A few weekends back, I went to see The Wackness with Mr. Zelmer and his girlfriend Ox. The movie takes place in 1994 in New York City. A lonely, unsure high schooler, Luke, who sells weed out of a vendor cart, begins exchanging the good stuff with a psychiatrist for his counseling. The psychiatrist is disoriented and troubled, and the two develop an uncomfortable but endearing friendship as well as a business (selling that chronic) relationship. Simultaneously, Josh falls for the psychiatrists' daughter, a confident, popular girl with fleeting interests. The movie is mostly a character study, and Ben Kingsley, as the psychiatrist, is captivating. Having sincerely enjoyed the movie, we were eager to read reviews to compare our opinions. Instead of fresh perspectives, however, the reviews never made it past the wading pool. They were far too shallow and caught up with the minutia. Perhaps that is a weak comparison. I doubt wading pools are ever caught up with minutia, but babies do pee in them.
The NY Times review complained about the overstatement of nostalgic items related to 1994. It also moans that Josh Peck, who plays Luke, didn't do a good enough job in one scene of conveying the tension between his outward affectlessness (which, by the way, is a word not even recognized by Microsoft Office) and the riot of feeling inside him. As valid as these criticisms may be, they seem to miss the point. I liken it to receiving a brand new Lexus on your 16th birthday, and complaining about a spec of dirt on the windshield.
Sweet Sixteen aside, are these complaints reasonable coming from a movie critic? Perhaps sitting down to watch a movie with the specific intent of criticizing it distorts the experience and amplifies seemingly meaningless imperfections. Quite aptly, they ARE called critics. However, I see a few issues with the conventional movie review. First, should the review's purpose be to espouse inadequacy no matter how insignificant? Many movie reviews are written with this intent. But, it is not necessarily useful to the reader.
Many times, the reader of a movie review is simply trying to inform their decision on which movie to see. Among readers who have yet to see a movie, criticisms on, for example, the inability of an actor to portray a certain struggle of emotions in a specific scene has no context. These readers would be alternatively better served with an evaluation of the enjoyment, emotion, excitement, and entertainment offered by the movie.
This kind of review would attempt to define the ‘entertainment value’ of a movie, helping a reader decide whether or not the movie is worth seeing. Or, in what context [with who] it is best seen.
So, to help usher in an era of user-centric movie criticism, I would like to found a new website: ReelReviews.com. Now hiring.
Wednesday, August 20
Friday, August 1
Charity and Moral Obligation
A friend recently gave 25 dollars to UNICEF. He had been telling himself to donate for awhile, to no avail. With the guiding hand of inebriation, however, he championed children's rights worldwide with the triumphant click of a button...and his debit card.
Making a donation is simple and selfless. But, our conversation lead us to find much deeper, more complex issues in the decision to give. Among others, what is the purpose of your giving? To satisfy your own moral framework? To meet a larger moral obligation? For recognition? Recognition is a significant psychological barrier for many. With the donation to UNICEF, you are affecting children thousands of miles away in an undefinable and unseen way. Without recognition, incentive falls to morality. Moral giving quickly becomes a sticky issue. My friend brought up the following scenario:
You are on your way to an ethics lecture (can this be drenched in any more irony?) and walk past a lake with a baby drowning. You are faced with a decision. Either, ignore the cute, little water-logged bundle of joy, and continue on your way. Or, save the little guy. Saving the baby, however, means ruining your clothes and missing your lecture. If the person agrees that they are obligated to concede a day of productivity and, say, $200 in clothes, then, logically, they are equally obligated to donate $200 to save a child overseas.
This is an effective way of motivating charitable giving, but in my mind, the logic of this moral obligation doesn't stand up. Consider if, instead of walking by one drowning baby, you are subjected to this same situation, day after day, for a year. 365 babies saved, 365 days of lost productivity, and theoretically $73000 in clothes. How can you be morally obligated to save a baby one day, but not the next? Taken to the test, it seems that the rather innocuous moral obligation of $200 soon becomes an entire year's productivity and 73000 dollars.
So, on what basis can you find an indefensible and definable moral obligation to give? Perhaps, instead of seeking an overarching moral framework, giving must be predicated on personal choice and an emotional aversion to suffering. I haven't reached a conclusion, yet. Maybe a donation to UNICEF will clear my mind.
Making a donation is simple and selfless. But, our conversation lead us to find much deeper, more complex issues in the decision to give. Among others, what is the purpose of your giving? To satisfy your own moral framework? To meet a larger moral obligation? For recognition? Recognition is a significant psychological barrier for many. With the donation to UNICEF, you are affecting children thousands of miles away in an undefinable and unseen way. Without recognition, incentive falls to morality. Moral giving quickly becomes a sticky issue. My friend brought up the following scenario:
You are on your way to an ethics lecture (can this be drenched in any more irony?) and walk past a lake with a baby drowning. You are faced with a decision. Either, ignore the cute, little water-logged bundle of joy, and continue on your way. Or, save the little guy. Saving the baby, however, means ruining your clothes and missing your lecture. If the person agrees that they are obligated to concede a day of productivity and, say, $200 in clothes, then, logically, they are equally obligated to donate $200 to save a child overseas.
This is an effective way of motivating charitable giving, but in my mind, the logic of this moral obligation doesn't stand up. Consider if, instead of walking by one drowning baby, you are subjected to this same situation, day after day, for a year. 365 babies saved, 365 days of lost productivity, and theoretically $73000 in clothes. How can you be morally obligated to save a baby one day, but not the next? Taken to the test, it seems that the rather innocuous moral obligation of $200 soon becomes an entire year's productivity and 73000 dollars.
So, on what basis can you find an indefensible and definable moral obligation to give? Perhaps, instead of seeking an overarching moral framework, giving must be predicated on personal choice and an emotional aversion to suffering. I haven't reached a conclusion, yet. Maybe a donation to UNICEF will clear my mind.
Tuesday, July 29
5 Reasons You Can't Vote McCain 2008
If you're reading this, and you're in the top 1% of earners in America, totally disregard everything I say. How could you NOT vote for McCain?? For everyone else, here are some less than impressive tidbits on Mr. POW.
1. McCain worships Reaganomics. [Trickle down economics]
In the eight years of reign by big Dubya, 75% of America's economic growth has gone to line the pockets and deck out the private jet bathrooms of the top 1% of the income bracket. McCain consigns to the typical Republican recipe to spur growth: tax cuts. Putting aside the exaggerated rhetoric of the dueling campaigns, the Federal government's take of the GDP will be approximately 17.6% under McCain and 18.3% under Obama. A relatively paltry difference. More significant is where that 18-ish percent of the GDP comes from, and where it goes. McCain favors cutting the corporate income tax, and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which has historically prevented wealthier Americans from avoiding taxes. Thus, lower tax liability in the upper echelon, with the theory that this extra money will trickle down to the masses in the form of wage increases, et cetera. However, this extra money, especially in the era of globalization, rarely trickles down to lower income Americans. Instead, it is invested overseas or payed out to wealthy stockholders in the form of dividends.
For the 98% of Americans that make under $250,000 dollars, Obama's tax policy will provide far more savings.
2. McCain has vowed to appoint only pro-lifers in his judicial appointments.
John McCain has stated that his judicial appointments will be subject to a single-issue litmus test: abortion. In a 2005 article in the New Yorker, a powerful pro-life advocate said:
"I wanted a commitment from ... John McCain that if elected he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges."
A single issue stance on judicial appointments is closed-minded and dangerous. Essentially, John McCain has promised many well-qualified people that they will be categorically disregarded on the basis of their views on abortion. For everyone but the unborn children, shouldn't we be more concerned with a judge's impartiality and academic qualifications?
3. McCain wants free elections in Iraq, but disregards the Iraqis' basic needs.
McCain, following in Bush's footsteps, will bolster nation building policies aimed towards more free elections. However, this strategy is naive and has clearly failed. Sure, Iraqis with purple ink on their fingers voting for their next leader sounds great. But, it is ultimately only a semblance of democracy. Without focusing on basic human needs: security, education, basic infrastructure, and food, no 'free election' will accomplish anything.
Obama's foreign policy will focus on organic, incremental change and humanitarian efforts as a stepping stone to building the foundation for new successful democracies. Placating the American public with news of more elections in Iraq and Afghanistan simply doesn't cut it.
4. McCain is OLD!
This isn't as bad as it sounds. McCain is still answerable to an antiquated moral framework that discriminates and marginalizes. For example, McCain was absolutely baffled when asked if he thought it was reasonable that Medicare covers Viagra, but not birth control. Reasonable, intelligent, and utilitarian decision making can't happen at the hands of someone who is so constrained by his ultra conservative 'family values' base, that he can't even take a stance on the availability of birth control. Raging, 4 hour erections are a different story.
5. McCain will drastically cut valuable social programs, but still deficit spend.
Some programs that McCain pledges to eliminate:
Head Start funding for 340,000 kids
Pell Grants for 1.6 million college students (universities are for poor kids, too??)
Title 1 School Funding
WIC assistance which includes nutritional foods, nutrition education, and health screenings for 3.4 million low-income parents and children
But, don't worry, kids. Defense spending will see no cuts under McCain's iron fist.
1. McCain worships Reaganomics. [Trickle down economics]
In the eight years of reign by big Dubya, 75% of America's economic growth has gone to line the pockets and deck out the private jet bathrooms of the top 1% of the income bracket. McCain consigns to the typical Republican recipe to spur growth: tax cuts. Putting aside the exaggerated rhetoric of the dueling campaigns, the Federal government's take of the GDP will be approximately 17.6% under McCain and 18.3% under Obama. A relatively paltry difference. More significant is where that 18-ish percent of the GDP comes from, and where it goes. McCain favors cutting the corporate income tax, and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which has historically prevented wealthier Americans from avoiding taxes. Thus, lower tax liability in the upper echelon, with the theory that this extra money will trickle down to the masses in the form of wage increases, et cetera. However, this extra money, especially in the era of globalization, rarely trickles down to lower income Americans. Instead, it is invested overseas or payed out to wealthy stockholders in the form of dividends.
For the 98% of Americans that make under $250,000 dollars, Obama's tax policy will provide far more savings.
2. McCain has vowed to appoint only pro-lifers in his judicial appointments.
John McCain has stated that his judicial appointments will be subject to a single-issue litmus test: abortion. In a 2005 article in the New Yorker, a powerful pro-life advocate said:
"I wanted a commitment from ... John McCain that if elected he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges."
A single issue stance on judicial appointments is closed-minded and dangerous. Essentially, John McCain has promised many well-qualified people that they will be categorically disregarded on the basis of their views on abortion. For everyone but the unborn children, shouldn't we be more concerned with a judge's impartiality and academic qualifications?
3. McCain wants free elections in Iraq, but disregards the Iraqis' basic needs.
McCain, following in Bush's footsteps, will bolster nation building policies aimed towards more free elections. However, this strategy is naive and has clearly failed. Sure, Iraqis with purple ink on their fingers voting for their next leader sounds great. But, it is ultimately only a semblance of democracy. Without focusing on basic human needs: security, education, basic infrastructure, and food, no 'free election' will accomplish anything.
Obama's foreign policy will focus on organic, incremental change and humanitarian efforts as a stepping stone to building the foundation for new successful democracies. Placating the American public with news of more elections in Iraq and Afghanistan simply doesn't cut it.
4. McCain is OLD!
This isn't as bad as it sounds. McCain is still answerable to an antiquated moral framework that discriminates and marginalizes. For example, McCain was absolutely baffled when asked if he thought it was reasonable that Medicare covers Viagra, but not birth control. Reasonable, intelligent, and utilitarian decision making can't happen at the hands of someone who is so constrained by his ultra conservative 'family values' base, that he can't even take a stance on the availability of birth control. Raging, 4 hour erections are a different story.
5. McCain will drastically cut valuable social programs, but still deficit spend.
Some programs that McCain pledges to eliminate:
Head Start funding for 340,000 kids
Pell Grants for 1.6 million college students (universities are for poor kids, too??)
Title 1 School Funding
WIC assistance which includes nutritional foods, nutrition education, and health screenings for 3.4 million low-income parents and children
But, don't worry, kids. Defense spending will see no cuts under McCain's iron fist.
Monday, July 28
Smoking By Yourself?
This is my first foray into the blogosphere. It will be poignant, relevant, and...I'm full of shit.
It is a longer story for a longer time, but a brief version prefaces the dilemma I face. I am currently in a program that includes random drug testing. Thus, I am unable to indulge in black tar heroin, crack [whores], cannabis (indica and sativa strains!), and alcohol. As a result, I have had to become creative in finding new permissible self-destructive vices.
Speaking of which, I bought a hookah the other day. As with any new purchase, my shiny, black, new tobacco water pipe is delightfully novel. So, as I sit here listening to Futurehead's self-titled album, and chatting on AIM...I succumbed to my prominently displayed, enticing new vice.
So, after lighting the coal and packing the molasses drenched apple flavoured tobacco into my new 'bowl'...I am sitting here, alone, smoking. Puff after puff, I become increasingly dizzy. Dizzy with self-doubt. Smoking hookah by myself? Exactly how shameful is this? I will cease and desist and ponder this inquiry. Good night.
It is a longer story for a longer time, but a brief version prefaces the dilemma I face. I am currently in a program that includes random drug testing. Thus, I am unable to indulge in black tar heroin, crack [whores], cannabis (indica and sativa strains!), and alcohol. As a result, I have had to become creative in finding new permissible self-destructive vices.
Speaking of which, I bought a hookah the other day. As with any new purchase, my shiny, black, new tobacco water pipe is delightfully novel. So, as I sit here listening to Futurehead's self-titled album, and chatting on AIM...I succumbed to my prominently displayed, enticing new vice.
So, after lighting the coal and packing the molasses drenched apple flavoured tobacco into my new 'bowl'...I am sitting here, alone, smoking. Puff after puff, I become increasingly dizzy. Dizzy with self-doubt. Smoking hookah by myself? Exactly how shameful is this? I will cease and desist and ponder this inquiry. Good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
