Blogledge

Not a right, but right

2009-08-25T15:40:00.003-07:00

Let's all take a moment and forget the politics of healthcare. Forget how you're registered to vote, what channel you get your news from, and what you think of the president and Congress. Take a breath. Now ask yourself this question: is it a moral imperative to reform healthcare so that those unable to attain coverage are able to do so?

The answer, clearly, is yes. That isn't to say I support the idea of a single-payer system (I don't) or a public option (I don't, at least not as it is currently defined). It means I agree with Obama and others when they say that this is a moral issue, not just an economic or political one.

We forget -- while thinking about big government and small government, about political parties and numbers of votes, about the sheer political gravity of this issue -- that lawmaking is sometimes about right and wrong. Democrats forget because they feel powerful. Republicans forget because they feel weak. As parts of either a significant majority or minority, most have retreated into political comfort zones. There are exceptions, of course.

If we all stopped for a minute and agreed on this much I think we would be much closer to finding the solution. If we viewed the issue through a lens of right and wrong, with the idea in mind that this matters, could we put parties and allegiances out of mind for a while? That might not jibe with the kind of people drawn to politics. I don't know.

Roger Ebert, whose writing I love but whose politics I don't care for, said something similar last week, though from it he drew a conclusion I disagree with. In paraphrase, it went something like this: if healthcare reform is morally right, then the public-option plan is morally right. This is too easy, too political. If healthcare reform is a moral imperative, we need to do better than that.

This might be the first of multiple posts on healthcare. If it is, I'll get into what shape I believe reform should take later on. Maybe that will happen in the comments. I hope it does, because this post is a better starting point for debate than one involving specifics.

TWE: Money Clips

2009-05-22T14:16:00.003-07:00

Men don’t (or shouldn’t) carry purses, and as such must choose from only pocket-sized vessels in which to carry their money. Which pocket to carry money in is also a concern – if you wear a jacket regularly you are blessed with many pockets from which to choose – but this post addresses my taste in money-carrying devices. I prefer a money clip.

Wallets are fine. There’s nothing wrong with a wallet (unless you shove it in the back pocket of your slacks, ruining the slacks and making you look dumb). But a money clip says some things about the man who carries it. And they’re all good things. A money clip draws attention because it’s distinguished; a wallet is ordinary. A money clip says you’re a man with nothing to hide; a wallet is a mystery.

Practical benefits of the money clip include:

It forces you to minimalize. Your Costco card that you use three times a year, your video rental membership card, and receipts from your last seven visits to Taco Bell don’t need to be in your wallet, but they probably are. They just can’t fit in a clip. How much does one person need? A few folded bills, an ID, a credit card or two. That’s about it. For special circumstances (like a trip to Costco) think ahead and grab what you need.
It necessitates the carrying of cash. Understandably, use of cash is in decline, but we all know how annoying it is to wait behind someone in line while they pay for their $1.85 cup of coffee with a credit card, or to have to buy your buddy lunch because he didn’t think to bring cash to the burrito stand. Don’t be that person.
It’s just less to carry. Enough said.

I wish I was awesome enough to regularly use a money clip. My bulky wallet will probably give me back pain later in life. Men, give the clip a try. Too much stuff to carry? Get rid of some. Or ask a woman to put it in her purse.

The Weekly Endorsement: The Summer Movie Season

2009-05-07T15:09:00.005-07:00

I love the first week in May. At other times of the year, movies are divisive. But come May everyone agrees on why we go to the movies: it's damn fun. Critics sometimes try to maintain some kind of artistic standard, but more often than not they say stuff like, "It's the kind of blockbuster that makes you happy movies exist" (Katey Rich). Other seasons isolate certain demographics, but summer is for everyone!

Summer's also the best time to see art and entertainment come together and blow our minds. Some people say you have to sacrifice one or the other, but summer respectfully disagrees. For example, content aside, Star Trek is an interesting piece of art simply for daring to take on and revamp an established cultural phenomenon. For the same reason, it's an interesting piece of commercialism. And it's probably awesome to watch, too.

Another reason: everyone pays attention to box office figures. If you're a big nerd you pay attention the whole year, but everyone seems to care more in the summer.

For being all-around awesome, the summer movie season earns my weekly endorsement.

Introducing a new feature

2009-04-29T16:19:00.005-07:00

When I started this blog, writing only opinion pieces seemed like a good idea. It was somewhat original, set my blog apart from those of my peers, and expressed part of my personality in its very concept. Additionally, I enjoy having a blog that is clear in its purpose and direction.

The problem: it is hard to keep up with a blog when so much effort is required for an entry. As it stands, in order to pull off a successful post, I need to develop a strong opinion about something, remember I have a blog where I can write about it, have the time to write about it, and write something that I like enough to post. Apathy, laziness, and forgetfulness all stand in the way of frequent posting, which is why (as you may have noticed) I manage to only crank out about one entry a month.

To correct this, I have developed a new feature for my blog which breaks from the letter of its original intent but, I believe, stays true to the spirit: The Weekly Endorsement. This will be, well, an endorsement of anything that I find cool, believe in, or for any reason want to give my seal of approval to. It could be a philosophy or political ideology, a product or service, a person, a way of life. Anything, really, and it will come on a weekly basis.

The Weekly Endorsement will not replace opinion pieces, which I'll still post when I can, but it will force me to post more frequently and might lead to more blog features in the future.

The first endorsement is lighthearted, but gives you an idea of what I'm going for. So without further delay...

The Weekly Endorsement: Charmin Ultra Soft

I believe in spending responsibly, but there are certain things that are just not worth compromising on. Underwear, for example. Coffee for another. When it comes to toilet paper, saving a buck or two is just not worth having to clean yourself with anything but the best in sanitary technology.

Besides the obvious physical comfort of a softer, plusher line of TP, Charmin Ultra Soft (not Ultra Strong -- that is a completely different animal) offers other benefits. Firstly, you don't have to change the roll as often; the grocery store brand is cheap, but the rolls come with about half the actual paper on them. Secondly, guests in your home will never think of you as cheap. Finally, waste is eliminated; I firmly believe that I use less toilet paper in terms of mass because a square or two of the good stuff is significantly more effective than 10 of the cheap kind. This also cuts down on toilet clogs.

This final point is especially important because it leads me to believe that an investment in more expensive toilet paper actually saves me money. Initially, it costs a few extra bucks, but it lasts way, way, way longer than a package of generic. Your best bet? Buy in bulk at Costco and reap the physical and financial rewards every day.

A lost art

2009-04-03T10:30:00.001-07:00

I write opinions because I like to and because it’s a challenge for me to take the thoughts in my brain and put them on paper (so to speak) in an ordered, reasonable fashion. If the end result is a coherent argument I’ve succeeded – if not, I’ve failed. What I mean to say here is that I write opinions not because of a burning desire to let all three of you who read my blog know what I think about stuff, but because it’s a good way to work on skills that I think are valuable. The debate that hopefully follows is an added bonus.

I was commiserating with a friend (one of the aforementioned three readers) the other day about how we often offend friends by turning everything into an argument. We like debate for the sake of debate, and find it hard to understand why everyone isn’t just like us. I can see how annoying we must be to other people, but I have the hardest time letting someone’s opinion just hang out in the air without asking, “Why do you think that?” Especially if it seems ungrounded to me. (Side note: be flattered if I ask you to defend yourself. It means I think I can learn from you.)

From what I’m told, debate was a skill that used to be valued. I wonder how long ago I wouldn’t have had to risk eye rolls for expecting someone to have reasons why they believed something.

It seems like opinions are too easy to come by these days. I’m allowed to pick one up and call it my own because the New York Times prints it, or because my friends say it. As an example (just an example, I’m not getting political here), everyone I met in Europe preferred Barack Obama for president and went out of their way to tell me so, but I only met one person who, when questioned, could tell me why. Their culture allowed them to have a shallow opinion.

I call this “opinion inflation,” and I think it’s ruining our ability to think for ourselves. Never having to answer the question “why?” means I’m free to think or say anything, without having to take the initiative to examine evidence for myself. It means I can pretty much expect not to be challenged.

Opinion inflation is but a symptom of the larger disease: a fear of conflict, even the healthy kind. But that is another discussion for another day. For now, be confident enough to not accept everything you hear. Be willing to say, “I don’t know” when you don’t know. Ask why and expect to be asked why in return. We’ll all be better off for it.

Why approval ratings are dumb

2009-03-19T15:35:00.004-07:00

The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion article last week on Obama's falling approval rating. The article was based on recent news that "polling data show[s] that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001." That was the general sound bite from conservatives everywhere, who seem to want to latch on to any news that this presidency is already a failure.

I’m not Obama’s biggest fan, but I’m insulted for him that the public thinks his job – which involves so many moral complexities, heavy stresses, and general gray areas – can be summed up by a simple thumbs up or thumbs down. Like many things, we are insisting on measuring something very gray in terms of black and white. Most people are happy with that; the idea that US politics are all about two opposite, warring factions makes it kind of fun. The truth that most of us can’t align neatly with one camp or the other isn’t quite as sexy. Maybe that’s why politicians who aren’t heavily partisan are rare.

I guess it bothers me that people put so much stock in approval ratings. A number doesn’t reflect on the kind of job a president is doing, because we don’t really understand the president’s job. We understand what he does in public, and what the constitution says he can do, but day-to-day we just don’t know all the information he sees and the choices he makes, and we aren’t entitled to that information. Discretion is part of the job description, which means a president can’t hope to please everyone. It also means that when we approve or disapprove we’re making an uninformed decision.

Republicans should stop drooling over this data, because the truth is that history tends to remember presidents very differently from how they’re seen during their time in office. I’ve lived through just enough administrations to know that. It’s too early to tell how Obama or W. will be remembered (but God knows that hasn’t stopped anyone from trying). History is just now figuring out what it thinks of Clinton’s presidency.

History doesn’t get caught up in hate-Bush hysteria, nor does it hail Obama as the second coming of Christ. Hopefully, in ten years we will be able to judge this administration by its merits.

The Shield and how it affected me OR: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love TV

2009-02-13T12:52:00.000-07:00

I just did a search on Facebook. I typed in "I don't watch TV" and the results I got back included several friends, a number of groups, and a whole slew of random Facebookers dedicated to the anti-TV cause.

I guess I just don't get my generation's opinion on TV. It seems to me that the popular opinion among people my age is that TV is unwaveringly bad for you. Or at least a lot of people will go out of their way to let you know that they don't watch much TV. Stuff White People Like had an entry about not owning a TV. All the cool kids like to say that it will rot your brain or make you stupid; these are usually, and ironically, the same kind of people that won't use the word movie, but only film. You know the type.

In the mind of our generation, when did television become slop and film stay art? I could make a pretty good argument that television is a better artistic medium than movies. Television gives its creators a lot more freedom to develop deeper characters, and more of them. It has the ability to tell more stories, and longer ones. It's harder to make a TV show that's consistently compelling for five seasons than it is to make a movie that's compelling for two hours. Way harder. Provoke me if you ever want to hear the long version of that argument.

Last night I watched the finale of The Shield. I got pretty emotional about it. That sounds dumb, but this was a show that was a formative -- perhaps the formative element in my appreciation of and education in the media arts (a term here encompassing film, television, and related forms). It meant a lot to me because from it I learned the point of making art on television. And damn if the end of the story wasn't haunting -- I didn't sleep last night.

My point is this: there's not a movie (or film, if you like) on the planet that could stick with me like the end of The Shield did. That's because I didn't spend seven seasons and a hundred hours growing and changing and learning and experiencing life along with the characters in any movie. We spent two hours together! I barely knew any of them! The challenge of film, I suppose, is conciseness (make me care about someone in two hours or less, admittedly an achievement) while the challenge of television is consistency (make me care constantly about someone for years).

"But Jeff, TV is centered around commercial breaks -- it's just a tool of the man to get you to buy stuff." Well, you're right, TV is built around commercials, which for one thing means that we always get proper structure. So we don't end up with crap like Zodiac that should/could/would have been really good but wasn't because no one pared an hour off the second half. Plus sometimes commercials are cool. Be thankful for it.

I want TV to get its due. It's certainly art, and some argue that the right kind of TV can make us smarter. Steven Johnson argues that we recognize this subconsciously: "The shows that have made the most demands on their audience have also turned out to be among the most lucrative in history."

I used to be embarrassed to tell how much I liked TV. One day I decided not to be. Now I'm honest.

In defense of Quantum of Solace

2008-11-05T06:27:00.000-07:00

Well, it was a letdown. But an expected one. After all, could the follow-up to Casino Royale ever be as adored as its predecessor? This movie will see its share of poor reviews, I expect. It already has over here, where it came out a week earlier than in the states.

I'd love to join in with the complaining, but it's really hard to when the Bond franchise has been reinvented so delightfully. If we think about Quantum of Solace in terms of its place in history, we have no choice but to be grateful for it.

Two years ago, right before the release of Casino Royale, the Bond franchise was on its last legs. Camp and melodrama had slaughtered the Bond we all knew and loved. A piece of my childhood died when I watched Pierce Brosnan wind surf that giant, Arctic wave. Audiences were getting fed up.

But we saw Bond made over. And it was awesome. And what made it awesome was that Bond was -- really for the first time -- human. We got to figure out who Bond was all over again, just as he was figuring it out for himself. So of course this one's not as good. This kind of Bond isn't surprising anymore, especially after we've all watched Casino Royale 700 times on DVD.

But take this as a necessary chapter in the new franchise. Take it as a transition to ease us into a string of great movies. Simply, it's a story of revenge -- more a sequel than a series installment -- but without it we couldn't buy a James Bond who's up to his usual business (now that we're being asked to buy the things Bond does rather than suspend our disbelief). With revenge out of the way, Bond is free to get back to normality, and so are we, who have invested so much in a stoic character we can, for the first time, understand.

If nothing else, appreciate it for the little things that tell us Bond will eventually be up to his usual tricks, but will still remain raw and human. He will (and does) sleep around, but looking into his eyes at the end of Quantum of Solace we finally understand why. He will (and does) kill a lot of people, but may have very human doubts about it; in this installment, even, we see him torn over the concept of revenge, and changed because of his experience with it.

The last shot tells us that Bond has spent the last two movies becoming who we already know he is going to become. So if you don't like this one know that good and familiar things are coming. And appreciate Quantum for making it possible. Anyway, a movie not quite as cool as Casino Royale is still a pretty rad movie.

Recent character judgements on McCain and Obama

2008-09-29T13:06:00.001-07:00

Well, who knows what influence either Barack Obama or John McCain had on the bailout discussion? I suppose we will never really know. I don't understand a lot of the financial lingo when I read about it. That's ok -- this post isn't about policy, it's about character.

McCain offered to suspend his campaign until a solution was found. He proposed to postpone the first debate. Here is a move that he and his advisers had to know would be an unpopular decision and written off as a political stunt. They had to know that and they did it anyway.

Obama slammed him for it. I can't find the exact quote now, but he said something like I think we can have a 90 minute debate and still find time to solve the problem. And I'm not surprised. Here is a man who has served at the federal level for 3 and a half years. After two years in that office he began campaigning for his next office. By the time the general election happens, half his time in his current job will have been spent looking for his next.

I wouldn't expect a man who's always had his eyes set on his next job to understand postponing his campaign for a few days. Maybe he can't because he's barely ever been in office without campaigning; only 3 years after he was in the state senate of Illinois he was campaigning for a federal position (he ran unsuccessfully for the House in 2000). I'm not sure I can buy that this is a guy who is really interested in politics to serve the public. Sounds more like a guy trying to serve himself, a guy who has always had eyes for the presidency, a guy who isn't really about change.

I gain respect for a man who is willing to do the job he has, especially if it means a sacrifice, who says afterwards: "Whether I helped or hurt, I'll be glad to accept the judgement of history." I lose respect for a man who won't prioritize the job he has over the one he's trying for, and who after not putting his job first still tries to take credit for the results: "[The proposed provisions] are identical to the things I called for the day that Secretary Paulson released his package. That I think is an indication of the degree to which when it comes to protecting taxpayers, I was pushing very hard and involved in shaping those provisions."

In spring of 2007, someone asked me who I would be if I could be any politician for a day. I said Barack Obama so I could see if he was full of crap or not. I haven't quite figured it out yet, but I'm leaning more and more towards yes.

On lowering the drinking age

2008-09-08T11:53:00.000-07:00

"If I can vote, I should be able to drink a beer." I can't tell you how many times I've heard this as the end-all-be-all argument for a lower drinking age than 21. College students love to use it. And apparently so do college presidents. Have you guys heard of the Amethyst Initiative? 129 college presidents have signed a statement advocating a drinking age of 18. They think it will curb binge drinking amongst college students because a legal age of 21 creates a "culture of dangerous, clandestine 'binge-drinking.'" A quick aside: Robert Shelton refused to sign.

My question is this: is it really reasonable to say that college students won't binge if they can drink legally?

Short answer: No. Long answer: Hell no.

Students drank heavily before 1984, when states were pushed by the federal government to set a drinking age of 21. Students drink heavily in other countries where they can drink beer at 16. And, of course, students drink heavily in this country when they aren't yet 21. Just lowering the drinking age isn't a magic fix. Some have said college presidents just want to not be responsible for their students breaking the law.

I think the drinking culture that surrounds college doesn't come from a law. It comes from our perception of college. We think just as much about the social side of college as we do the academic side. And for a lot of people, going to college after high school is a way to put off adulthood. I'm not even sure I'm exempt from this part -- my parents paid my whole way through college. The solution to students binge drinking is not changing a law, it's changing our perception of what a university education is about.

Back to the beginning of this post -- if people are responsible enough to vote at 18, why aren't they responsible enough to drink alcohol? Well, are 18 year olds really responsible about voting? Most 18 year olds I know could care less about politics. Those that are into it often regurgitate what their parents or friends say. Maybe 18 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Or maybe they should have to prove they can handle the responsibilities of adulthood, and when they do we can allow them to vote and drink and have other adult privelages. But simply changing an age isn't a solution, it's a cop-out, an easy way to push a problem into someone else's lap.

The future of comic book movies

2008-08-19T19:54:00.000-07:00

If this summer proved one thing, it's that superhero movies are still bankable. A few critics I read seemed surprised that nobody was tired of them yet. In any case, I'm glad we're not, because it means I get to see a movie that could perhaps make me feel more patriotic than Top Gun and Rocky IV put together: Captain America. I don't know much about comic books, but I do know that a guy with an invincible shield, a hatred for Nazis, and a costume made out of the American flag might make me feel good about my country.

I've been thinking long and hard about who should play him. Here are my endorsements:

Dwayne Johnson:
So I know Captain America is supposed to be a little more Aryan, but think about it. This guy is huge! And Captain America is a serum-enhanced, perfect human specimen. Plus we know he can do action. Comic book movies have a history of changing the ethnicity of their characters. And besides, make-up and hair dye could make him look as white as those guys who always play Jesus.

Look up a picture of Captain America. No one could look as muscly and tall as he does (and be as adept at kicking ass) except a former pro wrestler.

Aaron Eckhart:
Look at that square jaw. This guy was born to fight Nazis. He's a little on the older side, but he still beat up a few dudes pretty bad in The Dark Knight, and for a guy in his 40s he's pretty fresh looking.

People might be confused because he's already wrapped up in a superhero franchise, but it's a different universe so there's no chance that his two characters will ever have to meet each other.

Matthew McConaughey:
Witty, and has a winning smile. He'll drive the women into the theater along with the men. Plus it's doubtful he'd turn it down to do some lame romantic comedy.

Hello!

2008-08-15T15:32:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my blog! Here I will opine on politics, current events, pop culture, and probably find excuses to use words that I really like (like opine). I hope you enjoy, and while you do, keep a few things in mind:

This blog will be opinion based. Disagreement and debate is welcome and encouraged.
Tell me things you want to hear about! The idea here is to get my opinions and yours out in the open so we can search for truth together.
Please don’t feel the need to point out grammatical errors in my posts. I know white people love grammar, but please try and restrain yourself.

So, here’s my first post/rant back in the blogging world. My thoughts on race:

Try as I might, I cannot get away from the topic of race right now. Besides the nonstop election coverage forcing us to consider a racial minority in the White House, I find myself working in close proximity all day with a more racially diverse group of people than I have ever spent consistent time with before. This work takes place in the receiving area of the U of A bookstore, where the shipments of books I unpack all day seem to overwhelmingly deal with race.

This last bit has gotten me really upset. Every – no exaggeration here, I really mean the word every – book on race that I have looked at has a title like “The White Man’s Problem” and talks about how white people really suck and are the sole source of the problem when it comes to race. A rant seems in order. So here are a few of my thoughts about race:

I’m sick and tired of hearing white people tell me how deep down I’m probably a racist. From my experience, I don’t hear minorities complain about racism nearly as much as white people do. Besides Jesse Jackson.
College-aged Americans like to idealize Europe, but forget that they have a long and distinguished history of racism. Europeans are only recently dealing with the melting pot effect that Americans have always had. And I hate to break it to all those American college students who think Europeans are the cat’s pajamas, but they are often horribly racist. Case in point: this picture the Spanish Olympic basketball team took before going to Beijing:
John McCain’s Paris Hilton ad was not dealing with race. It just wasn’t. And I lost a lot of respect for the Obama campaign when he said that whole thing about the dollar bill.
The reason I thought Crash deserved the Oscar a couple years ago was not because it was better produced, written, acted, etc. than the movies it was up against (it really wasn’t), but because it was the only – again, no exaggeration – honest, open-ended take on American race relations I’ve ever seen. It supposed that there was more to the race problem than white people still being scared of people with dark skin. That’s a very rare thing in pop culture.
My recommendation for easing race relations: lighten up. I’ve made racial jokes to the people I work with and they laugh and make them back because they know it’s in good fun. I often think that people really aren’t as sensitive about race as we’re told they are.

By the way, how come no one has cried foul about Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder yet?