Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
05 October 2012
2LR: The Lorax
So, I finally have a good description for what I'm doing... I'm calling it Too Late Reviews, 2LR. Today's 2LR will be of The Lorax, which came out only seven months ago. I suppose I'm catching up way too quickly.
The movie opens almost immediately on a song, which in some ways I thought was a bit worrisome. There are more than a few movies that use songs to cover up deficiencies, and other movies that are told by the studio that songs are necessary and breaks the flow of the movie. The song was inoffensive enough though and introduces the plastic, completely artificial town and O'Hare Air, evil business du'jour, which takes a page from Spaceballs by peddling a home-based "Perri-Air" business... y'see, the air is terrible here. Except it's really not shown... ?!?
So, the main character "Ted" tools around the town and then kickstarts the plot in one of the most cliche ways possible. Y'see, Teddy's in LUUUUV, and the source of his crush is a girl that took the time and effort to paint Truffula trees up and down the backside of her house ('cause, y'see, she's a girl and doesn't have any parents). She tells him about the Truffula trees, though how she knew we don't know. Ted goes back home and talks to Grand-mama -- voice of Betty White, and I endorse her work -- and she finishes the prologue by referring Ted to the Once-ler.
So, the movie takes a hard right turn into flashback mode, when the forest was full of Truffula trees, where the bar-ba-loots play and the fish sing (!?). Once-ler not only wields an axe, but plays one too. His electric guitar is in direct counterpoint to the fish singing (!? again), and sure enough the first Truffula tree is felled, bringing in the Lorax.
At this point, you could almost extrapolate a Warner Bros. cartoon from the setting. There's a dude with a guitar, a bunch of bar-ba-loots including the big fat one and the little cute teddi-loot, the honky birds, the singy fish, and the Lorax. There were a couple of cute jokes going on, including one involving static electricity.
The show cuts back from "The Lorax" to Ted's story again, and we find out that... surprise surprise... the rich dude not only has everyone under surveillance, but also that he's threatened by the idea of trees. This actually becomes the more important part of the movie, which will be explained later.
Anyway, Ted slips the surveillance and sees the Once-ler the next day, and the Once-ler goes through the second half of the book itself. During this sequence, there was another song ("How Bad Can I Be?"), and this one was actually rather enjoyable.
Right after the song, a bunch of the threads come together (no pun, I swear). Between O'Hare and the Once-ler, you can almost draw a direct line between all of the bad habits that literally help businesses. Companies pay big money to access information about people in order to tailor their products to market, and companies are also very interested in erecting barriers to entry. After all, the tree symbolizes something for free that people used to pay for, so the air tycoon O'Hare is more than happy to try to stop it in any way possible. Directly after the song, the Once-ler has a line that is very telling, when he tells the Lorax that all of what the Once-ler is doing is "perfectly legal."
And it is. That's the biggest key though... the Lorax in the book and in the movie is supposed to represent not only "the trees", but the Once-ler's conscience. When the Once-ler tells the Lorax that what he's doing is legal, he's telling his conscience not only to shut up but also saying something very profound. There are quite a few people who believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand", but self-interest also results in the invisible hand punching hippies and other bums who attempt to represent a different point of view. Earlier in the movie, it was shown that the Once-ler's family bowed to the Once-ler's promise to the Lorax not to cut any more trees down... but after the family proved to be incompetent, the trees started falling and never stopped. There was never a point where the Once-ler could say, "We have demand covered for the time being, let's slow down"... it was full speed ahead.
And obviously, it is a cautionary tale because the trees are truly a renewable resource, and even then the Once-ler managed to run out of them. Businessmen have since learned that the Once-ler's model is not correct, because enforced scarcity (especially in a monopoly setting) allows for price gouging. Anyway, the Once-ler gets the seed to Ted, Ted takes the seed back to town, the townspeople at first agree with O'Hare to tell Ted to stuff the seed, and then Ted takes heavy equipment to break down the wall.
The wall is the catharsis and the key, I think, especially when it comes to this day and age. The wall galvanizes the crowd because they see the abject misery of the environment beyond the walls. Then comes the last song where the crowd gives approval to Ted to plant the tree in downtown... up to and including O'Hare's heavies.
Two last points... even O'Hare's heavies abandoned him at the end of the movie. This doesn't happen in real life, when there are so many people that are dependent on companies that can tend to destruction for profit, especially when money can be passed around to make sure that enough people are "taken care of".
The second point is this... Ted, the main character, did ALL OF THIS... destroyed the status quo, possibly made other people sick due to breaking the walls and letting in the dirty air, breaking the O'Hare monopoly... in order to get a kiss on the cheek from the token female prize. *sigh*
Overall, the songs actually add to the film, the film does have a very important message though it is a bit out-of-date to our current situations, and the movie has enough humor to be interesting for the little ones. I would give it a 3.1 rating on my 1-4 scale, I would certainly enjoy seeing it another time and seems to be a good way to illustrate some of the natural conflicts that occur between the marketplace and the community.
12 March 2012
Movie Review : Roger & Me
Yeah, we’re getting even more ancient in the reviews, especially since there’s really no rhyme or reason as to which movies end up getting reviewed. On the other hand, if there’s ever a time to review a twenty-three-year-old movie, it’s now... right?
For those not in the know (by now, surprising,) Roger & Me was Michael Moore's first film, a story of what happened to Flint, Michigan after General Motors decided to move work from Flint to other locations, and what amounts to a visual diary of the people left behind and what the city tries to do to help its citizens.
The largest problem with providing a review of Roger & Me is that it’d be primarily wrapped up in the current worldview of its viewer. Michael Moore is very involved in the politics of the situation, and the movie presents scenes that one person would nod their head and say, “Right on”, while another would dismiss as cheap demagoguery. My goal is to present a neutral review on Michael Moore’s style, the pitfalls that he encountered, and overall the possible non-politically-charged reactions. For reference, last nights’ viewing was with Michael Moore’s commentary turned on, as I had seen parts of the movie previously and was interested in hearing what he had to say regarding specific scenes.
Throughout the commentary, as if seeing the film wasn’t proof enough, Moore makes the point that the movie was a (paraphrased) love letter to the city of Flint. You can see how much he loves the city, that while he shows the blasted buildings that he still tries to intercut footage of Flint around downtown, trying to get scenes of children playing and the parade scene where there are more than a few people lining the route.
I can see how people can be annoyed at his style of filmmaking by watching this first movie of his. From the start, Moore draws a very big, bright, painfully prominent line back to General Motors’ doorstep throughout the movie. His critics can rightfully point out that GM is not the only party that deserves blame in this situation, and I do agree with that. In the movie, it’s even acknowledged that Moore is chasing the white whale of bringing Roger Smith to Flint to show him the conditions of the city that GM was trying to move away from, and even then there’s really no doubt that it wouldn’t have affected Roger Smith even a bit.
Some people agree with Moore’s point of view regarding GM and others definitely disagree. It’s sad that it seems to have marginalized Moore in some ways... I remember being plugged into political discourse in the 90s and hearing about how Moore was a distorter of truths, and partly based on things that were seen in this movie. Of course, the tactic that Moore used and acknowledged in the commentary was to point the camera at the interviewee, ask a couple of leading questions, and let the person talk. As many of the people on camera were likely not expecting to see themselves in an honest-to-goodness movie, they became comfortable and effectively talked themselves into a corner at times. (Witness the GM lobbyist, who Moore praises as being the last honest PR guy). The bad news is that this does allow misinformation to come out, and Moore is not going to correct any of the misinformation… he’s just going to let the audience try to sift through it.
Well, whenever anyone’s trying to set up an argument, like Moore’s overarching movie statement regarding GM, any misinformation is going to feel like an attempt to manipulate. This is sadly the net effect of many of Moore’s movies on people who don’t agree with the central premise of the movie; viscerally, they probably feel that Moore is arguing using misinformation and perfectly fine with allowing it to go uncorrected, while others who hear the exact same statement understand where they believe possible fallacies in truth come from. In essence, people who agree with Michael Moore will laugh behind their hands at the stooges and other stupid people expressing their wrong viewpoints, while people who don’t agree with Moore’s points will get mad that their point of view is getting represented as a joke without any sort of ability to defend their point through counterargument. In later years, many reviewers have had issues with facts that Michael Moore has reported in movies, and Moore himself has issues with having his information taken seriously.
This speaks a lot to what has happened to news reporting versus the entertainment factor in this country. This is not to say that news and entertainment is mutually exclusive, but the main problem is to be able to appeal news of many types (world events, business news, sports, celebrity news) to all of the people all of the time, which is where the entertainment part comes in. Entertainment will get a person to sit down even if they’re not thrilled about the topic, and this causes less examination of issues and to some extent, of truth.
This movie also sets out to entertain as well as inform and faces the same challenge as above. The movie also cultivates a large amount of gallows humor... as Moore mentioned in the commentary, you want to laugh because it’s more comfortable than crying, but referencing the above due to your viewpoint you may not be the one laughing, just really angry. The side effect of the entertainment and laughing is wondering which information (if any) is serious and which is played for jokes, or for those who are horrified, to doubt whether or not he’s trying to exaggerate the situation.
I do think that the movie is effective, but only to someone willing to have an open mind and willing to do more research. This includes both liberals and conservatives, because I think that the message was skewed just a bit too far to the side to see clearly, which is a shame. I think that Michael Moore stumbled onto it a bit as he was describing the “pets or meat” lady as he was recounting her tale. To clarify, the “pets or meat” lady is a Flint woman who bred and raised rabbits, and was perfectly fine selling them as either pet rabbits or slaughtering the rabbits to sell them for their meat and fur. As long as I’m remembering the commentary correctly, it turned out that GM wasn’t really to blame for her current predicament. Moore noted in the commentary (not the main body of the movie) that her husband was a GM worker but that he had died accidentally prior to the events of the movie rather than being laid off by GM. Moore presented the movie as GM leaving town and showing the consequences... and then presented her as a character, without stating her mitigating circumstances, allowing the viewer to tie her and her circumstances together with GM’s leaving rather than her circumstances arising from an individual tragedy (and again leading to questions of authenticity in argument and/or manipulation of facts). Moore then went on to comment on the director’s audio track about how our society allows people to fall through the cracks, and made more remarks about how most other Western societies that don’t allow that sort of thing to happen.
The movie was made in 1989, and I have the ability to see twenty-three years into the future where Michael Moore did not at the time, but I feel that ultimately this movie was pulled off of the mark because of the central premise. It linked the death of a town inexorably to the loss of its sole employer, and it seems by implication the movie also argues the reverse… that employers have a duty to their workers rather than to their profits, which is arguing a point that many people do not believe in regarding free market capitalism. I would not presume to take upon that argument in this space. However, where the movie could have hit the mark, was to try to present the reasons to DISCUSS what duty the government, companies that operate within the country, and the workers themselves have to each other as an interconnected whole and to make sure that all of the actors, including government, are present and engaged. This was the line that Moore was trying to comment to within the director’s remarks listed above, and maybe by focusing a bit more on the thought process behind that the movie would have been a much more effective instrument.
I will admit that this movie definitely illustrates one of the reasons that I am interested in economics, because it raises a very salient issue regarding economics… that capital can be very mobile while labor cannot. In real terms, that means that the tools and inputs of a GM plant can be moved from Michigan to Mexico to anywhere else, but the labor that GM utilized for seventy years in Flint, Michigan cannot move as easily. Unfortunately, the movie didn’t inspire the discussion that it was desperately hoping it would stimulate.
The sad part is that the time for this conversation in the United States is likely past. In this day and age of polarization, a movie like this that would attempt to stimulate conversation would do no more than to divide people into camps all over again, and there’s more than a few stakeholders that can’t even figure out whether or not they have a stake in this discussion. There’s really no compromise throughout our discourse, and therefore these discussions and subsequent actions really cannot happen.
At the very least, this movie is an eye-opener. Once you get past the main message of the movie, you see the tragic and very visible decline of the city of Flint, Michigan, and the desperation of the people who live there. Moore was absolutely correct in turning the camera onto Flint to document the last vestiges of a vibrant city and to also hopefully serve as a cautionary tale. One of the more stirring images was when the camera panned over a dilapidated house to put the focus across the street... on one of the GM plants, already looking empty.
That said, though the message may have ended up a bit off, I did enjoy the passion and the love that went into making this movie. As above, you can see how much Moore loves his town, and this movie was in his wheelhouse as a muckraking journalist. I would suggest this movie to people as a conversation-starter, but again your mileage may vary due to Moore’s subsequent notoriety and the fact that some people are going to argue contra-Moore due to his own style.
Reminder of the rating scale:
1 -- never see again ever
2 watch if on TV or cued up by others
3 intentionally seek out occasionally
4 watch often
Final Rating: 3.3
Whether you’re happy or unhappy about the methods, I do feel that there is an important message in there to debate. Watching these people try to navigate their lives after this turn of events is tragic, but I think that it shows the strength of the human spirit that you see all of these people trying to pick up their lives and keep moving forward. I also like this movie for selfish reasons due to having lived in the area (Fenton, MI, Genesee County) for a time, and the Flint area still holds some affection from me.
As a last note, I was really unsure how I was going to attack this topic apolitically, especially since I have been on both sides of the political spectrum at different points in my life. I hope that you, the reader, can tell that I am not trying to allow my biases into the review above and please comment with any issues if they have cropped up.
For postscript, if there are any movies that you (our audience) want us to review, please feel free to drop a comment as well.
For those not in the know (by now, surprising,) Roger & Me was Michael Moore's first film, a story of what happened to Flint, Michigan after General Motors decided to move work from Flint to other locations, and what amounts to a visual diary of the people left behind and what the city tries to do to help its citizens.
The largest problem with providing a review of Roger & Me is that it’d be primarily wrapped up in the current worldview of its viewer. Michael Moore is very involved in the politics of the situation, and the movie presents scenes that one person would nod their head and say, “Right on”, while another would dismiss as cheap demagoguery. My goal is to present a neutral review on Michael Moore’s style, the pitfalls that he encountered, and overall the possible non-politically-charged reactions. For reference, last nights’ viewing was with Michael Moore’s commentary turned on, as I had seen parts of the movie previously and was interested in hearing what he had to say regarding specific scenes.
Throughout the commentary, as if seeing the film wasn’t proof enough, Moore makes the point that the movie was a (paraphrased) love letter to the city of Flint. You can see how much he loves the city, that while he shows the blasted buildings that he still tries to intercut footage of Flint around downtown, trying to get scenes of children playing and the parade scene where there are more than a few people lining the route.
I can see how people can be annoyed at his style of filmmaking by watching this first movie of his. From the start, Moore draws a very big, bright, painfully prominent line back to General Motors’ doorstep throughout the movie. His critics can rightfully point out that GM is not the only party that deserves blame in this situation, and I do agree with that. In the movie, it’s even acknowledged that Moore is chasing the white whale of bringing Roger Smith to Flint to show him the conditions of the city that GM was trying to move away from, and even then there’s really no doubt that it wouldn’t have affected Roger Smith even a bit.
Some people agree with Moore’s point of view regarding GM and others definitely disagree. It’s sad that it seems to have marginalized Moore in some ways... I remember being plugged into political discourse in the 90s and hearing about how Moore was a distorter of truths, and partly based on things that were seen in this movie. Of course, the tactic that Moore used and acknowledged in the commentary was to point the camera at the interviewee, ask a couple of leading questions, and let the person talk. As many of the people on camera were likely not expecting to see themselves in an honest-to-goodness movie, they became comfortable and effectively talked themselves into a corner at times. (Witness the GM lobbyist, who Moore praises as being the last honest PR guy). The bad news is that this does allow misinformation to come out, and Moore is not going to correct any of the misinformation… he’s just going to let the audience try to sift through it.
Well, whenever anyone’s trying to set up an argument, like Moore’s overarching movie statement regarding GM, any misinformation is going to feel like an attempt to manipulate. This is sadly the net effect of many of Moore’s movies on people who don’t agree with the central premise of the movie; viscerally, they probably feel that Moore is arguing using misinformation and perfectly fine with allowing it to go uncorrected, while others who hear the exact same statement understand where they believe possible fallacies in truth come from. In essence, people who agree with Michael Moore will laugh behind their hands at the stooges and other stupid people expressing their wrong viewpoints, while people who don’t agree with Moore’s points will get mad that their point of view is getting represented as a joke without any sort of ability to defend their point through counterargument. In later years, many reviewers have had issues with facts that Michael Moore has reported in movies, and Moore himself has issues with having his information taken seriously.
This speaks a lot to what has happened to news reporting versus the entertainment factor in this country. This is not to say that news and entertainment is mutually exclusive, but the main problem is to be able to appeal news of many types (world events, business news, sports, celebrity news) to all of the people all of the time, which is where the entertainment part comes in. Entertainment will get a person to sit down even if they’re not thrilled about the topic, and this causes less examination of issues and to some extent, of truth.
This movie also sets out to entertain as well as inform and faces the same challenge as above. The movie also cultivates a large amount of gallows humor... as Moore mentioned in the commentary, you want to laugh because it’s more comfortable than crying, but referencing the above due to your viewpoint you may not be the one laughing, just really angry. The side effect of the entertainment and laughing is wondering which information (if any) is serious and which is played for jokes, or for those who are horrified, to doubt whether or not he’s trying to exaggerate the situation.
I do think that the movie is effective, but only to someone willing to have an open mind and willing to do more research. This includes both liberals and conservatives, because I think that the message was skewed just a bit too far to the side to see clearly, which is a shame. I think that Michael Moore stumbled onto it a bit as he was describing the “pets or meat” lady as he was recounting her tale. To clarify, the “pets or meat” lady is a Flint woman who bred and raised rabbits, and was perfectly fine selling them as either pet rabbits or slaughtering the rabbits to sell them for their meat and fur. As long as I’m remembering the commentary correctly, it turned out that GM wasn’t really to blame for her current predicament. Moore noted in the commentary (not the main body of the movie) that her husband was a GM worker but that he had died accidentally prior to the events of the movie rather than being laid off by GM. Moore presented the movie as GM leaving town and showing the consequences... and then presented her as a character, without stating her mitigating circumstances, allowing the viewer to tie her and her circumstances together with GM’s leaving rather than her circumstances arising from an individual tragedy (and again leading to questions of authenticity in argument and/or manipulation of facts). Moore then went on to comment on the director’s audio track about how our society allows people to fall through the cracks, and made more remarks about how most other Western societies that don’t allow that sort of thing to happen.
The movie was made in 1989, and I have the ability to see twenty-three years into the future where Michael Moore did not at the time, but I feel that ultimately this movie was pulled off of the mark because of the central premise. It linked the death of a town inexorably to the loss of its sole employer, and it seems by implication the movie also argues the reverse… that employers have a duty to their workers rather than to their profits, which is arguing a point that many people do not believe in regarding free market capitalism. I would not presume to take upon that argument in this space. However, where the movie could have hit the mark, was to try to present the reasons to DISCUSS what duty the government, companies that operate within the country, and the workers themselves have to each other as an interconnected whole and to make sure that all of the actors, including government, are present and engaged. This was the line that Moore was trying to comment to within the director’s remarks listed above, and maybe by focusing a bit more on the thought process behind that the movie would have been a much more effective instrument.
I will admit that this movie definitely illustrates one of the reasons that I am interested in economics, because it raises a very salient issue regarding economics… that capital can be very mobile while labor cannot. In real terms, that means that the tools and inputs of a GM plant can be moved from Michigan to Mexico to anywhere else, but the labor that GM utilized for seventy years in Flint, Michigan cannot move as easily. Unfortunately, the movie didn’t inspire the discussion that it was desperately hoping it would stimulate.
The sad part is that the time for this conversation in the United States is likely past. In this day and age of polarization, a movie like this that would attempt to stimulate conversation would do no more than to divide people into camps all over again, and there’s more than a few stakeholders that can’t even figure out whether or not they have a stake in this discussion. There’s really no compromise throughout our discourse, and therefore these discussions and subsequent actions really cannot happen.
At the very least, this movie is an eye-opener. Once you get past the main message of the movie, you see the tragic and very visible decline of the city of Flint, Michigan, and the desperation of the people who live there. Moore was absolutely correct in turning the camera onto Flint to document the last vestiges of a vibrant city and to also hopefully serve as a cautionary tale. One of the more stirring images was when the camera panned over a dilapidated house to put the focus across the street... on one of the GM plants, already looking empty.
That said, though the message may have ended up a bit off, I did enjoy the passion and the love that went into making this movie. As above, you can see how much Moore loves his town, and this movie was in his wheelhouse as a muckraking journalist. I would suggest this movie to people as a conversation-starter, but again your mileage may vary due to Moore’s subsequent notoriety and the fact that some people are going to argue contra-Moore due to his own style.
Reminder of the rating scale:
1 -- never see again ever
2 watch if on TV or cued up by others
3 intentionally seek out occasionally
4 watch often
Final Rating: 3.3
Whether you’re happy or unhappy about the methods, I do feel that there is an important message in there to debate. Watching these people try to navigate their lives after this turn of events is tragic, but I think that it shows the strength of the human spirit that you see all of these people trying to pick up their lives and keep moving forward. I also like this movie for selfish reasons due to having lived in the area (Fenton, MI, Genesee County) for a time, and the Flint area still holds some affection from me.
As a last note, I was really unsure how I was going to attack this topic apolitically, especially since I have been on both sides of the political spectrum at different points in my life. I hope that you, the reader, can tell that I am not trying to allow my biases into the review above and please comment with any issues if they have cropped up.
For postscript, if there are any movies that you (our audience) want us to review, please feel free to drop a comment as well.
07 March 2008
The ultimate compromise:
More political musings from your friendly webmaster, so feel free to ignore if you don't care much about politics.
The Democratic nomination race enters its umpteenth week. It's nuts and crazy how many people are getting bent out of shape in this process, which is an absolute shame. My own position is a fairly simple one. Barack Obama first, John McCain second, Hillary Clinton last. This is because I admire Obama's policies and his experiences and feel that he is the best representative of the people that we could hope for as President. The second part is not so much an endorsement of McCain, but a repudiation of Hillary Clinton; I feel that she is a liar, that her character is such that she will continue to issue promise after promise and not follow through, and that she will not only continue the current "money for influence" politics that already happen in Washington, that they will only get worse and far harder to stop.
I would not be surprised if there are Clinton backers in the audience right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are unhappy with my opinions. I'm seriously not here to try to convert anyone to my position today, but to extend an olive leaf (much like I would believe Obama would if it was a possibility). After all, Obama's and Clinton's stated policies are rather the same. And unfortuntately, one of the two has to win -- and that is the problem. I hear more and more that Clinton supporters do not want to vote for Obama just like I wouldn't want to vote for Clinton.
So, how about a compromise -- John Edwards for President?
Compromise candidates used to happen all of the time. Just take a gander at conventions which happened before 1950. The primary process is a process that was created to give citizens a more-balanced say in what happens, but ultimately we are dealing with what is a private organization, the Democratic Party, who makes their own rules and everything.
Edwards has already attempted to run earlier anyway. He has many of the same policies that Obama and Hillary has. And if what I'm hearing is correct, that race and gender do not matter, then I can't imagine that his race or gender should matter either.
There's just been too many bridges burnt in this process. Clinton has alienated many Obama supporters by saying that they "don't matter" and Obama has certainly raised questions about his ability to lead and his experience to Clinton's supporters. I would not be surprised to see that both candidates have passed through the point of no return, especially with a Republican candidate that has shown his ability to capture Independent voters.
While Edwards would be my first choice, especially since he was running a modestly successful campaign, there's always Richardson, or Biden, or other Democrats that the compromise could settle on. While I understand it would likely be a disappointment to the hardcore partisans of either candidate, both candidates would probably feel that they have to bow to the party in this way (as the Democratic Party still provides access and other needed services) and it would reestablish the Party's ability to control what is going on and not have it completely ripped apart in the process.
Ultimately, compromise has to happen though; one set of people have to compromise whether they want to or not. It should not be this way. Hillary's supporters should be able to point to specific parts of her platform that they feel is important, Obama's can do the same, and the compromise candidate can be rid of the baggage of the last four months of hard-core campaigning, attacks, and other needless and unnecessary shenanigans that have happened in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
In summation: Edwards for Democratic President 2008!
The Democratic nomination race enters its umpteenth week. It's nuts and crazy how many people are getting bent out of shape in this process, which is an absolute shame. My own position is a fairly simple one. Barack Obama first, John McCain second, Hillary Clinton last. This is because I admire Obama's policies and his experiences and feel that he is the best representative of the people that we could hope for as President. The second part is not so much an endorsement of McCain, but a repudiation of Hillary Clinton; I feel that she is a liar, that her character is such that she will continue to issue promise after promise and not follow through, and that she will not only continue the current "money for influence" politics that already happen in Washington, that they will only get worse and far harder to stop.
I would not be surprised if there are Clinton backers in the audience right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are unhappy with my opinions. I'm seriously not here to try to convert anyone to my position today, but to extend an olive leaf (much like I would believe Obama would if it was a possibility). After all, Obama's and Clinton's stated policies are rather the same. And unfortuntately, one of the two has to win -- and that is the problem. I hear more and more that Clinton supporters do not want to vote for Obama just like I wouldn't want to vote for Clinton.
So, how about a compromise -- John Edwards for President?
Compromise candidates used to happen all of the time. Just take a gander at conventions which happened before 1950. The primary process is a process that was created to give citizens a more-balanced say in what happens, but ultimately we are dealing with what is a private organization, the Democratic Party, who makes their own rules and everything.
Edwards has already attempted to run earlier anyway. He has many of the same policies that Obama and Hillary has. And if what I'm hearing is correct, that race and gender do not matter, then I can't imagine that his race or gender should matter either.
There's just been too many bridges burnt in this process. Clinton has alienated many Obama supporters by saying that they "don't matter" and Obama has certainly raised questions about his ability to lead and his experience to Clinton's supporters. I would not be surprised to see that both candidates have passed through the point of no return, especially with a Republican candidate that has shown his ability to capture Independent voters.
While Edwards would be my first choice, especially since he was running a modestly successful campaign, there's always Richardson, or Biden, or other Democrats that the compromise could settle on. While I understand it would likely be a disappointment to the hardcore partisans of either candidate, both candidates would probably feel that they have to bow to the party in this way (as the Democratic Party still provides access and other needed services) and it would reestablish the Party's ability to control what is going on and not have it completely ripped apart in the process.
Ultimately, compromise has to happen though; one set of people have to compromise whether they want to or not. It should not be this way. Hillary's supporters should be able to point to specific parts of her platform that they feel is important, Obama's can do the same, and the compromise candidate can be rid of the baggage of the last four months of hard-core campaigning, attacks, and other needless and unnecessary shenanigans that have happened in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
In summation: Edwards for Democratic President 2008!
26 February 2008
New Update - completely politics- and opinion-free!
Hey again folks,
Megane 6.7 and I have another MSTing going at a pretty good clip. We have just completed the first draft riffthrough and will be editing for the next little bit.
There's not exactly a timeframe plotted for release, but it's certainly sooner than it was three months ago.
It seems like it'll be a pretty good MSTing. Dammit... just gave an opinion. Oh well, vote Dan Grice, Green Party, for MP for the Vancouver Quadra riding's by-election!
As always, your completely-biased blogger,
---"Z"
Megane 6.7 and I have another MSTing going at a pretty good clip. We have just completed the first draft riffthrough and will be editing for the next little bit.
There's not exactly a timeframe plotted for release, but it's certainly sooner than it was three months ago.
It seems like it'll be a pretty good MSTing. Dammit... just gave an opinion. Oh well, vote Dan Grice, Green Party, for MP for the Vancouver Quadra riding's by-election!
As always, your completely-biased blogger,
---"Z"
24 January 2008
A new feature for this blog....
which will probably open me up to non-interest, bickering, non-agreeance, and the possible alienation of many (any) fans...
It's time for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election!
Today's installment is actually three miniature rants designed to get a few things off my chest. Nothing more, nothing less... please feel free to contribute to the (lack of) noise if you agree or disagree.
1) Media involvement in elections.
This is really troubling, for many reasons. There have been many debates already presented in this election cycle for the candidates, but I have a couple comments about debates which have already happened.
Firstly, the Nevada debates... why was Dennis Kucinich disinvited? According to NBC, he hadn't received enough support. Well, it seems more and more clear to me that a candidate's visibility *in the press* is what dictates whether or not people will support them. Kucinich was actually invited to this debate to begin with, but NBC pulled the invite at the eleventh hour.
The one fascinating thing I find about our political process is that the support that a candidate could get can certainly influence the remaining candidates into accepting planks of their platform. Unfortunately, the way that the media is now increasingly shutting out other voices and only broadcasting one or two. I cannot quite tell if this is a cost-cutting decision, a matter of laziness, or if these mass-media outlets are deliberately trying to control the message, but it is reprehensible in all three cases considering the public is supposed to be served by these companies.
John Edwards is now running into the same issue. The Democrats do seem to have similar messages, and if Edwards had a different message that was head-and-shoulders above the other candidates, he may have a better chance to get more media time. On the other hand, it seems rather apparent that the media is following Obama and the Clintons and shutting Edwards out, despite the simliarity of all of their messages. It's a mighty shame... clearly, this man is still garnering some support, and he should still be able to broadcast his message. But because the media has decided he is not the story anymore, they've refused to cover him as extensively.
I can hear the conservatives now... "No, their job is to make money!" You're entitled to that opinion, but the FCC has also charged the media with informing the public as well... this is why they are allowed to use the public airwaves. Maybe additional, and better, coverage would be in the media's best interests too, as only through multiple voices can this country be governed best?
And don't worry, Republicans, I didn't forget you too. I remember reading in the Detroit Free Press that the editorial staff has endorsed a candidate... John McCain. That's fine, I suppose, but I wonder... does anyone else see this as a rather egregious conflict of interest? I understand that the editorial page is supposed to be separate from the news page and that the editorial page is the only place where opinions can be printed. On the other hand, if the editors are specifically backing one candidate, does that mean that the rest of the paper skews in that direction too? Would it not be better to say, "Editor Smith, from Times Tribune, endorses John McCain" so as to not encompass the whole paper with an opinion?
An unbiased and diligent media is desperately needed in this country, especially after eight years of Bush (and I could even make the argument to add eight years of Clinton plus another four of Bush I.) Unfortunately, we don't seem to have one. Check out this link to read in Kucinich's own words about his exclusion from the Nevada debates. You may scoff at some of his ideas and think that he's talking of conspiracies, but I at least feel that there is some conflict of interest going on.
Which brings us to the next point.
2) Money in Politics.
There's way too much of it. It seems that the only way that candidates get on the air is to buy time, costing a lot of money, or by accepting money from media companies and thereby becoming compromised with regards to their future actions (such as to the FCC). I know that this has been said before, but I sincerely believe that the presidential campaign (and for that matter, many other federal campaigns down to representative) should be run on a public money trust basis.
The FCC has chartered networks and broadcast television as well as radio, and is a ready governor to provide equal time to candidates. The candidates themselves should have an equal opportunity to speak their message, instead of having thousands of dollars drown out others' voices. There are extremely smart people in this world who don't have the money or access to have their words broadcast. While the Internet certainly has changed communications (for the better), this is still an old-fashioned process with regards to media and it will be for a long time to come.
Abuses with money lead me to point 3.
3) Falsehoods and Intentional Misleading.
Dammit, it's "LYING". I hate politicians for bringing the above two words into our lexicon. I rant on one specific cause, but every last candidate seems to be guilty of this.
A radio ad was released in South Carolina prior to the Democratic primary. In this ad, Barack Obama had a quote taken completely out of context and spun to say the absolute opposite of his meaning. I do not subscribe to the thought that all people are morons who readily believe the first thing that they hear, but spreading disinformation is also difficult to overcome.
A personal story; recently, while at a company function, I was taking the last donut from the box and searching for a plate to put it on. Immediately, I was jumped on by a coworker who accused me of being the person who kept leaving empty boxes around the lunchroom. It was as far from the truth as possible; I do try to keep public areas clean, especially in that situation. But because the conclusion was jumped to and the initial falsehood spread, and since it was the first message that other coworkers heard, I was labeled unfairly and had no opportunity to defend myself.
Of course, there is an opposite effect of having blatantly untrue allegations be a detriment... if people saw me as I cleaned the lunchroom, they wouldn't believe what my coworker said and would have thought (rightly so) that she was jumping to conclusions. In this day and age though, when no politician seems to be held accountable for all the campaign statements produced from their headquarters, there is very little risk to having untrue allegations boomerang back to you, and the attack ad still runs strong due to this idiocy. And unfortunately, in the court of public opinion, it is often either the loudest or the first voice which is believed rather than the true voice.
The greater point is this: the American people have been living on a steady diet of lies and falsehoods from the Bush administration. Can we please have a press which challenges our public figures to explain themselves and holds them accountable when this stuff happens instead of just blowing it off? I don't really care if a President decides that they have been looking at the wrong side of an issue one day; people grow and change, and the world at large changes too. But if they cannot have the integrity to make sure that the things they say are true, then I feel very badly for our political process.
I really don't know why I expect anything to change, but on the other hand I don't believe any ever has changed unless someone takes action or at least says something. Cynicism has its place... the front page of this blog's hosting, for instance.... but it took one voice to point out that the emperor had no clothes too.
In other news, Megane and I are in process of working on another MSTing. Hope you guys liked the last one and that you'll like the next!
It's time for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election!
Today's installment is actually three miniature rants designed to get a few things off my chest. Nothing more, nothing less... please feel free to contribute to the (lack of) noise if you agree or disagree.
1) Media involvement in elections.
This is really troubling, for many reasons. There have been many debates already presented in this election cycle for the candidates, but I have a couple comments about debates which have already happened.
Firstly, the Nevada debates... why was Dennis Kucinich disinvited? According to NBC, he hadn't received enough support. Well, it seems more and more clear to me that a candidate's visibility *in the press* is what dictates whether or not people will support them. Kucinich was actually invited to this debate to begin with, but NBC pulled the invite at the eleventh hour.
The one fascinating thing I find about our political process is that the support that a candidate could get can certainly influence the remaining candidates into accepting planks of their platform. Unfortunately, the way that the media is now increasingly shutting out other voices and only broadcasting one or two. I cannot quite tell if this is a cost-cutting decision, a matter of laziness, or if these mass-media outlets are deliberately trying to control the message, but it is reprehensible in all three cases considering the public is supposed to be served by these companies.
John Edwards is now running into the same issue. The Democrats do seem to have similar messages, and if Edwards had a different message that was head-and-shoulders above the other candidates, he may have a better chance to get more media time. On the other hand, it seems rather apparent that the media is following Obama and the Clintons and shutting Edwards out, despite the simliarity of all of their messages. It's a mighty shame... clearly, this man is still garnering some support, and he should still be able to broadcast his message. But because the media has decided he is not the story anymore, they've refused to cover him as extensively.
I can hear the conservatives now... "No, their job is to make money!" You're entitled to that opinion, but the FCC has also charged the media with informing the public as well... this is why they are allowed to use the public airwaves. Maybe additional, and better, coverage would be in the media's best interests too, as only through multiple voices can this country be governed best?
And don't worry, Republicans, I didn't forget you too. I remember reading in the Detroit Free Press that the editorial staff has endorsed a candidate... John McCain. That's fine, I suppose, but I wonder... does anyone else see this as a rather egregious conflict of interest? I understand that the editorial page is supposed to be separate from the news page and that the editorial page is the only place where opinions can be printed. On the other hand, if the editors are specifically backing one candidate, does that mean that the rest of the paper skews in that direction too? Would it not be better to say, "Editor Smith, from Times Tribune, endorses John McCain" so as to not encompass the whole paper with an opinion?
An unbiased and diligent media is desperately needed in this country, especially after eight years of Bush (and I could even make the argument to add eight years of Clinton plus another four of Bush I.) Unfortunately, we don't seem to have one. Check out this link to read in Kucinich's own words about his exclusion from the Nevada debates. You may scoff at some of his ideas and think that he's talking of conspiracies, but I at least feel that there is some conflict of interest going on.
Which brings us to the next point.
2) Money in Politics.
There's way too much of it. It seems that the only way that candidates get on the air is to buy time, costing a lot of money, or by accepting money from media companies and thereby becoming compromised with regards to their future actions (such as to the FCC). I know that this has been said before, but I sincerely believe that the presidential campaign (and for that matter, many other federal campaigns down to representative) should be run on a public money trust basis.
The FCC has chartered networks and broadcast television as well as radio, and is a ready governor to provide equal time to candidates. The candidates themselves should have an equal opportunity to speak their message, instead of having thousands of dollars drown out others' voices. There are extremely smart people in this world who don't have the money or access to have their words broadcast. While the Internet certainly has changed communications (for the better), this is still an old-fashioned process with regards to media and it will be for a long time to come.
Abuses with money lead me to point 3.
3) Falsehoods and Intentional Misleading.
Dammit, it's "LYING". I hate politicians for bringing the above two words into our lexicon. I rant on one specific cause, but every last candidate seems to be guilty of this.
A radio ad was released in South Carolina prior to the Democratic primary. In this ad, Barack Obama had a quote taken completely out of context and spun to say the absolute opposite of his meaning. I do not subscribe to the thought that all people are morons who readily believe the first thing that they hear, but spreading disinformation is also difficult to overcome.
A personal story; recently, while at a company function, I was taking the last donut from the box and searching for a plate to put it on. Immediately, I was jumped on by a coworker who accused me of being the person who kept leaving empty boxes around the lunchroom. It was as far from the truth as possible; I do try to keep public areas clean, especially in that situation. But because the conclusion was jumped to and the initial falsehood spread, and since it was the first message that other coworkers heard, I was labeled unfairly and had no opportunity to defend myself.
Of course, there is an opposite effect of having blatantly untrue allegations be a detriment... if people saw me as I cleaned the lunchroom, they wouldn't believe what my coworker said and would have thought (rightly so) that she was jumping to conclusions. In this day and age though, when no politician seems to be held accountable for all the campaign statements produced from their headquarters, there is very little risk to having untrue allegations boomerang back to you, and the attack ad still runs strong due to this idiocy. And unfortunately, in the court of public opinion, it is often either the loudest or the first voice which is believed rather than the true voice.
The greater point is this: the American people have been living on a steady diet of lies and falsehoods from the Bush administration. Can we please have a press which challenges our public figures to explain themselves and holds them accountable when this stuff happens instead of just blowing it off? I don't really care if a President decides that they have been looking at the wrong side of an issue one day; people grow and change, and the world at large changes too. But if they cannot have the integrity to make sure that the things they say are true, then I feel very badly for our political process.
I really don't know why I expect anything to change, but on the other hand I don't believe any ever has changed unless someone takes action or at least says something. Cynicism has its place... the front page of this blog's hosting, for instance.... but it took one voice to point out that the emperor had no clothes too.
In other news, Megane and I are in process of working on another MSTing. Hope you guys liked the last one and that you'll like the next!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)