As McEnroe Might Say...
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.
My favorite quote: "We believe that Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema's actions are in fact hate speech. The movie is intentionally being named The Two Towers in order to capitalize on the tragedy of September 11. Clearly, you cannot deny the fact that this falls under hate speech. We believe that if they will not willingly change the name, the government should step in to stop the movie's production or to force a name change."
Errr, right. Go buy a clue, morons.
The Cross Burning Case
Very interesting arguments in the cross burning case. You can read some of what the Supreme Court Justices said in this article from CNN. I pretty much agree with a lot of what they said. O'Connor asked if you burned a cross in, say, a theater production, should that be banned? Clearly not, in my book. Laws cannot therefore target the specific act of burning the cross without being unconstitutional.
That having been said, I agree with Justice Thomas that cross burning used in an intimidating fashion (i.e. on someone's lawn) should be illegal and prosecuted under a generic "intimidating speech" law. An interesting case to watch.
Despair.com's Demotivators
I was very amused at despair.com's Demotivators collection, which makes fun of cheesy inspirational work posters (of which I was actually given one once as a gift, laff.) Below are a couple of my favorites:
Funny stuff. May have to order some for my office.
Even More Pathetic...
Even more pathetic than his blatant racism are his shameless attempts to backpedal. Yes, I'm talking about Trent Lott's ridiculous interview on BET. You know, I almost just wish he'd say "Shucks, you caught me. I'm a racist." The problem with this apology... how can we possibly accept it as sincere? A politician who is caught doing something detrimental (indeed suicidal) to his career will say anything to avoid the guillotine. I can only hope the Republican leadership has sense enough to ask Lott to step down from his Leadership position. As long as he remains Senate majority leader, I will not vote for a Republican. The principle of social equality just stands too high in my book... moreso than my own personal preferences for Republican fiscal policies. The party reaps what the party sows.
The End of an Era
After 3 1/2 years (the longest I've ever played a single computer game), I've decided to retire from the highly addictive world of Everquest. The game just sucks up too much of your free time. As one of my friends put it, "it takes highly intelligent people who can contribute much to society and turns them into mindless automatons". Very true. He also described it as "reverse Darwinism", in that it targets people who should be more adept at helping society and instead wind up being turned into vegetables by the repetitive silliness that is EQ. Is the game a great evil? Were the thousands of hours spent playing it a waste of time? No... not quite. You can have real experiences in a virtual world. And I did have many fun times. But it's time to move on and pursue real life aspirations and dreams. Ironically, the game is now at its peak. I'm having more fun playing it than I ever have. But that's the danger of it, the allure... it never ends, really, and it's always there waiting. Time to put my 3 accounts to rest and focus on social things, as well as writing, programming, and chess.... and this blog, of course.
Goodbye, Everquest. I wish you well.
Right-Wing Racist Nutjob of the Week
This week's Right-Wing Racist Nutjob award goes to Trent Lott, whose remarks at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party have landed him in a whole world of trouble. I hope Lott is forced to resign. But I don't have much hope, considering Thurmond himself was allowed to stay in Congress for so many years. (I guess the predominant political party in South Carolina is the Moron Party.) I just got done watching a Daily Show episode where Jon Stewart poked wonderful fun at Thurmond and Lott. The segment was labeled "Racists Have Birthdays, Too!" Since Lott made his comments in 1980 and now again in 2002, Stewart described him as the "Haley's Comet of Bigotry". It was very funny. :) At least President Bush did the right thing, in my opinion, in rebuking Trent Lott for his horrible racist remarks.
One has to wonder, though. With all the backpedaling that ultra-right-wing nutjobs keep having to do (Falwell, Robertson, and now Lott), does the Republican party have any credibility left? It is hard for me to imagine that they're not ALL secretly a bunch of fundamentalist fanatic racist idiots. I know they can't ALL be bad...but good God, look at Ashcroft trying to cover up statues... look at Bush mangling the English language. I know Clinton had his moral foibles, but I'd much rather have someone boinking his interns than putting on a Klansman's robe and burning crosses on the White House lawn.
Has the Republican party fallen so far? Or was it always this suckass? Too young to know, here...have to ask my parents.
Kim's Story and Moral Dilemmas
So anyone who has watched 24 probably feels as I do... that Kim's story sucks. She just so happens to become a nanny for the one family in L.A. with a homicidal maniac for the dad. OK, so we laugh, sit back, and enjoy the ride. Now, however, her story has gotten really interesting, because she is the only one trying to LEAVE Los Angeles to get away from the nuclear bomb that may or may not go off today.
Well, now I like this story. Why? Because of the cool moral ambiguity it introduces. Suppose you know that your home town is going to blow up today. You start heading out, but you get pulled over by a policeman for speeding (as happened in the last episode to Kim). Now suppose you have a body in your trunk, not put there by you (as happened to Kim). Now suppose the policeman wants to toss you in jail for the day.
Question: are you morally just if you kill the police officer to evade capture (assuming this is the only possible way out)?
My answer: yes, you are, and wow, isn't that cool. I love moral ambiguities like this, but here's my take. You are either of the school of moral absolutism (see my article below on the ACLU), where you think "killing is always wrong". Or, you follow the more flexible moral path: "this officer is going to die anyway... if he takes me back, we all die... if I kill him and keep going, then at least I get to live..." In the latter scenario, MORE GOOD is done than in any other situation, i.e. more people live. I know this is a rather utilitarian way to look at the puzzle (by counting who lives and who dies), but there you have it.
You could argue that the most moral solution would be to tell the police officer about the bomb, also, but he either won't believe you or it will cause a mass panic... and then, if the bomb didn't go off, your action would have been morally reprehensible, leading to the deaths of thousands (most likely). This just goes to show how morality is not a simple thing. You can't just say things like "it's wrong to kill" or "it's right to tell the truth". Everything depends on the situation. Adaptive morality... Not only does it have to be flexible, though, but, as in the above case, you have to base your decisions on probabilities sometimes... without having all the information. Kim doesn't KNOW for sure whether or not the bomb will go off... in hindsight, an action that would be morally just if the bomb went off would become horribly morally unjust if the bomb did not go off. Or would it? Is the decision to kill the police officer still morally sound even if the bomb doesn't go off? Gee, that's a hard one. I would still say YES, because the morality of a decision has to be based on the "most likely probability", which is that the bomb would go off. So here you could have a situation where (a) Kim kills a cop and (b) the bomb doesn't go off, and I would argue she was still morally justified in doing so!!! (Although she would then be taken away to jail... law != morality). Is your head hurting yet?
I think 24 is going to barrage us with more of these moral dilemmas... The show's unflinching take on morality (it is not afraid to show us a Machiavellian take on things) is one of the main reasons it is just so damn interesting to watch. I predict that Kim is going to be thwarted from leaving the city, and she will have to take more and more shocking actions to get herself, her boyfriend, and Megan, out of the blast radius. And she will be "morally right" in doing so. (Incidentally, the policeman trying to take Kim in is also operating from a position of moral soundness, which shows how two people can be at odds trying to kill each other and yet both may be doing the "right" thing... fascinating, eh?) Can't wait to see the next twist...
Why I Won't Ever Join the ACLU
OK, I bashed the right a bit in a previous blog. Now it's time to highlight some of the left's ridiculousness. Another interesting case is coming before the Supreme Court, one that centers around the right to burn the cross. In this particular case, in an extreme departure from common sense, the conviction of a few teenagers who tried (and failed) to burn a cross in a family's front yard was overturned by the state courts. The problem? The teenagers were prosecuted under a law that specifically named cross burning as a hate crime. While it just seems incredible to me that they can't throw someone in jail for burning a cross on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY, I actually understand the legal issue that led to this conviction being thrown out. The ACLU says that cross burning itself is a protected form of speech, and, while I think it is not, I would agree that a law that specifically targeted cross burning is unconstitutional. Since that time, the state of Virginia has changed its laws to be more broad, banning "intimidating speech".
Well, now they're on the right track.... and I don't think the new law would be found unconstitutional if challenged. Unfortunately, the ACLU seems to think "anything goes". Their position is like a broken record--always the same. But where does it end? Suppose they attached pictures of a family's children to that cross and burned it? Suppose they wrote your name on it? At what point is the burning cross no longer an expression of free speech and instead a direct threat? This, in my mind, is the key principle to hate speech. Can it be reasonably interpreted as a threat?
Now, let's exercise a little freaking common sense, please. If someone burns a cross on your front lawn, it is clearly a direct threat. Any targeted family would interpret that action as harassment, as a threat of imminent violence, and they would be correct in doing so. This speech (burning a cross on someone's lawn) should not be protected under any circumstances. The only reason the above case was thrown out was because Virgina tried to write a law that specifically banned the act of burning the cross. The problem with this is that burning a cross doesn't always mean the same thing (suppose I'm just burning a cross inside my home... a hate crime? obviously not)--it allows the courts no latitude to decide whether the action is meant as intimidation or not. And, finally, it makes no distinction for where you burn it. If the Klan rallies on their own property and burns the cross, let's face it--we may not like it but it's protected. "I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend to your death the right to say it".
So what's my big problem with the ACLU? They are paying for the legal representation of this racist scum. And that is why they will never get my membership or cash. I do not want to pay my hard-earned dollars to help a fanatical (although often right) organization defend useless pieces of crap. Why exactly does the ACLU feel the need to test this law? Do they think they HAVE to weigh in on every law they deem to be unconstitutional? Doubtless, they would answer yes, and try to stand on some lofty idealistic principle. But, the truth of the matter is, they follow a path of unswerving moral absolutism, unwilling to allow flexibility in their practices and policy.
Flexibility is the key to everything. As soon as you say, "this is always right" or "this is always wrong", you fall into the trap of NOT USING YOUR BRAIN. Everything depends on the circumstances and situation. Sometimes it is right to do things that normally might be considered wrong. So we cannot say "I have the right to say whatever I want". We must instead say "in general, I should have the right to say whatever I want, but sometimes...."
The ACLU would say "but that's a slippery slope..." I call it free thinking.
Russia Victorious in Davis Cup
Not that many Americans care about tennis, but the story of Russia's first Davis Cup win was exciting nonetheless. They subbed a young guy in over former #1 Yevgeniy Kafelnikov and he won a gripping 5-set match (coming back from two sets down, no less). Congratulations to Russia on a well-earned victory!
I'll Ride With Bill Maher
I've always been a fan of Bill Maher and his now defunct show Politically Incorrect. So I am pleased to see that things are still going well for him. As can be seen in this article, he has a new book (When You Ride Alone, You Ride with Bin Laden) coming out and a new talk show on HBO in the works. As usual, the good ones tend to wind up on HBO. Yet another reason this network will comprise 50% of my television viewing.
A Million People Without Electricity??
Big storm on the way. Looks like it will just miss us. *fingers crossed*.
The Chains that Bind...
Who do you blog for? A key question, and one which determines the direction your writing takes. If you're blogging for yourself, you just write anything you want, unfettered, and let your heart pour out onto the page. If you're blogging for your friends and family, you write about things you've done, things you've seen, innocent things... Most blogs fall into this category. They're almost like those letters some people send out en masse to their friends and family to keep them updated about everything that's been going on. People "play it safe". Oh, I did this today. I saw this movie. I read this book. It was good. It was bad. Blah blah blah. But what's lurking underneath? What do the real writers keep chained in the dark recesses of their minds? What are they afraid to say... things that might alienate them, or might be... improper? Surely there must be something more interesting... controversial opinions... things that might not... go over... so well with people you know... things that someone you know will come up to you at some gathering and say "I can't believe you said THAT in your blog." Surely there must be something else to talk about besides the comforting drone of the pop culture machine...
There is... but a lot of it delves into religion... and politics... where the doors you open with your words aren't so easily closed. But let's begin with the case Lawrence v. Texas, which is now coming before the Supreme Court. I guess it would have been easy not to blog about this case and just to let it pass by. But I can't. That this is even an "issue" at all is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. That two gay men could be arrested in the privacy of their own home is simply unbelievable. That a court in the 1980s could actually uphold these obsolete redneck sodomy laws is astonishing. That this case even needs to be a case at all is reprehensible. I'm ashamed of Texas and the 12 other states which haven't yet joined the 20th century, let alone the 21st. There is only one correct decision here. Either you are an idiot (re: one who wants to make gay sex in the privacy of someone's home illegal) or you are sensible (re: one who thinks what happens in the privacy of one's home between two consenting adults is their own business). I'm sorry, but there's no getting around this basic fact. Either you are a dumbass, or you are evil, or you are just one of those religiously brainwashed idiots who think AIDS is God's punishment to the gay community (never mind that the predominant transmission of the disease is now heterosexual). Well, then stop reading my blog, Jerry Falwell, and go get a doctor to surgically remove the stick from your extremely tight ass.
This is one of the most important court cases in recent years, in my opinion. The civil rights movement has made extraordinary progress in the last fifty years, but, for whatever reason, gay rights have lagged far behind. Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children? My personal opinion is "Yes", but I can at least understand some of the arguments against (mostly having to do with a community's stupid prejudices, not with the quality of the parenting itself). Should gays be allowed to serve in the military? Again, my personal opinion is "Yes", but I can at least identify with arguments talking about the threats to morale and security (although my response would be "get over it"). But here is the most ludicrous issue of all, should gay people have the right to... be gay?? That's really what this court case is about... not should governments sanction gay marriage or allow gay couples to adopt or anything else.. this is simply about nothing more or less than the very right even to be a homosexual. Now, some of you might say, so what?
Here's the "so what": this country was founded on the principle of equality. Idiotic, old men on the Supreme Court had to be convinced it wasn't a crime to be born black. What seems to be common sense to us now wasn't common sense back then. Amazingly. Some would say it isn't even common sense now (although I really do believe most people do not consciously practice racism... subconscious is another matter). Well, now we have to convince them it isn't a crime to be born gay. I am at the point where this seems like "common sense" to me... but amazingly, to many others, the vast brainwashed masses, they still suffer from the misconception that there is "something wrong" with being gay. Time for a landmark decision... time for a changing of the guard... or time to put your head in your hands and bemoan the incomprehensible ignorance of our nation's highest judicial leaders.
And no, I'm not gay, so calm down. I just care passionately about this issue because the government should NEVER be able to tell two consenting adults what they should be able to do in the privacy of their own home. EVER. The question before the court now is: are we living in the Dark Ages.... or not? To quote from the ACLU page: "Laws like these are repellent to the most basic principles of freedom established in the U.S. Constitution. We hope the Justices use this case to strike them down." Amen.
Hyatt's Top 10 Movies of 2002 (so far)
1. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (5/5)
2. Insomnia (4.75/5)
3. Read My Lips (4.5/5)
4. Punch-Drunk Love (4.5/5)
5. The Count of Monte Christo (4.5/5)
6. About a Boy (4.25/5)
7. The Rookie (4/5)
8. Spider Man (4/5)
9. 8 Mile (4/5)
10. Changing Lanes (4/5)
Updated as I see more movies and change my mind about old ones:)
Dark Age of Camelot
After stumbling onto Stuart Parmenter's blog of Nov 25, 2002 about DAoC, I began to wonder what this game might be like. I've played the wildly successful Everquest since its launch in May, 1999, and have never really checked out any of the competition. The screenshots from the new DAoC expansion looked way better than anything EQ has produced. I had the same thoughts when I saw the screenshots from Asheron's Call 2 (Microsoft's big mmorpg). Makes me wonder if EQ's days are numbered. It still has the largest and most vibrant community of any of the games, which is probably why it remains in the #1 spot in the Western world. (Ironically, a game called Lineage, played fanatically in Korea, is the biggest massive online roleplaying game in the world).
I had also thought about checking out the new Sim Online game after reading an interesting article on it in Time. In this world, you create a character who simply... well... lives real life. Sounds boring? Well, maybe. But, unlike most mmogs, you will actually be able to contribute/change the world significantly. You can open a restaurant, or sell cars, or do whatever you want. It will make for a very interesting social experiment.
The TV and Movie Update
Well, people tend to devote large portions of their blogspace to movies and TV shows that they've seen recently. Although I've tried to think of more "substantial" things to write about, inevitably I find myself coming back to this somewhat worn out subject. So, let's just give you the quick run-down of my opinions and move on to something more interesting.
Solaris (0.5/5): Not only the worst movie I have seen this year, but one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Comedies that don't make me laugh EVEN ONCE are extremely rare (Nurse Betty is the last one I can remember loathing). Action films with piss-poor dialogue that numb the mind with blistering explosion after blistering explosion... well, these are at least minimally tolerable. But dramas... dramas that do nothing... that aspire to nothing... that are simply bbbbbooooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnggg... these are the worst movies of all. Rushmore (Hell, maybe this one was supposed to be a comedy, I dunno), The Royal Tenenbaums, and Indecent Proposal all fit into this category. And now... enter Solaris. Where to begin? With the fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes perhaps? At least 65% of the nation's critics must operate on an entirely different wavelength from me... cause I didn't get this movie AT ALL. It started slow, was well shot, well acted, and I thought it might evolve into something tangible... but it never did. Just stayed the same, dull, slow, pompous piece of crap that it began as. I don't know who Natasha McElhone (the lead actress) is, but I don't really have any desire to see her in anything else (unless she's cast as a villainess). She's just so cold, sterile, unconvincing, crazy, and unsympathetic that we can't identify with her. We don't LIKE her character (or I didn't like her anyway), so how can we give a rat's ass what happens to her in the movie? Then there's the terrible performance of Jeremy Davies (Saving Private Ryan, in which he was very good), which is so affected that I wanted to slap him every time he said "Yeeeeaaah". Finally, there are the critics who said this movie was "mindbending" and "thought-provoking". Which movie did you watch? I didn't see anything mindbending beyond the single interesting concept of a person created solely from your own perceptions of them. Unfortunately, this idea is never followed up on, and the movie ends without really raising any questions or answering them. I could have saved my readers several paragraphs of diatribe simply by saying "it sucked; it was boring". Worst movie of the year.
Punch-Drunk Love (4.5/5): Another fantastic picture from P.T. Anderson. Here's another writer/director you either love or you hate. I happen to love his work, from the stellar Boogie Nights to the over-ambitious failure (imo) Magnolia. Adam Sandler really does amaze with this performance. I would never have thought that Sandler would be anywhere near a Best Actor nomination... but think again, because he's just that good. The only thing that kept this from being a perfect movie is the flat character of Emily Watson, a very talented actress who could have given so much more to this role (if Anderson had given her more to work with.) We do get a few flashes of characterization, but, for the most part, she's the typical goddess-figure worshiped by the Romantic male in the movie... and this is really its only flaw. Philip Seymour Hoffman is wonderful as the sleazy Utah mattress store owner. One of the year's best films.
24: I tend to agree with Joe Hewitt's musings on 24. The show has fallen into the trap of being "predictable" to its long-time fans. For example, on tonight's episode (stop reading if you don't want a spoiler), we learn that the Middle Eastern guy is NOT the terrorist and that Kate Warner's father is actually the bad guy. NostraHyatt predicted this in the VERY FIRST EPISODE. Yet this show continues to be one of the most entertaining hours of television around. Warts and all, the show just has a rhythm that draws you in. Even when it's being absurd or over-the-top, you find yourself drawn along by its brisk pacing and nonstop action. Some of my favorite scenes in 24 are the confrontations it creates between its characters. I loved the scenes with Palmer and his wife from the 1st season. They were just wonderfully done, and they really made you admire and respect David Palmer. Now we see similar scenes from Kate and her sister, from Jack and George, from Palmer and his staff. Good stuff. Everyone seems to be blogging about this show, too, so we can hope its ratings have gotten better. Or maybe people are too busy watching C.S.I., a really really badly written show, the appeal of which I can't begin to fathom.
The Sopranos: This season has been all over the place. Show has really gone downhill. I still like it, but this bit of bringing characters on then having them disappear is annoying. Or starting plot threads then just abandoning them. What is Chris doing in rehab? What's up with Artie? Are Furio and Carmela ever gonna do anything? Where the heck has Meadow been all season? Why is A.J. such a little bastard now? Where is this business with Tony's sister and Bobby going? I don't really know what to think about this show anymore. The season with Big Pussy (the 2nd? the 3rd? can't remember which) was the last one that felt like it had a coherent structure to it. Despite the critical acclaim, The Sopranos really hasn't been all that good in its last two seasons. Six Feet Under surpassed it in quality last season, and I have no doubt it will do so again in its upcoming season.
Whew. Got that out of my system. Oh, except for the Bond movie. What can I say about that? Explosions. Action. Megalomaniac villain trying to take over the world. It was a Bond movie. Too long and too mindless, but whatever. 3.5 out of 5. Time to come up with something else to blog about that has nothing to do with TV or movies.
