My Top 5 Favorite Movies

Not to piss on George Orwell or nothin’ since 1984 is one of my favorite books, but, screw Citizen Kane. It’s in black and white for shit’s sake; the cinematography is not exactly ahead of its time like much of Orwell’s visions. Sure, it’s a good movie, but great? Mmm, only if you think Orwell’s steely eyes make for good acting. No, I’ve got my own favorites you archaic ol’ movie critics.

It is an incredibly difficult task to ask me what my favorite Top 5 of anything is. Most of what constitutes my Top 5 for any given list depends on how many bills came in the mail yesterday, what time the cats want to be fed, and my wife’s horoscope. Or, maybe I’m just moody. But, there are some movies I can watch over and over again, these more than others, for particular reasons.

5 – Saving Private Ryan (1998) – This one narrowly beat out Platoon as my favorite war movie. While Platoon was so gritty it was heartbreaking, Saving Private Ryan added a more specific human element by narrowing the focus of its wartime drama which resulted in me crying like a little bitch at the end. In the beginning of the movie, an aged veteran wonders “Was I good man?” before the movie launches into a heart-pounding D-Day sequence that makes you never want to go to war while making us think this movie is all about Tom Hank’s character. Oh, the swerve on that one. While these days I question the necessity of war – some of the characters in the movie do as well – I find it hard to spit on the humanitarian spirit of this movie (though some critics consider the movie’s plot to be a bit ham-fisted). By the time this one was over, I was also asking myself if I were a good man. I still ask myself if I’m a good man every time I see it. [As a bonus, the name of this film resulted in one of the more clever porn movie titles ever, Shaving Private Ryan.]

4 – Meatballs (1979) – Bill Murray as a camp counselor. That right there basically screams “instant classic.” What sets this comedy apart from other comedy of its time for me are all the nut-ball characters among the counselors and the kids they’re in charge of. In particular, as I was at the time something of a misfit myself, I identified with Chris ‘Who?’ Mackepiece’s character who wasn’t much liked by anyone but Murray’s character ‘Tripper.’ Not to rest solely on the strength of characterizations, the movie plots a conflict with a rival camp that results in one of the most inspiring rally speeches (by Murray) in cinematic history. I could recite the speech even now not having seen the movie since last year, but I suggest you watch it instead. While by now the cinematography sure seem dated (digital re-mastering in aisle five, please!), the movie’s themes – the power of friendships and determination – certainly are not.

3 – Rocky (1976) – Rocky defined then, now, and forever the cinematic underdog archetype. You couldn’t get more of a longshot than boxer Rocky Balboa at the start of this movie. Pit him against one charismatic asshole of a champion in Apollo Creed, and you can’t help but place all your money on the guy you know is going to lose. Only, by the time the fight enters the last round, after Rocky gets up after Micky is yelling at him to stay down, you think this meat bag can win. Shit, you still think Rocky can win after he gets back up and goads Apollo after you’ve seen the movie for the fifth time! [Partly the music’s fault; a flawlessly scored movie by Bill Conti.] I still recall seeing this movie in the theater with my father and everyone was literally cheering the screen for Rocky to win. You don’t forget stuff like that, ever (particularly the fact that Stallone acts in this one). Now, Rocky is the film by which all other underdog films are judged by.

2 – Pink Floyd’s The Wall (1982) – The sucker punch of emotions, wicked animation, and of course the music results in one of the greatest movies of all time and certainly the greatest movie musical of all time. (Chicago and Grease are also great but are nowhere near my Top 5.) The main character, Pink; this guy’s got issues. Not only does he have an abandonment issue with his father dying in WWII, that abandonment issue results in mommy issues as well. He has alienated himself so thoroughly that his wife takes up with another man, leaving Pink to construct a mental ‘wall’ to keep others out. (As Pink is a musician, his ‘wall’ also manifests itself through his art, providing biting social commentary.) Give Pink some drugs while he tries to break through all the madness and you’re left with one really f’ed up movie. Oh, and his teacher doesn’t like him, not one bit. Many people believe Roger Waters was insane when he wrote The Wall but that belief depends on where you think that fine line between madness and genius actually is.

1 – The Matrix (1999) – Forget the sequels for a moment and consider this movie on its own terms. When this movie came out I was just beginning to get deep into philosophy. While many philosophers deride The Matrix for superficially addressing its philosophical topics, the sheer number of philosophical conundrums raised by noir rebels and the guardians of the titular ‘matrix’ alike is mind-boggling (pun intended). Then there’s the matter of the special effects which were groundbreaking for its time, set a standard, and almost twenty years later have aged well. Throw in some awesomely choreographed kung fu and bullet riddled carnage, and this is a great movie for people who enjoy having their thoughts provoked while fists fly. I can recite this movie almost word for word much to the annoyance of basically everyone. I suspect you’re all Agents…

5 Suggestions for Terrorists

Is the word ‘terrorists’ just another word for ‘freedom fighter,’ a sort of revolutionary who is misguided in their use of force? I don’t know about being a revolutionary and all that, but the use of force by terrorists is indeed misguided. After all, what’s the point of terrorism? The point is to instill fear in the enemy, disrupt the lives of the enemy, and make the enemy take notice of the terrorists’ agenda/rightful place in the world. I guess one-out-of-three isn’t bad, if you’re a baseball player. I mean, sure, terrorists create fear but it isn’t enough to disrupt the lives of their enemies. The targets of terrorism, Joe Q Public, still goes to work, still shops for Christmas on Thanksgiving night, and still drowns themselves daily in a three-pump, two-shot Grande Venti Mocha Frappuccino Latte with whipped cream. Plus, Joe Q Public doesn’t care about a terrorist’s agenda because when terrorists have to blow stuff up to make a point, Joe Q Public cares more that people died than what the terrorists stand for. In this way, terrorists can safely be considered morons, but they are also morons for terrorizing in an oh-so-last-century fashion. If terrorists really want to change the world in their favor, if they really want the Western world to sit up and take notice of their agenda, terrorists need to bring their game into the 21^st century. To that end I offer terrorists some suggestions. And, since terrorists will never consider these suggestions because they go for spectacle over subtlety 99.9% of the time, I’m not really aiding any terrorists. (Did you get that NSA? I know you’re listening. Eric Snowden said so.)

5 – Help pass laws that allows gays to marry. Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Why in Allah’s name would I do that?” Hear me out. The fact that gays are being allowed to marry in several U.S. states really, really upsets a great many “patriots” (read: Bible thumpin’ Fox News watching homosexual men who make lots of money pretending to be straight). If you can help gays get married in all 50 U.S. states, imagine the lifelong suffering you would incur among the most primitive members of American society. If no one else, the Southern states will listen to your demands.

4 – Still want to kill, don’t you? Okay, fine, but how about killing only people who actually deserve it, like the people who appear as contestants on American Idol and The Voice? I don’t need to remind you Islamic terrorists in particular that your holy book is meant to be sung when recited…do you really want Taylor Swift to convert to Islam and sing the Koran? I sure as fuck don’t. She’d turn it into a story about some dude breaking up with her and that would be, like, exhausting, and I never ever everrrr want that to happen. Plus, killing all the wannabe singers would spare the world of those really deep insights that are the prerogative of the shows’ judges, especially those ham-fisted analogies about baby seals being clubbed.

3 – Need a little R&R after all that killing? (You did include everyone who showed up at auditions, right?) How about you travel abroad and attack the coffee supply. Ethiopia, South America, wherever; if you really want to demoralize The United States, rob them of their elixir of life – coffee. Slash, burn, poison crops; do whatever you’ve got to do to reduce American consumption of coffee and I assure you the U.S. economy will collapse beyond repair within three months. Nothing will ever get done in America again. (Bonus: A third of America’s workforce – baristas – will be unemployed and unable to pay for their godless liberal college education. Collateral damage is awesome! ) 

2 – Okay, so going after the coffee supply isn’t the immediate payoff y’all have come to love. You still want spectacle and the time-consuming, blood-soaked deaths of warblers didn’t grant immediate satisfaction. Okay, how about blowing up a Budweiser factory or two? Despite the fact that anyone who chooses Budweiser over any other beer is a step below moronic, and there are a LOT of those people, blowing up a macro-brew factory is sure to give even the most die-hard redneck a big, dry lump in their throat. But whatever you do, DO NOT kill the Budweiser Clydesdales. Everyone fucking loves those horses. 

1 – Look, I know you guys are financed by very wealthy people so I know you’ve got the money to pull this one off: Buy all the toilet paper. ALL OF IT. John Lennon wanted us to imagine there’s no heaven? Imagine Americans without toilet paper! Among very few other things, Americans pride themselves on not smelling like ass. That being the case, toilet paper is one of the MOST essential items of consumption in The U.S. seeing how bidets are too complicated and French to use. Best of all, buying all the toilet paper is perfectly legal. No Gitmo for you lot! The U.S. would cower in the face of this ingenious plan. Now say it with me…ha…ha ha…mwah ha ha…MWAH HA HA HA HA!

Emotional Baggage

I’ve recently been accused of lacking empathy and not valuing emotions enough when considering issues great or small. In due course, this question was posed to me which had already been on my mind: Is it better to live a life where one reacts to life’s issues or events with emotion or with reason? To rephrase it ever so slightly, should emotions be valued ahead of reason when it comes to dealing with life’s issues or events? Most basically put, should we more often go on gut instinct or would it be better to philosophically shred every issue to bits? I will not deny that emotions certainly are valuable regarding our experiences as individual human beings but when another person or persons enters the equation, I believe reason ought to trump emotion.

This is certainly not how the world has answered the question put to me, not now and not historically. Even many people I regard as otherwise intelligent place a premium on emotion and not enough value on reason. To them and the rest of the world, I would like to take a moment to consider the toll reacting to the world on a visceral level has taken…

Racism and ethnic pride (code for advanced tribalism) surely dates back further than written records. What is racism usually based upon? A feeling that people who looks different and/or act differently are somehow inferior to the racist without any examination as to whether the opposed group is actually inferior. Consider the Nazis: If black people were as inferior as Nazis claimed, how could black people have defeat Nazi athletes at the Olympics? And, did the Nazis conduct any studies to conclude Jews were the cause of Germany’s problems in the 1930’s? (They may have, but were those studies conducted without biases clouding the facts?) Racism continues today in its many instances, even subtly, such as with parents who demand their children marry within their race or culture, and not for any other reason than their emotion. 

Homophobia is similar in nature and history to racism; it is based in emotion. Homophobes have long invoked the ‘ick factor’ in their argument against homosexuals. The problem is that when you reason about the ‘ick factor’ the argument falls apart. The ‘ick factor’ can be used against any group of people whom one dislikes, even the ones claiming homosexuality is ‘icky.’ Or, at least here in The United States, many homophobes employ The Bible to condemn homosexuality as they feel The Bible is the word of God. Of course, The Bible as the word of God cannot be proven any more than The Koran is the word of Allah which may lead us to think we shouldn’t condemn groups of people for reasons not based in reason. Several states in The United States now allow homosexuals to marry just like interracial couples before them because as time marches on, it becomes ever more clear that the arguments against homosexuals are emotionally derived and not rationally driven. 

Then there are the Charles Ponzi- and Bernie Madoff-type scoundrels who prey upon everyone’s desire to get rich quick in order to steal from them. That over-riding desire to become rich has made people vulnerable to even the most ludicrous scams, such as Nigerian “princes” who fleeced many people when that scam first appeared. The second Bush administration used fear to sell the American public the invasion of Iraq; fear and tragedy is likewise used by American news outlets to keep viewers tuned in. “If it bleeds, it leads,” has long been the U.S. media’s unofficial protocol. There are also crimes-of-passion whose most notorious figures include John Hinckley, Amy Fisher, and Amy Nowack, to say nothing of other domestic abuses that are committed out of anger or the pursuit of power. Even now, in 2013, emotionally driven insanity has expelled a child from school because the sign-language he uses to say his name apparently looks too much like a gun.

To be fair, we might ask what has reasoning done for humanity? For one thing, it has advanced science over religion as a way of knowing how the world works and this has resulted in a much more comfortable lifestyle for much of humanity. Medicine is a scientific invention and science is the noble child of philosophy. (Even many so-called holistic medicines work, having been shown to work by reasoning medicine men of ages past.) Reasoning has also allowed for social justice, as previously mentioned. As you’ll notice of our day and age, where there is little social justice, there is also little reasoning. If we, as a species, took time more time to reason, it seems likely many of the greatest tragedies in history could have been avoided. 

If we think about the Nazis again – it always comes back to the Nazis; they’re just so useful in thought experiments – if they or the nation of Germany had stopped to think about whether the Jews and gypsies were actually the cause of the country’s problems, if they had taken the time to really come to the right conclusion or if they did come to the right conclusion think about a solution that didn’t involve genocide, incredible suffering could have been avoided. I feel similarly about the invention of the atomic bomb; there was little doubt that it could be built but how much debate took place over whether it should be built? Even if it should have been built, how much reasoning went into dropping not one, but two nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians at the end of WWII? Today, a similar lack of conscience has gone into the invention of genetically modified foods, as short-term profits are driven by the emotion greed with no consideration for what the long-term effects of such food might have on humanity or the environment that supports human life. I’m not sure the world would improve greatly by stopping to think once in a while, but not stopping to think has already proved to be disastrous. Why not go down that other road and see where it goes?

I’m not going to say there are never times when we shouldn’t revel in emotion. If I’m sitting on the beach alone watching the waves, feeling a breeze, the sun warming my skin, listening to the birds…no reasoning is necessary since I’m not dealing with other people and taking no action. I am able to be and enjoy the esthetics of my surroundings. Likewise, I can listen to music and let whatever effect it is going to have me take its course because it’s just between me and the music. Unless the stereo is loud enough to disturb my neighbors, there is no reason to restrain what the music I prefer does to me. Sex, of course, is also most fun when it is uninhibited, but such is a situation where there is someone else to consider and reasoning must come into play should an otherwise consensual partner no longer consent (or not consent at all). Emotions do have value, just not at the expense of other people.

Your thoughts?

The Flaw of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism, in its normative understanding, can basically be defined as the belief that every culture is of inherently worth or value. I’ve heard it said that subscribing to this belief is basically what keeps a homogenous society stable and its citizens from killing one another, with those proposing such an idea often offering The United States of America as their prime example. Certainly the example is a faulty one if the need to distinguish between hate crimes and non-hate crimes is any indication. It is also a faulty example if one considers the proclivity of equal rights proponents – be they American or otherwise – to demand rights for or protections of certain populations within other countries or cultures. 

For example, as of this writing, crimes in India over the past year or so have brought recognition to India’s “culture of rape.” Of course, their “culture of rape” has always been there but only now is it recognized how widespread the problem is. Obviously, no inherent worth or value is afforded to this India sub-culture other than from the perpetrators within that culture. It is similarly hard to imagine that in the Western world either a social liberal or conservative is going to claim that any culture that suppresses women to the degree that some Islamic societies do has some inherent value. It is clearly not true that people, at least in the Western industrialized world, actually subscribe to the full onus of multiculturalism’s definition. Perhaps qualifications are in order. 

Qualifications always are in order when considering the idea of multiculturalism, implying that the culture that thought up the idea clearly thinks they are superior to every other culture by insisting other cultures accept the premise of multiculturalism. What I mean is that if multiculturalism is to be accepted, even by the people who thought of it, caveats are in order since the people who thought of it obviously do not condone the suppression of certain segments of a population or rape. To insist other cultures accept multiculturalism implies that the one culture insisting another culture be multicultural clearly thinks the ideas of their culture are superior to the ideas of the other culture. If a caveat is inserted here which amounts to multiculturalism’s defenders saying, “We accept the other culture’s right to exist as they have some inherent value, but that doesn’t mean we have to like their values,” such a caveat is so belittling that the opposing culture’s value is degraded to the point of nothingness. It also allows the saints to go marching in in an attempt to tweek the other culture’s values until the other culture’s values are worth something to the proponents of multiculturalism. Essentially, multiculturalists are saying it is fine for other cultures to be different – in fact, it’s encouraged! – so long as the other culture doesn’t differ in their values too wildly. 

I do find the idea of multiculturalism (such as I have laid it out which is to a large degree how it viewed on college campuses if nowhere else) offensive on grounds other than it’s backhandedness. When I consider a culture such as the Taliban, I do not believe all cultures have inherent worth. I do not condone a culture that bans self-expression, violently suppresses it’s women, and calls for the literal deaths of those outside their culture for simply being outside their culture, especially the ones an ocean away who are so different from they are. Can a defender of multiculturalism actually argue for the worth of the Taliban as a culture without laughing? If they can, can they defend a culture which practices cannibalism or practiced live human sacrifice without laughing? Perhaps they can having defended the mostly laughable idea of multiculturalism for so long. 

I say multiculturalism is “mostly laughable” because I will not go on the record as claiming one culture is superior to another, so I do believe some degree of respect for most other cultures is warranted. Most cultures have as many good and bad ideas as any other, though I suppose in the case of the Taliban I consider that particular culture mostly full of bad ideas as I am not within that culture or subscribe to similar beliefs. Multiculturalism does have the possible benefit of considering ideas or problems through differing cultural lenses (among other lens), so I cannot discount a necessity for multiculturalism entirely. I believe some value can be found in most cultures although sometimes we may have to go looking for that value. Usually, the best value can be found at a downtown ethnic food cart. 

Accepting multiculturalism has never been what keeps groups of people from killing each other. It’s just that people don’t kill each other when resources aren’t an issue (and to a lesser extent, unless a group’s ideology comes under attack). Cooperation among groups born out of evolutionary necessity probably plays a much greater role in cutting across cultural divides than the idea of multiculturalism itself. That said, I politely ask multiculturalists to stop pretending they came up with a great idea. It was never theirs to begin with.