The only thing more boring than a Terry Gross interview.
A Terry Gross retrospective of interviews done as an obit.
RIP
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Women and Violence
So, far be it from me to be misogynist (heh), I just came across this article on Vikings. Apparently, the Viking attacks began as a response to a lack of women and stress on obtaining the same. This was a result of the practice of female infanticide common to the culture. Fewer girls = fewer potential wives, so young men sally forth to obtain resources to obtain wives. And, although not mentioned in the article, if some of them die off in raids, that helps to reduce the strain on the others.
This accords with my own theory of polygamy and violent culture. As Tim Harford points out polygamous societies can actually be economically beneficial for the women involved, as it provides them with an amount of upward mobility not available in a monogamous society. This theory does not account very well for the problems this raises for other members. However, the balance can be returned if we posit that these young men, rather than being disenfranchised and run out of the community, are put to use in some way which will thin out their numbers. So it's hardly surprising that most traditionally polygamous societies also tend be a bit more . . . visceral than other cultures. I would also invert the claim that polygamy causes violence, as discussed after the riots in France. Instead, it is cultures predisposed to violence which leads to polygamy.
Just my thought.
This accords with my own theory of polygamy and violent culture. As Tim Harford points out polygamous societies can actually be economically beneficial for the women involved, as it provides them with an amount of upward mobility not available in a monogamous society. This theory does not account very well for the problems this raises for other members. However, the balance can be returned if we posit that these young men, rather than being disenfranchised and run out of the community, are put to use in some way which will thin out their numbers. So it's hardly surprising that most traditionally polygamous societies also tend be a bit more . . . visceral than other cultures. I would also invert the claim that polygamy causes violence, as discussed after the riots in France. Instead, it is cultures predisposed to violence which leads to polygamy.
Just my thought.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Lucky Ones Movie Review
So, I just got back from seeing The Lucky Ones.
I wanted to like this movie, I really really did. The premise seemed good, it was about soldiers without being about Iraq, and especially seemed to be about the way that soldiers are treated at home after serving in Iraq. Unfortunately, the only scenes in the film were the ones I had already seen in the trailer. That being said, there is one scene at a party which is perfect when a pro- and anti- war guest are having an argument using the three main characters as props in their argument rather than as real people. And when they finally do turn to the soldiers and ask "So what are you guys doing over there?" Tim Robbins gives the best response: "We're mostly just trying to stay alive." To which the pro-war guy snorts and says "well no wonder we're messing it up." Okay, it's a bit biased (pro-war guy has to admit it's not going well), but at least it gets to the view of the soldier.
Unfortunately, these good moments are lost in a daze of boring transitions. I don't know what it was, the dialogue was good, the sentences followed one after another, they made sense coming out of each character's mouth, but it just kept falling flat. The only thing I can think is just simple bad direction.
It's like the director was channeling Bruce Dickinson but just kept telling his post-production staff: "no, this is going too fast, we need more boring."
Finally, I think the film would have benefited immensely from some research on actual soldiers. And I think the Army would have been overjoyed to give the filmmaker access - this film presents soldiers very positively and realistically. What is 50 year old Tim Robbins doing playing a Staff Sergeant?!?! He should have been a SFC at the VERY least, but preferably a First Sergeant, which would have added to his character and allowed him to act in a more paternal role throughout the film. And what was up with Pena's mustache? Now, in the beginning, he has a goatee, which is fine, he's on leave, he doesn't have to conform to AR 670-1. But when he's back in uniform, he has a mustache that clearly extends down and around his mouth - no NCO would stand for that (and seeing as how he himself is an NCO, he would know better). They did handle USERRA well, coming up with a very plausible way for him to lose his job while deployed.
In comparison though, and despite what you might hear from other reviews, this is still a MUCH better film than Stop Loss
I wanted to like this movie, I really really did. The premise seemed good, it was about soldiers without being about Iraq, and especially seemed to be about the way that soldiers are treated at home after serving in Iraq. Unfortunately, the only scenes in the film were the ones I had already seen in the trailer. That being said, there is one scene at a party which is perfect when a pro- and anti- war guest are having an argument using the three main characters as props in their argument rather than as real people. And when they finally do turn to the soldiers and ask "So what are you guys doing over there?" Tim Robbins gives the best response: "We're mostly just trying to stay alive." To which the pro-war guy snorts and says "well no wonder we're messing it up." Okay, it's a bit biased (pro-war guy has to admit it's not going well), but at least it gets to the view of the soldier.
Unfortunately, these good moments are lost in a daze of boring transitions. I don't know what it was, the dialogue was good, the sentences followed one after another, they made sense coming out of each character's mouth, but it just kept falling flat. The only thing I can think is just simple bad direction.
It's like the director was channeling Bruce Dickinson but just kept telling his post-production staff: "no, this is going too fast, we need more boring."
Finally, I think the film would have benefited immensely from some research on actual soldiers. And I think the Army would have been overjoyed to give the filmmaker access - this film presents soldiers very positively and realistically. What is 50 year old Tim Robbins doing playing a Staff Sergeant?!?! He should have been a SFC at the VERY least, but preferably a First Sergeant, which would have added to his character and allowed him to act in a more paternal role throughout the film. And what was up with Pena's mustache? Now, in the beginning, he has a goatee, which is fine, he's on leave, he doesn't have to conform to AR 670-1. But when he's back in uniform, he has a mustache that clearly extends down and around his mouth - no NCO would stand for that (and seeing as how he himself is an NCO, he would know better). They did handle USERRA well, coming up with a very plausible way for him to lose his job while deployed.
In comparison though, and despite what you might hear from other reviews, this is still a MUCH better film than Stop Loss
Plane Travel
So, to add to a previous post about plane travel, here's a new one.
First, from the blog Abu Muqawama, what is going on with the TSA?
Second, a rather poetic description of security at airports:
"Just the Turkish Bath cum I Love Lucy Assembly Line in which I just lost an hour of my life."
First, from the blog Abu Muqawama, what is going on with the TSA?
Second, a rather poetic description of security at airports:
"Just the Turkish Bath cum I Love Lucy Assembly Line in which I just lost an hour of my life."
Monday, September 22, 2008
Irony
So, I'm on campus today, and apparently Trojan condoms are doing some kind of outreach. I didn't go in, but I just thought the tag line was utterly ridiculous:
Why is this ridiculous you might ask? Well, although I'm all for teaching safe sex, perhaps using as a tagline something for which you must have sex to do is not the best idea.
Why is this ridiculous you might ask? Well, although I'm all for teaching safe sex, perhaps using as a tagline something for which you must have sex to do is not the best idea.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Hollywood-ization
Just a short post. I hate Saturday Night Live. I have hated it since sitting through a five minute sketch consisting of Phil Hartman trying to convince Woody Harrelson to sit on his lap (any amusement you might have received from that mental image is funnier than the sketch in question.
However, I have to say that their send-up of Sarah Palin was quite funny. And got to another point which I failed to mention in my previous discussion of Franzen and Meyer's airbrushed pictures. (Sorry, Mom, I still think Franzen's cover picture was heavily airbrushed to make him look more like Guy Pearce - your depth is indicated by the fact that you find him attractive based on his literary appeal, I think).
Sarah Palin is everything feminists don't want, which has been rehashed constantly around the web. She's pretty without substance, powerful, but just subservient enough for patriarchal men to accept her - since they know that at the end of the night she goes home, makes dinner for her family, and probably gives her man a footrub (in both the literal and biblical sense). This was totally characterized when Republicans think that giving up a seat to a woman is somehow supporting women's rights rather than a stupid piece of paternalistic BS.
And this is what I think SNL got spot on with that parody - Hilary is the smart, credible, and (dare I say it?) experienced politician, but she is maligned and disliked. Palin is (dare I say it?) stupid and vacuous, but people love her because she fits our Hollywood conception of a woman. Or to be more precise, our just outside Hollywood concept of what a woman should be.
And I think SNL made up FLRG/Flurge/FLIRG/etc.
However, I have to say that their send-up of Sarah Palin was quite funny. And got to another point which I failed to mention in my previous discussion of Franzen and Meyer's airbrushed pictures. (Sorry, Mom, I still think Franzen's cover picture was heavily airbrushed to make him look more like Guy Pearce - your depth is indicated by the fact that you find him attractive based on his literary appeal, I think).
Sarah Palin is everything feminists don't want, which has been rehashed constantly around the web. She's pretty without substance, powerful, but just subservient enough for patriarchal men to accept her - since they know that at the end of the night she goes home, makes dinner for her family, and probably gives her man a footrub (in both the literal and biblical sense). This was totally characterized when Republicans think that giving up a seat to a woman is somehow supporting women's rights rather than a stupid piece of paternalistic BS.
And this is what I think SNL got spot on with that parody - Hilary is the smart, credible, and (dare I say it?) experienced politician, but she is maligned and disliked. Palin is (dare I say it?) stupid and vacuous, but people love her because she fits our Hollywood conception of a woman. Or to be more precise, our just outside Hollywood concept of what a woman should be.
And I think SNL made up FLRG/Flurge/FLIRG/etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
