To Be Clear...

... and fair. I'm probably not going to vote for the president again. This isn't because he's a Kenyan-born socialist Muslim or any of the other nonsense that the right promotes because they really can't find anything wrong with the guy. I'm not going to vote for him because he's NOT more socialist. The guy ran on a platform of CHANGE but so far what he's been demonstrating is MORE OF THE SAME. One of his early moves that really impressed me, stopping the Bush-era busting of pot clinics in California, where they're legal, has been reversed. He's started using federal agents to override the state's legalization and decriminalization of pot. I'm not a pot smoker, by the way, but see no reason why, if cigarettes and alcohol are legal that pot shouldn't be. I'll probably vote for the libertarian candidate, whose name escapes me at the moment. But, to be fair, i want to take a look at some of the crap that the right is attacking him on.

THE FAKE OUTRAGE OVER THE PRICE OF GAS

First off, this makes me mad because this is the same right-wing who says that the government should have no control over a corporation's ability to make a profit. One of their presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich, even proposed overturning child labor laws! And yet the government should control this one industry? Make up your minds, guys. And it's a myth that we produce enough oil in America to be self-sufficient, by the way. At peak, we're producing about half of the oil in a day that we consume, according to the USGS. The only way that we can be self-sufficient is if we severely restrict our use of oil and gas. Use up and throw away less plastic. Stop using oil in fertilizers. Use less electricity at home. Drive less and in a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

Another reason that i think that this is fake is because of gas prices themselves. In 2000, when Bush was elected, gas was between $1 and $2 per gallon, typically around $1.50. In 2004, at reelection time, it was about the same. More like $1.80 per gallon, but still up there. In 2005 and 2006, though, gas rose over $2 per gallon and in 2007 most people were paying more than $3 per gallon. In 2008, the middle of the country was paying over $3 per gallon and the coasts were paying more than $4 per gallon. So during the Bush era, gas more than doubled in price. So where was the outrage from the right at that? Nowhere. For the last four years, gas has pretty much stayed between $3 and $4 per gallon. So what's the problem?

UNEMPLOYMENT

In 2000, the unemployment rate was at 4.4%. This was down from over 7% in 1992 when Clinton took office. This is a drop of almost 4 million unemployed people during the Clinton era. In Bush's first term, unemployment went up to 5.5% and we added about 3 million people to the unemployment rolls. During Bush's second term, unemployment rose steadily until 2009 (the year Obama took office before any of his policies went into place), unemployment rose to 9.3% with over 14 million people unemployed, almost triple what it was in 2004. Between then and now, unemployment has dropped to around 8% and a million people were removed from the rolls. So what's the problem?

STOCK MARKET

In 2000, when Bush took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) was around 11000. By 2004, it had dropped to under 11000. By April 2009 (two months after Obama took office, before any of his policies had come into play) it had dropped to under 7000. Between now and then it has steadily risen, breaking 12000 several times. At Friday's closing, the DJIA was over 13000. So what's the problem?

All that i'm saying is that, if you're going to vote against the guy, make sure that you know WHY you're voting against him, and not just buying into the right-wing noise machine.

Peace.

Randal

It Puts You There Where Things Are Hollow... But People Still Want It

I will never understand a desire for fame. Don't get me wrong... i would like to be well-known (and well-respected) for my writing. But this is not the same as "fame". Santana on the television show "Glee" summed it up... "I want to be famous. I don't care for what. I just want everyone to know my name." This seems like a plague in our culture right now. And worse, we cater to it. We make utterly talentless, useless people absolutely famous (I'm looking at you Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie).

Howard Zinn i think it was said "We have devolved from "Did you see me being (brave, smart, honored) on television?" to "Did you see me on television?" As much as i hate to give Andy Warhol credit for anything (another, in my opinion, talentless hack) he was right on the money with his comment about everyone being famous in the future for fifteen minutes.

And worse... fame is a drug. It's apparently highly addictive, and people will do anything to get it and, once they have it, keep it. The female wrestler Chynna, after her wrestling career was over, started a career in porn to keep that fame fix coming (pardon the pun). She's an exception, however... i've seen one of her adult movies and she really does seem to have some talent in that particular field. John Ramsey came out with a new book this month to commemorate the anniversary of the death of his daughter. His jones for fame is so bad that he'll use his dead six-year-old's corpse to perpetuate it. This is made worse by the fact that i seem to be the only person who thinks that he murdered her! I recently saw an ad for some show promising to reunite Amy Fischer (who has also turned to porn to perpetuate her fame) and Joey Buttafuco.

Worse still, it seems that infamy is every bit as good as fame these days. Look at the appropriately named John Wayne Bobbit, who had his "it" "bobbed" by his wife. He also turned to a brief career in porn, and, when that didn't perpetuate his infamy well enough, became a televangelist. Or Charlie Sheen. This is a genuinely talented guy who tried his hardest to turn his career into a grease stain on the sheets, and yet we just won't let him go away. He's on Directv ads. Somehow he has also become a spokesman for Fiat, a brand known for it's class and style. How the heck they managed to cast a guy as their spokesman who has absolutely NO class or style is beyond me.

Another aspect of this, for me anyway, is money. When do you have enough money to have someone approach you to do a commercial and be able to say "No thanks"? When i saw a Macy's commercial featuring Donald Trump and Martha Stewart and a Pepsi ad featuring P. Diddy, i was just amazed that they would do this. I think that this is like the fame thing. Enough is never enough in our society. I have some level of respect for Jim Carrey because he seems satisfied to not do anything but act. He's only done (to my recollection) one sequel. He DID appear on American Idol some seasons back in a Horton the Elephant outfit, but to his credit, he didn't look happy to be doing it. I think that's a case of the studio holding him to some contractual obligation, though, and not because he wanted the attention.

And then there are the fame and money junkies for whom i have some respect, like Gene Simmons. If you read his autobiography, he's pretty clear about the fact that everything that he does has one of two goals: to make more money for him or to increase his fame. And the amazing thing is that everything that he does (including the Diet Dr. Pepper commercials), such as his books and his Kiss merchandising and his TV Show "Family Jewels" are all VERY entertaining.

So i wonder if it's possible for us to take some talentless hack like Paris Hilton or Sarah Palin, or someone who has ruined their career and has no interest in straightening themselves out like Charlie Sheen and simply stop paying attention to them. Robert Downey Jr. is a prime example of someone being rewarded for behaving well instead of badly. He was years ago almost exactly where Charlie Sheen is now. The difference is that he straightened out and salvaged his career, and he's now one of the most sought-after actors in Hollywood.

Peace.

Randal

Movie Review: The Hunger Games (2012)

Year: 2012
Director: Gary Ross
Writers: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray, based upon Ms. Collins' novel
Stars: Jennifer Lawrence
Josh Hutcherson
Woody Harrelson
Donald Sutherland
Toby Jones

I always like to list Toby Jones when he's in a film. The man is an amazingly underrecognized character actor. He played Karl Rove in "W", Truman Capote (perfect casting if it ever existed) in "Infamous", and, of course, was the voice of Dobby in the Harry Potter films.

The film, for those who haven't read the book, is about a dystopian future where the remaining 12 districts of a country are forced to atone for their rebellion seventy odd years earlier by each sending two of their kids (one girl and one boy) between the ages of 12 and 18 to fight one another in the Hunger Games, from which only one child is allowed to emerge alive.

The main character, Katniss Everdeen, volunteers to take the place of her younger sister, Primrose in the games when Primrose's name is chosen.

That's all that i'll say about the story because i don't want to be accused of spoilers.

This is an excellent film. It is almost 2 1/2 hours long, and i barely noticed the time passing. Starting with the screenplay, which was co-authored by the author of the book, to the performances to the special effects, the only gripe that i have with it is the directing, which i'll get to later.

Jennifer Lawrence is perfect as Katniss. She looks and acts exactly as i imagined Katniss would when i read the book. She's been acting for six years, including playing Mystique in "X-Men: First Class", but i still hear reporters refer to her as "unknown actress Jennifer Lawrence". Well, maybe that will change now. Josh Hutcherson was cast as Peeta Melark. Let me say this about Mr. Hutcherson... his forte seems to be walking around looking stunned and that's unchanged here. He wouldn't have been my first choice as Peeta, but he works since the character only seems to exist in the book or movie as a catalyst for Katniss. Donald Sutherland is wonderful as president Snow, and Stanley Tucci rocks as Caesar Flickerman, the master of ceremonies for the Hunger Games with the biggest set of artificial teeth that i think that i've ever seen on the screen.

There is also a hint of political commentary in the film. We are rapidly turning into a society of plutocrats and everyone else and this is evident in the film. When you see the ramshackle, falling down houses that the people of district 12 live in and then the absolute splendor of the inherited wealth and position of the capitol, you can't help but think about the people who make millions or billions of dollars per year in our society by depriving their workers of all but the bare essentials of existence.

THE GOOD: I think that the filmmakers did an excellent job of turning the book into a film. Purists may not like the changes that were made, but purists in my opinion don't seem to understand that if they just turned the book into a film word for word, the film would be ten hours long. They did a great job of hitting the highlights of the novel while jettisoning or changing those things that were necessary to the main story. Trust me, purists... everything that you loved in the novel is here.

THE BAD: I wasn't really crazy about Ross' directing. This is only his third film, and his first in nine years as a director, so i hope that his style is evolving and will even out some in the coming films. My biggest gripe with the directing was his overuse of hand-held cameras. I understand that directors use these with increasing frequency to put the viewer "in media res" (in the middle of things), but, when used to the extent that he uses it in the first hour of the film, all it really did for me was to make me nauseous. Fortunately, for the rest of the film, he shows real restraint in his use of hand-helds.

THE UGLY: The film is brutal. I guess that the novel could be seen as brutal as well, given the subject matter, but the novel was bereft of the splattering blood and explicit scenes of teenagers hacking each other to death with bladed weapons. I think that this is a perfect example of what's known as "ratings creep". In other words, ten years ago, this movie would have been rated R, and i think that it should have. I think that part of the reason that it wasn't is because the books are classified as "young adult" novels, so about half of the anticipated audience would have been locked out by an R rating. If i had a fourteen or fifteen year old, i would definitely let them read the books, but not watch the movie.

All in all a terrific film for older teenagers and adults, but, like the new crop of Batman movies and the Harry Potter films, be cautious about bringing your younger teenagers and kids to it. It is very violent and moderately bloody.

Peace.

Randal