I've got some questions for Buddhists, that you just don't ask.
Please understand that I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and I'm not claiming more understanding than I have. These just are real sticking points for me, and it would help enormously if somebody could lay this out for me.
My biggest question revolves around individuality. If the self is an illusion, then what's the point of any of it? If I'm not really real, whatever "I" am, then it seems to me that absolutely nothing matters. It seems to negate everything, because then, everything could be an illusion. I mean, the four noble truths could be just as much an illusion as anything else. So, it would be just as wise to not bother, right?
My next question is similar: couldn't Buddhism just be a trick to pacify the impoverished peoples of Asia? Now, I've got to tread lightly, because I really don't mean this disrespectfully, but Buddhism seems to have taken hold in some of the poorest, most overpopulated places on earth. So, telling a bunch of poor people that their suffering is actually an illusion, and that their desires cause suffering? That really seems like it could be a trick to keep people in line. A system of control, wherein you get the herd to maintain itself.
Another question is about Time: Isn't time real? Well, time or something quite like it. I mean, I guess I'm too much of a materialist to understand this, but history, fossils, museums, etc: there is a massive amount of external evidence to show that there is an objective past, so how can time be a construct in the mind? Because, if there is a past, there must be a future, as well, otherwise the present couldn't exist. What I mean is this: If I am writing this now, and i read it again tomorrow, doesn't that mean that there is a past, recorded here, and because i can read it tomorrow, that present makes it my future?
Related to that: isn't my reality your reality? What I mean is: if I am here, and you can see me, and you are here, and i can see you, aren't we equally real? So, if we can accept the reality of each other, then, what about third parties? If you and I both see a baseball, even if we count the stitching differently, and even if we notice different scuffmarks, but can show each other those stitching and scuffs, doesn't that make the baseball objectively real, and as real as you or I, even though it can display no consciousness of its own? I just don't understand how, then, it can be a higher truth to deny that baseball is as real as my consciousness, when it's not just my consciousness that recognizes it, but both of ours. Again, I'm a materialist, and maybe that makes me stupid, but I'd love it if somebody could really get it through my thick skull.
From the last post, and resulting comments, I realize that there might be some misconception about me. I'm not a feminist.
Now, you might imagine that I'm some kind of Gynophobe, who can't stand strong women.Nope. Far from it, I like strong people of whichever stripe. I might define "strong" differently from you. I think that arguing doesn't account for strength. Fighting just proves you're out of ideas (and don't get me wrong, I'm out of ideas pretty frequently). No, Strength, to me, is endurance. What can you survive? By that barometer, I don't have a single friend who isn't strong.
Maybe, you think that I wouldn't support equal pay, and equal rights? Nuh-uh! I think that pay should be for the job, not the person, and that we all should be equal under the law. Of course, I think that should work both ways. Just like women should be able to be President, men should be able to be preschool teachers. Just like women should be protected from physical and sexual abuse, so should men be protected from it. Even men in prison, Beyotch.
So, why am I not a feminist? Well, first of all, I don't like the name. I get queasy at any name that ends in "ist". I get really queasy in a word that starts with something I'm not, and then ends in "ist'. I don't much care for the lazy "humanist" tag, either. Of course I like humans, and yes, Go, humanity! but what about the rest of the ecosystem? Ifi'm gonna be lazy, I'd prefer "environmentalist" because I think that the notion of people being apart from the world is silly.
But, there's a lot more. I think that both men and women get a bad deal from thinking about a gender divide, even if it's done in the name of undoing a wrong. I think it sells women short that we don't realize that they can be just as brutal, violent, and power hungry as any man. I think we sell men short that we don't realize they can be just as nurturing, gentle, and self-sacrificing as any woman. See, just like I think pay should be for the job, not the person, and just like I think humans are a part of nature, I don't like when a judgement comes down about men or women. Like, "If women ruled the world, there'd be no war" is just as offensive and stupid to me as "A woman's place is in the home".
I've been on the brunt of sex-based discrimination more than once, and I've been hit by more than one girl. I don't react to that by thinking that Men need some kind of special protection. I react to that by thinking that we should let everyone have the opportunities they deserve, and that nobody should have to put up with abuse.
Oh, the title? It's a reference to an article I wrote more than 20 years ago. That article was called "Wimmin who kill" and it was about trash culture. I changed it slightly to reflect my thoughts on the subject a bit: to keel, as in "keel over" is to lean.
]]>I don’t think I believe anything too strange or weird. I believe that JFK was shot by more than one man, but I don’t think Aliens were involved, or that the CIA was doing it as an attempted Coup, or what have you. I believe that there are life forms not based on Earth, but I don’t think that little green or grey men are abducting cattle. I believe that it’s entirely possible that there are animals we haven’t yet verified, but I don’t believe that Sasquatch is my brother, or that chupacabra is infecting goats across the land. I believe that it’s possible to see, and experience strange phenomena, but I don’t believe that my grandfather is haunting a nursing home.
By and large, I think I’m a rational person. I basically believe that there are systems and rules to the workings of the universe, and that there are reasons for things. I might have some religious beliefs, but none that interfere with my ability to interact with the world. I might have some superstitions, but none that keep me bound. I think I’m mostly tuned into the here and now.
Maybe that makes me dull, and uninspired. Maybe, in order to be some kind of groovy artist, I need to have some conspiracy theory driving me. Maybe, in order to be interesting, I’ve got to have some kind of religious belief that tests the boundaries of modern society. Maybe superstitions add spice to life. I don’t think so, but I’ll take being rational over being interesting, anyway.
My Father talked about the intersection of faith and science once, and I liked his notion. In a nutshell, he thought that it was good to see the poetry in things, but to still accept the facts. It’s good to see the “angel in the sun” all the while recognizing that it’s a bunch of mega hot gases floating in space. So, it’s not that I’m a purely rational being, who can only see the material universe, it’s that I believe that the material universe is more real than my half-understood mental processes.
So, I never quite understood why it was that it appears that, in order to be “alternative” or “countercultural” or whatever they’re calling “not quite mainstream” these days, it’s necessary to believe absolutely irrational delusions, like that the founding fathers were Alien worshippers who were Masonic believers in Illuminati Vangaurdism, or that chanting Hare KRSNA is any better than counting beads in a rosary, or that a secret cadre of Jewish Lizard people control the world bank. Maybe I never did enough of the right kind of drugs, and maybe I kept the wrong brain cells but it still confuses me. I thought that all it took was disagreeing with the majority, and all my disagreements with the majority are fairly rational. I believe in both social and economic democracy. I believe that the world is explainable. I believe that there is no one born more or less noble than another person. I believe in maintaining a sustainable environment. I believe that loud music with an exciting beat is more enjoyable than quiet music with a sedate beat. I believe that recognizable people are more interesting than fanciful caricatures. I believe that people are neither inherently good nor evil, but are capable of both. See what I mean? All rational, yet all outside of the mainstream, when you rephrase it by label as Socialist, scientific, populist, environmentalist, Rocker, humanist, and moral relativist. Stated by label, I sound like a flaming leftie, don’t I? But, my beliefs are compatible with everyone, if you ask me.
That’s why I always liked a theory a friend of mine had: he believed there weren’t “alternative” and “straight” people. He believed there were “Squareheads’ and “Screwheads”. Squareheads are the quiet folks who behave as they should, while screwheads are the wild ones who cannot get along. The funny thing is that an awful lot of squareheads think they’re screwheads, and a lot of screwheads think they’re squareheads. I think I’m a screwhead who’s trying his level best to be a squarehead. How about you?
I’m not Kramer, and I’m not Bennett, nor am I even Sustern, but I am watching the market. I don’t think you’re getting an accurate picture from the evening news. Now, I know this is hardly a revelation, but let me clarify a little bit:
First of all, Housing is not in some kind of death spiral. The market I see is flattening out. By that I mean, the top 20% in price are finding themselves losing value, while the bottom 20% in price are gaining value- just as sharply as the top is losing value. So, what that means is that investors, people who make money in real estate speculation, are losing their shirts, but the middle class homeowners are fairly stable. The real news in housing is that the exotic mortgages that were all the rage from 2001-2005 are falling apart. It’s not the general housing market, and it’s not even the whole sub-prime market. The bottom line, here, is that there was a big push in 2001 to get people into mortgages, so that they could turn these mortgages into securities, therefore, investment brokers pushed the limits past anything reasonable, and in so doing created a class mortgages that were doomed to fail, and everyone who knew anything about it, knew they would fail. That’s what’s happening, and everything else is window dressing. It really doesn’t matter if the homeowners getting forced out are black, white or Latino (For the record, the majority I’m seeing are Latino) what matters is that if you don’t have a mortgage that is either a fixed rate or a traditional ARM (Adjustable rate mortgage: the traditional version adjusts with the prime lending rate, plus 3% or less) you are in grave trouble, because your mortgage is simply not a good idea. You may not be qualified to refinance either, so like it or not, I really would suggest you think about selling, depressed market, or not. That’s the hard truth. Another matter is consumer credit. As all the analysts say, consumers are carrying way, way too much debt. I think that’s a sign of a weak economy, and more certain than mortgage rates as a barometer of how things really are for the general public. What’s really scary is that, because investors are running scared due to the investment market being down, the credit crunch has translated to seemingly arbitrary changes in your interest rate on your Credit card. You can make all your payments on time, for the full amount, and they’ll still adjust your interest rate based upon what you purchased. If you bought too many necessities, or otherwise made it look like you might possibly be strapped for cash, they’ll adjust up, figuring that you are potentially a greater risk for repayment. So, while too much consumer credit debt is never a good idea, now I would say that even using a credit card for convenience might not be such a great idea. That’s something that should be on the ticker.
Second, Gas prices are adjusting up but still are wonky. On the one hand, crude prices are going up not only because of demand. There are, in fact, Oil speculators who are jacking the price up. America is, in fact, hording the strategic reserves to artificially keep up profits for big Oil. Retail vendors are, in fact cashing in. But, on the other hand, that’s because Oil is not a renewable resource, and we really have hit peak (where we’ve used up more than half of all the oil there will ever be). Burning oil really does harm the environment in quantifiable ways. We really are not using oil efficiently. So, in other words, we probably should be seeing closer to European prices, around 8-10 dollars a gallon, but less of that price should be going to profits for Oil companies. If we were even halfway smart, gas taxes would double, and subsidies would be cut in half. The money thus generated would go to research and development of non-carbon fuel. But, related to that, transportation costs should be going up. The days of 100 dollar cross country flights should never have been (don’t get me wrong, I took advantage of them, as well) and we will have to pay for them, now. Expect prices to go up at your local Wal-Mart. But the real story is this: there are coming food shortages. The oil shortages are really a non-issue. We used far too much fossil fuel, and we simply cannot live that way any more, and we will have to adjust our lifestyles. There’s no debate, no story, no excuse. But we are mishandling food, we have been mishandling food, and, unless we change course IMMEDIATELY, the consequences will eclipse what we’re dealing with on Oil. That’s a story.
Is Starbucks going under? Ab-so-freaking-lutely NOT! By now, we’ve all heard that they’re closing 600 stores. They’re also opening 200 new ones. This is just a change in strategy. I thought their “overkill” method of franchising was doomed, but as long as they were doing good, I was happy to be wrong. Now, it looks like I was right to think they were barking up the wrong tree. See, their business model was to allow franchisees to build their new starbucks wherever they wanted, even if there was another starbucks across the road. The idea was to let the individual franchise holders take the risk of location. The issue that has come to bear is that such risk cannot be deferred from the parent company, forever. Sooner or later, you have to actually own your brands. That’s the story, here.
Likewise, the weak dollar, I’m not really all that worried… On the one hand, like mortgages, this hurts the big guys who cashed out on our backs, and will be corrected by genuine market forces, as opposed to the artificial forces that we have confused for the market. Look, Europe needs American dollars; they need us to buy goods. They’re doing ok with the Chinese and Indians, but China is fairly closed and self-contained, and India is really unstable. America, and therefore the Dollar is still necessary to the European, Asian, and world economy. So, this is largely a correction. What is it correcting? The “air” economy that got over-extended. When the dot-coms crashed in the late 1990’s, people talked about an “air” economy, of people over-valuing things that really had no value. Well, post 9/11, there was a different reason for it, but the economy was still pumped up on nothing more than talk, and promises. We delayed the crash that could have come, and should have come in 1997, all the way out for 10 years, with things like exotic mortgages, stimulus packages, tax cuts and subsidies, all created to make the economy look strong, but we’re basing all this on what? A service sector economy. Well, what good is a service sector economy to the world market? Nothing is exported from that, and we won’t learn their languages, so we can even provide those services to them. That’s what’s getting corrected. Hopefully, it’ll get bad enough to mean the death of NAFTA and outsourcing, but I have a feeling that’ll we’ll get screwed by ourselves long before those really necessary measures of actually rebuilding a manufacturing base to our economy happen.
But, on the other hand, the weak dollar is covering up the real story, again. It’s covering up how weak our job market is. It’s covering up how much skilled labor we’ve let slip away. It’s misdirecting us from recognizing that we’ve gone on far too long believing that we’re all rockstars and celebrities while we contribute nothing to the market. We’re selling each other big macs and haircuts and that will not sustain an economy. Farm, factory, and firmament sustain an economy (meaning you need a larger sector of job making food, manufacturing goods, or exploiting natural resources) So, a sustainable economy, ultimately, is one in which a real value has been produced. What’s a real value? Something that’s useful, no matter what. For an example, a doctor, even though he’s performing a service, is producing real value in that by keeping people alive and healthy, they can continue to work and consume. Meanwhile, there’s no real value to a Barber. Don’t get me wrong. I like Barbers, and I think short hair is preferable to long hair, but ultimately you can cut Barbers out of the economy, and you’ve still got the same strength or weakness to the economy. If I’m still not clear, I’ll explain later, if anybody asks. But, that’s my point in a nutshell. We’ve become the kind of country where things of real value, like the information in a doctor’s head, become confused with things of much, much lesser value, like the information in a Barber’s head. That’s really the news story of the generation. We’re a bunch of idiots, filled up with useless information, and so obfuscated from anything real, and sustainable that we wouldn’t know it, if it hits us. No, I don’t mean that in the metaphorical sense. Whether you’ve got a religion or not, and whether you think that fathers should be equal partners to mothers is immaterial. I’m talking about value in a purely material sense. I’ll let the poets argue about whether America has lost its “values”. I’m saying we’re not able to discern Air from pollution, food from poison, and water from waste. I’m saying we’re illiterate. What’s worse is that we don’t seem to care. I don’t care if you pay attention to me, or not. Seriously, I have no desire to be admired, no claim for fame, and no need for notoriety. But it’s disheartening to me that the information I’m talking about is so easily ignored. So, when I say that I find it discouraging that the very, very few who might read this will still find it unclear, I don’t mean that I’m throwing out pearls before swine. I mean that this should be such commonplace thought that even if I articulate it poorly, it should be as clear as when a rockstar sings “If you know what I mean”.
Opinion is nice, and entertaining, but it’s not as valuable as fact. So, even if I’m ranting, the thing that should be outraging you is that our economy is so service based, not that you disagree with one bit or another about how I present this.
To illustrate this: the Election would be all but over if word got out that McCain once had a gay lover in Viet Nam, and yet, the election continues even though neither candidate has a plan to balance the budget.
]]>Then, watch this film.
You know, over the years, I've known people to join what I consider "cults". Girls who go off to follow a guru, boys who start stockpiling guns, people who give up lives that are mostly happy with only a few intense bouts of sadness, for a perpetual glazed over trance, and people who just don't like themselves very much giving up even those small things that make them worthwhile.
It strikes me that there's a lot more cult activity than you might think. It gets disguised as religion and psychology. I'm not picking on any one group, but the next time somebody tells you to stop thinking, just remember this little film.
The more you know....
]]>It struck me the other day how much is right in my life. I feel like I've got the best clothes, the best house, and so on: really great stuff. But, I think I can only feel that way because I have some of the best people in my life. All my Kenneth Cole shirts wouldn't mean as much without my wife around. I could live in a Tin shack if it was just me, but I've got a son, too. So, the key to having the best of everything? Have some good people in your life.
But, I'm really not so much a "people person" . So, I'd want to clarify: don't just have lots of people in your life, in the hopes some will be good. It's better to have only one person, who is the absolute best person for you to know, than to have 100 people all of whom are only marginally good for you to know.
]]>From yesterday:
So, I’m warning you now, this entry will be a mess. I’m just tired of not putting anything up because I’ve got too much going on. I reckon this was meant first and foremost as a kind of diary, so I might as well show everybody just how disorganized I am.
Anyway, so, today’s my birthday. It’s been a harsh day, and it’s not over, yet. Well, a harsh day by my life’s standards. I am fully cognizant that by many, many standards, my life is superb. I’m not trying to claim any victim status, by a long shot.
Basically, I just got called to do a lot of extra work so my bosses could go play. That might sound like a bitter exaggeration. It’s honestly just a recounting. My entire management team decided to go off and play golf today and tomorrow, and left me with their responsibilities. While I suppose I could celebrate my importance in being given such accountability, I know that it will not translate into benefits. This is because they have expressed many times that they are aware that they are above the rest of us, and therefore deserve more prestige and perks. If they happen to take vacation days en masse, and on the same day as they introduce two new major programs, and it just so happens to be my birthday, well, that’s what I’m here for. So, while I don’t mean this as simply a complaint, my issue is this: that this kind of a relationship is the natural expression of our business system. We are encouraged to view those whom we pay for services as less than ourselves. Whether you’re talking about a prostitute, or a doctor, you are encouraged to think of yourself above them. It’s related to what Marx called the alienation of labor. In that idea, Marx is saying that we view ourselves as separate and distinct from virtually everything we do because we are paid for our labor. But, what does that leave for us? Do we become simply our paycheck? Do we become the things we buy with that paycheck? Am I a different person from my Boss because I drive a Kia and he drives a Lexus? Am I a different person because his house has 5000 square feet more than mine? It’s this sort of thinking that led him inexorably to communism. The idea was, inevitably, humans search for identity and meaning. If capitalism, and its system of buying and selling things, including people’s time and labor, leads to inadequate answers about who and what we are, then, we will seek out alternatives. He thought we’d seek out a more equitable solution, hence, he came to communism. I’m more cynical than Karl Marx. Then, again, I’ve got over a century’s worth of additional history to count, as well. I don’t think we’re looking for something more humane, and equitable. I think we’re just looking for something that seems about right. So, we stubbornly cling to notions that we are both what we do, and what we have, depending upon the scenario, but the bottom line, is money. We crunch the numbers. So, if you’ve got more than your doctor, your doctor is a schlub, to you. If you’ve got more than your employees, well, then, you’ve got every right to view them as subordinate to you, in every way, because you’re more of a person than them. All is right with your world, and you don’t even think enough of the next guy’s world to not care about it.
Well, I’m trying to be a little better about that, in myself. To realize and recognize that I’ve got a heck of a lot more going for me, in my life than many have in theirs. Beyond the cliché starving kids in Africa, I have a lot more than even my Bosses, because one of the things I have is the good graces of people and powers much greater than myself. To give you a really simple explanation, let’s look at my wife. She is kind and good to me, and yet, she is more patient, more rational, and more noble than I ever have been. She also earns more money than me, and probably counts for more in this world than me. That such a person is good and kind to me counts more in my favor than any paycheck or car. So, again, I’m not complaining that my day has been made harsh by the indifference and disregard of my Bosses. I’m commenting on an inadequacy of the system they believe in. I still think that there is an answer in all this, but I don’t believe that many will take up that answer. If I were to have a complaint, it would be about that. That so few of us (me, included) are willing to lift our heads up and try to discover something better.
This kind of thinking extends beyond economics, though. I really do try to always recognize the humanity of everyone. I don’t mean in some kind of sappy “Everyone is Beautiful” kind of way. What I mean is that I try to recognize that there are things we do, as people, that are fairly constant. Most people, for example, like to feel important. At least, important enough to warrant some deference, some basic social niceties. So, I try to maintain some decorum. Another example; very, very few people think of themselves as “Evil”. At most, they’ll think they are “bad” in the sense of being incompetent, or weak, in the sense that an alcoholic thinks of themselves as susceptible to drink. So, no matter how wicked the act, I look for where the rationalization lies. Even Charlie Manson finds some excuse for his own acts. Most people think they are reasonable, fair minded and sinning less than they are sinned against. So, I try to disregard that in myself. After all, when even George Bush can look at himself and say “I’m a good man”, doesn’t that discount the merits of such self-analysis? Instead, I try to look at things in terms of how the “other guy” might see it. I’m not looking for approval, though, either. I’m looking for the closest I can come to objectivity. I also recognize that we live our lives in a certain state of benign neglect: most folks don’t think about us twice, if they think of us at all. So, I try to not be too self-important. I don’t know if this is clear at all, but what I am saying is that I try to recognize that we’re all schlubs, down here. We’re neither angels nor demons. Only Johnny Cash, Joe Strummer, and my wife are saints. I guess you could call it the tangent to the golden rule: understand others as they might understand you.
Another way this kind of thinking drives me is that I am trying to give over my little bit towards creating that world that only exists in my head. You know, that world that’s in ecological balance, where people live in dignity, honor, and peace, and where such values matter more. I don’t believe I’ll ever see that world, but I do what little I can to help nurture such hopes.
No, you don't.
Every once in awhile it bugs me. This thing of "I need to express" or "I have to say" or whatever. It's almost always followed up by something that the person doesn't really need to share.
How I feel about it is related to how I feel about a lot of people's notion of "support". Support should mean holding somebody up: helping them up when they fall. It shouldn't mean agreeing to every silly thing they say or do.
So, some thing should be shared. If you have pertinent information, yes, please share. If you're just looking at making yourself feel better about something, please don't. I don't like being conscripted to be your chorus.
Here's a good litmus test for what I mean: if it's something you could stand having somebody disagree with, chances are you're sharing. If you only want agreement, you're probably burdening the rest of us.
Now, of course, I've said and written some things that I'll brook no discussion over. I'm not trying to defend that. Just like everything that bugs anyone, there is a little hypocrisy involved. I could come up with defenses, but no, I won't.
But, I will leave you with a thought: what in the world ever gave anybody the idea that all opinions are equal?
]]>So,I heard about this movie Funny Games, that's been remade frame-by-frame with new actors for an American audience. In a nutshell, the story is this: a wealthy family goes on vacation, but is captured by a pair of bad men who torture them, humiliate them, and then, kill them. The "arty" methodology is supposed to make you think, however, in that one of the killers frequently breaks the fourth wall, making the audience complicit, or victimized depending upon your perspective.
Clearly, this film is a piece of garbage, and I've got no desire to see it. Honestly, though I've liked Tim Roth in earlier films, and found Naomi Watts passable, I hope this movie signals the ends of their careers as actors. It's one thing to be involved in a piece of garbage, but it's another to be a marionette in a slavish remake of a piece of garbage.
Here's my beef, part one: I don't believe that Art is what the Artist makes it. I believe that Art is what communicates best with the audience. I've watched a ton of violent movies, including slasher flicks, exploitation films, and so on. I've seen films with extremely dubious moral perspectives, like Cannibal Holocaust and Videodrome and Salo and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (Please note that saying I've seen them does not mean I've enjoyed them, or thought they were "good". Of these, the only one I thought was a genuinely good film was Henry, and the only one I found even somewhat enjoyable was Videodrome). I am aware of deeply disturbing films being made, especially in the Nazi Exploitation and Mondo sub-genres. Any and all art house philosophy concerning voyeurism and complicity in atrocity is old news to me. The communication that almost all of them make is one of condescension. It's the Philosopher-king looking down on all of us plebes, and haughtily declaring that we content ourselves with bread and circuses. You're soaking in it, is my reply. Haneke is simply an emotionally distant sadist, who is trying to disguise his contempt as both politics and art. But, rather than stick with what could be called an Ad hominem attack, let me also point out an alternate view on violent films: the ones that appeal to a larger subset of audiences invariably have a decent protagonist who triumphs in the end. This is because why an audience will watch a film, or view any Art at all is to be edified, in some fashion. In a violent movie, the edification, as often as not, is "take courage". The odds may be stacked against you in a seemingly endless, brutal and sadistic fashion, but take courage because it is still possible to survive. Think about a generic slasher film; young teens are preyed upon by a relentless and heartless killer, usually with a white, female protagonist who survives by being indomitable. Ultimately, the message is that if you refuse to give in, you will survive. This is what Haneke, and other Art-house failures are spitting on: the very notion of courage. I'm fully aware of the 'satires" and the exceptions, and of the recent "torture porn' movies, but even these movies do not insult the audience in the same fashion, in that, by making the audience identify with the villains, they're at least affirming some humanity, even if they've got it all wrong.
But, that brings me to the second part of my beef: Why would we want to cover the same ground, again and again? The questions of why would anyone want to see something horrible go all the way back to the ancient greeks. There are only two answers: either because life has its horrors, or because we are horrible. I'm firmly in the "life has its horrors" camp. But, the thing is, I don't want to see horrible things. As a punk rocker, I loathed the confusion in "underground" circles of the merely shocking, and the perverse for genuine rebellion. I don't think swastikas look cool, I don't think that porn is a legitimate art form, I don't think that falling outside of behavioral norms is anything other than poor taste. I like to think that a revolution is where you actually change something in a radical fashion, and I don't much care for rebellion where all you do is degrade yourself. In other words, I don't see the point in staying "outside of society" in Patti Smith's words, when you can instead shift society just that little bit. Back when I first got into all the Punk/radical/underground stuff, a guy who called himself "Geza X" explained it this way; we need to make an evolutionary leap. It's as simple as that: the reason to explore the deep end is to learn how to swim. The reason to go down the dark alley is to put up a lamp post. So, Why go back to the question of why unless you're not happy with the answer, or you're ignorant of both the question and the answer. Given that this is now a remake, I think Haneke is aware of both question and answer. So, that just leaves that he doesn't like the answer. He still is looking for some way that he's better, more evolved than us, and we're just cretins awaiting his golden wisdom. I've seen that hundreds of times before, and it's still just wrong. I believe in progression, and I believe in people. I think that humans are perfectible: not perfect, yet, but working on it. So, why would I want to see something horrible? So I can make it better. Otherwise, I'm just G G Allin, rolling in my own filth, accomplishing nothing. In other words, I'm about self-improvement, not self-destruction.
Now, I've got a million more beefs with the whole notion of post-modernist critique. Suffice it to say that I disagree with Foucalt, Debord, and Barthes (who at least is funny, so I'll read his stuff, every once in awhile) because I think they're self-defeating slugs. I think this movie falls right in with them, but that will have to be another rant.
]]>When I was a kid, I went through a phase of really liking Steppenwolf. Later on, I read the Herman Hesse book which is actually far better than the band, but right now, I want to reprint some of the Band's lyrics. No, not borne to be wild, that would be terrible. No, these are to 'Everybody's Next One" which is a song I think applies to a percentage of girls I know, right now. Let's hope they don't apply to you:
She's all alone, just lost another one
Met him yesterday and he's already gone
And though tonight she'll swear it was the last time
A smiling face will come that knows the right line
And then she'll do all the right things with the wrong guy
And when he's gone, next day she'll sit and wonder why
She doesn't know why she's everybody's next one
'Cause she's afraid that the truth is gonna hurt some
All the pity in the world ain't gonna help none
She has to realize that to keep one, her ways have to change some
She tries too hard and she comes on too strong
Digs herself too much and thinks she can't be wrong
She's too impressed by things that do not matter
To be the Queen of hearts is what she's after.
And then she'll do all the right things with the wrong guy
And when he's gone, next day she'll sit and wonder why
She doesn't know why she's everybody's next one
'Cause she's afraid that the truth is gonna hurt some
All the pity in the world ain't gonna help none
She has to realize that to keep one, her ways have to change some