
In case you haven't been paying attention, it says on the back "I really don't care, do you?" and she did not write it herself, it is a designer jacket, and sales are likely to shoot through the roof.
This jacket would raise eyebrows if the First Lady wore it while strolling around the White House grounds on a lazy Sunday afternoon. It would raise eyebrows if she casually draped it over the back of her chair while sipping tea in the Rose Garden. In those settings, itwould raise eyebrows and draw jokes like the one Trevor Noah of The Daily Show made: "It is kind of sweet she made a jacket out of her and Donald's wedding vows." But she didn't wear it in those situations; she wore it while boarding Air Force One last week to travel to Texas, where she visited a detention center for children separated from their families for illegally crossing the border.
Now, it's good that Melania Trump visited these centers. More of our politicians should go and see what the President's "Zero Tolerance" for illegal border crossings has wrought. Maybe then they would do something substantial instead of just sniping back and forth across the aisle. And maybe Melania saw and heard things there beyond what was released in the highly-staged photo opp, something that she would take back to Washington, something that would enable her to push her husband into doing something thoughtful, something humane, something not written by Stephen Miller. I applaud her for making the trip, and for apparently wielding some sort of influence in the President's order of last week that reversed his policy.
But that jacket.
To her credit, the First Lady did not wear the jacket when she got off Air Force One in Texas, and she did not wear it when she toured the detention center, but she did wear it when she got off Air Force One on her return to Washington. Why did she select it? Maybe she just likes the way it looks (if you remove the awful lettering, it's actually a pretty sharp looking jacket). Maybe it was just the right weight for dealing with over-enthusiastic airplane air conditioning. Maybe it was her way of saying the trip was just for show, or was her way of trolling her husband, or her way of trolling the news media, as the President insists.
We will likely never know what she meant when she selected that jacket, but it is (Dare we say it? We do, we do) feckless of her, her staff, and Fox and Friends to insist it doesn't mean anything. Words matter, people. Image matters. And when you're the First Lady of the United States, you have to pay close attention not just to what you say, but what you wear and the images you project, because even if it doesn't mean anything to you, it means something to someone else.
Unless you just really don't care.
Monday, February 19, 2018
We've been here before
Recommended reading if you haven't already run across it on Facebook or elsewhere:
I may have said this before, after some other school shooting, or a mass murder in a gay nightclub, or a massacre at a movie theater, but I'll say it again: I'm not anti-gun. I don't want to take your guns away--not exactly. But I do want to see something meaningful happen here. The majority of people in our government are more interested these days in restricting the voting rights of a large segment of our population than giving even the barest hint of increasing control on gun ownership in the slightest. Yes, that's a convoluted sentence; it's supposed to be. It matches the thinking of lawmakers who insist this is not the time to talk about this; of a president who first shifts blame to the community, then to law enforcement, and then manages to make it about himself.
Gun rights have long been seen as a Red vs. Blue, liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat issue. It's time to stop thinking about it in party lines. It's time, really, to stop thinking about everything in party lines, because this, I fear, is where the true downfall of our country comes in, but maybe that's the basis for another post, or a stunning piece of fiction. It's time to start thinking about it as a human issue, because that's what it is.
After last week's post, I told myself I wasn't going to be political, and that I was going to write about writing again. Sorry. Maybe next week.
Fuck you, I like guns.
I may have said this before, after some other school shooting, or a mass murder in a gay nightclub, or a massacre at a movie theater, but I'll say it again: I'm not anti-gun. I don't want to take your guns away--not exactly. But I do want to see something meaningful happen here. The majority of people in our government are more interested these days in restricting the voting rights of a large segment of our population than giving even the barest hint of increasing control on gun ownership in the slightest. Yes, that's a convoluted sentence; it's supposed to be. It matches the thinking of lawmakers who insist this is not the time to talk about this; of a president who first shifts blame to the community, then to law enforcement, and then manages to make it about himself.
Gun rights have long been seen as a Red vs. Blue, liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat issue. It's time to stop thinking about it in party lines. It's time, really, to stop thinking about everything in party lines, because this, I fear, is where the true downfall of our country comes in, but maybe that's the basis for another post, or a stunning piece of fiction. It's time to start thinking about it as a human issue, because that's what it is.
After last week's post, I told myself I wasn't going to be political, and that I was going to write about writing again. Sorry. Maybe next week.
Monday, October 9, 2017
Sorry to see you go, Tom
I don't remember exactly when I first heard Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers. I do remember back in junior high school, having an acquaintance who was fast on the way to becoming one of my closest friends talking Petty up enthusiastically--along with other bands I had not yet heard of, like Elvis Costello, The Pretenders, and Rockpile. Shortly thereafter, I was walking around with the organ riff from "Don't Do Me Like That" on auto-play in my head.
I was not a fan the way my friend was--is, but I certainly liked what I heard. I saw Petty for the first time at Madison Square Garden in the mid-80s, backing Bob Dylan. The Petty & the Heartbreakers segment of the show was miles above the Dylan segment. (though Petty had certain vocal stylings similar to Dylan--hello, singing through the nose--the key difference was that Petty sang so you could understand him. Dylan almost seemed to go out of his way to be incomprehensible.) I didn't see him in concert again for more than twenty years, by which time the band was (incredibly) past thirty. And while the show never felt like some tired, "We're in it for the money here's a bunch of oldies for ya" thing (the band was promoting a new album at the time and played four songs from it during the set), you knew every song. And they were all good.
After forty years, Petty was apparently planning to call it quits on the major touring and was looking forward to spending more time with the family and doing...well, whatever it is rock stars do when they 'retire'. This usually involves a quiet period followed by an unexpected album and tour. Sadly, we'll never get to see that. Thanks for the memories and music (and those goofy appearances on It's Garry Shandling's Show).
In Other News...
Yes, I'm going to get political. The Trump administration continues using "religious freedom" as cover for its assault on "others." Last week saw the announcement of new rules allowing employers to not offer contraceptives/birth control as part of health insurance based on religious or moral objections. Never mind that this impacts some 55 million women, and will likely result in a huge uptick in unplanned pregnancies and abortions (at least until the GOP finds a way to overturn Roe v. Wade and brings us one step closer to the Christian Sharia they seem to crave). Meanwhile, last week the Department of Justice has taken the position that civil rights laws don't apply to transgender people from discrimination at work.Now, this would be fine if the DOJ's position was that Congress should take action to extend that protection, but what's the likelihood of that? And what's the likelihood that this Congress would do such a thing? Yeah, that's what I thought.
And, still sticking with politics--in the wake of the horror in Las Vegas this week, I have come up with a way to actually get something done on gun control: convince Trump that the second amendment was written by Obama. You'd see an instantaneous shift in the meaning of "Repeal and Replace."
Happier News...
Louie DeBrusk was a high energy, low-skill player in the NHL whose best season saw him score eight goals for the Edmonton Oilers in 1992-93. What endeared him to fans wasn't the 24 goals he scored in 401 games, it was his willingness to fight. DeBrusk racked up 1161 penalty minutes in his career, fighting 214 times.
Jake DeBrusk is Louie's son. He is not his father. A highly skilled player taken in the first round of the 2015 draft, Jake made his NHL debut with Boston on Thursday night, and provides a feel-good moment in a week that desperately needed feel-good moments (stick with the video):
A priceless moment.
One last bit of hockey news for my Australian reader(s): On Saturday night, Nathan Walker became the first Australian to play in the National Hockey League--and soon thereafter he became the first Australian to score a goal in the National Hockey League! Congratulations to Nathan! [EDIT] I meant to include this, but forgot: the Australian Ambassador to the United States is...Joe Hockey. No kidding!
That's all I got. Let's hope this is a better week. How are you all?
I was not a fan the way my friend was--is, but I certainly liked what I heard. I saw Petty for the first time at Madison Square Garden in the mid-80s, backing Bob Dylan. The Petty & the Heartbreakers segment of the show was miles above the Dylan segment. (though Petty had certain vocal stylings similar to Dylan--hello, singing through the nose--the key difference was that Petty sang so you could understand him. Dylan almost seemed to go out of his way to be incomprehensible.) I didn't see him in concert again for more than twenty years, by which time the band was (incredibly) past thirty. And while the show never felt like some tired, "We're in it for the money here's a bunch of oldies for ya" thing (the band was promoting a new album at the time and played four songs from it during the set), you knew every song. And they were all good.
After forty years, Petty was apparently planning to call it quits on the major touring and was looking forward to spending more time with the family and doing...well, whatever it is rock stars do when they 'retire'. This usually involves a quiet period followed by an unexpected album and tour. Sadly, we'll never get to see that. Thanks for the memories and music (and those goofy appearances on It's Garry Shandling's Show).
In Other News...
Yes, I'm going to get political. The Trump administration continues using "religious freedom" as cover for its assault on "others." Last week saw the announcement of new rules allowing employers to not offer contraceptives/birth control as part of health insurance based on religious or moral objections. Never mind that this impacts some 55 million women, and will likely result in a huge uptick in unplanned pregnancies and abortions (at least until the GOP finds a way to overturn Roe v. Wade and brings us one step closer to the Christian Sharia they seem to crave). Meanwhile, last week the Department of Justice has taken the position that civil rights laws don't apply to transgender people from discrimination at work.Now, this would be fine if the DOJ's position was that Congress should take action to extend that protection, but what's the likelihood of that? And what's the likelihood that this Congress would do such a thing? Yeah, that's what I thought.
And, still sticking with politics--in the wake of the horror in Las Vegas this week, I have come up with a way to actually get something done on gun control: convince Trump that the second amendment was written by Obama. You'd see an instantaneous shift in the meaning of "Repeal and Replace."
Happier News...
Louie DeBrusk was a high energy, low-skill player in the NHL whose best season saw him score eight goals for the Edmonton Oilers in 1992-93. What endeared him to fans wasn't the 24 goals he scored in 401 games, it was his willingness to fight. DeBrusk racked up 1161 penalty minutes in his career, fighting 214 times.
Jake DeBrusk is Louie's son. He is not his father. A highly skilled player taken in the first round of the 2015 draft, Jake made his NHL debut with Boston on Thursday night, and provides a feel-good moment in a week that desperately needed feel-good moments (stick with the video):
A priceless moment.
One last bit of hockey news for my Australian reader(s): On Saturday night, Nathan Walker became the first Australian to play in the National Hockey League--and soon thereafter he became the first Australian to score a goal in the National Hockey League! Congratulations to Nathan! [EDIT] I meant to include this, but forgot: the Australian Ambassador to the United States is...Joe Hockey. No kidding!
That's all I got. Let's hope this is a better week. How are you all?
Monday, August 14, 2017
Short thoughts on Charlottesville
I had
two uncles who served in the Navy in World War II. Another flew a P-38 with the 8th
Air Force out of southern Italy. Three of my friends had fathers who helped liberate Europe. Two of them swept across France and fought
in the Battle of the Bulge. The other landed at Anzio and was wounded in action. All of them are gone now. I can't imagine any of them would be especially happy with what transpired this weekend.
It sickens me to know that Hitler's ideals are alive and well and living in the United States. It sickens me that thousands of racists, under the pretense of "protecting our history and heritage," were chanting slogans right out of Nazi Germany (and if you are honestly upset about the removal of a General Robert E. Lee statue, and you claim you are not a racist, fine. But don't march with the KKK, and don't chant "Blood and soil" and don't Sieg Heil your way through Emancipation Park). It sickens me that so many people feel so sure of their beliefs, and so comfortable in our current climate, that they will gather and march in such numbers. It sickens me that our president will not condemn them, will not call them what they are. At this point, all calls on him to do so are pointless. He's made his statement with silence and vague words.
Heather Heyer is dead because of Nazis, because of hatred, because of racism and bigotry. She's just the latest in a long, long line that almost certainly stretches back to near the dawn of humanity. Sadly, she won't be the last. I don't know how we stop it, but I know we must.
It sickens me to know that Hitler's ideals are alive and well and living in the United States. It sickens me that thousands of racists, under the pretense of "protecting our history and heritage," were chanting slogans right out of Nazi Germany (and if you are honestly upset about the removal of a General Robert E. Lee statue, and you claim you are not a racist, fine. But don't march with the KKK, and don't chant "Blood and soil" and don't Sieg Heil your way through Emancipation Park). It sickens me that so many people feel so sure of their beliefs, and so comfortable in our current climate, that they will gather and march in such numbers. It sickens me that our president will not condemn them, will not call them what they are. At this point, all calls on him to do so are pointless. He's made his statement with silence and vague words.
Heather Heyer is dead because of Nazis, because of hatred, because of racism and bigotry. She's just the latest in a long, long line that almost certainly stretches back to near the dawn of humanity. Sadly, she won't be the last. I don't know how we stop it, but I know we must.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Whatever it's Called, it Worries Me
The world of the Grand Theft Auto series is populated with memorable...vehicles. Banshees and Bobcats, Sentinels and Schafters, Intruders and Inernus (Inferni?)--there are literally hundreds of cars, motorcycles, trucks, helicopters, boats and bicycles to steal in the course of the game, and these vehicles have more personality than the random citizens walking the streets of Liberty City. Car spawning, i.e., where these cars appeared, seemed to be rather random, though some models were more frequently found in certain neighborhoods. One thing I noticed when playing Grand Theft Auto III many years ago, however, was that certain cars would seem to be very rare when you were looking for one, but once you found one and started driving it, they'd be everywhere.
Some have suggested this is a glitch, but I've noticed it in every GTA game I've played, and I suspect it's just the game developers and designers having a bit of fun with us. Years ago, a friend of mine acquired what was then his dream car (and, indeed, this was a dream car for a lot of young men at the time): a Camaro Z-28. He loved that car. Once he got it, though, he had an unerring ability to see (and a somewhat annoying habit of pointing out) Z 28s everywhere. "There's a nice Z," he'd say, while we were on our way to a hockey game, or the mall, or a friend's house. And he had a great ability of finding parking spaces--you guessed it--right next to other Zs.
Psychologists have a name for this (of course, they do); I'm just not entirely sure if it's Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon, frequency illusion, selective perception, or some variation of confirmation bias, but it seems to be rooted in our tendency to look for patterns, which in itself is probably rooted in some ancient survival mechansm from the days when we were swinging in the trees or seeking shelter in caves.
I'm thinking of all of this because of the recent shenanigans of Greg Gianforte, who won a special election in Montana last week for the state's only seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. A few days before the election, Gianforte apparently body-slammed a reporter who had the nerve to ask Gianforte a question about Trumpcare. This follows on the heels of reporter Dan Heyman's arrest on May 9 for trying to ask questions of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Presidential Advisor Kellyanne Conway, and the forcible ejection of reporter John Donnelly from an FCC meeting on May 18. And, on May 2, a reporter in Alaska was allegedly slapped by a state senator.
There is no question that the tone has been set by our president. Whether it's calling into question the truth of everything reported (unless it comes from Fox, Breitbart, or Alex Jones), or using dangerous phrases like "enemy of the people," or suggesting to then-FBI Director Comey that he should arrest reporters for publishing leaked information, Trump has been waging war against the mainstream media for at least as long as he's been a candidate, and we're starting to see the results of that war.
Or are we? Maybe this is really just coincidence, or Baader-Meinhof, frequency illusion, selective perception, or hyper-sensitivity to what is potentially a serious problem, I really don't know. What I do know is that Gainforte's victory, combined with House Speaker Paul Ryan's weaksauce disapproval of Gianforte's behavior, and the continued rhetoric and behavior out of Washington concerning the press should set the alarm bells ringing. On this Memorial Day, it would do well for us to remember that the sacrifices made by so many over the last 241 years could be lost if we're not careful, and one of the first things to go would be the free press.
Some have suggested this is a glitch, but I've noticed it in every GTA game I've played, and I suspect it's just the game developers and designers having a bit of fun with us. Years ago, a friend of mine acquired what was then his dream car (and, indeed, this was a dream car for a lot of young men at the time): a Camaro Z-28. He loved that car. Once he got it, though, he had an unerring ability to see (and a somewhat annoying habit of pointing out) Z 28s everywhere. "There's a nice Z," he'd say, while we were on our way to a hockey game, or the mall, or a friend's house. And he had a great ability of finding parking spaces--you guessed it--right next to other Zs.
Psychologists have a name for this (of course, they do); I'm just not entirely sure if it's Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon, frequency illusion, selective perception, or some variation of confirmation bias, but it seems to be rooted in our tendency to look for patterns, which in itself is probably rooted in some ancient survival mechansm from the days when we were swinging in the trees or seeking shelter in caves.
I'm thinking of all of this because of the recent shenanigans of Greg Gianforte, who won a special election in Montana last week for the state's only seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. A few days before the election, Gianforte apparently body-slammed a reporter who had the nerve to ask Gianforte a question about Trumpcare. This follows on the heels of reporter Dan Heyman's arrest on May 9 for trying to ask questions of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Presidential Advisor Kellyanne Conway, and the forcible ejection of reporter John Donnelly from an FCC meeting on May 18. And, on May 2, a reporter in Alaska was allegedly slapped by a state senator.
There is no question that the tone has been set by our president. Whether it's calling into question the truth of everything reported (unless it comes from Fox, Breitbart, or Alex Jones), or using dangerous phrases like "enemy of the people," or suggesting to then-FBI Director Comey that he should arrest reporters for publishing leaked information, Trump has been waging war against the mainstream media for at least as long as he's been a candidate, and we're starting to see the results of that war.
Or are we? Maybe this is really just coincidence, or Baader-Meinhof, frequency illusion, selective perception, or hyper-sensitivity to what is potentially a serious problem, I really don't know. What I do know is that Gainforte's victory, combined with House Speaker Paul Ryan's weaksauce disapproval of Gianforte's behavior, and the continued rhetoric and behavior out of Washington concerning the press should set the alarm bells ringing. On this Memorial Day, it would do well for us to remember that the sacrifices made by so many over the last 241 years could be lost if we're not careful, and one of the first things to go would be the free press.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Yeah, about that...
Hey, remember this? J.K. Rowling wrote it in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire:
Well, I think those times are here.
Throughout the primary and campaign season, our President bashed America up and down, calling it a Third World country because the airports are crap, and you can't walk through a city without getting shot, and on and on and on. Well, as I look around the news today, I see a President signing Executive Orders that might actually be illegal; staff at some federal agencies "going rogue" on social media in an effort to keep actual facts and information flowing; other federal agencies ignoring rulings from the courts. The President is churning out Executive Orders that do not appear to have been given any thought at all, acting less like any President we've had and more like a Middle Ages monarch. In other words, we're starting to resemble the Third World Countries he was likening us to on the campaign trail.
But hey! The market is up!
Oh, damn.
Well, I think those times are here.
Throughout the primary and campaign season, our President bashed America up and down, calling it a Third World country because the airports are crap, and you can't walk through a city without getting shot, and on and on and on. Well, as I look around the news today, I see a President signing Executive Orders that might actually be illegal; staff at some federal agencies "going rogue" on social media in an effort to keep actual facts and information flowing; other federal agencies ignoring rulings from the courts. The President is churning out Executive Orders that do not appear to have been given any thought at all, acting less like any President we've had and more like a Middle Ages monarch. In other words, we're starting to resemble the Third World Countries he was likening us to on the campaign trail.
But hey! The market is up!
Oh, damn.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Befuddled
"I'm not laughing, I'm just befuddled."--Chuck Todd, Meet the Press, January 22, 2017
This is the game, folks.
In case you missed it, the day after his inauguration, President Donald Trump's Press Secretary, Sean Spicer had has first press conference--and he spent a good portion of the time lying about the size of the crowd at the inauguration and telling the press what they should report and how (essentially, "anything that makes us look good, and as favorably as possible"). On Sunday, Kellyanne Conway, whose job title I don't know, went on Meet the Press and basically controlled the interview and pretty much owned Chuck Todd, drawing the above quote from Todd.
This is the game of the administration, folks. This is what we have to look forward to. The point of attacking the press is to change the narrative. While Spicer is berating reporters at a press conference, while Conway is running rings around Todd, while Trump is snarking at the huge turnouts at women's marches across the country and around the globe, no one is asking the big question, the most important question: "What are we not talking about while we're arguing over inauguration attendance?"
A skilled magician works by misdirection. Even when we know to watch for the ball disappearing into or being pulled from a pocket, it's amazingly hard to see. And it's fun to watch. But not when it's the office of the President of the United States. Keep watching, and don't take the bait.
Monday, November 14, 2016
My Last Word On The Elections (for now)
This goes out to the Trumpites out there:
For the last sixteen months or so, you've been supporting Donald Trump, and it must have been frustrating for you, a thinking, feeling person, being painted with a very broad brush because of your choice of candidate. You were voting for Trump because you didn't like Hillary--but not just because she's a woman. You didn't like Hillary because she represents more of the same, and you don't feel the Democrats were leading us to a very good place. You don't like Hillary because of her Wall Street ties. Or because of her e-mails. Or Benghazi. Fine.
Or maybe you're a business owner, or a top earner, and you were not looking forward to yet another round of tax hikes on your income bracket. Or you are not confident in Hillary's ability to get us out of the Middle East and end the threat of ISIS. Or Russia. Maybe you're from coal country or gas country or oil country and view the push to renewables to be a threat to your livelihood and were fighting to keep your job. I get that.
And I get that it must have been frustrating over these last sixteen months or so to constantly have friends and relations on social media calling you a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe, a homophobe, a misogynist. The memes that were all over the place basically equated your choice for president as a Mussolini, a Hitler--and, by association, they lumped you in there, too.
"I am not those things," you said. You were not one of those people chanting "Build the wall" at Trump rallies, or "Lock her up." You were not one of those people throwing punches at protesters, or spitting on them, or calling people who looked like they might be from south of the border "beaners" and telling them they'd soon be deported. That wasn't you. The thing about politics is there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. They all have some kind of baggage, some position that we do not like, and that forces us to prioritize, make choices, and live with things that make us uncomfortable. Maybe you're not comfortable with things Trump has said (and done) in the past, but you really feel like the nation is being strangled by over-regulation, and Clinton sure isn't going to cut any of that back. So you put up with the bad stuff and say, "That isn't me. I'm not like that."
And now it's time to prove it. Your man is president elect. In two months, he'll take the oath of office and he'll have a semi-friendly Republican majority in Congress at his back. And sometime in the next year--more likely, within a few weeks of taking office--something's going to come out of the White House. It may be a proposed law. It may be a program. It may be a plan. Whatever it is, it's going to tick off one or more boxes: racist. Misogynist. Discriminatory. There's no telling which group it will target. It will almost certainly be gussied up as some kind of action that will keep our borders safe, or boost the economy, or limit voter fraud, but it will be definitely targeted at a group and close inspection will reveal it for what it is. And that's when you will have to prove that you are not those things people have been saying you are.
I hope you do.
For the last sixteen months or so, you've been supporting Donald Trump, and it must have been frustrating for you, a thinking, feeling person, being painted with a very broad brush because of your choice of candidate. You were voting for Trump because you didn't like Hillary--but not just because she's a woman. You didn't like Hillary because she represents more of the same, and you don't feel the Democrats were leading us to a very good place. You don't like Hillary because of her Wall Street ties. Or because of her e-mails. Or Benghazi. Fine.
Or maybe you're a business owner, or a top earner, and you were not looking forward to yet another round of tax hikes on your income bracket. Or you are not confident in Hillary's ability to get us out of the Middle East and end the threat of ISIS. Or Russia. Maybe you're from coal country or gas country or oil country and view the push to renewables to be a threat to your livelihood and were fighting to keep your job. I get that.
And I get that it must have been frustrating over these last sixteen months or so to constantly have friends and relations on social media calling you a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe, a homophobe, a misogynist. The memes that were all over the place basically equated your choice for president as a Mussolini, a Hitler--and, by association, they lumped you in there, too.
"I am not those things," you said. You were not one of those people chanting "Build the wall" at Trump rallies, or "Lock her up." You were not one of those people throwing punches at protesters, or spitting on them, or calling people who looked like they might be from south of the border "beaners" and telling them they'd soon be deported. That wasn't you. The thing about politics is there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. They all have some kind of baggage, some position that we do not like, and that forces us to prioritize, make choices, and live with things that make us uncomfortable. Maybe you're not comfortable with things Trump has said (and done) in the past, but you really feel like the nation is being strangled by over-regulation, and Clinton sure isn't going to cut any of that back. So you put up with the bad stuff and say, "That isn't me. I'm not like that."
And now it's time to prove it. Your man is president elect. In two months, he'll take the oath of office and he'll have a semi-friendly Republican majority in Congress at his back. And sometime in the next year--more likely, within a few weeks of taking office--something's going to come out of the White House. It may be a proposed law. It may be a program. It may be a plan. Whatever it is, it's going to tick off one or more boxes: racist. Misogynist. Discriminatory. There's no telling which group it will target. It will almost certainly be gussied up as some kind of action that will keep our borders safe, or boost the economy, or limit voter fraud, but it will be definitely targeted at a group and close inspection will reveal it for what it is. And that's when you will have to prove that you are not those things people have been saying you are.
I hope you do.
Monday, November 7, 2016
A Last Word Ahead Of Election Day
It's nearly over. At least I hope it is.
Tomorrow is the day we here in the United States officially cast our ballots and choose the next president. Though the events won't be offically official until January, when Congress counts the electoral votes, God willing, we'll know the result either late tomorrow night or early Wednesday morning, and then we can get on with the business of fixing the parts of our country that are broken, and strengthening the parts that are not.
I know where I stand in this election, and what I want to see happen, so I'm not going to belabor the point. No matter the outcome of tomorrow, there are going to be millions of people who are disappointed with the results. Some will be beyond disappointed: distraught, maybe; super-righteously pissed, perhaps. So, once the election is over and the results are in, I think we need to look at some wise words penned by that master statesman, Stephen King. In his book, 11/22/63 (about a man who travels back in time to save John F. Kenneday from assassination), King wrote:
We can be upset with the result. We can be upset with the winner. But at the end of the day, that person will be our president, and we will have to work with him or her for the next four years. Let's do it.
Tomorrow is the day we here in the United States officially cast our ballots and choose the next president. Though the events won't be offically official until January, when Congress counts the electoral votes, God willing, we'll know the result either late tomorrow night or early Wednesday morning, and then we can get on with the business of fixing the parts of our country that are broken, and strengthening the parts that are not.
I know where I stand in this election, and what I want to see happen, so I'm not going to belabor the point. No matter the outcome of tomorrow, there are going to be millions of people who are disappointed with the results. Some will be beyond disappointed: distraught, maybe; super-righteously pissed, perhaps. So, once the election is over and the results are in, I think we need to look at some wise words penned by that master statesman, Stephen King. In his book, 11/22/63 (about a man who travels back in time to save John F. Kenneday from assassination), King wrote:
"I didn't vote for him, but I happen to be an American, and that makes him not just the president but my president."
We can be upset with the result. We can be upset with the winner. But at the end of the day, that person will be our president, and we will have to work with him or her for the next four years. Let's do it.
Monday, October 24, 2016
It's Not Just About Trump
More than thirty years ago I had to make one of the first decisions of my semi-adult life: which political party should I join? After much consideration, I registered Republican.
This decision was not made lightly. It was not made without a great deal of thought. Back then, there were some issues where I leaned right, and issues where I leaned left, and plenty of issues where I didn't care a whole lot one way or the other, but I had to make a choice, so I made one. The decision was made both rationally and irrationally (rational: on the issues that were most important to me at the time, I leaned right. Rational: registering as an independent would mean I couldn't vote in the primaries. Rational: I thought I might want a county job and I lived in a Republican dominated county. See? I was cynical even then. Irrational: my father was a Republican. Irrational: I wrote a letter to President Nixon during the energy crisis and got a letter and a neat little book).
Over the years, I've pulled the lever (and, now, filled in the circle with the pen and fed the ballot through the scanner; this is much less satisfying than the loud ka-thunk of a mechanical voting machine) for Republicans and Democrats alike, for every office from President down to Town Clerk. I've tried to be informed about my choices, and I've never been a person who votes simply by pulling the lever for any candidate with an 'R' after their name. Party, to me, has always been less important than the person running for office. I was a Republican, but hardly the card-carrying, sign waving, campaign contributing type.
And now it's time to get off the bus.
This is not about Donald Trump. Or, mostly, not about Donald Trump. In a certain way, Trump's ascendance to the role as Republican standard bearer is a sign that the system isn't broken, that it's working as intended. The people spoke, the Party swallowed and said, "Yeah, okay, he's our guy. We don't like him, but we can't change the rules." (And here's a note to the still-smarting "Bernie Bros" out there: the DNC was against you, but the rules is the rules. Don't complain about not being able to vote in a Democratic primary if you're an Independent or a Green or a Working Families if your state doesn't allow it. House Rules work great in Monopoly, but not in an election) We can trace the rise of Tump to the rise of Newt Gingrich back in the 90s, which, coincidentally, is around the time I first started thinking, "Why am I a Republican?"
Some time ago I wrote in this space about change, and my belief that, in general, people in the real world change slowly. My change from Republican to Democrat has been thirty years in the making. Who has changed? I think it's both of us. The things that brought me to the Republicans in the first place are no longer as important to me, while other issues are more important. And of the issues that weren't issues for me then? I consistently find myself on the other side of them. As I've gotten older, I've moved to the left. At the same time, the Republican Party has been moving further to the right. I am not the same, but neither is the Republican Party I signed on for all those years ago.
The final straw for me was not Trump standing there smugly in Cleveland in July. It was reading the Republican Party platform. As much as I can agree with certain Republican principles (fiscal conservatism, smaller, less intrusive government), there is so much in here to object to. If allowed, the Republicans would:
-attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, either by judicial review or constitutional amendment returning abortion control to the state;
-attempt to overturn same sex marriage;
-allow individuals and business to discriminate against same sex couples under the guise of religious freedom;
-ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence regarding climate change and would also gut environmental protections offered by the EPA, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act;
-remove women from combat roles and infantry battalions;
-replace "'family planning' programs for teens with sexual risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior";
-push this country further toward what I think of as Judeo-Christian sharia.
Maybe some of you have read this and you say, "Yeah! I'm all for it! What's your beef?" To me, this document, this policy statement, is just not reflective of the modern world, which is in keeping with the platform writers' statement that "We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant." Welcome to 1789, folks.
Maybe it is just me. Maybe if I went back and read the Republican platform from when I registered to vote, I would find the same thing. Either way, I'm glad I changed. And when this election is over, I will be changing my voter registration.
This decision was not made lightly. It was not made without a great deal of thought. Back then, there were some issues where I leaned right, and issues where I leaned left, and plenty of issues where I didn't care a whole lot one way or the other, but I had to make a choice, so I made one. The decision was made both rationally and irrationally (rational: on the issues that were most important to me at the time, I leaned right. Rational: registering as an independent would mean I couldn't vote in the primaries. Rational: I thought I might want a county job and I lived in a Republican dominated county. See? I was cynical even then. Irrational: my father was a Republican. Irrational: I wrote a letter to President Nixon during the energy crisis and got a letter and a neat little book).
Over the years, I've pulled the lever (and, now, filled in the circle with the pen and fed the ballot through the scanner; this is much less satisfying than the loud ka-thunk of a mechanical voting machine) for Republicans and Democrats alike, for every office from President down to Town Clerk. I've tried to be informed about my choices, and I've never been a person who votes simply by pulling the lever for any candidate with an 'R' after their name. Party, to me, has always been less important than the person running for office. I was a Republican, but hardly the card-carrying, sign waving, campaign contributing type.
And now it's time to get off the bus.
Some time ago I wrote in this space about change, and my belief that, in general, people in the real world change slowly. My change from Republican to Democrat has been thirty years in the making. Who has changed? I think it's both of us. The things that brought me to the Republicans in the first place are no longer as important to me, while other issues are more important. And of the issues that weren't issues for me then? I consistently find myself on the other side of them. As I've gotten older, I've moved to the left. At the same time, the Republican Party has been moving further to the right. I am not the same, but neither is the Republican Party I signed on for all those years ago.
The final straw for me was not Trump standing there smugly in Cleveland in July. It was reading the Republican Party platform. As much as I can agree with certain Republican principles (fiscal conservatism, smaller, less intrusive government), there is so much in here to object to. If allowed, the Republicans would:
-attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, either by judicial review or constitutional amendment returning abortion control to the state;
-attempt to overturn same sex marriage;
-allow individuals and business to discriminate against same sex couples under the guise of religious freedom;
-ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence regarding climate change and would also gut environmental protections offered by the EPA, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act;
-remove women from combat roles and infantry battalions;
-replace "'family planning' programs for teens with sexual risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior";
-push this country further toward what I think of as Judeo-Christian sharia.
Maybe some of you have read this and you say, "Yeah! I'm all for it! What's your beef?" To me, this document, this policy statement, is just not reflective of the modern world, which is in keeping with the platform writers' statement that "We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant." Welcome to 1789, folks.
Maybe it is just me. Maybe if I went back and read the Republican platform from when I registered to vote, I would find the same thing. Either way, I'm glad I changed. And when this election is over, I will be changing my voter registration.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Three Quotes
Three quotes from over the weekend:
+++
A few notes of a much more cheerful nature:
We picked up the Magpie for Spring Break this past Thursday, and we'll have two whole weeks with the little birds home, as the Catbird will come home this coming Friday for her week off. Unfortunately, they only get a little window of overlap, but it will sure be nice to have them here.
Yesterday, I walked out of the building where we have our writers' group, looked up, and saw about two dozen turkey vultures wheeling around the sky overhead. Always a nice sign. March can be highly unpredictable around here, and the last two winters we've had a lot of cold and a lot of snow extending very late into the month, but I believe the worst is over. No frogs or toads calling yet, but it won't be long.
And that's about it for me; how are you?
"What caused the protests at Trump’s rally is a candidate that has promoted hatred and division against Latinos, Muslims, women, and people with disabilities, and his birther attacks against the legitimacy of President Obama. What caused the violence at Trump’s rally is a campaign whose words and actions have encouraged it on the part of his supporters."--Bernie SandersAnd, in what may be the only statement uttered by Ted Cruz that I'll ever agree with:
Trump, of course, denies it, has put the blame squarely on the protesters, has suggested that they're the ones who are escalating the conflicts, and while there is no doubt some truth to that--some of those folks are not going peacefully; they drag their feet, they try to shout over the sea of voices shouting, "Trump! Trump! Trump!" and "USA! USA! USA!"--Trump has been not-so-subtly asking his supporters to knock people around for weeks now. How many times has he talked about how he'd like to punch somebody in the face? Or how, "in the old days," they'd carry a guy like that out on a stretcher? It's no surprise that it's happening, and it's going to get worse: in his Twitter feed, Trump has basically put out the call to his supporters to go and disrupt Sanders' rallies:
"Any candidate is responsible for the culture of a campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord."--Ted Cruz
"Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren't told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!"Note how he doesn't say it is Sanders or his campaign telling "disruptors" to go to Trump events, yet that's exactly what he means, and his supporters know it. the implication. And he doesn't tell anyone to go to future Sanders events and start throwing punches around, but he never pointed to someone chanting "Black lives matter!" at his own events and said, "Punch that guy in the face." Yet, that is exactly what happened. And you can bet that it will keep happening, and that it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
+++
A few notes of a much more cheerful nature:
We picked up the Magpie for Spring Break this past Thursday, and we'll have two whole weeks with the little birds home, as the Catbird will come home this coming Friday for her week off. Unfortunately, they only get a little window of overlap, but it will sure be nice to have them here.
Yesterday, I walked out of the building where we have our writers' group, looked up, and saw about two dozen turkey vultures wheeling around the sky overhead. Always a nice sign. March can be highly unpredictable around here, and the last two winters we've had a lot of cold and a lot of snow extending very late into the month, but I believe the worst is over. No frogs or toads calling yet, but it won't be long.
And that's about it for me; how are you?
Friday, December 19, 2014
Ranting on The Interview
I am not happy today.
Oh, life is fine. The Catbird had two concerts this week, one for her choir, one for the jazz vocal group, that we attended and enjoyed. We had the organization holiday party, we Skyped with the Magpie, ordered a bunch of Christmas gifts--all that is fine. Though progress has slowed down a bit since November, I passed the 300-page mark on my latest project while I continue to build up some background for what I think will be my next one, and the governor of the great state of New York made a decision that shocked the heck out of me, but I fully support, when he essentially pulled the plug on High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in this state--at least for now. (Seriously, the gas will still be in the ground five years from now. As far as I'm concerned, if there's any doubt about the safety of this process--and there is plenty of that--then this is the best course of action. But that's a story for another day.) After today, I work on Monday and then take the rest of the week off, and that will be nice, too.
But I'm still not happy.
What I'm not happy about is Sony Pictures' decision to pull The Interview. Set to open December 25th, the film is about a pair of American journalists who are granted an in-person interview with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un--and are subsequently recruited by the CIA to assassinate him. North Korea was not very happy about this--I'm not sure North Korea is actually happy about anything--and said so publicly. Sony Pictures, meanwhile, was hacked in late November. All sorts of information has been leaked out all over the internet, and the hackers, who may or may not be North Korean in origin, threatened September 11-style violence against theaters if they dared screen the film. After theaters started dropping the film, Sony decided to pull it altogether. (Sorry, this paragraph is a hot mess, but I don't care)
As for the film itself, I don't really care one way or another. I think the only Seth Rogen film I've actually seen is Superbad, which actually wasn't bad. The Interview had an interesting concept, but is probably fairly standard comedy, but maybe not. It's the sort of movie I might watch on TV one night if I came across it, but I doubt I would have gone out of my way to see it. On that level, I really don't care.
But it pisses me off all the same. Sony's decision, and the decision of the theater chain, make sense from a potential tragedy and a potential liability standpoint. Imagine the unthinkable. Imagine a major, national release on Christmas Day, and imagine if even one theater, anywhere in the land, is shot up, bombed, whatever. Aside from the guilt over the injury and loss of life, imagine the lawsuits, and the lawyer saying, "You knew someone was going to do this, and you showed the film anyway?" "We really didn't think they could pull this off" is not going to cut it as an excuse, is it?
I don't blame Sony, or the theaters. Because, even if these so-called Guardians of Peace are just trolling us all (and, despite the noise the government is making that North Korea is actually behind this, I can't help but feel it's just that), even if these so-called Guardians of Peace are nothing more than a couple of idiots who are very good with computers and picked Sony because, hey, why not? Even if that's all they are, all it takes is one other idiot, maybe an idiot who doesn't really give a rat's ass about North Korea and Kim Jong-un, but just some idiot who decides, "Hey, why not?"--all it takes is one idiot like that to arrive at one theater on Christmas Day with a couple of assault weapons and some Molotov cocktails stuffed in his coat to cause yet another disaster. A disaster that can cost possibly hundreds of lives and millions of dollars in damages. I don't blame Sony for not wanting to be part of that, for not wanted to be held responsible for that, because even if there's no real threat from the so-called Guardians of Peace, they knew there was a threat, right? They're screwed.
But it pisses me off that we've come to this. It pisses me off that we live in a world like this. And it pisses me off because, as much as it's scary to think some random idiot or some deeply disturbed person can end my life just because, I actually like that idea better than the notion that some foreign nation is pulling strings inside our country in this fashion. That scares me. And it makes me think of this line from Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction: "Now when you yell at me, it makes me nervous. And when I get nervous, I
get scared. And when motherfuckers get scared, that's when motherfuckers
accidentally get shot."
There's a lot of scared people out there who are reacting with anger, and a lot of talk about kowtowing to terrorists and slippery slopes and where will it all end and stuff like that. I'm scared because there's a part of me that wants our nation to just go in there and show Kim Jong-un what's what, just like there's a part of me that wants to see us lay waste to half the desert in that rather troublesome part of the middle east--but that's no solution I really want to see, and it's no solution at all, and it's a solution that would cost millions of mostly-innocent lives.
I don't know what the solution is. I don't know if there is a solution. And I don't think I've got anything else to say on the subject. Chuck Wendig has penned a terrific post on why we should be concerned about this as artists. I recommend it. That's it, sorry for the sloppy rant, have a nice weekend.
Oh, life is fine. The Catbird had two concerts this week, one for her choir, one for the jazz vocal group, that we attended and enjoyed. We had the organization holiday party, we Skyped with the Magpie, ordered a bunch of Christmas gifts--all that is fine. Though progress has slowed down a bit since November, I passed the 300-page mark on my latest project while I continue to build up some background for what I think will be my next one, and the governor of the great state of New York made a decision that shocked the heck out of me, but I fully support, when he essentially pulled the plug on High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in this state--at least for now. (Seriously, the gas will still be in the ground five years from now. As far as I'm concerned, if there's any doubt about the safety of this process--and there is plenty of that--then this is the best course of action. But that's a story for another day.) After today, I work on Monday and then take the rest of the week off, and that will be nice, too.
But I'm still not happy.
What I'm not happy about is Sony Pictures' decision to pull The Interview. Set to open December 25th, the film is about a pair of American journalists who are granted an in-person interview with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un--and are subsequently recruited by the CIA to assassinate him. North Korea was not very happy about this--I'm not sure North Korea is actually happy about anything--and said so publicly. Sony Pictures, meanwhile, was hacked in late November. All sorts of information has been leaked out all over the internet, and the hackers, who may or may not be North Korean in origin, threatened September 11-style violence against theaters if they dared screen the film. After theaters started dropping the film, Sony decided to pull it altogether. (Sorry, this paragraph is a hot mess, but I don't care)
As for the film itself, I don't really care one way or another. I think the only Seth Rogen film I've actually seen is Superbad, which actually wasn't bad. The Interview had an interesting concept, but is probably fairly standard comedy, but maybe not. It's the sort of movie I might watch on TV one night if I came across it, but I doubt I would have gone out of my way to see it. On that level, I really don't care.
But it pisses me off all the same. Sony's decision, and the decision of the theater chain, make sense from a potential tragedy and a potential liability standpoint. Imagine the unthinkable. Imagine a major, national release on Christmas Day, and imagine if even one theater, anywhere in the land, is shot up, bombed, whatever. Aside from the guilt over the injury and loss of life, imagine the lawsuits, and the lawyer saying, "You knew someone was going to do this, and you showed the film anyway?" "We really didn't think they could pull this off" is not going to cut it as an excuse, is it?
I don't blame Sony, or the theaters. Because, even if these so-called Guardians of Peace are just trolling us all (and, despite the noise the government is making that North Korea is actually behind this, I can't help but feel it's just that), even if these so-called Guardians of Peace are nothing more than a couple of idiots who are very good with computers and picked Sony because, hey, why not? Even if that's all they are, all it takes is one other idiot, maybe an idiot who doesn't really give a rat's ass about North Korea and Kim Jong-un, but just some idiot who decides, "Hey, why not?"--all it takes is one idiot like that to arrive at one theater on Christmas Day with a couple of assault weapons and some Molotov cocktails stuffed in his coat to cause yet another disaster. A disaster that can cost possibly hundreds of lives and millions of dollars in damages. I don't blame Sony for not wanting to be part of that, for not wanted to be held responsible for that, because even if there's no real threat from the so-called Guardians of Peace, they knew there was a threat, right? They're screwed.
| This might be effective |
There's a lot of scared people out there who are reacting with anger, and a lot of talk about kowtowing to terrorists and slippery slopes and where will it all end and stuff like that. I'm scared because there's a part of me that wants our nation to just go in there and show Kim Jong-un what's what, just like there's a part of me that wants to see us lay waste to half the desert in that rather troublesome part of the middle east--but that's no solution I really want to see, and it's no solution at all, and it's a solution that would cost millions of mostly-innocent lives.
I don't know what the solution is. I don't know if there is a solution. And I don't think I've got anything else to say on the subject. Chuck Wendig has penned a terrific post on why we should be concerned about this as artists. I recommend it. That's it, sorry for the sloppy rant, have a nice weekend.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Hyperbole!
I'm in a cranky mood.
We all but ran out of coffee, so I'm drinking lo-test. I pop
on Absolute Write and feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog
Day--"How many pages should be in a chapter?" "Should I include a prologue?" Someone I've never heard of wants to be Facebook friends. My g-mail is getting spammed. Opening up blogger, I keep getting the 'Get the
latest blogger buzz' crap instead of the list of blogs I might want to actually
read. Annoyance after annoyance after annoyance. But mostly, it's the coffee thing that's bugging me.
Something really bugging me today is the
way people are willing to screw around with words to make a political point. Or, more likely, to muddy the waters. Yesterday,
someone on an environmental listserve I follow at work linked to a surprisingly-old story
about Rob Astorino, the Westchester County Executive who will be running for governor against Andrew Cuomo (or Zephyr Teachout (yes, that IS her name), if the unthinkable happens in the Democratic primary next week) in November. I should point out, the folks on this listserve do not like Astorino. At all. Here's the lurid headline:
In Lawsuit, Independence
Party Alleges Astorino Threatened to 'Decapitate' Leadership
A quick scan of the linked article
reveals some potentially troubling things about Astorino. The Independence
Party in Westchester County
is accusing him of racketeering, conspiracy, wire and mail fraud—all serious
allegations indeed. But what really seemed to piss people off the most is this
quote from Astorino:
"Every enemy he’s made, every person he’s screwed, is
now working with us to decapitate these two."
Really? That's the most important thing in this story? As I said, this guy is an intelligent guy, but I wonder if he has any concept of 'context'. Or hyperbole--which is ironic, considering the blogger in question is a hyperbole machine.
For the record, I am not an Astorino supporter. I'm not particularly big on any of the candidates, for a variety of reasons which I will keep to myself. I do think this lawsuit is politically motivated--the statewide Independence Party has endorsed Cuomo, and Cuomo is running ads now that can truthfully say Astorino is being sued for conspiracy, racketeering and fraud. I'm not prone to conspiracy theories as a rule, but this one seems fishy to me.
I can't wait til election season is over.
NOTE: I feel it's important to point out two things about this lawsuit: first, it was dismissed last year and revised and refiled in June. Second, Astorino's comments about decapitation were made in 2013, more than a year before James Foley's execution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)