There's this: As a guy, first of all, I think it crass beyond belief to be totally obvious about staring at a woman's chest- but I also have to admit that I'm a guy and guys look at breasts. I think the proper etiquette is to be brief and discreet about it and, above all DON'T GET CAUGHT. And above all- don't mention it in conversation! Good God. If you're going to be a stereotypical, slobbering male, at least be polite and discreet about it. Guys are, after all only human, but that doesn't mean they can't be respectful and discreet when they look at attractive women.
My mild confession on this subject: my freshman year of college when I was an incredibly callow young man with no social skills whatsoever, I was attempting to flirt with a woman who was actually, flirting back a little. At the time, this was a novelty to me- all that came to an end, when, upon noticing she had her cell phone snugly tucked into her cleavage, I 'playfully' asked her what else she kept down there. It was one of those moments where you just knew what you had just said was completely the wrong thing to say and every possible comeback completely vanished out of my head and I just figured the best thing to do at that point was to run away and find a corner to die in from mortification. Oddly enough (not really though), I never saw her again- but took some comfort from the fact that it could have been worse. I could have asked her if she had her phone set on vibrate.
Then there's this: this dude is a douchebag. No other word for it. No, women who breastfeed aren't 'sows', but yes, at the same time (I think Miss Manners would back me up on this) it's a lot cooler, when you're in public to use a blanket. If the D-Bags point was that people should use a blanket when breastfeeding in public, then he picked an incredibly shitty and sexist way to make it. But somehow, I don't think that was his point- I think he was just calling breastfeeding women sows.
Douche. Bag.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Diets and Running
We (everyone) is on the South Beach Diet for reasons passing understanding. It's Day 3 and I understand why dieting doesn't work AND why thin people are so damn miserable. The initial phase of the South Beach Diet consists of lettuce, other random forms of rabbit food and no carbs whatsoever. My own personal hell. Oh and no caffeine for the first two weeks, no chocolate and naturally, to add insult to injury no booze either.
This sucks- and if I haven't lost weight at the end of these two weeks, I'm going to be pretty damn pissed. And then stick my face into a burger. Preferably one from Hardees.
But, on the running front: 1.21 miles in 12.51 today! I'm getting better! I have the JC Sheriff's Department test tomorrow, so we'll see how that goes!
This sucks- and if I haven't lost weight at the end of these two weeks, I'm going to be pretty damn pissed. And then stick my face into a burger. Preferably one from Hardees.
But, on the running front: 1.21 miles in 12.51 today! I'm getting better! I have the JC Sheriff's Department test tomorrow, so we'll see how that goes!
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Somewhere, Abbie Hoffman is Crying.
I just stumbled across this little bit of painfully sad video that's been circulating the internet. Apparently, some students down at NYU decided to have a good, old fashioned takeover of the Food Court. Not a sit-in the President's Office, but a takeover of... yeah, that's right- the food court.
Their demands are OK- some of them make sense, some of them don't- I don't know why you'd lead off with a demand for an amnesty for all those involved. Yeah, way to be martyrs for your cause. Way to put your ideals on the line... 'we want to protest, but we demand NOT to get in trouble for it!' It's like they were going for civil obedience instead of civil DISobedience. And demand number 2? That workers be compensated for fiscal losses suffered during the occupation. WHY ARE YOU PENALIZING THE UNDERPAID FOOD COURT WORKERS? Come on NOW! This is why you take over some place that matters, like the President's office. You take over the Food Court, you're going to piss off students that want food and penalize some of the lowest paid workers (I would guess anyway) on campus. Yeah, up with the proletariat. They can do without a paycheck or two while you attempt to push your demands on people who could care less. The President makes, well, lots and LOTS of money- disrupt his work environment to make your point, not the cooks in the Food Court.
Second of all: wow, do you people not know how to protest. Have you ever seen a documentary on the 60s? Do you not get how to build barricades? And who sends negotiators OUT to meet with authorities? I mean DUH. Of course they're going to be detained! And kids- let's learn how to build a barricade and make some homemade teargas. When a cop just starts shoving your barricade aside as you're in the middle of your revolutionary harangue, it should be a clue that the supposed ramparts of your revolution are not up to the task. And why are you running around trying to have a group therapy session? Do you need facilitators? Why? Why haven't you figured this out before you get to this point? You know- like sit down and say hey, if the police bust in, this is what we're going to do!
The Flower Power of 60s Radicalism just died somewhere. Somewhere, Abbie Hoffman is crying. Shit, somewhere Ayn Rand is crying. Somewhere Gandhi is crying. It doesn't matter what your ideological standings and beliefs are- any way you slice it, this is just sad.
If you're going to takeover a building. DO IT RIGHT! And I would have voted for taking over the President's Office and staging a sit-in for your demands- and practicing non-violent resistance as you did so. I remember when Students Against Sweatshops was emerging on the University of Iowa Campus- they were radical, passionate- and I didn't entirely agree with them. But did they take over the IMU food court. Nope. They took over the President's Office. And FRONT PAGE the next day was shots of them being carried out by police officers. It was peaceful, well-organized and although it was disruptive, it got their points across very, very well.
If you're going to protest, then do it right.
Their demands are OK- some of them make sense, some of them don't- I don't know why you'd lead off with a demand for an amnesty for all those involved. Yeah, way to be martyrs for your cause. Way to put your ideals on the line... 'we want to protest, but we demand NOT to get in trouble for it!' It's like they were going for civil obedience instead of civil DISobedience. And demand number 2? That workers be compensated for fiscal losses suffered during the occupation. WHY ARE YOU PENALIZING THE UNDERPAID FOOD COURT WORKERS? Come on NOW! This is why you take over some place that matters, like the President's office. You take over the Food Court, you're going to piss off students that want food and penalize some of the lowest paid workers (I would guess anyway) on campus. Yeah, up with the proletariat. They can do without a paycheck or two while you attempt to push your demands on people who could care less. The President makes, well, lots and LOTS of money- disrupt his work environment to make your point, not the cooks in the Food Court.
Second of all: wow, do you people not know how to protest. Have you ever seen a documentary on the 60s? Do you not get how to build barricades? And who sends negotiators OUT to meet with authorities? I mean DUH. Of course they're going to be detained! And kids- let's learn how to build a barricade and make some homemade teargas. When a cop just starts shoving your barricade aside as you're in the middle of your revolutionary harangue, it should be a clue that the supposed ramparts of your revolution are not up to the task. And why are you running around trying to have a group therapy session? Do you need facilitators? Why? Why haven't you figured this out before you get to this point? You know- like sit down and say hey, if the police bust in, this is what we're going to do!
The Flower Power of 60s Radicalism just died somewhere. Somewhere, Abbie Hoffman is crying. Shit, somewhere Ayn Rand is crying. Somewhere Gandhi is crying. It doesn't matter what your ideological standings and beliefs are- any way you slice it, this is just sad.
If you're going to takeover a building. DO IT RIGHT! And I would have voted for taking over the President's Office and staging a sit-in for your demands- and practicing non-violent resistance as you did so. I remember when Students Against Sweatshops was emerging on the University of Iowa Campus- they were radical, passionate- and I didn't entirely agree with them. But did they take over the IMU food court. Nope. They took over the President's Office. And FRONT PAGE the next day was shots of them being carried out by police officers. It was peaceful, well-organized and although it was disruptive, it got their points across very, very well.
If you're going to protest, then do it right.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Crossing the Line
I take it as an article of faith that most of what you find on television today is crap. Most of it. There are shows worth watching out there- some of them critical acclaimed, some of them swept under the rug by the snobbish Hollywood elites. But by and large, there's a lot of crap on television.
So it's always a pleasant surprise when you find yourself watching television that is tackling an issue that is incredibly sensitive- and doing so in a thorough, nuanced and generally even-handed way. The issue: sexual harassment. The show: JAG.
JAG continues to surprise me. I never watched it regularly when it was on the air, resorting instead to falling back on the occasional episode on those slow mornings that found me at a loose end in front of the television, desperate to avoid soaps. The USA Network and JAG would always kill an hour in an entertaining way. And it was a good- and unique show. The genre of 'military courtroom drama' is one that is hardly the most crowded of demographics, so that made it different. But the attention to detail and research (not to mention the sometimes cheesy, early 90s special effect inserting actual footage of various Presidents and leaders into the show) is impressive. JAG, which I've started to watch more closely recently, is a show very aware of what year it is- the military of JAG is still wrestling with the issue of women in combat and still reeling from the sexual harassment scandals (OK. Make that 'Scandal' singular. Tailhook is very much remembered by this show) that shook the armed services in the 90s.
It takes you awhile to realize it, but when both male and female characters occasional steer the conversation away from risque conversational topics by saying 'RED LIGHT' or 'GREEN LIGHT' it takes you awhile to figure out what they're doing and why they're doing it. (A verbal tool employed by the armed services, I guess, to indicate when conversational topics are approaching uncomfortable and prickly areas. Hence- RED LIGHT=change the subject.)
And of all the shows on television, the one place you'd least expect to find a quiet strain of feminism is JAG. Yet, there, lurking in the corner is feminism. The female lead, Mac, played ably by Catharine Bell is a tough minded career Marine Major, who knows all too well what it takes to get ahead in the military. The male lead, Harm (David James Elliot) flips back and forth between attitudes portrayed as 'typical boys club' military thinking to atypical, more nuanced views that firmly line up behind doing what's right.
Early on in the second season, this all collides brilliantly in an episode entitled 'Crossing the Line.' The title refers to an apparent (I'm assuming they did the research on this one) naval tradition of 'initiating' new recruits the first time a ship crosses the equator- the 'tradition' resembles little more than a mild fraternity hazing- and if it's portrayal is anything close to accurate, then there are frat houses out there that do far, far worse.
But there's a twist: this time around, a female pilot accuses the CAG (Combat Air Group) commander of sexual harassment. What follows was probably the most thought-provoking, careful, nuanced- and above all entertaining hour of television I had ever seen. Mac and Harm are dispatched with their trust sidekick Bud to the aircraft carrier to investigate this complaint. Admirals in Washington are all over this- and soon, a high level Congresswoman, critic of the Navy and champion of women in the armed services is dispatched to take stock.
The female pilot gives an eloquent account of her feelings of humiliation at having jello rubbed in her hair, being forced to dance with another female officer, being poked and prodded in the buttocks with pitchforks and being dunked into 'the tank of truth and justice' which seems to be a tank of sewer water or something equally unpleasant. Mac is firmly on the side of the pilot while Harm shrugs it off as part of naval tradition.
Things change quickly: we find out from the Chief of the Boat (MC for this little tradition) that everyone was treated absolutely equally, regardless of gender. The other major female character involved in the ceremony (a backseat flyer- an RIO) agrees that everyone was treated equally. This throws Mac for a loop and backs up Harm's point of view- but it is the female RIO that probably delivers the moral of the story: 'Sometimes a woman has to give up some of what it means to be a woman in order to fit in with the guys. And sometimes it sucks.'
The obvious question: is that right? Is that OK? Why do women need to 'fit in with the guys?' Granted, the military is very much a boy's club, so it'll be a struggle for any woman to get ahead, but should they have to sacrifice a fundamental part of what it means to be a woman, just for the sake of fitting in with everyone? It's worth noting that in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, we were forced to do a linguistic dance with the Saudis- who objected to women being allowed to drive on their soil. 'Women' wouldn't be driving, they were told. 'American Soldiers' would be. Wouldn't that be the ideal the military would want to achieve? Not male soldiers and female soldiers, but just plain soldiers (or sailors, marines- whichever applies?) Such an ideal surely has been pushed before when the Armed Services were integrated on the basis of color, so why not on the basis of gender?
The CAG against which the complaint has been filed is undoubtedly a hardass. Perhaps even a fossil- even inappropriately so. But his position is crystal clear. He has standards for his pilots- high ones (especially given how insane it is just thinking about what's required to land a very large plane, going very fast on a very small runway in the middle of the ocean)- and those standards he will not compromise. Everyone has to meet the same standard. The female pilot was grounded because she had a couple of bad landings and was not meeting the expected standards.
This raises another question: should there be different standards for women? Such an idea seems both inevitable and anti-feminist. Inevitable, because basic biological gender differences mean that women and men achieve different standards of physical fitness at different rates. You only have to look at the differences in times at the Olympics to realize that. There are fast woman and fast men- but they don't compete against each other. Yet it also seems anti-feminist, because feminism seems to call for an end to gender bias and differences- and at the very core of this debate is a simple fact: if women are expected to succeed in the armed services, wouldn't it be in their benefit to show the boys they can take their standards and meet and beat them?
At the end of the day, JAG seems to settle on the ideal of aiming for a gender blind military where there are no men, no women, but just soldiers, sailors, marines and pilots. The hardass CAG is forced to send the female pilot he grounded out on patrol (in order to assuage the Congresswoman) and he sends the female RIO along to back her up. (The female pilot and the RIO don't like each other- the RIO feels that the pilot looks to blame everyone but herself for her mistakes.) Tragically, the CAG's judgment is proved correct. The female pilot blow her night landing on the carrier and crashes her plane- which bursts into flame. The female RIO ejects at the last minute (is saved by the always heroic Harm) and earns the respect (which she already had) of the CAG- she is undeniably one of the boys.
The underlying message of the show is an interesting one. As I've already said, JAG does seem to line up behind the idea that the military should be gender blind and everyone should play on an equal footing. I was somewhat uncomfortable about the idea of the female pilot being killed off in the show, but it just serves to reinforce the underlying point: the military is a serious business and standards have to be high, because even if you're on a routine flight, mistakes in their line of work can cost lives. Why should that ideal be softened because of someone's gender? Should it? Ultimately, it feels like the question is essentially unresolved however: there is an interesting contradiction being played out- on the one hand, gender blindness seems to be the ideal that the show lines up behind. But on the other hand, there's that quietly devastating remark by the female RIO that still lingers: in order to fit in with the guys, women do have to sacrifice just a little of what it means to be a woman.
Is that right? Should we- or women, for that matter be OK with that? That particular question is never really resolved, but the fact of the matter is that JAG takes the view that a gender blind military would be the ideal, but is also pragmatic enough to recognize that such an ideal has a price for all concerned. For women, the things they have to do to 'fit in' in such a male-dominated business. For the men and the COs, the pressure they feel to compromise high standards on the basis of gender and the hard truth that a male-dominated culture has to somehow, someway, adapt to change.
All in all, it was incredible well done- the most thought-provoking 45 minutes of television I have ever seen. If you haven't taken a closer look at JAG, even though it's off the air now- whip out the Netflix and give it a shot. It may just surprise you- because it sure as heck surprised me.
So it's always a pleasant surprise when you find yourself watching television that is tackling an issue that is incredibly sensitive- and doing so in a thorough, nuanced and generally even-handed way. The issue: sexual harassment. The show: JAG.
JAG continues to surprise me. I never watched it regularly when it was on the air, resorting instead to falling back on the occasional episode on those slow mornings that found me at a loose end in front of the television, desperate to avoid soaps. The USA Network and JAG would always kill an hour in an entertaining way. And it was a good- and unique show. The genre of 'military courtroom drama' is one that is hardly the most crowded of demographics, so that made it different. But the attention to detail and research (not to mention the sometimes cheesy, early 90s special effect inserting actual footage of various Presidents and leaders into the show) is impressive. JAG, which I've started to watch more closely recently, is a show very aware of what year it is- the military of JAG is still wrestling with the issue of women in combat and still reeling from the sexual harassment scandals (OK. Make that 'Scandal' singular. Tailhook is very much remembered by this show) that shook the armed services in the 90s.
It takes you awhile to realize it, but when both male and female characters occasional steer the conversation away from risque conversational topics by saying 'RED LIGHT' or 'GREEN LIGHT' it takes you awhile to figure out what they're doing and why they're doing it. (A verbal tool employed by the armed services, I guess, to indicate when conversational topics are approaching uncomfortable and prickly areas. Hence- RED LIGHT=change the subject.)
And of all the shows on television, the one place you'd least expect to find a quiet strain of feminism is JAG. Yet, there, lurking in the corner is feminism. The female lead, Mac, played ably by Catharine Bell is a tough minded career Marine Major, who knows all too well what it takes to get ahead in the military. The male lead, Harm (David James Elliot) flips back and forth between attitudes portrayed as 'typical boys club' military thinking to atypical, more nuanced views that firmly line up behind doing what's right.
Early on in the second season, this all collides brilliantly in an episode entitled 'Crossing the Line.' The title refers to an apparent (I'm assuming they did the research on this one) naval tradition of 'initiating' new recruits the first time a ship crosses the equator- the 'tradition' resembles little more than a mild fraternity hazing- and if it's portrayal is anything close to accurate, then there are frat houses out there that do far, far worse.
But there's a twist: this time around, a female pilot accuses the CAG (Combat Air Group) commander of sexual harassment. What follows was probably the most thought-provoking, careful, nuanced- and above all entertaining hour of television I had ever seen. Mac and Harm are dispatched with their trust sidekick Bud to the aircraft carrier to investigate this complaint. Admirals in Washington are all over this- and soon, a high level Congresswoman, critic of the Navy and champion of women in the armed services is dispatched to take stock.
The female pilot gives an eloquent account of her feelings of humiliation at having jello rubbed in her hair, being forced to dance with another female officer, being poked and prodded in the buttocks with pitchforks and being dunked into 'the tank of truth and justice' which seems to be a tank of sewer water or something equally unpleasant. Mac is firmly on the side of the pilot while Harm shrugs it off as part of naval tradition.
Things change quickly: we find out from the Chief of the Boat (MC for this little tradition) that everyone was treated absolutely equally, regardless of gender. The other major female character involved in the ceremony (a backseat flyer- an RIO) agrees that everyone was treated equally. This throws Mac for a loop and backs up Harm's point of view- but it is the female RIO that probably delivers the moral of the story: 'Sometimes a woman has to give up some of what it means to be a woman in order to fit in with the guys. And sometimes it sucks.'
The obvious question: is that right? Is that OK? Why do women need to 'fit in with the guys?' Granted, the military is very much a boy's club, so it'll be a struggle for any woman to get ahead, but should they have to sacrifice a fundamental part of what it means to be a woman, just for the sake of fitting in with everyone? It's worth noting that in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, we were forced to do a linguistic dance with the Saudis- who objected to women being allowed to drive on their soil. 'Women' wouldn't be driving, they were told. 'American Soldiers' would be. Wouldn't that be the ideal the military would want to achieve? Not male soldiers and female soldiers, but just plain soldiers (or sailors, marines- whichever applies?) Such an ideal surely has been pushed before when the Armed Services were integrated on the basis of color, so why not on the basis of gender?
The CAG against which the complaint has been filed is undoubtedly a hardass. Perhaps even a fossil- even inappropriately so. But his position is crystal clear. He has standards for his pilots- high ones (especially given how insane it is just thinking about what's required to land a very large plane, going very fast on a very small runway in the middle of the ocean)- and those standards he will not compromise. Everyone has to meet the same standard. The female pilot was grounded because she had a couple of bad landings and was not meeting the expected standards.
This raises another question: should there be different standards for women? Such an idea seems both inevitable and anti-feminist. Inevitable, because basic biological gender differences mean that women and men achieve different standards of physical fitness at different rates. You only have to look at the differences in times at the Olympics to realize that. There are fast woman and fast men- but they don't compete against each other. Yet it also seems anti-feminist, because feminism seems to call for an end to gender bias and differences- and at the very core of this debate is a simple fact: if women are expected to succeed in the armed services, wouldn't it be in their benefit to show the boys they can take their standards and meet and beat them?
At the end of the day, JAG seems to settle on the ideal of aiming for a gender blind military where there are no men, no women, but just soldiers, sailors, marines and pilots. The hardass CAG is forced to send the female pilot he grounded out on patrol (in order to assuage the Congresswoman) and he sends the female RIO along to back her up. (The female pilot and the RIO don't like each other- the RIO feels that the pilot looks to blame everyone but herself for her mistakes.) Tragically, the CAG's judgment is proved correct. The female pilot blow her night landing on the carrier and crashes her plane- which bursts into flame. The female RIO ejects at the last minute (is saved by the always heroic Harm) and earns the respect (which she already had) of the CAG- she is undeniably one of the boys.
The underlying message of the show is an interesting one. As I've already said, JAG does seem to line up behind the idea that the military should be gender blind and everyone should play on an equal footing. I was somewhat uncomfortable about the idea of the female pilot being killed off in the show, but it just serves to reinforce the underlying point: the military is a serious business and standards have to be high, because even if you're on a routine flight, mistakes in their line of work can cost lives. Why should that ideal be softened because of someone's gender? Should it? Ultimately, it feels like the question is essentially unresolved however: there is an interesting contradiction being played out- on the one hand, gender blindness seems to be the ideal that the show lines up behind. But on the other hand, there's that quietly devastating remark by the female RIO that still lingers: in order to fit in with the guys, women do have to sacrifice just a little of what it means to be a woman.
Is that right? Should we- or women, for that matter be OK with that? That particular question is never really resolved, but the fact of the matter is that JAG takes the view that a gender blind military would be the ideal, but is also pragmatic enough to recognize that such an ideal has a price for all concerned. For women, the things they have to do to 'fit in' in such a male-dominated business. For the men and the COs, the pressure they feel to compromise high standards on the basis of gender and the hard truth that a male-dominated culture has to somehow, someway, adapt to change.
All in all, it was incredible well done- the most thought-provoking 45 minutes of television I have ever seen. If you haven't taken a closer look at JAG, even though it's off the air now- whip out the Netflix and give it a shot. It may just surprise you- because it sure as heck surprised me.
Freedom
I usually am a fairly oriented person. It's a side effect of spending far too much of my youth with my nose buried in an atlas instead of outside in the fresh air. I usually know which was is north, where the nearest big cities are, what's coming up when, and so on and so forth. Once I've been to a place once, I can usually find my way back without (too much) assistance.
So Saturday night, at the party, I wandered outside and stared up at the most beautiful night sky I'd ever seen and I realized that between one rural back road and another, I had no idea where I was. Somewhere between Rochester, Austen and Winona was the nearest I could think.
The Universe suddenly felt very large and I felt very small and almost invisible. Normally, that tends to depress people- myself included. It makes you feel small and insignificant. But this time, it felt wonderful. No one, myself included, could find me. The World had grown large and I had become invisible. There was a free keg of Miller Light back inside the bar and I just felt this incredible surge of goodness run through me.
I didn't know where I was. But the beer was free, the world was shut out for a few hours and I had never felt better.
I felt free. And it was great.
So Saturday night, at the party, I wandered outside and stared up at the most beautiful night sky I'd ever seen and I realized that between one rural back road and another, I had no idea where I was. Somewhere between Rochester, Austen and Winona was the nearest I could think.
The Universe suddenly felt very large and I felt very small and almost invisible. Normally, that tends to depress people- myself included. It makes you feel small and insignificant. But this time, it felt wonderful. No one, myself included, could find me. The World had grown large and I had become invisible. There was a free keg of Miller Light back inside the bar and I just felt this incredible surge of goodness run through me.
I didn't know where I was. But the beer was free, the world was shut out for a few hours and I had never felt better.
I felt free. And it was great.
A Juxtaposition
So, we went up to Austin, MN for a friends birthday party yesterday and driving down Interstate 90, I noticed something that disturbed me ever so slightly.
On one side of the interstate is the famous Hormel Factory where, of course, SPAM is made in great quantities.
On the other side, 'THE HORMEL INSTITUTE'
Which wouldn't have been that disturbing. After all, McDonald's has things like 'HAMBURGER UNIVERSITY' so why can't Hormel have an institute? Processing what I'm sure is essentially offal into meat cannot be an easy task.
But underneath that, in smaller letters:
'MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER'
Think about that juxtaposition for a second...
The mind boggles.
On one side of the interstate is the famous Hormel Factory where, of course, SPAM is made in great quantities.
On the other side, 'THE HORMEL INSTITUTE'
Which wouldn't have been that disturbing. After all, McDonald's has things like 'HAMBURGER UNIVERSITY' so why can't Hormel have an institute? Processing what I'm sure is essentially offal into meat cannot be an easy task.
But underneath that, in smaller letters:
'MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER'
Think about that juxtaposition for a second...
The mind boggles.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Exciting News, Sports Fans
I just hopped out of the shower only to find that the University of Iowa Police Department had called me (moi?) to let me know that their trainee positions were going to be advertised starting tomorrow- AND that they hoped that I was still interested because I was an ideal candidate.
Testing is 30 days from tomorrow, March 21st- applications due as soon as I apply! (Tomorrow) and then it's off to the races, literally:
1.5 miles in 12.51
29 push-ups (real ones that go more than halfway down to the ground)
38 sit-ups
16.5 inch sit and reach.
That's my goal.
I want this one BAD. I think this would be the ideal job for me and it'd give me experience in law enforcement, let me give back to the campus and the community that have given me so much and I think it'd be downright interesting. This is the cop job I want.
Friday Rocks!
Testing is 30 days from tomorrow, March 21st- applications due as soon as I apply! (Tomorrow) and then it's off to the races, literally:
1.5 miles in 12.51
29 push-ups (real ones that go more than halfway down to the ground)
38 sit-ups
16.5 inch sit and reach.
That's my goal.
I want this one BAD. I think this would be the ideal job for me and it'd give me experience in law enforcement, let me give back to the campus and the community that have given me so much and I think it'd be downright interesting. This is the cop job I want.
Friday Rocks!
Well, What Do You Expect?
This is why I'm against the Fairness Doctrine or anything that'll let government start sticking its nose into Free Speech. Thank God America has a tradition of free speech absolutism, that so far anyway is holding up just fine. Not to hate on Queen and Country, but the problem with the UK isn't necessarily multiculturalism and the tiresome debates about identity and assimilating immigrants I think the problem comes down to Free Speech.
The UK pretty much let the Ulster Unionist run amuck in Northern Ireland until they couldn't pretend the situation wasn't happening anymore. Then London got involved and everything went pear-shaped in a hurry. And laws controlling speech just go down unpleasant roads and lead to things like well, fascism- and you'd think that a country that had the balls to stand alone and spit in the eye of Hitler for two years would care a little more about that.
Not to sound insensitive, but who cares if some nutjob Dutchman has extremist views on Muslims? There are people in this country who have extremist views about African-Americans, gay people, handicapped people and other people who aren't white. Do I think they should be banned from saying such things as a matter of 'public safety'? Nope. I just ignore them, which is what they so richly deserve. By banning this dude for his views on Islam, all you're doing is guaranteeing that everyone with an internet connection is going to go and find out WHY he was banned.
Does that make sense? Giving such views credence only gives them attention- and a soapbox to stand on so they can shout it out to the world. So, don't give 'em credence. Let wackos be wackos. Anyone with a brain in their head is going to ignore them.
But authoritarianism is all the rage these days in the United Kingdom, apparently. There's a shiny new report out that gives all the juicy details... oh, and by the by, I'm all for cultural sensitivity, but I'm tired of Muslims in Europe having such thin skins. If you don't like anti-Islamic views, police your fellow Muslims and have them stop blowing shit up! You have the right to your beliefs- that's an absolute. But where I jump off the train is where you- or anyone else for that matter (unlike the UK government I am NOT selective about this) try to force those beliefs on me. That's not cool.
Not cool at all.
The UK pretty much let the Ulster Unionist run amuck in Northern Ireland until they couldn't pretend the situation wasn't happening anymore. Then London got involved and everything went pear-shaped in a hurry. And laws controlling speech just go down unpleasant roads and lead to things like well, fascism- and you'd think that a country that had the balls to stand alone and spit in the eye of Hitler for two years would care a little more about that.
Not to sound insensitive, but who cares if some nutjob Dutchman has extremist views on Muslims? There are people in this country who have extremist views about African-Americans, gay people, handicapped people and other people who aren't white. Do I think they should be banned from saying such things as a matter of 'public safety'? Nope. I just ignore them, which is what they so richly deserve. By banning this dude for his views on Islam, all you're doing is guaranteeing that everyone with an internet connection is going to go and find out WHY he was banned.
Does that make sense? Giving such views credence only gives them attention- and a soapbox to stand on so they can shout it out to the world. So, don't give 'em credence. Let wackos be wackos. Anyone with a brain in their head is going to ignore them.
But authoritarianism is all the rage these days in the United Kingdom, apparently. There's a shiny new report out that gives all the juicy details... oh, and by the by, I'm all for cultural sensitivity, but I'm tired of Muslims in Europe having such thin skins. If you don't like anti-Islamic views, police your fellow Muslims and have them stop blowing shit up! You have the right to your beliefs- that's an absolute. But where I jump off the train is where you- or anyone else for that matter (unlike the UK government I am NOT selective about this) try to force those beliefs on me. That's not cool.
Not cool at all.
If This Happens...
...I might look for jobs in Canada. This is such an incredibly stupid idea and what's worse is that a Republican seems to think that it's a good idea! Basically, President Obama's transportation secretary Ray LaHood thinks it's a good idea to start looking at shifting from a gasoline tax to pay for infrastructure projects to a VMT tax- a vehicle miles travelled tax. In other words, they'd tax you for the miles you travel rather than the gasoline you burn.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
First of all, we're taxed too damn much already. That maybe dangerously Republican of me to say, but really in an economic crisis, everyone- left and/or right can agree that more taxes are the last thing we need. It's a struggle just to pay the bills. I don't want to be taxed because I have to drive to work.
Second of all, the greatest thing about this country is that's its so damn big and there's so much to see. Taxing people for the miles they travel essentially means keeping people at home and having them never leave their hometowns or states. America, especially the Midwest is too provincial already. We need to be encouraging our young people and Americans in general to travel across this great country and THEY SHOULD NOT have to pay for the privilege. It should be their right as Americans. Next thing you know (and again, this will sound dangerously Republican) we'll have to have papers to travel from point A to point B and then we might as well just go for breadlines, Pravda and bad vodka.
On a more rational and less hysterical note (even though I think this idiotic plan sets a bad and entirely undemocratic precedent) we need people to be able to travel with ease. They SHOULD NOT have to pay for it- if they do, then families in the Midwest who want to go to places like DisneyLand or California might think twice about that if they have to pay per miles driven or even for a plane ticket. You see where I'm going with this? Travel should be as CHEAP as possible. Otherwise, people don't go to those tourist areas, don't bring money to those local economies and consequently, I think that adds up to 'bad for business.'
Downright stupid idea.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
First of all, we're taxed too damn much already. That maybe dangerously Republican of me to say, but really in an economic crisis, everyone- left and/or right can agree that more taxes are the last thing we need. It's a struggle just to pay the bills. I don't want to be taxed because I have to drive to work.
Second of all, the greatest thing about this country is that's its so damn big and there's so much to see. Taxing people for the miles they travel essentially means keeping people at home and having them never leave their hometowns or states. America, especially the Midwest is too provincial already. We need to be encouraging our young people and Americans in general to travel across this great country and THEY SHOULD NOT have to pay for the privilege. It should be their right as Americans. Next thing you know (and again, this will sound dangerously Republican) we'll have to have papers to travel from point A to point B and then we might as well just go for breadlines, Pravda and bad vodka.
On a more rational and less hysterical note (even though I think this idiotic plan sets a bad and entirely undemocratic precedent) we need people to be able to travel with ease. They SHOULD NOT have to pay for it- if they do, then families in the Midwest who want to go to places like DisneyLand or California might think twice about that if they have to pay per miles driven or even for a plane ticket. You see where I'm going with this? Travel should be as CHEAP as possible. Otherwise, people don't go to those tourist areas, don't bring money to those local economies and consequently, I think that adds up to 'bad for business.'
Downright stupid idea.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Chessboard Dance
Israel's delicate electoral dance has begun. The right wing Likud Party has won the backing of the harder right Yisrael Beitenu Party, which should give the right wing about 65 seats in the Knesset and thus give them enough for a government.
But there are some catches: YB is indicating that they will support Likud, but only as a part of a wider coalition.
So YB wants a wider coalition government- Kadima is pushing for a grand coalition as well- with a rotating PM situation similar to the one that Likud and Labour had during the 80s. Livni and Kadima have made it clear that they won't be junior partners in a purely Likud lead government. There are large cleavages between them- (Kadima's for continuing negotiations, Likud says no) and really, Kadima sort of has a point. Stability would be nice, national unity would be nice- especially given a probably showdown with Iran and continuing troubles in Gaza.
An equally big problem for Kadima is their track record, however. Kadima and Labor have lead Israel to two lopsided results in two wars so far- and have been tainted by a corruption scandal. Why would people want them anywhere near the reins of power? Take these factors and combine them with the fact that in politics, nice doesn't matter and then you get a couple of scenarios to look at:
1. Likud and YB take over, Kadima and company head for the Opposition: probably the most likely scenario, I think- but YB doesn't seem to want to be in a narrow coalition government- so Likud might need Kadima in order to make this work, but then again, maybe the YB shrugs and just says, 'what the heck' and jumps in with Likud. BUT: YB doesn't want to be seen as a tool of Likud and with the number of seats they have, they could just as easily sit on the sidelines and play kingmaker whenever they want without having to play by the 'rules' in some coalition.
2. Kadima and the Amazing Rotating Prime Minister: It worked in '84, why not now? There are some pluses to this scenario- national unity and stability at a time when it's badly needed. Problem is that with YB positive on the idea of a coalition with Likud, there's not a lot of motivation for Likud to sign onto this. Why would they?
3. Shas! Word on the pavement is that Shas doesn't like YB and Lieberman. Lieberman's all about selling pork products and a few other things that rub ultra-orthodox Jews the wrong way. More word in the 'hood is that Likud had a deal with Shas sown up before the election, but here's the thing: will YB in coalition with Likud be a deal breaker for Shas? Could they potentially jump ship and sign on with Kadima and company?
Likely numbers:
Kadima, Labour, Meretz (a left-wing party), United Arab List (YB not being hot on Israeli Arabs): 48 seats
Likud, YB, Shas: 53 seats.
Balad, Jewish Home, United Torah Judaism, National Union and Hadash: 19 seats. Kadima and company will need 10 of those seats from minor parties to get them a majority. (Technically they only need six- so two of the minor parties, depending on their ideological orientations could do it for them. But if they're more religious parties, then not so much.)
Let the horse-trading BEGIN!
But there are some catches: YB is indicating that they will support Likud, but only as a part of a wider coalition.
Israel Army radio reported Mr Lieberman telling Mr Peres that he supported the Likud leader as prime minister but "only as part of a wider government".
"We are not talking of a government with a restricted majority. To govern the country, we need a government with the three largest parties - Likud, Kadima and Yisrael Beiteinu.
"Netanyahu will be prime minister, but it will be a Bibi-Livni government," said Mr Lieberman, using Mr Netanyahu's widely-used nickname.
So YB wants a wider coalition government- Kadima is pushing for a grand coalition as well- with a rotating PM situation similar to the one that Likud and Labour had during the 80s. Livni and Kadima have made it clear that they won't be junior partners in a purely Likud lead government. There are large cleavages between them- (Kadima's for continuing negotiations, Likud says no) and really, Kadima sort of has a point. Stability would be nice, national unity would be nice- especially given a probably showdown with Iran and continuing troubles in Gaza.
An equally big problem for Kadima is their track record, however. Kadima and Labor have lead Israel to two lopsided results in two wars so far- and have been tainted by a corruption scandal. Why would people want them anywhere near the reins of power? Take these factors and combine them with the fact that in politics, nice doesn't matter and then you get a couple of scenarios to look at:
1. Likud and YB take over, Kadima and company head for the Opposition: probably the most likely scenario, I think- but YB doesn't seem to want to be in a narrow coalition government- so Likud might need Kadima in order to make this work, but then again, maybe the YB shrugs and just says, 'what the heck' and jumps in with Likud. BUT: YB doesn't want to be seen as a tool of Likud and with the number of seats they have, they could just as easily sit on the sidelines and play kingmaker whenever they want without having to play by the 'rules' in some coalition.
2. Kadima and the Amazing Rotating Prime Minister: It worked in '84, why not now? There are some pluses to this scenario- national unity and stability at a time when it's badly needed. Problem is that with YB positive on the idea of a coalition with Likud, there's not a lot of motivation for Likud to sign onto this. Why would they?
3. Shas! Word on the pavement is that Shas doesn't like YB and Lieberman. Lieberman's all about selling pork products and a few other things that rub ultra-orthodox Jews the wrong way. More word in the 'hood is that Likud had a deal with Shas sown up before the election, but here's the thing: will YB in coalition with Likud be a deal breaker for Shas? Could they potentially jump ship and sign on with Kadima and company?
Likely numbers:
Kadima, Labour, Meretz (a left-wing party), United Arab List (YB not being hot on Israeli Arabs): 48 seats
Likud, YB, Shas: 53 seats.
Balad, Jewish Home, United Torah Judaism, National Union and Hadash: 19 seats. Kadima and company will need 10 of those seats from minor parties to get them a majority. (Technically they only need six- so two of the minor parties, depending on their ideological orientations could do it for them. But if they're more religious parties, then not so much.)
Let the horse-trading BEGIN!
Vision Statement
I want to work in Washington D.C., either in the employ of an interest government agency and/or a think-tank dedicated to trying to make the country better. (Or at an NGO that is dedicated to making a difference in the world itself.) I picture a townhouse in somewhere like Georgetown (or wherever that neighborhood was in the opening of Minority Report.)
Five years of that, then a PHD, a professorship, a chase for tenure, research, writing tons of books- both fiction and non-fiction and then an MFA in Creative Writing (preferably from the University of Iowa) and then I'd like to do a stint teaching Social Studies at my old high school. (After that, retirement, scotch, travel, grandchildren and lots of good television shows, reading and cards in my twilight years.)
There. I've got it all down on paper. Now all I have to do is make it happen- and that is my goal over the course of the next few months. The Federales are notoriously slow when it comes to hiring- but I gots the skills to get there. I'll go ahead with the cop stuff and if I get that, then I get that- it's a dream deferred, not a dream denied. But:
1. Washington D.C. job.
2. The University of Iowa Police Department
3. Another job in Eastern Iowa somewhere- ACT, etc.
4. A job elsewhere.
Them is my preferences. This is my vision.
Let's make it happen.
Five years of that, then a PHD, a professorship, a chase for tenure, research, writing tons of books- both fiction and non-fiction and then an MFA in Creative Writing (preferably from the University of Iowa) and then I'd like to do a stint teaching Social Studies at my old high school. (After that, retirement, scotch, travel, grandchildren and lots of good television shows, reading and cards in my twilight years.)
There. I've got it all down on paper. Now all I have to do is make it happen- and that is my goal over the course of the next few months. The Federales are notoriously slow when it comes to hiring- but I gots the skills to get there. I'll go ahead with the cop stuff and if I get that, then I get that- it's a dream deferred, not a dream denied. But:
1. Washington D.C. job.
2. The University of Iowa Police Department
3. Another job in Eastern Iowa somewhere- ACT, etc.
4. A job elsewhere.
Them is my preferences. This is my vision.
Let's make it happen.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Cali On The Brink
This is going to help the economy. If you've never seen a state implode before, keep watching your friendly cable news networks. California, barring a last minute budget deal is beginning to derail.
It's going to be an ugly, spectacular, horrific train wreck. Hopefully they can avoid it.
It's going to be an ugly, spectacular, horrific train wreck. Hopefully they can avoid it.
New Job Chronicles Day 9
I'm going to try a different tack. Recession be damned, I want to push myself and reach for something real, significant and just plain awesome. Sure, I could be a cop in some place like Webster City. That would be a solid accomplishment for 5 years or so and it wouldn't be nothing- but I think my goals and aspirations can be higher than that. Ali consistently accuses me of being scattershot and wanting to do something different every single day- but really, I don't. I don't change the menu around every day- I just make it longer. With all the options in the world, I want to make sure I'm aiming high enough.
So, that said- my latest tack:
1. Iowa Democratic Party
2. Iowa Libertarian Party
3. Iowa Green Party
4. Congressman Dave Loebsack
5. CATO Institute
6. NPR (WSUI/KSUI and/or Iowa Public Radio)
7. KRUI, 100.7 or 102.9 (it'd be fun to work in radio)
8. The Press-Citizen and the Gazette (let's try journalism- add the DMRegister to that list as well.)
9. The Alphabet Soup of Government Agencies I find interesting. (Some of which I've already applied for.)
10. The United Nations and a plethora of international organizations I find interesting. (Why not indeed?)
I think that pretty much covers it. My goal is to get resumes, cover letters and writing samples out to all of these places by the end of the month and see what happens. That way, whatever happens- I'll know that at the very least, I tried everything and didn't limit myself to the mundane or the practical. Even in a recession, there's no time for the mundane or the practical. I'm not a mundane or a practical person- neither is Ali really. We both have elements of practicality, but mundane we are NOT. Which is probably we're so perfect for each other. Even if we do end up somewhere like Webster City, we won't be conventional about things.
Don't be conventional. Don't be mundane. Don't be practical. Do anything and everything you want to do- and even if you're struggling to find a job or struggling in general, live the cliche. Take the lemons of this recession and make lemonade out of them. View the chaos of the economy as an opportunity not a hazard.
Hopefully, I'll reap the benefits.
So, that said- my latest tack:
1. Iowa Democratic Party
2. Iowa Libertarian Party
3. Iowa Green Party
4. Congressman Dave Loebsack
5. CATO Institute
6. NPR (WSUI/KSUI and/or Iowa Public Radio)
7. KRUI, 100.7 or 102.9 (it'd be fun to work in radio)
8. The Press-Citizen and the Gazette (let's try journalism- add the DMRegister to that list as well.)
9. The Alphabet Soup of Government Agencies I find interesting. (Some of which I've already applied for.)
10. The United Nations and a plethora of international organizations I find interesting. (Why not indeed?)
I think that pretty much covers it. My goal is to get resumes, cover letters and writing samples out to all of these places by the end of the month and see what happens. That way, whatever happens- I'll know that at the very least, I tried everything and didn't limit myself to the mundane or the practical. Even in a recession, there's no time for the mundane or the practical. I'm not a mundane or a practical person- neither is Ali really. We both have elements of practicality, but mundane we are NOT. Which is probably we're so perfect for each other. Even if we do end up somewhere like Webster City, we won't be conventional about things.
Don't be conventional. Don't be mundane. Don't be practical. Do anything and everything you want to do- and even if you're struggling to find a job or struggling in general, live the cliche. Take the lemons of this recession and make lemonade out of them. View the chaos of the economy as an opportunity not a hazard.
Hopefully, I'll reap the benefits.
Monday, February 16, 2009
New Job Chronicles Day 8
Low point today. Didn't want to get out of bed, move, do anything. Felt totally inadequate, resented the fact that everyone I know seems to have a better grip of careers and jobs than I do and was just desperate for something better.
I'm doing the best I can. Really, at this point if all I can gripe about is not having a better job or my own place, I'm doing OK. But perspective sometimes isn't enough. Sometimes you just want to know why- why you can't even seem to get started. Why you can't seem to catch a break and get anything better.
I am doing the best I can. But it's hard. Today, it's a little harder.
But hopefully, someday, it'll get easier.
I'm doing the best I can. Really, at this point if all I can gripe about is not having a better job or my own place, I'm doing OK. But perspective sometimes isn't enough. Sometimes you just want to know why- why you can't even seem to get started. Why you can't seem to catch a break and get anything better.
I am doing the best I can. But it's hard. Today, it's a little harder.
But hopefully, someday, it'll get easier.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
A Glitch in the Matrix
For awhile I thought that Iowa City seemed like some weird, bizarre dream. Now, driving down Court Street I take the time to wonder if Mankato was the dream and Iowa City had never ceased to be reality for me at all.
A glitch in the proverbial matrix.
A glitch in the proverbial matrix.
New Job Chronicles Day 7
I feel like tacking into the wind. I love writing and I love languages. I want to use both again and find not just a job to ride out the economic storm winds. I have one life and I don't want to waste time looking for solid work. I want something that I love to do- that makes me excited to get out of bed in the morning and go to work and I want that something to pay my bills and I'm tired of compromising on what I want.
Lets be clear: I'm a good worker. Anything I do, I'll be competent at- even good at. That's just who I am. And economic times like these are scary as hell- but I don't want to cower in a storm cellar for the next five years while the storm passes. I want to run out into it and fly. Because I can. I'm smart, I'm intelligent and I'll be damn good at whatever I do.
Being a cop at the University would be amazing. Being a cop in Webster City would be fine. Be a Sheriff's Deputy for Johnson County would be damn good work experience. They'd be jobs to pay the bills and they'd let me get a house, a life- even a kid and do what I love on my days off- namely write. It's a sensible, logical path to follow. But it's not the only path to follow. Starting tomorrow, I'm on a new path. To break into journalism and write. To break into politics and make a difference for some candidate somewhere- whether it's just shuffling papers or it's actually giving them my honest opinions on how they can be better and how to make the country better.
I have the best degree in the world. It'll let me do anything.
So I'm going to do everything. And wherever happens, happens.
The storm has broken- and I'm tacking into the wind.
Lets be clear: I'm a good worker. Anything I do, I'll be competent at- even good at. That's just who I am. And economic times like these are scary as hell- but I don't want to cower in a storm cellar for the next five years while the storm passes. I want to run out into it and fly. Because I can. I'm smart, I'm intelligent and I'll be damn good at whatever I do.
Being a cop at the University would be amazing. Being a cop in Webster City would be fine. Be a Sheriff's Deputy for Johnson County would be damn good work experience. They'd be jobs to pay the bills and they'd let me get a house, a life- even a kid and do what I love on my days off- namely write. It's a sensible, logical path to follow. But it's not the only path to follow. Starting tomorrow, I'm on a new path. To break into journalism and write. To break into politics and make a difference for some candidate somewhere- whether it's just shuffling papers or it's actually giving them my honest opinions on how they can be better and how to make the country better.
I have the best degree in the world. It'll let me do anything.
So I'm going to do everything. And wherever happens, happens.
The storm has broken- and I'm tacking into the wind.
Mau Money, Mau Problems
Churchill has been banished from the White House. Along with 13 year old fathers, the British press was aflutter about this. Bush the Younger had a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office, but President Obama prefers a bust of Lincoln apparently.
The British Diplomatic establishment is busy parsing this move for any weird signals that it might send about the future of the Special Relationship. One suggestion is a bust of 19th Century MP Jacob Bright who was an ardent supporter of the Union forces during the Civil War. (Britain and France preferring to surreptitiously aid the Confederacy in the name of instability on the North American continent.) My vote would be for a bust of William Wilberforce, the British abolitionist that helped to abolish slavery in the British Empire.
More votes? I think Pitt the Younger would be a good choice- he didn't have much interaction with the Americans that I can remember- but he didn't fit comfortably into the partisan system in Britain at the time. And having achieved power at the age of 24, he was certainly groundbreaking. His tenure might be just a little too historically close to the Revolution to be a comfortable choice though.
The official reason for the banishment of Churchill-- it was only on loan through January of 2009. The speculation? Churchill was responsible for surpressing the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya- one of the people caught up in that mess? None other than the President's own Grandfather.
President Obama appears to have a fairly cogent sense of his own family history. It'll be interesting to see how that might come into play when (and I am assuming he's going to) he visits Kenya.
The British Diplomatic establishment is busy parsing this move for any weird signals that it might send about the future of the Special Relationship. One suggestion is a bust of 19th Century MP Jacob Bright who was an ardent supporter of the Union forces during the Civil War. (Britain and France preferring to surreptitiously aid the Confederacy in the name of instability on the North American continent.) My vote would be for a bust of William Wilberforce, the British abolitionist that helped to abolish slavery in the British Empire.
More votes? I think Pitt the Younger would be a good choice- he didn't have much interaction with the Americans that I can remember- but he didn't fit comfortably into the partisan system in Britain at the time. And having achieved power at the age of 24, he was certainly groundbreaking. His tenure might be just a little too historically close to the Revolution to be a comfortable choice though.
The official reason for the banishment of Churchill-- it was only on loan through January of 2009. The speculation? Churchill was responsible for surpressing the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya- one of the people caught up in that mess? None other than the President's own Grandfather.
President Obama appears to have a fairly cogent sense of his own family history. It'll be interesting to see how that might come into play when (and I am assuming he's going to) he visits Kenya.
Confessions of a Shopaholic
Imagine a bleak, stone, Church basement. A circle of chairs, all filled by nervous looking people. An imposing, older lady that has 'battle axe' engraved on her features. And an old man, long white beard, top hat and tails, creaks to his feet:
"Hi, I'm Uncle Sam."
"Hi Sam!" Comes the chorus in return.
"And I am a shopaholic."
There are certain universal things that, as a man, one can recognize- especially on Valentine's Day. When you walk into a theater for a movie like Confessions of a Shopaholic and you realize that pretty much every guy in the theater is there because of his wife and/or girlfriend or boyfriend- resigned to watching a movie that doesn't involve explosions, attractive, martini-sipping spies or scantily clad women. Guys all realize that this is expected of them on Valentine's Day- and the guys that want to actually have some 'fun' on Valentine's Day (at some point during Valentine's Day, that is) usually accept the inevitability of a 'chick flick' with some semblance of good humor.
Confessions of a Shopaholic was just the latest in a series of movies that, if flying solo I wouldn't have bothered with- however, loving my wife the way I do, I become her willing seatmate and sharer of popcorn- and to be honest, not all these movies are bad. (Plus Confessions of a Shopaholic and 27 Dresses, although Ali doesn't know yet, will be revenged upon by Watchmen and the new Star Trek movie in May.)
Yet, I was somewhat surprised by Confessions of a Shopaholic. It wasn't the mindless hour and a half of fluff I was expecting. My initial nausea level rose quickly, as it appeared we were headed towards a pale clone of Sex and the City, but without the apparently excellent income that being a journalist provides Carrie Bradshaw. Shopaholic's titular character Rebecca Bloomwood is also a journalist, but has 12 credit cards and a shopping problem. She also works, initially anyway, at a gardening magazine. She is Carrie Bradshaw without the means to afford Carrie Bradshaw's opulent lifestyle.
There is a twist in all of this though- we immediately begin to wonder about the state of Ms. Bloomwood's mental health as she has long, detailed and intimate conversations with the mannequins in the stores she cannot apparently resist. And we're not talking in a fun, 80s movie type of way. These mannequins are actual, faceless mannequins- they don't look like Sarah Jessica Parker and there's no catchy theme song to go along with them. Throughout the rest of the movie, we're left wondering if Rebecca is actually going to learn a lesson and acknowledge her problem at some point, even as she dodges debt collectors, succumbs to temptation, lies to her best friend and ironically ends up a magazine called 'Successful Savings.'
There are the usual rom-com tropes- attractive, British man (Hugh Dancy), small town parents (Joan Cusack and John Goodman) and the inevitability of the entire movie and it's natural destination of a happy ending for all concerned. Isla Fisher continues to impress with her versatility- and Hugh Dancy is serviceable as the main love interest. But it's the random surprises that really are impressive: Kristen Scott Thomas, John Lithgow, Julie Hagerty, Joan Cusack and John Goodman provide solid performances and make for an interesting cast.
This pink ball of fluff however, does have some added resonance in these days of economic turmoil. Even as Rebecca runs around on her spending spree, it occurs to you that her slavery to the mindless consumerism of modern society is part of the problem we face today. Our nation's economic policy is driven on the backs of writing checks, IOUs and running up debts that we don't think about. Like Rebecca, we buy pretty things and life feels good. It's not until we get the bills (20 years from now) that its all going to come crashing down on us. The United States of America is a nation of Bloomwoods, run by Bloomwoods and there's serious doubts that we, as a nation are going to learn our lessons. Like Rebecca and Confessions of a Shopaholic, we treat our addiction lightly. It's a real problem with destructive consequences relegated to the level of superficial, romantic comedy.
Rebecca ends up with a happy ending- overcoming the consumerism that's consumed her life and realizing that happiness can be found in something more than a shiny new Coach purse or a pair of Prada shoes. What's not at all clear is whether we, as a country are going to learn our lesson anytime soon- or ever. We spend and spend and spend and whenever we're backed into a tight fiscal corner, we just whip our credit cards and spend more. Like Rebecca, it feels good at the time- but eventually and inevitably all the chickens come home to roost.
"Hi, I'm Uncle Sam."
"Hi Sam!" Comes the chorus in return.
"And I am a shopaholic."
There are certain universal things that, as a man, one can recognize- especially on Valentine's Day. When you walk into a theater for a movie like Confessions of a Shopaholic and you realize that pretty much every guy in the theater is there because of his wife and/or girlfriend or boyfriend- resigned to watching a movie that doesn't involve explosions, attractive, martini-sipping spies or scantily clad women. Guys all realize that this is expected of them on Valentine's Day- and the guys that want to actually have some 'fun' on Valentine's Day (at some point during Valentine's Day, that is) usually accept the inevitability of a 'chick flick' with some semblance of good humor.
Confessions of a Shopaholic was just the latest in a series of movies that, if flying solo I wouldn't have bothered with- however, loving my wife the way I do, I become her willing seatmate and sharer of popcorn- and to be honest, not all these movies are bad. (Plus Confessions of a Shopaholic and 27 Dresses, although Ali doesn't know yet, will be revenged upon by Watchmen and the new Star Trek movie in May.)
Yet, I was somewhat surprised by Confessions of a Shopaholic. It wasn't the mindless hour and a half of fluff I was expecting. My initial nausea level rose quickly, as it appeared we were headed towards a pale clone of Sex and the City, but without the apparently excellent income that being a journalist provides Carrie Bradshaw. Shopaholic's titular character Rebecca Bloomwood is also a journalist, but has 12 credit cards and a shopping problem. She also works, initially anyway, at a gardening magazine. She is Carrie Bradshaw without the means to afford Carrie Bradshaw's opulent lifestyle.
There is a twist in all of this though- we immediately begin to wonder about the state of Ms. Bloomwood's mental health as she has long, detailed and intimate conversations with the mannequins in the stores she cannot apparently resist. And we're not talking in a fun, 80s movie type of way. These mannequins are actual, faceless mannequins- they don't look like Sarah Jessica Parker and there's no catchy theme song to go along with them. Throughout the rest of the movie, we're left wondering if Rebecca is actually going to learn a lesson and acknowledge her problem at some point, even as she dodges debt collectors, succumbs to temptation, lies to her best friend and ironically ends up a magazine called 'Successful Savings.'
There are the usual rom-com tropes- attractive, British man (Hugh Dancy), small town parents (Joan Cusack and John Goodman) and the inevitability of the entire movie and it's natural destination of a happy ending for all concerned. Isla Fisher continues to impress with her versatility- and Hugh Dancy is serviceable as the main love interest. But it's the random surprises that really are impressive: Kristen Scott Thomas, John Lithgow, Julie Hagerty, Joan Cusack and John Goodman provide solid performances and make for an interesting cast.
This pink ball of fluff however, does have some added resonance in these days of economic turmoil. Even as Rebecca runs around on her spending spree, it occurs to you that her slavery to the mindless consumerism of modern society is part of the problem we face today. Our nation's economic policy is driven on the backs of writing checks, IOUs and running up debts that we don't think about. Like Rebecca, we buy pretty things and life feels good. It's not until we get the bills (20 years from now) that its all going to come crashing down on us. The United States of America is a nation of Bloomwoods, run by Bloomwoods and there's serious doubts that we, as a nation are going to learn our lessons. Like Rebecca and Confessions of a Shopaholic, we treat our addiction lightly. It's a real problem with destructive consequences relegated to the level of superficial, romantic comedy.
Rebecca ends up with a happy ending- overcoming the consumerism that's consumed her life and realizing that happiness can be found in something more than a shiny new Coach purse or a pair of Prada shoes. What's not at all clear is whether we, as a country are going to learn our lesson anytime soon- or ever. We spend and spend and spend and whenever we're backed into a tight fiscal corner, we just whip our credit cards and spend more. Like Rebecca, it feels good at the time- but eventually and inevitably all the chickens come home to roost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)