Today's fortune cookie reads: "You are a true and sincere friend."
While flattering, I'm now considering the logical possibilities of "true" but "insincere" friends, and "false" but "sincere" friends. What would they even look like, and how would Hollywood try and cram them into a summer movie.
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
20110513
20090615
On Iran
Iran is currently in a state of chaos. The results of their election, currently being contested under suspicion of fraud, have literally filled the streets with angry protests. There have been clashes with riot police, clashes with loyal supporters of Ahmadinejad, blood, tears, and fires. In short, social uprising.
First and foremost my heart goes out to the people of Iran. The tumult they find themselves in is surely frightening, dangerous and ultimately pivotal in how they may lead their lives over the next decades. My thoughts and prayers go out to them.
Secondly, these events throw numerous others on US shores into sharp contrast. From the Tea Party protests to the anger at AIG and similar institutions responsible for our economic collapse, a new light is clearly shed on their meaning and relevance.
For those of us who bother to keep tabs on the balance between Republicans and Democrats, the Tea Party protests represented a weak, pitiful attempt on the part of the former group to assert they had grass roots support and legitimacy on a level equal to or greater than Obama. The narrative they attempted to convey was that there was growing, angry opposition to Obama's socialist policies that would boil over into a political revolution.
Today we can see what a political revolution looks like, and it is impossible to do so without observing how little resemblence there is to the Tea Party protests. Revolution is infectuous, massive, and immediately garners forceful responses from those who oppose it. There is blood, violence, hope, despair, and most of all chaos. The entire country of Iran worries as to the outcome of these protests, no matter what their affiliation or beliefs.
Looking back as newcasters proclaimed the Tea Party protests a revolution, it seems at best a joke. One can declare a top a carousel because it spins and all that is proven is one's ignorance.
But that ignorance is important because it isn't limited to Fox News, conservatives or Republicans. The American people, as a whole, have forgotten what revolution is after nearly 250 years of independance. We have been so tamed by our freedoms that the idea of simply protesting something seems revolutionary. Consider the following quote:
Jon Stewart touches on an oddity of American politics. For all the vitriol thrown about between parties and sides, however much ire one can draw from friends and coworkers over differing political views, few people put even a modicum of effort into expressing that intense emotion in a concrete fashion.
The massive economic collapse would, one thinks, have easily produced similar, massive demonstrations against the corrupt, disconnected executives who spearheaded our current situation. While we elected a very different president than our previous one, the uprising hasn't happened. Are we naturally more peaceful or naturally more apathetic? I have no special insight here.
Regardless, the American Revolution has long since ended, its memory faded despite frequent invocations. Revolution is not inherently good; the barriers and structures it destroys are not always deserving or necessary. However, it is a truly American quality to cherish and desire revolutionary spirit. One wonders where it has gone.
First and foremost my heart goes out to the people of Iran. The tumult they find themselves in is surely frightening, dangerous and ultimately pivotal in how they may lead their lives over the next decades. My thoughts and prayers go out to them.
Secondly, these events throw numerous others on US shores into sharp contrast. From the Tea Party protests to the anger at AIG and similar institutions responsible for our economic collapse, a new light is clearly shed on their meaning and relevance.
For those of us who bother to keep tabs on the balance between Republicans and Democrats, the Tea Party protests represented a weak, pitiful attempt on the part of the former group to assert they had grass roots support and legitimacy on a level equal to or greater than Obama. The narrative they attempted to convey was that there was growing, angry opposition to Obama's socialist policies that would boil over into a political revolution.
Today we can see what a political revolution looks like, and it is impossible to do so without observing how little resemblence there is to the Tea Party protests. Revolution is infectuous, massive, and immediately garners forceful responses from those who oppose it. There is blood, violence, hope, despair, and most of all chaos. The entire country of Iran worries as to the outcome of these protests, no matter what their affiliation or beliefs.
Looking back as newcasters proclaimed the Tea Party protests a revolution, it seems at best a joke. One can declare a top a carousel because it spins and all that is proven is one's ignorance.
But that ignorance is important because it isn't limited to Fox News, conservatives or Republicans. The American people, as a whole, have forgotten what revolution is after nearly 250 years of independance. We have been so tamed by our freedoms that the idea of simply protesting something seems revolutionary. Consider the following quote:
"You know, you look at other countries, when they get upset they actually go on strike, they have riots. We just kind of send off e-mails in capital letters."
Jon Stewart touches on an oddity of American politics. For all the vitriol thrown about between parties and sides, however much ire one can draw from friends and coworkers over differing political views, few people put even a modicum of effort into expressing that intense emotion in a concrete fashion.
The massive economic collapse would, one thinks, have easily produced similar, massive demonstrations against the corrupt, disconnected executives who spearheaded our current situation. While we elected a very different president than our previous one, the uprising hasn't happened. Are we naturally more peaceful or naturally more apathetic? I have no special insight here.
Regardless, the American Revolution has long since ended, its memory faded despite frequent invocations. Revolution is not inherently good; the barriers and structures it destroys are not always deserving or necessary. However, it is a truly American quality to cherish and desire revolutionary spirit. One wonders where it has gone.
20090326
Media Rare
There is good news and bad news today. I like good news a lot more than bad news, but I like bad news more than what qualifies as "news" on television these days.
The good news is that our President is on the job. He have a very nice interview to 60 minutes covering the vast scope of all the crises our country currently faces, showing exceptional resilience in the face of incredible obstacles. He also fielded an interesting online forum today, even answering questions a typical politician might deem unseemly. It's good to have a president that's willing to get his hands dirty.
The bad news is the "news" didn't really care about that, and instead got all riled up that Obama laughed once during his interview with 60 minutes. You can get the whole story on that here.
The key here is less that the media blew something out of proportion, but more that they ignored important issues by doing so. This isn't an isolated incident, but a daily, even hourly occurrence. Quite simply, the 24-hour news networks are to insightful coverage what Trivial Pursuit is to a dissertation on the transformation of the nation's zeitgeist. CNN, NBC and FOX are great at provoking and expounding meaningless trivia, but are not thought-provoking or informative.
This is not only a shame, but harmful. Given 40 minutes of interview to pour over, discuss, critique, and grapple with these networks decided that a few seconds of rueful laughter were more newsworthy. I ask a simple question, "How does this help or inform the public?" The trick is that from the perspective of the networks I asked the wrong question. Their version of the question would be, "Does this entertain the public?" The public doesn't want to be informed, they posit, they want to be entertained. Thinking thus, the networks have evolved themselves into a faux-respectable televised tabloid.
While I can't claim I'd watch 24 hours of Jim Lehrer's News Hour, it would do the country good if such a channel came to replace these worthless husks.
The good news is that our President is on the job. He have a very nice interview to 60 minutes covering the vast scope of all the crises our country currently faces, showing exceptional resilience in the face of incredible obstacles. He also fielded an interesting online forum today, even answering questions a typical politician might deem unseemly. It's good to have a president that's willing to get his hands dirty.
The bad news is the "news" didn't really care about that, and instead got all riled up that Obama laughed once during his interview with 60 minutes. You can get the whole story on that here.
The key here is less that the media blew something out of proportion, but more that they ignored important issues by doing so. This isn't an isolated incident, but a daily, even hourly occurrence. Quite simply, the 24-hour news networks are to insightful coverage what Trivial Pursuit is to a dissertation on the transformation of the nation's zeitgeist. CNN, NBC and FOX are great at provoking and expounding meaningless trivia, but are not thought-provoking or informative.
This is not only a shame, but harmful. Given 40 minutes of interview to pour over, discuss, critique, and grapple with these networks decided that a few seconds of rueful laughter were more newsworthy. I ask a simple question, "How does this help or inform the public?" The trick is that from the perspective of the networks I asked the wrong question. Their version of the question would be, "Does this entertain the public?" The public doesn't want to be informed, they posit, they want to be entertained. Thinking thus, the networks have evolved themselves into a faux-respectable televised tabloid.
While I can't claim I'd watch 24 hours of Jim Lehrer's News Hour, it would do the country good if such a channel came to replace these worthless husks.
20080403
Grayscale
This is another interesting comparison between movies and video games. As is par for the course, video games lose.
I must thoroughly contest the author's point, as he's making the same mistake every critic and skeptic of the video game has made since Space War. They're comparing an established media form to a nascent one. It's akin to complaining that a toddler doesn't stack up to a valedictorian. Seriously, that three year old needs to get his act together.
I state it's an unfair comparison, and I mean so because people have forgotten that the same complaints being levied against Super Mario Bros can be turned upon many early but unequivocally important films. Take, for instance, the french film Le Voyage dans la Lune. Youth viewing it today will not, by far, have any reaction similar to that of those who viewed it back in 1902. Viewed through today's lens it's completely outdated, overcome by films that took its principles and surpassed it. So why do we even still know its name?
The truth ignored in the article is that films such as Le Voyage dans la Lune are breakthroughs, as is Super Mario Bros for video games. Eighty years from now people will still know about the intrepid plumber's first adventure even if Nintendo hits game over. The platformer's platformer may be completely outdated, but it's a snapshot of the progress of a media form whose importance can not be ignored.
So how many films from the first thirty-five years of cinema are recognized today as timeless? Looking at IMDb's top 250 films, I found all of six films that fall into that time period, ten if you boost it a couple of years. In fact, it's only when we fudge the range that we even get a film in the top 100.
This isn't to say that all films before the 1930s or 40s were bad, but that they suffer the same problems outlined in the article. They were the natural products of a young media form, and we remember those films not because they were timeless but out of nostalgia or recognition of achievement.
All of the video games today with few exceptions will feature similarly on the lists next century. People will recognize Super Mario Bros as a landmark title important to the development of the industry, but as little else. They'll laugh at Oregon Trail the same way we ridicule the old PSAs. Even the blockbusters of today, such as Spore, will occupy spot #217 on the lists of tomorrow.
It's a fair argument to say that at this exact point in time video games are still an undeveloped art form, particularly when compared to present day cinema and theater. That's perfectly reasonable. However, to misunderstand this as meaning that video games today are uninspired, or that video games in fifty years will continue the trend, is turning a blind eye to the nature of young media.
I must thoroughly contest the author's point, as he's making the same mistake every critic and skeptic of the video game has made since Space War. They're comparing an established media form to a nascent one. It's akin to complaining that a toddler doesn't stack up to a valedictorian. Seriously, that three year old needs to get his act together.
I state it's an unfair comparison, and I mean so because people have forgotten that the same complaints being levied against Super Mario Bros can be turned upon many early but unequivocally important films. Take, for instance, the french film Le Voyage dans la Lune. Youth viewing it today will not, by far, have any reaction similar to that of those who viewed it back in 1902. Viewed through today's lens it's completely outdated, overcome by films that took its principles and surpassed it. So why do we even still know its name?
The truth ignored in the article is that films such as Le Voyage dans la Lune are breakthroughs, as is Super Mario Bros for video games. Eighty years from now people will still know about the intrepid plumber's first adventure even if Nintendo hits game over. The platformer's platformer may be completely outdated, but it's a snapshot of the progress of a media form whose importance can not be ignored.
So how many films from the first thirty-five years of cinema are recognized today as timeless? Looking at IMDb's top 250 films, I found all of six films that fall into that time period, ten if you boost it a couple of years. In fact, it's only when we fudge the range that we even get a film in the top 100.
This isn't to say that all films before the 1930s or 40s were bad, but that they suffer the same problems outlined in the article. They were the natural products of a young media form, and we remember those films not because they were timeless but out of nostalgia or recognition of achievement.
All of the video games today with few exceptions will feature similarly on the lists next century. People will recognize Super Mario Bros as a landmark title important to the development of the industry, but as little else. They'll laugh at Oregon Trail the same way we ridicule the old PSAs. Even the blockbusters of today, such as Spore, will occupy spot #217 on the lists of tomorrow.
It's a fair argument to say that at this exact point in time video games are still an undeveloped art form, particularly when compared to present day cinema and theater. That's perfectly reasonable. However, to misunderstand this as meaning that video games today are uninspired, or that video games in fifty years will continue the trend, is turning a blind eye to the nature of young media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
