Beyond Tunisia...

It's been an interesting several weeks in North Africa and the Middle East. We've seen the toppling of two long-standing dictatorships, and the grumblings of insurrection in several other countries in the area. While I don't necessarily think that modern revolution is necessarily that helpful when looking at the larger impact upon the stability of the country, the country's economy, and even who's hands the government will eventually end up in, I do think that these rebellion's demonstrate a couple of things that should be a wake up call for the citizens of this country, as well as our government.

The first thing these widely popular rebellion's in these predominately Muslim countries demonstrate is that, unlike what too many people in the United States believe, Muslim's around the world, within country's, or even within local communities, do not all believe the same things about religion, government, morality, or social justice. Just the same as Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists, etc. do not. The only difference is that the perception of Muslim's in the "western world", and specifically in the United States, has been warped by a worldview of American exceptionalism, and the drum beat of wars against those who "hate democracy". Somewhat ironic considering the last two dicators to fall, and those on the verge of falling (i.e., the King of Bahrain) have been supported by the United States for decades, in the face of their brutal suppression of opposition, and their less-than-fair "elections".

This brings me directly to my next point, the awkwardness with which the United States has supported these popular uprisings, in the face of historal support for the regimes that are being uprose against. We only support democracy when it is convenient for us to do so; otherwise, we'll support an autocratic regime when it is convenient for us to do so. Now, I should write a small caveat, not necessarily justifying this practice, but rather explaining my rational understanding that governments, specifically government in the western world, when faced with either dealing with an autocratic regime or no not dealing with an autocratic regime, are going to be much better situated to make a positive impact in the country by keeping up some semblance of good relations. Therefore, it is possible to "support democracy" while maintaining a cordial relationship with a dictatorial, monarchical, theocratic, or one-party governmental system.

The final lesson to be gleaned from this wave of insurrection in North Africa and the Middle East is that these uprisings are not only possible, but can have serious results (and consequences) that can and will impact the future of the country forever. The reason this is an important lesson to learn is that most of the people in the United States find rebellion to be an antiquated notion. It's not that people agree with everything the government does, but in our political system (which lies somewhere between Democracy and Plutocracy, the founders liked to call it a Republic), it's at least somewhat possible to create small ripples that spread far enough to have an impact on elections and laws. Therefore, the idea of demanding the president leave office is somewhat far-fetched, considering we can vote him or her out of office in less than 4 years.

However, what I think should be prescient to the American people about the North African examples, is that these were stable countries, where things were not perfect, but were still far from being the political tinderboxes that exist in so many other places in the world, and yet it was because of that that the impact was so great. When you push a wagon, it's easy to slow and stop it; but when you get a train going, it takes a much longer time to stop it, and you need a much greater force. So I think the American government should heed some of the warning signs, that though the American people are for the most part complacent, if not down downright apathetic, their disenchantment is growing, and it could be possible that at some point we may decide we've had enough of this government and this constitution, and decide to reshuffle the deck, write a new constitution, and elect new officials. It doesn't seem like it is going to happen here, but you never know...

"History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullsh!t, but even without being sure of "history" it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons nobody really understands at the time - and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened." ~ Hunter S. Thompson

And the award goes to...

I am a big movie fan, as anybody that knows me well is already aware of. While I've delved into my favorite movies numerous times with many different people, I haven't broached the subject yet on this blog. Therefore, over the course of several blogs (not to be posted back to back), I will go through my favorites. I'm not necessarily going to go by genre, I'm just going to do it as it comes to me.
I'll start with the top 10 movies that I can think of as being my favorite right now. These movies are in no particular order, because basically it's impossible for me to determine where in the top 10 these movies should go.

1. Godfather Part II
I know I said above that these movies are in no particular order, but that is not true for the Godfather Part II. This is unquestionably both my favorite movie of all time, and what I consider to be the best movie off all time. It's true that it doesn't work as well if you haven't seen the first, but this movie has so much depth, and such great acting, it's easy to understand why it's close to the top of most people's greatest movie list.

2. Apocalypse Now
This movie is unquestionably my favorite war movie off all time, and what I would consider one of the best made films of all time. Reading about the struggle it was to get this movie made; the budget, the weather, the heart attack, the weight, it all makes for a hardship that I think actually added to the movie, instead of detracted from it. This movie perfectly captures the growing feeling of uneasiness our protagonists feel as they go deeper and deeper into the jungle.

3. Lawrence of Arabia
For those of you that have not seen this film, SEE THIS FILM! I had heard the name for years, as well as the lauditory comments made about Peter O'Toole's performance, but until I watched it I had no idea what I was missing. This film is the ultimate "epic". The scope of the story, the music, the scenes, the acting; it's all so huge and so beautiful, it just wraps you up, and you don't want to be let go. While the first part of this film (before the intermission) is admittedly better than the second, upon subsequent viewings, the second part gets better and better.

4. High Fidelity
I won't try and tell you that this is a great "film". It's not a bad film, but it definitely isn't going on any critics top 100 lists. But I think what this movie does is cut through some bullshit, and really gets to the heart of what many men feel in relationships. It's hard to be happy with the good things we have. The guy has exactly what he could want, but he doesn't want it. I know I've been in this situation (no reference to current situation), and it's frustrating to want to want to be happy, but not being happy with being happy with what you want.

5. Mean Streets
What can I say, this movie has everything I love about great movies. Martin Scorsese is a genius, and this movie was made even before Martin Scorsese was a genius. It's incredibly raw in both its shots, its cuts, and its language. The movie feels as though it was Marty hanging out with a bunch of his hustler buddies around the neighborhood, and filming the whole thing.

6. Annie Hall
I consider this a quintessential New York movie. Not only is it quintessential because it was written, directed and acted in by Woody Allen, but because the language and the motives of the characters are quintessentially New York. I know a lot of people are not big fans of Woody, but I consider his nebbishness to be satirically funny, as if he's making fun of himself, but it was funny because at least in his earlier movies it was before he actually became himself.

7. The Shawshank Redemption
This is a perfect movie. I repeat, this is a perfect movie. I've never said that about any film, and it doesn't necessarily make it the best movie of all time, but it's still perfect. The setting, the writing, the music, the acting, the shots used, the dialogue, and the triumph. This is a movie about a prison, but as the title states, redemption is the center motif, and we see this time and again as the plot rolls on.

8. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Great music, great director, great film. This movie meanders through the unforgiving landscape of the civil war (which the main characters seem completely ambivalent to), and somehow makes all three of the protagonists Blondie (the good), Angel Eyes (the bad), and Tuco (the ugly) seem likable. The films final climactic scene, is probably the best finish in movie history.

9. Once Upon a Time in America
This movie I stumbled upon a few years ago, and I have watched it repeatedly since my first viewing. Like the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, this movie is another Sergio Leone/Ennion Morricone teaming, where the music plays an indespensible part of creating the mood and scope of the movie. I like this movie because unlike so many others shot in New York, it highlights Brooklyn instead of Manhattan, and especially Dumbo which is such an interesting neighborhood; its boutique shops and cobblestone streets, darkened by the shadows of the brick warehouses and dual bridges that tower above.

10. Trainspotting
Let me say from the outset that I don't like this movie because it is a "drug movie". I am not particularly drawn to drug movies (although I do like a few, but it's for their aesthetic quality, not because of the subject matter), but this movie is much more interesting than just a drug trip movie, because it actually follows the characters throughout their experiences, rather than just their experiences on drugs. A great scene in the movie is where the crew takes the train out to the hills, and instead of being happy with being out of the city, they are all pissed off because there's nothing to do there. What this movie lacks in real character development, it makes up for in wit.

I understand that this is not a particularly inspired list, but these are movies that I can watch repeatedly (and do watch repeatedly), and that I continue to enjoy - they age well over time.
Some honorable mentions: Boyz n the Hood, Pulp Fiction, Inception, Fight Club, City of God, the Usual Suspects, Saving Private Ryan, Unforgiven, the Star Wars Trilogy, Almost Famous, and Field of Dreams (I still cry at the end).

What are you some of your favorites?

Life (or something like it)

So when I created this blog, I didn't intend for it to become an inherently political blog. However, since I have a penchant for politics, it usually tends to be an easy and interesting topic for discussion.

But here I will take a break from politics, and go back to the original goal of this blog which was to examine the interesting, and often odd, routes that our lives take as we attempt to live them out with some sort of normalcy.
It may not bode well for me, but for some reason the quote "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation" seems depressingly accurate. I'm not saying that I personally live a life of quiet desperation, or that I'm pointing fingers at anyone else, but it seems the modern standard of "making it" or "settling down" has less to do with success and happiness, and more to do with simply spending time with your family; not even necessarily quality time, just time.
As an unmarried man, childless man, I have a freedom to spend time with my friends whenever they're free, and pretty much participate in whatever activity they're interested in doing. Now, I don't expect life to be exactly the same once I get married, and especially once I have kids, but I've never understood this phenomenon of men (and women) essentially disappearing from their lives with their friends, and only seeing them on a very infrequent and time-sensitive basis. There's always one person that dominates marriage relationships, and that person's friends inevitably become the other person's friends (by default); the friends of the other person just fall by the wayside, and are only see sporadically, and it's usually when the dominating person it out of town, or spending the day with one of their close friends.
(Just to clarify, I'm not disparaging my friends, and I'm not referring to anyone in particular, I'm rather highlighting what I consider to be an unfortunate phenomenon.)
Back to the quote above: I consider this phenomenon of people (often men) losing their individuality and friends once they become part of a relationship - especially a serious relationship - to be rather disconcerting, and to be not only a factor, but a MAJOR factor in the high incidence of infidelity and divorce. Men and women cannot get everything they need from one relationship; they can get sex, love, intimacy, friendship, and much more, but that's still not everything. Men and women have friends in the first place because those friends share their interests, and so they can talk about things and enjoy things together that others are not necessarily privvy to.
Most life partner relationships involve some aspect of this (and should), but that still doesn't mean that one doesn't need any outside contact or relationships. In fact, in that situation, just the opposite of what would be expected to happen is probably happening. The people think they're in a perfect relationship because they have so many shared interests, but fail to recognize that no one person can provide anybody with everything, and therefore there are still pieces of you that are not being nurtured.
All in all, I'm terribly troubled by the fact that so many relationships go down this road. It starts with not being able to stay out all night, because the spouse/girfriend/boyfriend expects you home. Then it's not being able to hang out because the spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend wants to hang out with other couples. Then you can't hang out because there is housework to do. And then you start making excuses for why you can't do things, because it's just easier than dealing with any blowback coming from the spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend for hanging out. And all of this is before kids even come into the mix. It's easy to see how this scenario causes people (especially men) to lead lives of quiet desperation.

Boring...

It seems like now that the president has taken a turn to the right, or at least toward the center, politics have become somewhat boring. The president has appointed two new cabinet members that are saturated with connections to business, thereby locking in the president's pro-business turn. Don't get me wrong, I still support Barack Obama in theory, and there is certainly a recognition (as there has been all along), that political realities make it impossible for a president to snub certain sectors of society that a) have a major impact on the economy (think "jobs, jobs, jobs..." and "it's the economy, stupid"), and b) that fund elections for not only the president, but congressional candidates as well.
But, recognizing political realities does not mean that it makes me happy. I'm not saying that I want the pre-midterm election partisan rancor, but at least progressive policies were still being pushed by the president and congress. It seems as though the president is now going to ride out the next two years of his term by reaching out to republicans, and campaigning to the center, for president. We'll see how this works out for the president, but I think (as I've thought before) that he's making a big mistake in pandering to the Republicans in congress, because the hard line stances that they held in the previous two years have not been softened since the midterm elections, but instead have been hardened by the fact that they have more power. I think Republicans actions over the last two weeks is evident that the Republicans are not looking to work with President Obama the progressive democrat, but instead want to work with President Obama the guy who needs to become more centrist to reach out to independant voters to win a second term.
The problem is that Republicans want Obama to move to the center/center-right, not because they actually care about passing policy, but instead because they want to confuse the electorate about who Barack Obama is politically, who his base is, and why would you vote for someone who has drifted around politically during his first term in an effort to appease whoever it was he needed to appease for a particular bill. The president would say that this illustrates the fact that he is not a president for liberals, or a president for conservatives, but instead a president of everyone in the Unites States. While that's definitionally true, is a little insincere, because the president knows better than anyone what it takes to win an election, and that is not necessarily being the president of everyone in the United States.
I've asserted since early on in the president's first term that I think he will win re-election. I stand by this contention, but I think that the president's insulation in Washington, DC has caused him to become less politically adept than he was during the 2008 election. Therefore, he's thinks his drift to the center is a politically astute maneuver, but he's doing exactly what he always said he didn't want to do, which was sacrifice policy for politics. He's giving up progressive policies for the next two years to get re-elected.
Do we need business to get the economy back on track? Certainly. But that doesn't mean that businesses should be the only focus, because we need to remember that the same people that are now suppose to help us crawl out of the mired economic situation, are the very people that caused it in the first place. Therefore, I think it would be better for the president to be tough on business, by telling them that he supports businesses expanding, creating and exporting more goods, and hiring more employees, but at the same time they're not going to get a free ride (we need industry regulations), and they should not be receiving such huge tax benefits for their efforts, when we're in the current situation because of their practices.
The old Barack Obama will be back, I believe, but it won't be until November 7, 2012. I believe his second term will be launched with a progressive agenda that Democrats and progressives will be very happy about; we just need to hold out, and make sure to get the president re-elected. It's frustrating that politics stand in the way of a president governing in his first term, but that's unfortunately the reality of every president for a as long as anyone alive can remember. So, Democrats and progressives will be disappointed for the next couple of years, but I think we'll be much more disappointed if we don't re-elect President Obama, who will be our bastion of progressive politics in his second term.

Overplayed, sir...

Oh no, don't tell me that we're back on this Healthcare Debate. I thought we settled all of this last year - literally all of last year. But here it is, a midterm election campain promise brought home to roost. I guess you have to give Republicans at least a modicum of credit for following through on this campaign promise, but I don't think pandering to a radical (and further radicalizing) base is going to save this country. Just a short time ago, it was Republicans that were bashing Democrats for not being focused on the issues that were really affecting Americans, jobs and economy. The Republicans said that the Democrat's focus on healthcare reform showed that they were "out of touch" with the desires of the American people. Well after a year of debate, with Republicans (and blue dog Democrats) picking away at the bill until it was only a shell of its former self, the bill was finally passed in the House and the Senate, and was enacted into law when the president endorsed with his signature.

Is the bill perfect, of course not. But the ironic thing is that the same thing Republicans are now whining about, namely that the bill does not do enough to control costs, is because the Republicans would not allow cost controls to go into the bill as Democrats had wanted. Well, that's politics I guess...

Anyway, I think that Republicans are overplaying their hands with this fight, and that they will end up paying for it in the end. Yes, their base may be solidified in opposition to a "goverment takeover of the healthcare system" (interesting, considering a) the government is not trying to "take over" the healthcare system, but is instead simpy trying to regulate it, and b) that these people would rather have corporations, who operate for profit, to control their lives instead of the government), but I think that it has been shown statistically over and over again, that the vast majority of the American people, while they may be mixed in their opinion of the healthcare bill overall, are supportive of almost all of the provisions held within. Therefore, with a populace that currently supports the bill (at least passively), and a populace that is tired of both the partisan bickering and the year-long struggle to get this bill passed, I think that Republicans are treading in waters that they should not be treading.

They've attempted to tie the bill to the economy with their creative, but not very tactfully titled bill, 'Repealing the Job-Killing Healthcare Law'. But this futile attempt to use this bill to pander to both their base, and independents, by making it an issue affecting jobs and the economy does not stand up to scrutiny. Their claims about the jobs that it will cost this country are flimsy, as it has been shown that the jobs "lost" due to this bill are actually people that are voluntarily getting out of the job market due to the fact that they no longer need to have a job to receive affordable healthcare (one of the main components of the bill in the first place). In addition, the main components of the healthcare bill do not actually go into effect until 2014, and therefore the Republicans are trying to nip this in the bud before the most popular parts of the bill go into effect, and thereby disintegrate any opposition to the bill.

So back to my point about Republicans overplaying their hand; I say let them keep doing what they're doing. We know that this bill has absolutely no shot of even being brought to the floor for debate in the Senate, let alone a vote. And let's say by some miracle it did pass in the Senate, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the president would not veto a bill whose sole purpose is to repeal one of his presidency's signature pieces of legislation. When the American people realize (which they're already doing) that Republicans are wasting time on legislation that has no shot of passing, has a decidedly partisan slant, and will do nothing to create jobs or stimulate the economy, they will understand that the Republicans do not have their best interests at heart, and that if left unfettered they will go right back to the ways things were done during the dark years (the Bush years) that drove our economy into a pit, which we have as of yet not been able to get out of.

MLK Day

Every year when the calendar lands on Martin Luther King Day again, we get a ton of the obligatory platitudes from all sectors of civilized society; the business community, the political community, the sports community, etc. Now don't get me wrong, I think that even platitudes are nice, but they're simply not enough. Remembering a slain civil rights leader for one day throughout the year is simply not enough. Now Martin Luther King, Jr. was not certainly not the only factor in the civil rights movement - even if his name was the biggest - and I think, therefore, that it is important to recognize throughout the year, and throughout our history books, the significance of other figures and groups that may not be as prominently held in our political and social histories. I think Black History Month has had a positive effect on shedding light on the true history of this country - the good and bad - and how that history impacts our society today. However, the concept of Black History Month to me seems a bit strange; it's as if "Black History" is a separate history from United States history. I understand the need to highlight black history, but at the same time it would almost seem to create an otherness that only perpetuates the idea of blacks in this country, but specifically African Americans, as not being fully American, and that their history is somehow separate from that of the country as a whole. I think that the black - and again, specifically African American - experience is not only not separate from that of the United States as a whole, but is a major part of the history of the United States, and is actually incredibly salient with regard to current social constructs and relations.
Therefore, a realistic history of the United States would be one that not only highlighted "black history" for one month, but would actually include the plight of the enslaved, the murdered, the disenfranchised, and the oppressed throughout the sordid history of this nation.