Happy New Year, guys!!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Baler
| Rating: | ★★ |
| Category: | Movies |
| Genre: | Drama |
Okay, so first off, I'm going to lay my cards on the table and say I'm potentially biased. Joem, Bok, AG and I were supposed to write the script for this movie, if it weren't for the demands of our day jobs. So, I could be kinda bitter. Although, I will say that, after seeing the movie tonight, I feel quite vindicated. We at Bodega would definitely have written a much better script than whatever that was.
But, the movie did win awards at the latest Metro Manila Film Fest, so it did have its merits.
First, the good stuff.
My salutations to the studio for finally thinking out of the collective local film industry's (very) small box. Instead of the incredibly formulaic romantic comedies (Desperadas 1 and 2), sex comedies (One Night Only, later installments of Mano Po) and product-placement only-for-morons comedies (Iskul Bukol, anything with Enteng Kabisote in it) that tend to glut the MMFF, Viva Films decided to go big, or go home. It took vision and ambition to go with a historical flick (and partly in Spanish, no less!), which takes more money and more skill to make. May other studios follow suit. Let's hope they all grow enough balls to think large, like that one local studio that attempted to make a Genghis Khan bio-pic. (Now that, my friends, takes massive balls.)
The makers of the film also wisely avoided turning the movie into a shining example of nationalistic xenophobia. (Filipinos= good, anybody foreign = bad) Dr. Dumol was given a copy of the script, and it was supposed to end with some "glory of the Philippines" bullshit. Director Mark Meily had enough sense and integrity to dump those parts. Since that screenplay guy has apparently won an award for it, he should be thanking Mr. Meily for his restraint. If he had gone the way of the script, it would have been a disaster on the scale of "Bagong Buwan".
It was also obvious that some care was taken for the film's production value. Despite the seemingly cardboard walls of the church (which shook in a way stone walls would never do), most of the sets and costumes look well-made. The attention to detail was there to some degree, despite a few goofs. For example, in the first battle of the siege, the Philippine forces had a rolling four-pounder cannon, which the real revolutionary forces at that time and in that place never had. They switched to the more accurate-looking crude cannons during the siege proper, and the four-pounder was never seen again. Also, according to the historical record, those cannons the revolutionary forces had fired only stone shot, and not proper ordnance like in the movie. Aguinaldo's army was not all that rich. But this is just an amateur historian nitpicking.
As for the acting, I really liked Michael de Mesa's friar priest. The actor playing the altar boy was not bad either. Old typecast standby Joel Torre was his usual self as he always is in historical set-piece dramas. Leo Martinez, another typecast "historical figure" actor, was surprisingly restrained as the commanding officer of the besieging forces. And, Philip Salvador had his moments as an anguished revolutionary, even if the script had him revert to old cliches from time to time. Can't be helped, I suppose.
And now, for the reasons behind the two star rating.
There was a great movie somewhere in "Baler". Unfortunately, they chose to shoot a side story instead. There's this song from Team America: World Police that went, "I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark in Pearl Harbor. I miss you more than that movie missed the point...." I think Mark Meily missed the point in "Baler". And that is behind everything that is wrong with the movie.
"Baler" is our "Pearl Harbor". And "Pearl Harbor" sucked mightily. Forget about using "Baler" as a history teaching aid. For all the touted research, "Baler" was as "historical" as Michael Bay's greatest embarrassment.
The stories behind "Pearl Habor" were already there for the taking. How would America react to being attacked on its own soil for the first time since 1812? How would people cope with impending war? What went on in the mind of the people responsible for going to war? Can a nation stricken pick itself up? But no, Michael Bay chose to expend all of the film's story capital on the riveting question of who gets to put his dick in Kate Beckinsale.
"Baler" has largely the same failures. The story here, as in any siege story, lie mainly with the suffering of the besieged. Why do they fight? What makes them hold on? Is honor worthy of death? Is disgrace worthy of life? Would we have done the same as them? Occasionally, you may veer out to the besiegers as well. Why do they fight? Are they willing to commit brutality in the name of their cause? Is their cause just? (Which can also be asked of the besieged.) But, no. All of these questions, all of this story capital, is just so much white noise in service of a cheesy love story. You'd think fanfic writer Stephanie Meyer wrote the script. Because of this, they commit numerous egregious errors.
By far, the saga's most interesting character is Lt. Saturnino Martin-Cerezo, the Spanish lieutenant who held his unit together for almost a year in the face of increasing attrition and insurmountable odds. It is his account that tells the story of the siege of Baler in the most intimate and personal manner. He or someone close to him should be the hero. Instead, because he is Spanish, his role is cast in the background. Worse, the character is horribly miscast, with typecast one-trick-pony movie thug Ryan Eigenmann portraying the man who was arguably the most literate and compelling personality in his entire unit. Captain Las Morenas is better portrayed, in that he is limited to shouting slogans and being the token compassionate Spaniard instead of having his character ass-raped. Although, Baron Geisler speaks and looks like a Japanese officer rather than a Spanish one. He probably only got the role because his name sounds vaguely German. Lt. Juan Alonso Zayas (sp?), the gallant Puerto Rican officer, has an built-in story line that could drive an entire movie. Instead, his only personal line was "let's use the boy as a human shield".
So it boils down to Jericho Rosales' indio soldier, Celso Resurrecion, and his Kapampangan friends to carry the besieged side of the story, despite the fact that almost all the natural-born soldiers had already deserted the unit by the time they took refuge in the church. So, to deal with this conundrum of coming up with storylines for non-existent soldiers, they decided to focus on the love story.
Jericho Rosales is a dependable lead, though he is slowed down by his rather painful attempts at Spanish. Guess the accents of the other Spanish speakers. Geisler's is the funniest, followed by Eigenmann's. They all speak haltingly, like its their first month out of Instituto Cervantes, and Rosales is no different. As for Anne Curtis, the female lead and love interest, she seems awfully Spanish for a Tagalog. And, her acting performance was about as good as Pinocchio on Valium...wooden as hell, without the charm. She supposedly won as "Best Actress", which probably means that the other contenders must have really, really sucked. She couldn't even make already melodramatic lines sound remotely dramatic. That's like a spoon-fed person missing the spoon. (For more comic fun, watch her ostensibly brown baby pop up a mestizo in the epilogue.)
So, in essence, you are expecting one dependable actor and one horribly over-matched actress attempt to carry a stupid storyline above other more compelling storylines happening about them. It was brutal to watch. And because they overlooked the better storylines lurking in the background, when those storylines exerted themselves, the film looked all sorts of stupid.
For example, when Lt. Martin-Cerezo continually defies all attempts at making him surrender, including throwing out a Spanish delegation, you have no inkling as to why he's so stiffly holding on to the defense of the church. The impression you get is that Lt. Martin-Cerezo is just being an ass about things, which is all the script and the underwhelming actor allow you to think. The best character in the entire story is given almost no empathy. Even the wonderful scene of the priest saying Mass for the townspeople in the midst of conflict is ruined by the lack of build up. The tensions between the townspeople and the army ostensibly out to kill every Spaniard, including a beloved priest, is seen only in small snatches. The shooting of the carabao and the fire-raid were also minimized for the sake of the absurd primary story, ruining the chance for some much-needed action to break the tedium of siege life. The American attempt to get the Spanish to surrender comes off as comic relief rather than a point of tension. The silliness of the entire movie, all due to that very fundamental mistake of supplanting the story already there with something infinitely more superficial, looms large by the time you see a puppy provide as much meat as an adult dog, or see the aforementioned suddenly mestizo child.
I really wanted to like this movie, if only to remove the bitterness of not having wrote it. But, I just can't. I hated "Pearl Harbor". There's just no way I'm not going to hate "Baler" now that I've seen it.
I just hope that the next time the local film industry attempts something potentially epic, they recognize the epic and not cram it in such a small box as a frickin' love story.
** / *****
Thursday, December 25, 2008
"Star Wars" - an a cappella tribute to John Williams
This guy does several John Williams classics with Star Wars lyrics...with the notable exception of John Williams' actual Star Wars stuff.
I Still Believe in Santa Claus
Whew. Glad to get that off my chest. *closes closet door*
You may be thinking, "you mean, metaphorically or symbolically, right?"
You'd be wrong.
I'm talking about the whole fat guy in a red suit with flying reindeer bit. I believe he does manage to get around the world in one night, and can squeeze his massive bottom into any chimney just to give children gifts.
So, the typical reaction is what in fuck's name do you think you're doing believing in Santa Claus at age 26?
It's not easy to explain. It's not that I got mysterious gifts every Christmas. Sometimes, all I got was a lousy shirt. (Naughty year, I suppose.)
Since there is no easy explanation, let me try by answering the objections instead. What exactly is so objectionable about the reality of Santa Claus?
The most common objection is the one given to kids above the age of 7: it is rationally, logically impossible for reindeer to fly, for a fat old man to fit into chimneys, and for such a man to go around the world in 12 hours.
I would say that if I'm supposed to believe that a race of primitive, poo-flinging chimps would someday compose Handel's Messiah, why not a jolly old man with more contortionist skills than a houseful of yogi who travels at trans-light speed with aerodynamic reindeer?
Not everything on Heaven or Earth will be found in your philosophy, Horatio, even if you do call it "science" and obtain government legitimization and funding.
The next objection would be that Santa is just a symbol, a myth, a projection of our desires. That cannot be real.
I would say that a symbol may be the most real thing one will ever see. For isn't the symbol of justice far more real than the actuality of court proceedings and paper signings? As for the myth, who is to say that myths aren't real? I fall squarely on the side of Tolkien, who believed that man can become legend, and the legend become myth. This does not make the man any less real, it only makes the myth more true. If that divine imprint in me that seeks out the Ultimate Myth has any say on the matter, it is that the falsehoods of smaller myths cannot stand against the greater truths they convey towards my longing to understand the Greatest of all Myths. If that Bishop of Smyrna became legend, then became myth, it does not eradicate the reality of the Bishop of Smyrna. That he may still exist to this age is as real to me as such immaterial things as dreams and hopes are real.
As for desire projection, how can desire render the real unreal? Does our projection of our own understandings and desires on the natural world make the natural world a fiction?
CS Lewis, in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, wrote that the White Witch's most potent curse is to make it "always winter, but never Christmas". The first inkling of hope that the curse was fading was the reappearance of Father Christmas (Santa!), who says that "she has kept me out for a long time, but I have got in at last."
If the forever winter can never be real to me, how in the world can Santa not be?
The final objection would be that only someone insane can believe that Santa is real past a certain age.
I would reply by saying that maybe it is true. Maybe I am insane.
But what is "insane" really?
G.K. Chesterton once said that believing in the impossible may be the most sane thing of all. He says in Orthodoxy that, "mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination." From his line of reasoning, the only alternatives to believing in the impossible are a reductionist materialistic worldview that gathers knowledge only on things not worth knowing in the deepest sense (I am moved to delve intimately into the eternal wisdom of particle collision...nah...) or the madness of trying to fit the infinite into a woefully finite mind. Logic and rationality can only grip so much. You must either accept the mystery of ages, from the God who became Man to even the Bishop who strides the world in one night, or face the emptiness of a material world or the madness of shrinking what can never be shrunk. You tell me which is now "insane".
Let me close my response to this objection with Don Quixote's words from the musical The Man of La Mancha:
So, feel free to have at our cookies and fruitcake, St. Nick, and to the rest of you a Merry Christmas.
You may be thinking, "you mean, metaphorically or symbolically, right?"
You'd be wrong.
I'm talking about the whole fat guy in a red suit with flying reindeer bit. I believe he does manage to get around the world in one night, and can squeeze his massive bottom into any chimney just to give children gifts.
Yeah, that guy....
So, the typical reaction is what in fuck's name do you think you're doing believing in Santa Claus at age 26?
It's not easy to explain. It's not that I got mysterious gifts every Christmas. Sometimes, all I got was a lousy shirt. (Naughty year, I suppose.)
Since there is no easy explanation, let me try by answering the objections instead. What exactly is so objectionable about the reality of Santa Claus?
The most common objection is the one given to kids above the age of 7: it is rationally, logically impossible for reindeer to fly, for a fat old man to fit into chimneys, and for such a man to go around the world in 12 hours.
I would say that if I'm supposed to believe that a race of primitive, poo-flinging chimps would someday compose Handel's Messiah, why not a jolly old man with more contortionist skills than a houseful of yogi who travels at trans-light speed with aerodynamic reindeer?
Not everything on Heaven or Earth will be found in your philosophy, Horatio, even if you do call it "science" and obtain government legitimization and funding.
The next objection would be that Santa is just a symbol, a myth, a projection of our desires. That cannot be real.
I would say that a symbol may be the most real thing one will ever see. For isn't the symbol of justice far more real than the actuality of court proceedings and paper signings? As for the myth, who is to say that myths aren't real? I fall squarely on the side of Tolkien, who believed that man can become legend, and the legend become myth. This does not make the man any less real, it only makes the myth more true. If that divine imprint in me that seeks out the Ultimate Myth has any say on the matter, it is that the falsehoods of smaller myths cannot stand against the greater truths they convey towards my longing to understand the Greatest of all Myths. If that Bishop of Smyrna became legend, then became myth, it does not eradicate the reality of the Bishop of Smyrna. That he may still exist to this age is as real to me as such immaterial things as dreams and hopes are real.
As for desire projection, how can desire render the real unreal? Does our projection of our own understandings and desires on the natural world make the natural world a fiction?
CS Lewis, in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, wrote that the White Witch's most potent curse is to make it "always winter, but never Christmas". The first inkling of hope that the curse was fading was the reappearance of Father Christmas (Santa!), who says that "she has kept me out for a long time, but I have got in at last."
If the forever winter can never be real to me, how in the world can Santa not be?
The final objection would be that only someone insane can believe that Santa is real past a certain age.
I would reply by saying that maybe it is true. Maybe I am insane.
But what is "insane" really?
G.K. Chesterton once said that believing in the impossible may be the most sane thing of all. He says in Orthodoxy that, "mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination." From his line of reasoning, the only alternatives to believing in the impossible are a reductionist materialistic worldview that gathers knowledge only on things not worth knowing in the deepest sense (I am moved to delve intimately into the eternal wisdom of particle collision...nah...) or the madness of trying to fit the infinite into a woefully finite mind. Logic and rationality can only grip so much. You must either accept the mystery of ages, from the God who became Man to even the Bishop who strides the world in one night, or face the emptiness of a material world or the madness of shrinking what can never be shrunk. You tell me which is now "insane".
Let me close my response to this objection with Don Quixote's words from the musical The Man of La Mancha:
I've been a soldier and a slave.
I've seen my comrades fall in battle...
or die more slowly under the lash in Africa.
I've held them at the last moment.
These were men who saw life as it is.
Yet they died despairing.
No glory, no brave last words.
Only their eyes, filled with confusion...
questioning why.
I do not think they were asking why they were dying...
but why they had ever lived.
When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies?
Perhaps to be too practical is madness.
To surrender dreams, this may be madness.
To seek treasure where there is only trash...
too much sanity may be madness!
And maddest of all...
to see life as it is and not as it should be!
So, feel free to have at our cookies and fruitcake, St. Nick, and to the rest of you a Merry Christmas.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
And a Merry Christmas to All!
The first service of religion is to show to man, "isolated in the universe and unable to compare himself to anything," "how much he cost." The sacrifice of the god himself demonstrates "the enormity of the crime that demanded such an expiation; the inconceivable grandeur of the being that could have committed it; the infinite price of the victim who said here I am."
The inconceivable grandeur of man that required to redeem it an infinite price is emphasized all the more when Maistre cites Aeschylus's Prometheus: "Look at me, it is a God who has made a God die."
- A Modern Maistre: The Social and Political Thought of Joseph de Maistre
O holy night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of our dear Saviour's birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
'Til He appear'd and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! O, hear the angel voices!
O night divine, the night when Christ was Born;
O night, O holy night, O night divine!
Led by the light of faith serenely beaming,
With glowing hearts we stand by the Babe adored.
O'er the world a star is sweetly gleaming,
And come now, Shepherds, from your flocks unboard.
The Son of God lay thus w'thin lowly manger;
In all our trials born to be our Lord.
He knows our need, our weakness never lasting,
Behold your King! By Him, let Earth accord!
Behold your King! By Him, let Earth accord!
- O Holy Night (composite of first and second versions), Christmas Carol
[Picture credit: Flickr: Matilde]
And for the Bodega Boys:
[Photo Credit: Amusing Pics]
Have a good one!
The inconceivable grandeur of man that required to redeem it an infinite price is emphasized all the more when Maistre cites Aeschylus's Prometheus: "Look at me, it is a God who has made a God die."
- A Modern Maistre: The Social and Political Thought of Joseph de Maistre
O holy night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of our dear Saviour's birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
'Til He appear'd and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! O, hear the angel voices!
O night divine, the night when Christ was Born;
O night, O holy night, O night divine!
Led by the light of faith serenely beaming,
With glowing hearts we stand by the Babe adored.
O'er the world a star is sweetly gleaming,
And come now, Shepherds, from your flocks unboard.
The Son of God lay thus w'thin lowly manger;
In all our trials born to be our Lord.
He knows our need, our weakness never lasting,
Behold your King! By Him, let Earth accord!
Behold your King! By Him, let Earth accord!
- O Holy Night (composite of first and second versions), Christmas Carol
[Picture credit: Flickr: Matilde]
And for the Bodega Boys:
[Photo Credit: Amusing Pics]
Have a good one!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Folly of "Hate Crimes"
Okay, so here we have a story of a woman gang-raped by four deranged men.
Now, this stuff often makes the local news of any given area. But, US national news? Oh, wait, its because the woman's a lesbian. And the four men committed what is called a "hate crime".
What is a "hate crime"? Another moronic invention of stupid Western intelligentsia. It is an additional charge (and penalty) placed on top of a criminal act if it was committed against members of certain "protected" groups.
First of, aren't all crimes already driven by some kind of hate or malice? Crimes are mitigated by circumstances, not by the quality of motive. Why? Because, simply put, a supposedly liberal (in the classical sense) society cannot penalize thought or belief. All crimes are "hate crimes". Therefore, an additional distinction is useless. Worse, its arbitrary.
If the woman who was gang-raped was straight, does it mean that the crime was somehow less serious because it falls outside of some retarded legal definition of "hate"?
One might object and say that the purpose of "hate crime" laws is to prevent certain people from being sigled out for harassment due to prejudice. If that is the case, then why isn't the burning of Gov. Palin's church considered a "hate crime"? (Note the snarky caption below the pic.) What about an old lady being pushed around by a bunch of angry gay activists? Maybe they'll charge the old lady, because gays are in the "protected" column.
In the end, what you're punishing is not the crime, which has already been punished with the first sentencing, but the thoughts of the one being charged. I thought secularists and liberals were all about free thinking? If we as a civilization start punishing thought, we are a few steps away from tyranny. Remember, even Galileo walked away from his trial without being charged.
Second, "hate" is such a subjective concept that any attempt to derive a legal definition or category out of it will always involve the projection of the definer's biases. This problem is twice exacerbated in the application. Who gets to define "hate"? Why?
And, how is anybody ever certain of a person's thoughts? The article about the rape tries to put the scare in you by saying:
Gay rights advocates note that hate crimes based on sexual orientation have increased nationwide as of late. There were 1,415 such crimes in 2006 and 1,460 in 2007, both times making up about 16 percent of the total, according to the FBI.
Now, how certain are they that all those 1460 "hate" crimes in 2007 were motivated by actual hate? Does the FBI employ mind-readers? What is this, Minority Report?
From the article:
Authorities are characterizing the attack as a hate crime but declined to reveal why they think the woman was singled out because of her sexual orientation.
You know why they declined to reveal it? Because they can never be 100% sure of the criminals' motivations! No hate crime conviction will ever be based on 100% certainty. Any consideration of "reasonable doubt" ought to outright dismiss every "hate crime" charge. In this case, on what basis will they hang a "hate crime" charge? On the fact that the criminals knew the victim was a lesbian? What if they raped her because they found lesbians (femme lesbians, at least) to be hot? Is it now a hate crime to think that lesbians are hot?
If thinking THIS is hot is now a crime, then sue me. I plead guilty.
That's just for starters. Imagine trying to determine the "hate" in every crime against people in the "protected group". The absurdities you'd have to go through are astounding.
The subjectivity of hate would make hate crime legislation an easy cudgel for the hands of tyrants.
Considering the fact that we've never had hard "race" issues, "hate crimes" legislation in the Philippines will likely come from either homosexual activist groups like the one led by Danton Remoto, or xenophobic nationalist groups hoping to tar and feather every foreigner who sets foot in this country. It is easy to let your compassion allow you to be manipulated into going along with these victim-mongers in helping enact disastrous legislation.
If you ever value your freedom, never let that happen.
Now, this stuff often makes the local news of any given area. But, US national news? Oh, wait, its because the woman's a lesbian. And the four men committed what is called a "hate crime".
What is a "hate crime"? Another moronic invention of stupid Western intelligentsia. It is an additional charge (and penalty) placed on top of a criminal act if it was committed against members of certain "protected" groups.
First of, aren't all crimes already driven by some kind of hate or malice? Crimes are mitigated by circumstances, not by the quality of motive. Why? Because, simply put, a supposedly liberal (in the classical sense) society cannot penalize thought or belief. All crimes are "hate crimes". Therefore, an additional distinction is useless. Worse, its arbitrary.
If the woman who was gang-raped was straight, does it mean that the crime was somehow less serious because it falls outside of some retarded legal definition of "hate"?
One might object and say that the purpose of "hate crime" laws is to prevent certain people from being sigled out for harassment due to prejudice. If that is the case, then why isn't the burning of Gov. Palin's church considered a "hate crime"? (Note the snarky caption below the pic.) What about an old lady being pushed around by a bunch of angry gay activists? Maybe they'll charge the old lady, because gays are in the "protected" column.
In the end, what you're punishing is not the crime, which has already been punished with the first sentencing, but the thoughts of the one being charged. I thought secularists and liberals were all about free thinking? If we as a civilization start punishing thought, we are a few steps away from tyranny. Remember, even Galileo walked away from his trial without being charged.
Second, "hate" is such a subjective concept that any attempt to derive a legal definition or category out of it will always involve the projection of the definer's biases. This problem is twice exacerbated in the application. Who gets to define "hate"? Why?
And, how is anybody ever certain of a person's thoughts? The article about the rape tries to put the scare in you by saying:
Gay rights advocates note that hate crimes based on sexual orientation have increased nationwide as of late. There were 1,415 such crimes in 2006 and 1,460 in 2007, both times making up about 16 percent of the total, according to the FBI.
Now, how certain are they that all those 1460 "hate" crimes in 2007 were motivated by actual hate? Does the FBI employ mind-readers? What is this, Minority Report?
From the article:
Authorities are characterizing the attack as a hate crime but declined to reveal why they think the woman was singled out because of her sexual orientation.
You know why they declined to reveal it? Because they can never be 100% sure of the criminals' motivations! No hate crime conviction will ever be based on 100% certainty. Any consideration of "reasonable doubt" ought to outright dismiss every "hate crime" charge. In this case, on what basis will they hang a "hate crime" charge? On the fact that the criminals knew the victim was a lesbian? What if they raped her because they found lesbians (femme lesbians, at least) to be hot? Is it now a hate crime to think that lesbians are hot?
If thinking THIS is hot is now a crime, then sue me. I plead guilty.That's just for starters. Imagine trying to determine the "hate" in every crime against people in the "protected group". The absurdities you'd have to go through are astounding.
The subjectivity of hate would make hate crime legislation an easy cudgel for the hands of tyrants.
Considering the fact that we've never had hard "race" issues, "hate crimes" legislation in the Philippines will likely come from either homosexual activist groups like the one led by Danton Remoto, or xenophobic nationalist groups hoping to tar and feather every foreigner who sets foot in this country. It is easy to let your compassion allow you to be manipulated into going along with these victim-mongers in helping enact disastrous legislation.
If you ever value your freedom, never let that happen.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The New Irishmen
"I've seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark. Rome is the light."
- Maximus Decimus Meridius, Gladiator (2000)
More than 1,400 years ago, the Roman Church, seeing that the Faith was waning in its former strongholds in Western Europe, tapped a most unusual human resource to bring the light back to its darkening corners.
These were the Irish monks, faithful men who lived at the very margins of the known world. From their grim corners, they were summoned to bring the faith they brought to the farthest corners of Europe back to the wavering center. It was these Irishmen who would reinvigorate the Church in Gaul, as well as evangelize the vicious Germanic tribes and the ferocious Vikings.
You know what tamed this man-beast? A skinny Irish guy in a brown robe...
Seeing as history is prone to repeating itself, Christendom finds itself once more in the same situation. The Faith is faltering at the center. When one tries to look for religious Europeans on Google, one is immediately confronted with this:
So, where does the Pope draw the people needed to take back the strongholds of the Faith? The same places his ancestor drew upon when confronted with the same situation: the farthest corners of Christendom itself.
The Filipinos, who stand at the geographical margins of the Christian world, are the new missionaries.
Our methods are different though. Where the Irishmen sent monks from the farthest isles, we send nurses, laborers and domestic helpers. As sad as that may seem at first, it is actually the reason we are so effective. In places where monks are more likely to be spat at or turned from the door, domestic helpers are in demand. Where monks and nuns once trod, there are now nurses, whose own uniforms were inspired by those of the religious orders who began the Western tradition of the hospital. (Although I'm still waiting for doctors who dress up as Knights Hospitaller. That would be so bad-ass.)
There are already many stories of Filipino domestic helpers bringing entire families of fallen-away Christians back to church in Italy, the heart of the Roman Church. Like the early Christian slaves who evangelized their masters, they start with the children, and eventually even the parents join in.
But for me, the most visible mark of the Filipino influence in the revitalization of Christendom comes in the cultural hallmarks we bring with us that the host countries adopt, much like how the stern practices of Irish monks came to influence European monasticism.
Here, I present Simbang Gabi in the US.
What is surprising about the story is that it is not just the Filipino suburbs and strongholds in places like Hawaii and California that are adopting the practice. Simbang Gabi has gone completely mainstream in the American church, with parishes in every major archdiocese participating. They even started the practice in Anchorage, capital of the state of Alaska. How many Filipinos do you know went to Alaska?
They even added in touches of their own, such as that ceremony where they lower the parols from the roof to be blessed on the first Simbang Gabi.
I think it is part of the genius of Heaven that, poor as we are, we are given a chance to give back from the blessings we have received. Great is the God in Heaven who invite even the least of His children to the building of His great house.
We are the new Irishmen. We drink, we fight, we sing a lot. And we, the saltiest of the salt of the earth, are the hope of Christendom. Rome is the light, and we, among the least of the Romans, are now among its greatest torchbearers.
- Maximus Decimus Meridius, Gladiator (2000)
More than 1,400 years ago, the Roman Church, seeing that the Faith was waning in its former strongholds in Western Europe, tapped a most unusual human resource to bring the light back to its darkening corners.
These were the Irish monks, faithful men who lived at the very margins of the known world. From their grim corners, they were summoned to bring the faith they brought to the farthest corners of Europe back to the wavering center. It was these Irishmen who would reinvigorate the Church in Gaul, as well as evangelize the vicious Germanic tribes and the ferocious Vikings.
You know what tamed this man-beast? A skinny Irish guy in a brown robe...Seeing as history is prone to repeating itself, Christendom finds itself once more in the same situation. The Faith is faltering at the center. When one tries to look for religious Europeans on Google, one is immediately confronted with this:
So, where does the Pope draw the people needed to take back the strongholds of the Faith? The same places his ancestor drew upon when confronted with the same situation: the farthest corners of Christendom itself.
The Filipinos, who stand at the geographical margins of the Christian world, are the new missionaries.
Our methods are different though. Where the Irishmen sent monks from the farthest isles, we send nurses, laborers and domestic helpers. As sad as that may seem at first, it is actually the reason we are so effective. In places where monks are more likely to be spat at or turned from the door, domestic helpers are in demand. Where monks and nuns once trod, there are now nurses, whose own uniforms were inspired by those of the religious orders who began the Western tradition of the hospital. (Although I'm still waiting for doctors who dress up as Knights Hospitaller. That would be so bad-ass.)
There are already many stories of Filipino domestic helpers bringing entire families of fallen-away Christians back to church in Italy, the heart of the Roman Church. Like the early Christian slaves who evangelized their masters, they start with the children, and eventually even the parents join in.
But for me, the most visible mark of the Filipino influence in the revitalization of Christendom comes in the cultural hallmarks we bring with us that the host countries adopt, much like how the stern practices of Irish monks came to influence European monasticism.
Here, I present Simbang Gabi in the US.
What is surprising about the story is that it is not just the Filipino suburbs and strongholds in places like Hawaii and California that are adopting the practice. Simbang Gabi has gone completely mainstream in the American church, with parishes in every major archdiocese participating. They even started the practice in Anchorage, capital of the state of Alaska. How many Filipinos do you know went to Alaska?
They even added in touches of their own, such as that ceremony where they lower the parols from the roof to be blessed on the first Simbang Gabi.
I think it is part of the genius of Heaven that, poor as we are, we are given a chance to give back from the blessings we have received. Great is the God in Heaven who invite even the least of His children to the building of His great house.
We are the new Irishmen. We drink, we fight, we sing a lot. And we, the saltiest of the salt of the earth, are the hope of Christendom. Rome is the light, and we, among the least of the Romans, are now among its greatest torchbearers.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Thunder or Lightning? That is the Question...
Radar Online reports that Shakespearean auteur and overwrought "thespian" Kenneth Branagh is directing Marvel Comics' movie adaptation of its hit comic book series "The Mighty Thor".
Just...just...wow...
The article also reports that "Rome" lead actor Kevin McKidd is leading contender to play Thor. (What, no Triple H?) I'm surprised Branagh has not made himself the lead, as he usually does in his films. Or maybe he thinks Loki is Iago and wants to play the villain?
This guy's ego will probably make this an entertaining film, whether he means to or not, in ways he may not have anticipated.
Just...just...wow...
The article also reports that "Rome" lead actor Kevin McKidd is leading contender to play Thor. (What, no Triple H?) I'm surprised Branagh has not made himself the lead, as he usually does in his films. Or maybe he thinks Loki is Iago and wants to play the villain?
This guy's ego will probably make this an entertaining film, whether he means to or not, in ways he may not have anticipated.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Miscellany Omnibus
Can't really think clearly today. Got one hell of a headache. Too much COD 4, I assume.
So, its just a bunch of brain farts strung together for today.
____________
My Dream Vehicle
Forget about anything made by the Big Three, Japanese automakers or European manufacturers. My favorite vehicle-making company is now the Mutoid Waste Company. Ford? Honda? Kawasaki? None of them had the balls to make this beauty:
Now this is the baby I want to roll around in! All the HP in the world will never compensate for the lack of a hellish flame-thrower. Hell Hound for the win!!!
_________
AWWWW....SHIT...
Damn you, Eric Cart...err...Foreman!!!!! *primal howl*
___________
I KINDA SUCK WITH BIRTHDAYS
Looking at my trusty Multiply calendar (right...), it looks like I missed out on greeting at least two of my buddies on their birthdays this month. AG and Hazel, I'm sorry this comes really late, but belated Happy Birthday guys. Both of you are two of my favorite former students (this is a wide category, really), so I decided to trawl the Interwebs for very late presents. Because, y'all know I'm Mr. Moneybags.
For AG:
I want to give you a reminder as to how far you've come under the tutelage of Bodega and its many mysterious ways. But I couldn't decide which one suits better, so fuck it, have 'em both.*
For Hazel:
I want to give you something that reminds me of you. I couldn't think of anything. Then, another critter named Hazel shows up in search.
Okay, so its name is "Akagami Hamster". But let's just pretend it's named Hazel, k?
Extremely belated Happy Birthday, you two.
______
* 1st pic - You grew up in suburbia. Nobody feels sorry for you. Get a haircut.
* 2nd pic - Less conformist than the bus.
I'm out.
So, its just a bunch of brain farts strung together for today.
____________
My Dream Vehicle
Forget about anything made by the Big Three, Japanese automakers or European manufacturers. My favorite vehicle-making company is now the Mutoid Waste Company. Ford? Honda? Kawasaki? None of them had the balls to make this beauty:
All that's left missing is some AC/DC for the CD player...
Now this is the baby I want to roll around in! All the HP in the world will never compensate for the lack of a hellish flame-thrower. Hell Hound for the win!!!
_________
AWWWW....SHIT...
"...."
Damn you, Eric Cart...err...Foreman!!!!! *primal howl*
___________
I KINDA SUCK WITH BIRTHDAYS
Looking at my trusty Multiply calendar (right...), it looks like I missed out on greeting at least two of my buddies on their birthdays this month. AG and Hazel, I'm sorry this comes really late, but belated Happy Birthday guys. Both of you are two of my favorite former students (this is a wide category, really), so I decided to trawl the Interwebs for very late presents. Because, y'all know I'm Mr. Moneybags.
For AG:
I want to give you a reminder as to how far you've come under the tutelage of Bodega and its many mysterious ways. But I couldn't decide which one suits better, so fuck it, have 'em both.*
You've come a long way, AG. A very long way...
For Hazel:
I want to give you something that reminds me of you. I couldn't think of anything. Then, another critter named Hazel shows up in search.
That is so cute, I think my brain just melted.
Okay, so its name is "Akagami Hamster". But let's just pretend it's named Hazel, k?
Extremely belated Happy Birthday, you two.
______
* 1st pic - You grew up in suburbia. Nobody feels sorry for you. Get a haircut.
* 2nd pic - Less conformist than the bus.
I'm out.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Evil In Our Time
Evil in our time isn't encapsulated in a maniacal dictator with a weird mustache and a funny accent. Evil in our time isn't Darth Vader and his Imperial troops. Evil in our time isn't a grand anti-Christ backed by countless divisions looking to trample our freedoms asunder with brute force.
These are the evils of previous generations. These evils were large, visible, and ultimately, conquered. Many will say proudly that they lived in the ages of Eisenhower, Churchill and Roosevelt.
The pretenders to this kind of evil, men like Saddam and Ahmadinejad, are all dinosaurs. They are anachronistic. Saddam fell in three weeks. Ahmadinejad, from the looks of it, won't even bother going beyond rhetoric.
No, evil in our time is far more sinister than the sound of jackboots on the pavement. Our evils are not large and visible. Our evils are small, but legion, We do not see our evils in smug propaganda posters. We see our evils whenever we look in the mirror. It's the precise, intimate and mundane nature of our evils that make them far more dangerous. Because, we refuse to see them.
We entangle our evils, not in bombastic rhetoric to be spewed out of propaganda loudspeakers, but in the very language of our laws and treatises. The language is technical and boring, which make us ignore it or look over it. Evil seeps in and before we know it, we are already complicit.
Evil in our time is much more dangerous, because the targets are not easy to despise (like a certain mustachioed gent). Rather, the targets appeal largely to our sense of good. Harmless women, professionals, scientists, homosexuals, minorities...these are a far cry from SS Stormtroopers or KGB operatives. They are not the Mighty Other. Evil in our time is manifestly more effective because it has picked the perfect human avatars to shield it from criticism. After all, who wants to criticize the desperate, the deluded, the romantic, the ambitious? Are not these traits a reflection of ourselves? And yet, we must do so, for to yield to evil now means that the next generation will have to suffer for our delusions, our cowardice, our refusal to confront that which is like us.
This is the face of evil in our time. Not a menacing colossus bestriding the globe, but a simple woman, who calls the unborn person she had murdered a "sea monkey". And this woman, she is legion. More painfully, this woman is us.
This evil does not traffic in dramatic gestures. It does not kill good "to the sound of thundering applause". No, it destroys good with a snarky, brainless soundbite, with a poorly-conceived blog, with a simple, painless rationalization. It hides within the thickets of our compassion and our desire to be edgy. The sheer irony of this is that we will ultimately be destroyed by that misguided compassion, that makes the many small compromises with evil that will eventually consume us all. It will not take a great dictator to declare us all mere "sea monkeys". All it will take is a bureaucrat of a democratically-elected government. All it will take is something so harmless as a desperate woman.
Welcome to the brave new world. And if you think that we are safe here in the Philippines, well...
Welcome to the world of Edsel Lagman.
Not this time...
These are the evils of previous generations. These evils were large, visible, and ultimately, conquered. Many will say proudly that they lived in the ages of Eisenhower, Churchill and Roosevelt.
The pretenders to this kind of evil, men like Saddam and Ahmadinejad, are all dinosaurs. They are anachronistic. Saddam fell in three weeks. Ahmadinejad, from the looks of it, won't even bother going beyond rhetoric.
No, evil in our time is far more sinister than the sound of jackboots on the pavement. Our evils are not large and visible. Our evils are small, but legion, We do not see our evils in smug propaganda posters. We see our evils whenever we look in the mirror. It's the precise, intimate and mundane nature of our evils that make them far more dangerous. Because, we refuse to see them.
We entangle our evils, not in bombastic rhetoric to be spewed out of propaganda loudspeakers, but in the very language of our laws and treatises. The language is technical and boring, which make us ignore it or look over it. Evil seeps in and before we know it, we are already complicit.
Evil in our time is much more dangerous, because the targets are not easy to despise (like a certain mustachioed gent). Rather, the targets appeal largely to our sense of good. Harmless women, professionals, scientists, homosexuals, minorities...these are a far cry from SS Stormtroopers or KGB operatives. They are not the Mighty Other. Evil in our time is manifestly more effective because it has picked the perfect human avatars to shield it from criticism. After all, who wants to criticize the desperate, the deluded, the romantic, the ambitious? Are not these traits a reflection of ourselves? And yet, we must do so, for to yield to evil now means that the next generation will have to suffer for our delusions, our cowardice, our refusal to confront that which is like us.
This is the face of evil in our time. Not a menacing colossus bestriding the globe, but a simple woman, who calls the unborn person she had murdered a "sea monkey". And this woman, she is legion. More painfully, this woman is us.
Not as awe-inspiring, but every bit as insidious as a Nazi poster...
This evil does not traffic in dramatic gestures. It does not kill good "to the sound of thundering applause". No, it destroys good with a snarky, brainless soundbite, with a poorly-conceived blog, with a simple, painless rationalization. It hides within the thickets of our compassion and our desire to be edgy. The sheer irony of this is that we will ultimately be destroyed by that misguided compassion, that makes the many small compromises with evil that will eventually consume us all. It will not take a great dictator to declare us all mere "sea monkeys". All it will take is a bureaucrat of a democratically-elected government. All it will take is something so harmless as a desperate woman.
Welcome to the brave new world. And if you think that we are safe here in the Philippines, well...
Welcome to the world of Edsel Lagman.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
A Playboy Mexico Christmas
Okay, so what does a cover like this say?
Classy. Real classy, Playboy. Just because you guys have never met a female virgin, doesn't mean they never actually existed.
Assholes.
So this is what the feminists meant by "Madonna-Whore complex"...
Classy. Real classy, Playboy. Just because you guys have never met a female virgin, doesn't mean they never actually existed.
Assholes.
Cracked.Com is My Hero (When They're Not Shilling for Obama)
Okay, Hello Kitty's Adventure Island (Island Adventure?) is over.
Cracked.com just put out the best Twilight parody I've read so far. It's basically the Twilight movie if it were shorter and more honest. (Meta?)
A sample:
There's this part, too.
Cracked.com just put out the best Twilight parody I've read so far. It's basically the Twilight movie if it were shorter and more honest. (Meta?)
A sample:
KRISTEN goes to school and is INSTANTLY POPULAR AND BELOVED.
ANNA KENDRICK
Oh my God I love your hair you're so pretty will you be my new best friend?
GREGORY TYREE BOYCE
Can I take you out sometime since you're so awesome?
MICHAEL WELCH
No way you asshole, I saw her first!
KRISTEN STEWART
I'd rather watch "The Messengers" than date either of you. Why don't you go ask Anna instead?
ANNA KENDRICK
Ohmigod I'm getting Kristen's rejects, that's so awesome!
KRISTEN STEWART
Wow. I guess this is what it looks like when the unpopular fat girl's pathetic daydreams get written down and published into a bestselling book. Aren't well-written characters supposed to have flaws?
ANNA KENDRICK
Flaws? Oh, well, um, I suppose you could argue that you're a little TOO perfect and amazing. But I don't think so. Let's make out.
Read all of it. It's fucking awesome.There's this part, too.
ROBERT PATTINSON
Since the whole novel this is based on is just Mormon propaganda for abstinence and bloodsucking is a metaphor for sex, what exactly is this advocating?
See, one of the things that annoy me most about "Twilight" is that some people (including Meyer herself) are trying to say that this stupid-ass novel is supposed to reinforce my side of the culture wars.
Sorry, but "no". Make that a "hell, no". A pathetic author's day-dreams cannot be the standard bearer for chastity. Unless by chastity, you mean woman becomes a whiny, clingy, masochistic cipher for tweener hopes and dreams.
Go back to your planet, Meyer, and leave us the hell alone.
Ahh. That felt good.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Chill
I've decided that Vida has a point. I have to chill out a bit. So, I've given up my ragemonkey ways for a few days, and I'm here to say that my recent internet activity has consisted mostly of looking at...well...
Kittens...
Kittens...
And more kittens...
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Why Is It a "News" Magazine Again?
Looks like some skirts were ruffled at Newsweek over people actually taking its idiotic writer to task for her egregious hit piece.
So, the editor, Jon Meacham, who did a shitty job editing comes out to defend his work. And, in a fashion reminiscent of a high school drama queen, he defends the turd-bucket he helped release by telling his writer's critics to go fuck themselves.
No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.
There it is, the liberal version of an f-word (emphasis was mine). If he thinks this, then this liberal Episcopalian douche knows absolutely nothing about "the great Judeo-Christian tradition". Because that tradition tended to take the Bible quite seriously, and will not dismiss arguments made out of it so flippantly. Also, the other half of the Judeo-Christian framework, what the Church calls "Tradition", would not bode well for the arguments made by his half-wit writer either.
But, this guy Meacham is supposedly a genius. So, if its not stupidity, then it must be some form of deliberate deceit. If malice is what drove that monstrous piece of misinformation, then Meacham is much worse than his writer, who reeks of ignorance.
Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice—a matter of behavior—but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color.
That line of thinking never was, and never will be, "Judeo-Christian". If it is the premise for a religious case, that religion is not Christianity or Judaism (maybe secular humanism? I heard that crap's a religion now, according to Harvard). Because, neither Judaism nor Christianity assumes that sin is intrinsic to a person's make-up. A corruption of the human nature maybe, but not something intrinsic like skin color. We may not have had a choice in our particular sins, but our sins are not what define us. You want to make a Christian case for same-sex marriage, you begin by explaining why we have to legitimize a corruption of our natures instead of transcending it. Good luck with that.
The analogy with race is apt, for Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals.
No, the analogy to race is NOT apt. First off, let's get the evil of slavery out of the way. Within the Christian tradition few Christians outside of the Southern Baptists ever used Scripture to defend slavery. And even then, you'd have to discount the great Christian thinkers who railed against it, using Scripture and Tradition no less, from Wilberforce to De Las Casas. The Christian thinkers who went against slavery far outnumber those who defended it. If we're talking numbers, the Christian thinkers who defended slavery are in the same position as these "Christian thinkers" who would defend same-sex marriage.
As for race itself, the defense of the marital arrangement stretches all the way back to antiquity. Even the boy-loving Athenians dared not tamper with it. The people who use the striking down of racist marriage laws as a comparative situation forget that racist marriage laws were a post-American Civil War phenomenon, and they do not exist anywhere else. (Laws against marrying outside caste or tribe, yes, but not specifically race.) Striking down racist marriage laws falls within the tradition of the marital arrangement. Striking down the arrangement itself is not.
The NEWSWEEK Poll confirms what other surveys have also found: that there is a decided generational difference on the issue, with younger people supporting gay marriage at a higher rate than older Americans. One era's accepted reality often becomes the next era's clear wrong. So it was with segregation, and so it will be, I suspect, with the sacrament of marriage.
The same thing can be said for abortion and euthanasia laws. Same thing can also be said for Nazi Germany, where it was the old guard that tried, unsuccessfully, to block Hitler's rise and his policies. Colonel von Stauffenberg and his old Catholic family fell within that old guard. So, the generational argument is bullshit.
Religious conservatives will say that the liberal media are once again seeking to impose their values (or their "agenda," a favorite term to describe the views of those who disagree with you) on a God-fearing nation. Let the letters and e-mails come. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion.
Oh, brother. If this guy even bothered to read actual demographic studies beyond the piss-poor polls Newsweek puts out, he'll discover that the religious "fundamentalists" he is so afraid of reproduce at a much faster rate. The demographics that voted Prop. 8 in place were blacks and Hispanics. Hispanics are the fastest-expanding population in the US. Among the whites, the liberals are reproducing at a much slower rate. Having babies gets in the way of saving the trees, you know. They get in the way of dismantling traditional marriage too.
Oh, and fuck you too, Jon Meacham. You can take your rag and shove it up your orifice. Time Magazine may be just as liberal, but I've never seen it go out of its way to be this fucking stupid.
So, the editor, Jon Meacham, who did a shitty job editing comes out to defend his work. And, in a fashion reminiscent of a high school drama queen, he defends the turd-bucket he helped release by telling his writer's critics to go fuck themselves.
No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.
There it is, the liberal version of an f-word (emphasis was mine). If he thinks this, then this liberal Episcopalian douche knows absolutely nothing about "the great Judeo-Christian tradition". Because that tradition tended to take the Bible quite seriously, and will not dismiss arguments made out of it so flippantly. Also, the other half of the Judeo-Christian framework, what the Church calls "Tradition", would not bode well for the arguments made by his half-wit writer either.
But, this guy Meacham is supposedly a genius. So, if its not stupidity, then it must be some form of deliberate deceit. If malice is what drove that monstrous piece of misinformation, then Meacham is much worse than his writer, who reeks of ignorance.
Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice—a matter of behavior—but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color.
That line of thinking never was, and never will be, "Judeo-Christian". If it is the premise for a religious case, that religion is not Christianity or Judaism (maybe secular humanism? I heard that crap's a religion now, according to Harvard). Because, neither Judaism nor Christianity assumes that sin is intrinsic to a person's make-up. A corruption of the human nature maybe, but not something intrinsic like skin color. We may not have had a choice in our particular sins, but our sins are not what define us. You want to make a Christian case for same-sex marriage, you begin by explaining why we have to legitimize a corruption of our natures instead of transcending it. Good luck with that.
The analogy with race is apt, for Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals.
No, the analogy to race is NOT apt. First off, let's get the evil of slavery out of the way. Within the Christian tradition few Christians outside of the Southern Baptists ever used Scripture to defend slavery. And even then, you'd have to discount the great Christian thinkers who railed against it, using Scripture and Tradition no less, from Wilberforce to De Las Casas. The Christian thinkers who went against slavery far outnumber those who defended it. If we're talking numbers, the Christian thinkers who defended slavery are in the same position as these "Christian thinkers" who would defend same-sex marriage.
As for race itself, the defense of the marital arrangement stretches all the way back to antiquity. Even the boy-loving Athenians dared not tamper with it. The people who use the striking down of racist marriage laws as a comparative situation forget that racist marriage laws were a post-American Civil War phenomenon, and they do not exist anywhere else. (Laws against marrying outside caste or tribe, yes, but not specifically race.) Striking down racist marriage laws falls within the tradition of the marital arrangement. Striking down the arrangement itself is not.
The NEWSWEEK Poll confirms what other surveys have also found: that there is a decided generational difference on the issue, with younger people supporting gay marriage at a higher rate than older Americans. One era's accepted reality often becomes the next era's clear wrong. So it was with segregation, and so it will be, I suspect, with the sacrament of marriage.
The same thing can be said for abortion and euthanasia laws. Same thing can also be said for Nazi Germany, where it was the old guard that tried, unsuccessfully, to block Hitler's rise and his policies. Colonel von Stauffenberg and his old Catholic family fell within that old guard. So, the generational argument is bullshit.
Religious conservatives will say that the liberal media are once again seeking to impose their values (or their "agenda," a favorite term to describe the views of those who disagree with you) on a God-fearing nation. Let the letters and e-mails come. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion.
Oh, brother. If this guy even bothered to read actual demographic studies beyond the piss-poor polls Newsweek puts out, he'll discover that the religious "fundamentalists" he is so afraid of reproduce at a much faster rate. The demographics that voted Prop. 8 in place were blacks and Hispanics. Hispanics are the fastest-expanding population in the US. Among the whites, the liberals are reproducing at a much slower rate. Having babies gets in the way of saving the trees, you know. They get in the way of dismantling traditional marriage too.
Oh, and fuck you too, Jon Meacham. You can take your rag and shove it up your orifice. Time Magazine may be just as liberal, but I've never seen it go out of its way to be this fucking stupid.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Bad Education Breeds Imbeciles
As a follow up to my previous post, one might ask how wide-ranging an effect the university's surrender of its original vision might be. After all, why should we sweat Harvard selling out?
For one thing, these schools, both in Europe and the US, still take in a large portion of our future worldwide elite. Now, it's one thing to have stupid masses. After all, that's why they're called "the masses". (Sorry, David Mamet fan here.) But if even your elite has succumbed to egregious stupidity, then you are going to face a range of long-term, large-scale evils.
The first, and probably least, dangerous side effect is the loss of simple logic and reasoning. Take, for example, this Dutch gay activist and his gay "nativity", with the two Josephs and two Marys (polygamous God!). Nothing behind it other than sheer historical, religious and philosophical ignorance, but we can take that for granted. What veers this into imbecile territory is the fact that somebody ought to have asked our erstwhile presumably "educated" gay activist a few questions...
Or, this entry for my "more proof the UK is run by the Stupids" series, wherein Oxford University Press (a university? who would've thunk it?) eliminated all references to Christianity in its Junior Dictionary, thus perpetuating its own stupidity on the young. Okay, so those British kings used to be crowned by...men with pointy hats! There's some brains spilled on "lane between two objects" 22! The UK is already becoming one gigantic Monty Python skit, and someday, it's going to stop being funny.
The second effect is considerably more annoying. You're going to have these imbecilic elites so wrapped up in their own arrogance that they're going to start doing things they are not qualified to do, much less even attempt.
Take this example of breath-taking, brain-busting stupidity from a Newsweek editor. (Cancel your subscriptions, this magazine is hardly worth wiping your ass with. Consider this the anti-plug.) Here, you have new age fucktard Lisa Miller trying to talk down to us Christians by telling us that gay marriage is allowed by the Bible, while probably only owning a Cliffnotes to the Bible rather than an actual one herself (might burn her hands). The lies and misinterpretations are so numerous, I'm sure Luther is now beginning to regret sola scriptura up there in heaven. The wonders of a university "education" knows no bounds, and embraces imbecility only higher "education" can allow you to swallow. (For the antidote to Lisa Miller, go here.)
Or, in another example of higher-ed's total lack of any sense of irony, you have Harvard allowing an atheist a Master's in Divinity! Shouldn't they just create a school in Adivinity? Or are Harvard's divinity professors so incapable of taking their subject matter seriously that they think even an atheist can grasp the profundity of religion and teach it? What's next? Driving school for the blind? Wait, there's more:
What was perhaps most interesting that year was learning that many Americans do not take their ethical advice from Aristotle, Kant, or Mill, but rather from religious leaders. I realized that if I was going to make a meaningful contribution to the ethical dialogue in this country, I ought to study religious ethics.
Congratulations, Harvard, for giving us the next L. Ron Hubbard.
The third, and most dangerous side effect of all, is the loss of virtue among the learned professional elite. How bad will this loss of virtue affect you? Check your mortgage. Check your relatives' OFW remittances. Heck, check the toilet-spiralling world economy.
Newsflash: Economics without Virtue doesn't work!
Underlying the crisis is the Western world's repudiation of life, through a hedonism that puts consumption or "self-realization" ahead of child-rearing. The developed world is shifting from a demographic profile in which the very young (children four years and under) outnumbered the elderly (65 and older), to a profile with 10 times as many retirees as children aged four or younger. Economics simply never has had to confront a situation in which the next generation simply failed turn up.
It is not just the professionals who were ethically challenged. Bankers who insisted on dancing until the music stopped, as Citigroup's former chairman Chuck Prince wisecracked just before his 2007 dismissal, deserve the rage of the public. So do the analysts working for Moody's Investor Services who acknowledged in messages made public by Congressional investigators that "we sold our soul to the devil for revenue". The moral rot reaches into most of the families in the developed world.
The lack of virtue causes otherwise smart professionals to sell their souls to the devil and gain nothing but dust in the process. And when the elite collectively bargains their souls away, they bargain ours along with theirs, greedy bastards. Because the economic crunch does not hurt the elite the most. It strikes hardest at us, Joe and Jane Taxpayer, whose being middle class makes democracy crawl along and keeps society from collapsing. If we fold, then prepare for a Mad Max future of dog eat dog. Funny part is, we didn't even need the nukes to destroy ourselves.
Only bad education.
For one thing, these schools, both in Europe and the US, still take in a large portion of our future worldwide elite. Now, it's one thing to have stupid masses. After all, that's why they're called "the masses". (Sorry, David Mamet fan here.) But if even your elite has succumbed to egregious stupidity, then you are going to face a range of long-term, large-scale evils.
The first, and probably least, dangerous side effect is the loss of simple logic and reasoning. Take, for example, this Dutch gay activist and his gay "nativity", with the two Josephs and two Marys (polygamous God!). Nothing behind it other than sheer historical, religious and philosophical ignorance, but we can take that for granted. What veers this into imbecile territory is the fact that somebody ought to have asked our erstwhile presumably "educated" gay activist a few questions...
Umm...out of which Joseph's orifice is Jesus supposed to pop out?
Or, this entry for my "more proof the UK is run by the Stupids" series, wherein Oxford University Press (a university? who would've thunk it?) eliminated all references to Christianity in its Junior Dictionary, thus perpetuating its own stupidity on the young. Okay, so those British kings used to be crowned by...men with pointy hats! There's some brains spilled on "lane between two objects" 22! The UK is already becoming one gigantic Monty Python skit, and someday, it's going to stop being funny.
The second effect is considerably more annoying. You're going to have these imbecilic elites so wrapped up in their own arrogance that they're going to start doing things they are not qualified to do, much less even attempt.
Take this example of breath-taking, brain-busting stupidity from a Newsweek editor. (Cancel your subscriptions, this magazine is hardly worth wiping your ass with. Consider this the anti-plug.) Here, you have new age fucktard Lisa Miller trying to talk down to us Christians by telling us that gay marriage is allowed by the Bible, while probably only owning a Cliffnotes to the Bible rather than an actual one herself (might burn her hands). The lies and misinterpretations are so numerous, I'm sure Luther is now beginning to regret sola scriptura up there in heaven. The wonders of a university "education" knows no bounds, and embraces imbecility only higher "education" can allow you to swallow. (For the antidote to Lisa Miller, go here.)
Or, in another example of higher-ed's total lack of any sense of irony, you have Harvard allowing an atheist a Master's in Divinity! Shouldn't they just create a school in Adivinity? Or are Harvard's divinity professors so incapable of taking their subject matter seriously that they think even an atheist can grasp the profundity of religion and teach it? What's next? Driving school for the blind? Wait, there's more:
What was perhaps most interesting that year was learning that many Americans do not take their ethical advice from Aristotle, Kant, or Mill, but rather from religious leaders. I realized that if I was going to make a meaningful contribution to the ethical dialogue in this country, I ought to study religious ethics.
Congratulations, Harvard, for giving us the next L. Ron Hubbard.
The third, and most dangerous side effect of all, is the loss of virtue among the learned professional elite. How bad will this loss of virtue affect you? Check your mortgage. Check your relatives' OFW remittances. Heck, check the toilet-spiralling world economy.
Newsflash: Economics without Virtue doesn't work!
Underlying the crisis is the Western world's repudiation of life, through a hedonism that puts consumption or "self-realization" ahead of child-rearing. The developed world is shifting from a demographic profile in which the very young (children four years and under) outnumbered the elderly (65 and older), to a profile with 10 times as many retirees as children aged four or younger. Economics simply never has had to confront a situation in which the next generation simply failed turn up.
It is not just the professionals who were ethically challenged. Bankers who insisted on dancing until the music stopped, as Citigroup's former chairman Chuck Prince wisecracked just before his 2007 dismissal, deserve the rage of the public. So do the analysts working for Moody's Investor Services who acknowledged in messages made public by Congressional investigators that "we sold our soul to the devil for revenue". The moral rot reaches into most of the families in the developed world.
The lack of virtue causes otherwise smart professionals to sell their souls to the devil and gain nothing but dust in the process. And when the elite collectively bargains their souls away, they bargain ours along with theirs, greedy bastards. Because the economic crunch does not hurt the elite the most. It strikes hardest at us, Joe and Jane Taxpayer, whose being middle class makes democracy crawl along and keeps society from collapsing. If we fold, then prepare for a Mad Max future of dog eat dog. Funny part is, we didn't even need the nukes to destroy ourselves.
Only bad education.
Harvard is Overrated, or, Why I'm Glad I Studied Here...
As an institution, the university is the result of the intellectual triumph of the west in the aftermath of the so-called Dark Ages. The university then was not just a place of training (there were many such training and licensing institutions in the wider world, from the administrative training schools in China to Al Azhar in Egypt), but a community of scholars and masters whose goal was not just to license new masters as per the guilds of the age, but to learn for the sake of learning and to pass these cultural gifts down to the next generation.
The university as an institution faced many shifts, but had always maintained its integrity as an institution of learning and culture. While the shift of focus from philosophy and the arts to the hard sciences as precipitated in the 18th and 19th centuries seemed like it would sidetrack the university as a place where one learns of culture and the humanities, it only resulted in universities further segregating the two tiers of undergraduate and graduate programs, with the implicit understanding that the students need first be formed as human beings and citizens before they withdraw into the heart of academia to dedicate their lives to research and the pursuit of knowledge.
The perceived destruction of the university as an institute of learning and culture did not come with August Comte and his new scientific religion. It came first with Dewey and his philosophy of educational pragmatism, which turned the university into a diploma mill, and was followed closely by J. Hendrix, the Beatles, hippies, and that gigantic miasma known culturally as "the 60's".
It was a civilization-wide phenomenon that destroyed university learning in the West, from Europe to the US. The rise of "vocationalism" certainly meant that we now have stricter, better development programs for the professions: medicine, law, business and the hard sciences. However, it meant that the university has been reduced to training center and licensing authority. The profound learning of what constitutes the human condition all but atrophied, and eventually disappeared. The 60's had questioned learning right out of existence, most magnificently concretized by the student riots of 1968. (A curse on that decade and its malcontents!)
The result is that when it came to the liberal arts and the humanities, the culture by which Western civilization propagates itself, the university all but gave up.
Maximilian Pakaluk, Without the Point
Here's more:
Academic prestige is based mostly on the research achievements of the faculty. Places like Harvard or Stanford have many professors who are among the leading experts in their respective fields, including some who have won Nobel Prizes.
Good for them. But is it good for you, if you are a student at Prestige U.?
Big-name professors are unlikely to be teaching you freshman English or introductory math. Some may not be teaching you anything at all, unless and until you go on to postgraduate study.
In other words, the people who generated the prestige which attracted you to the college may be seen walking about the campus but are less likely to be seen standing in front of your classroom when you begin your college education.
...
By contrast, at a small college without the prestige of big-name research universities, the introductory courses which provide a foundation for higher courses are more likely to be taught by experienced professors who are teachers more so than researchers.
Thomas Sowell, Choose Wisely
This is a betrayal of learning on a massive scale. So many great institutions have gained their funding and their government grants, but sold their souls in the process. Whoever coined the phrase, "money is the root of all evil" was wrong, but he would be excused if it was universities he had in mind. A university may live or die on research, but it is not a university if it cannot teach. One might as well just call it a scholar's union, or a training center, but it is not a university.
Some people are slowly beginning to recognize this phenomenon, where education gets in the way of learning, as Mark Twain once put it. So, what are they doing?
They're going elsewhere.
What else can they do?
This is why I am glad I stayed here to study. Here, the decay is slower, and I still see professors and scholars of great reknown taking the time to teach and form the next generation to the best of their ability. Some are great teachers, like Dr. Dumol of UA&P. Some may not be the greatest teachers. I've heard horror stories about Fr. Arcilla from Ateneo University, who seems to be the dullest teacher this side of living despite being one of the best scholars in his field. But what inspires me is that they are compelled, still, to form the culture around them and to imbue their students with the knowledge of what it means to be human. They carry the spirit of those masters of the Middle Ages, when all the world was young, driven to shine the light over every mind seeking in the dark. More so than their colleagues up in the so-called greatest "universities" in the world.
I suppose it is ironic that the light of the humanities shines stronger in the margins than in their once-vaunted center.
The university as an institution faced many shifts, but had always maintained its integrity as an institution of learning and culture. While the shift of focus from philosophy and the arts to the hard sciences as precipitated in the 18th and 19th centuries seemed like it would sidetrack the university as a place where one learns of culture and the humanities, it only resulted in universities further segregating the two tiers of undergraduate and graduate programs, with the implicit understanding that the students need first be formed as human beings and citizens before they withdraw into the heart of academia to dedicate their lives to research and the pursuit of knowledge.
The perceived destruction of the university as an institute of learning and culture did not come with August Comte and his new scientific religion. It came first with Dewey and his philosophy of educational pragmatism, which turned the university into a diploma mill, and was followed closely by J. Hendrix, the Beatles, hippies, and that gigantic miasma known culturally as "the 60's".
It was a civilization-wide phenomenon that destroyed university learning in the West, from Europe to the US. The rise of "vocationalism" certainly meant that we now have stricter, better development programs for the professions: medicine, law, business and the hard sciences. However, it meant that the university has been reduced to training center and licensing authority. The profound learning of what constitutes the human condition all but atrophied, and eventually disappeared. The 60's had questioned learning right out of existence, most magnificently concretized by the student riots of 1968. (A curse on that decade and its malcontents!)
The result is that when it came to the liberal arts and the humanities, the culture by which Western civilization propagates itself, the university all but gave up.
Today a young person does not generally go off to the university with the expectation of having an intellectual adventure, of discovering strange new worlds, of finding out what the comprehensive truth about man is. This is partly because he thinks he already knows, partly because he thinks such truth unavailable. And the university does not try to persuade him that he is coming to it for the purpose of being liberally educated, at least in any meaningful sense of the term — to study how to be free, to be able to think for himself. The university has no vision, no view of what a human being must know in order to be considered educated. Its general purpose is lost amid the incoherent variety of special purposes that have accreted within it. Such a general purpose may be vague and undemonstrable, but for just this reason it requires the most study. The meaning of life is unclear, but that is why we must spend our lives clarifying it rather than letting the question go. The university's function is to remind students of the importance and urgency of the question and give them the means to pursue it. Universities do have other responsibilities, but this should be their highest priority.
- Alan Bloom, Our Listless Universities
What we have now are universities so hollowed out of human substance that they replace virtue with knowledge. Welcome to the modern "research" university, where the community of scholars of old hold no interest in passing on knowledge, but in merely gorging in its pursuit. Chief of these is the #1 university in the world, Harvard University, a research university par excellance.
A simple overview of the methodology of ranking universities already makes clear this egregious surrender of the university's greatest responsiblity. The greatest weight is placed, not in learning, but in what other researchers have to say about said university. The rest of the criteria only reinforce the notion of the university as a distributor of diplomas and licenses, with the wider and more diverse disbursment of licenses as an apparent condition for excellence.
But what galls about Harvard is that it was supposed to be the best. And what is the best university in the world up to?
If you want to learn about modern Czech fantasy novels, Harvard is an excellent place to be. The same goes if you want to study women writers from the Caribbean or elementary particle physics (where the particles, not the physics, are elementary). But where should you go if you want to become an educated person? What fun Socrates would have had at Harvard, the supposedly preeminent educational institution in the world.
...
Harvard began as a school for Puritan settlers in the New World, meant to ensure that ministers were literate and somewhat learned; it has since grown into a world-renowned research university. Its professors are scholarly specialists whose interests have little to do with those of most students. Not that its undergraduates are particularly concerned about getting an education. Many treat college as one more rung on the ladder, and they inevitably have time-consuming extracurricular pursuits. Some indeed are academics in the making, yet, as can be seen from their professors, this has little to do with being well educated. So Harvard College ends up being little more than a collection of specialized, expert professors who lecture to, but otherwise try not to interfere with, their ambitious, talented students—a generalization, to be sure, to which there are numerous exceptions, but it is true enough.
- Alan Bloom, Our Listless Universities
What we have now are universities so hollowed out of human substance that they replace virtue with knowledge. Welcome to the modern "research" university, where the community of scholars of old hold no interest in passing on knowledge, but in merely gorging in its pursuit. Chief of these is the #1 university in the world, Harvard University, a research university par excellance.
A simple overview of the methodology of ranking universities already makes clear this egregious surrender of the university's greatest responsiblity. The greatest weight is placed, not in learning, but in what other researchers have to say about said university. The rest of the criteria only reinforce the notion of the university as a distributor of diplomas and licenses, with the wider and more diverse disbursment of licenses as an apparent condition for excellence.
But what galls about Harvard is that it was supposed to be the best. And what is the best university in the world up to?
If you want to learn about modern Czech fantasy novels, Harvard is an excellent place to be. The same goes if you want to study women writers from the Caribbean or elementary particle physics (where the particles, not the physics, are elementary). But where should you go if you want to become an educated person? What fun Socrates would have had at Harvard, the supposedly preeminent educational institution in the world.
...
Harvard began as a school for Puritan settlers in the New World, meant to ensure that ministers were literate and somewhat learned; it has since grown into a world-renowned research university. Its professors are scholarly specialists whose interests have little to do with those of most students. Not that its undergraduates are particularly concerned about getting an education. Many treat college as one more rung on the ladder, and they inevitably have time-consuming extracurricular pursuits. Some indeed are academics in the making, yet, as can be seen from their professors, this has little to do with being well educated. So Harvard College ends up being little more than a collection of specialized, expert professors who lecture to, but otherwise try not to interfere with, their ambitious, talented students—a generalization, to be sure, to which there are numerous exceptions, but it is true enough.
Maximilian Pakaluk, Without the Point
Here's more:
Academic prestige is based mostly on the research achievements of the faculty. Places like Harvard or Stanford have many professors who are among the leading experts in their respective fields, including some who have won Nobel Prizes.
Good for them. But is it good for you, if you are a student at Prestige U.?
Big-name professors are unlikely to be teaching you freshman English or introductory math. Some may not be teaching you anything at all, unless and until you go on to postgraduate study.
In other words, the people who generated the prestige which attracted you to the college may be seen walking about the campus but are less likely to be seen standing in front of your classroom when you begin your college education.
...
By contrast, at a small college without the prestige of big-name research universities, the introductory courses which provide a foundation for higher courses are more likely to be taught by experienced professors who are teachers more so than researchers.
Thomas Sowell, Choose Wisely
This is a betrayal of learning on a massive scale. So many great institutions have gained their funding and their government grants, but sold their souls in the process. Whoever coined the phrase, "money is the root of all evil" was wrong, but he would be excused if it was universities he had in mind. A university may live or die on research, but it is not a university if it cannot teach. One might as well just call it a scholar's union, or a training center, but it is not a university.
Some people are slowly beginning to recognize this phenomenon, where education gets in the way of learning, as Mark Twain once put it. So, what are they doing?
They're going elsewhere.
What else can they do?
This is why I am glad I stayed here to study. Here, the decay is slower, and I still see professors and scholars of great reknown taking the time to teach and form the next generation to the best of their ability. Some are great teachers, like Dr. Dumol of UA&P. Some may not be the greatest teachers. I've heard horror stories about Fr. Arcilla from Ateneo University, who seems to be the dullest teacher this side of living despite being one of the best scholars in his field. But what inspires me is that they are compelled, still, to form the culture around them and to imbue their students with the knowledge of what it means to be human. They carry the spirit of those masters of the Middle Ages, when all the world was young, driven to shine the light over every mind seeking in the dark. More so than their colleagues up in the so-called greatest "universities" in the world.
I suppose it is ironic that the light of the humanities shines stronger in the margins than in their once-vaunted center.
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Passing of Orthodox Patriarch Alexei II
Three days ago, the long-reigning Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church passed away. By all accounts, he was a great leader, whose restoration of Russian Orthodoxy to a prominent place in what was once an officially atheist society is nothing short of awe-inspiring. Would that the Faith be granted so many giants. He will be rightly mourned by his people, especially now that the effects of the long night of Communist atheism still linger. Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn would've approved.
However, what does it mean for Christians of the West? (And for all our folk Catholicism, we are Christians of the West.)
It means the renewal of an ancient hope that has never been more of a whisper since the atrocities of 1204. Yes, we are talking about hurts almost a millennium old. But much progress has been made towards reconciliation. In 1975, the mutual anathemas of 1054 issued by an irate Patriarch of Constantinople and an irate papal legate were lifted. Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople have been constantly working towards unity, and for a while, it seemed like the dream could become a reality. Sure, obstacles remained, but none that could not be overcome with theological dialogue (filioqua, filioque, anyone?) and prudent political maneuvering. There was only one real, immovable obstacle.
That was Alexei II.
Here's to hoping that dialogue will move forward with a new man on the Russian Orthodox helm. Especially since the man touted as the next patriarch is more receptive to dialogue with Rome.
Maybe the dream can move beyond a whisper. Maybe we can utter it now...a unified ancient Christendom! What a weapon to bring to bear in an age filled with so many enemies. And, how wonderful a sign for the age, with a Church breathing with both lungs East and West.
Requiscat in Pace, Patriarch. Ora pro nobis.
However, what does it mean for Christians of the West? (And for all our folk Catholicism, we are Christians of the West.)
It means the renewal of an ancient hope that has never been more of a whisper since the atrocities of 1204. Yes, we are talking about hurts almost a millennium old. But much progress has been made towards reconciliation. In 1975, the mutual anathemas of 1054 issued by an irate Patriarch of Constantinople and an irate papal legate were lifted. Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople have been constantly working towards unity, and for a while, it seemed like the dream could become a reality. Sure, obstacles remained, but none that could not be overcome with theological dialogue (filioqua, filioque, anyone?) and prudent political maneuvering. There was only one real, immovable obstacle.
That was Alexei II.
Here's to hoping that dialogue will move forward with a new man on the Russian Orthodox helm. Especially since the man touted as the next patriarch is more receptive to dialogue with Rome.
Maybe the dream can move beyond a whisper. Maybe we can utter it now...a unified ancient Christendom! What a weapon to bring to bear in an age filled with so many enemies. And, how wonderful a sign for the age, with a Church breathing with both lungs East and West.
Requiscat in Pace, Patriarch. Ora pro nobis.
"Conservative" Morons #1
What's the problem with secularists? They're more allergic to any hint of religion in the public square than a vampire to a crucifix.
Here's one of those avante-garde secular dumbass Republicans who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still thinks its the pro-life, pro-marriage Christian wing of the party that lost them the elections.
How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one’s values, but let reason inform one’s public arguments.
Listen, you dumb blonde, when was the last time you've heard a prominent social conservative cap off a pro-life argument with "because God says so in verse and chapter blah blah"? Social conservatives have not been using arguments from revelation for the last fifty years, mostly for the sake of pathetic idiots like you. Pro-life and pro-marriage arguments have been made in public based on both hard and soft science, with philosophy where necessary. Social conservatives haven't been "oogedy-boogedy" since Barry Goldwater ran! John McCain, the most secular Republican candidate since Nixon, lost the US election in large part due to his being whipped by Obama with the God talk. He couldn't even say "pro-life" without twitching. He's your guy, and he lost, so don't blame it on the only wing of the conservative movement who's had any success lately.
Oh, and oogedy-boogedy this...
Here's one of those avante-garde secular dumbass Republicans who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still thinks its the pro-life, pro-marriage Christian wing of the party that lost them the elections.
How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one’s values, but let reason inform one’s public arguments.
Listen, you dumb blonde, when was the last time you've heard a prominent social conservative cap off a pro-life argument with "because God says so in verse and chapter blah blah"? Social conservatives have not been using arguments from revelation for the last fifty years, mostly for the sake of pathetic idiots like you. Pro-life and pro-marriage arguments have been made in public based on both hard and soft science, with philosophy where necessary. Social conservatives haven't been "oogedy-boogedy" since Barry Goldwater ran! John McCain, the most secular Republican candidate since Nixon, lost the US election in large part due to his being whipped by Obama with the God talk. He couldn't even say "pro-life" without twitching. He's your guy, and he lost, so don't blame it on the only wing of the conservative movement who's had any success lately.
Oh, and oogedy-boogedy this...
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Meme With No Name
Thanks to X for forwarding the question (answer?) key for the meme with no name. Now, let's see how interesting this list will look without questions.
1. Athena Tibi
2. Ray Reyes
3. Ferdinand of Aragon, but if someone alive, then either Juan Carlos I or Tao Ruspoli
4. Annabelle Guillermo
5. Wanwan Rapisora
6. Vicky Haynes, Dan Miranda
7. Gabby Reyes, Anna Bernal
8. Jose Custodio
9. Thomas Sowell, if someone realistic, then Clem Camposano
10. Aissa Ereñeta (umm...yeah)
11. Jam Magno
12. Ashley Skead
13. in every way, good, bad and ugly, Steph Sol
14. AG de Mesa / JV Ramos
15. Kaye Matriano
16. Monica Ang
17. TJ Aguirre
18. Athena Tibi / C.O. (forgot the last name)
19. Roma Pilar, Joem Antonio, Ronnie Balbieran
20. Ian Amane, X Vallez, Joem Antonio, Cesca Tan
21. Vida Gruet, Aissa Ereñeta, Joao Atienza, JV Ramos
22. Bok Gil, AG de Mesa
23. Wanwan Rapisora, Sophia Marco, Whoever is Holy Roman Emperor (c)
24. Manny Pacquiao
25. Ian Amane, Ray Reyes, Steph Sol
26. Reyaine Mendoza (I can pretend to be a Sandra Day O'Connor fan...), Olivia Wilde
27. Boogie Mortel
28. Joem Antonio, Vida Gruet, Ronnie Balbieran
29. A widowed Olivia Wilde (Fuck PETA!)
30. What is the sound of one hand clapping? A Meme with no Questions.
Looking back at the list, it looks like something compiled by either a hitman or a private investigator, with irrelevant side comments.
This thing should really come with questions revealed. How is this hitlist interesting apart from them? Hmmm....
1. Athena Tibi
2. Ray Reyes
3. Ferdinand of Aragon, but if someone alive, then either Juan Carlos I or Tao Ruspoli
4. Annabelle Guillermo
5. Wanwan Rapisora
6. Vicky Haynes, Dan Miranda
7. Gabby Reyes, Anna Bernal
8. Jose Custodio
9. Thomas Sowell, if someone realistic, then Clem Camposano
10. Aissa Ereñeta (umm...yeah)
11. Jam Magno
12. Ashley Skead
13. in every way, good, bad and ugly, Steph Sol
14. AG de Mesa / JV Ramos
15. Kaye Matriano
16. Monica Ang
17. TJ Aguirre
18. Athena Tibi / C.O. (forgot the last name)
19. Roma Pilar, Joem Antonio, Ronnie Balbieran
20. Ian Amane, X Vallez, Joem Antonio, Cesca Tan
21. Vida Gruet, Aissa Ereñeta, Joao Atienza, JV Ramos
22. Bok Gil, AG de Mesa
23. Wanwan Rapisora, Sophia Marco, Whoever is Holy Roman Emperor (c)
24. Manny Pacquiao
25. Ian Amane, Ray Reyes, Steph Sol
26. Reyaine Mendoza (I can pretend to be a Sandra Day O'Connor fan...), Olivia Wilde
27. Boogie Mortel
28. Joem Antonio, Vida Gruet, Ronnie Balbieran
29. A widowed Olivia Wilde (Fuck PETA!)
30. What is the sound of one hand clapping? A Meme with no Questions.
Looking back at the list, it looks like something compiled by either a hitman or a private investigator, with irrelevant side comments.
This thing should really come with questions revealed. How is this hitlist interesting apart from them? Hmmm....
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Its a Strange World: 10 Bizarre Things I've Encountered the Last 2 Weeks
In no particular order:
1. During the school's Eucharistic Procession, I saw some random stranger be let in, while students were kept from going out. I'm no pro, but doesn't security involve keeping people out, instead of keeping people in? There's only one place I know that uses that security scheme on adults.*
2. I saw a pro-contraception ("safe sex", whatever that is) party hosted by two candidates for the Darwin Awards. Natural selection at work?
Girl Host: So, you're a medical practitioner? Tell me, what does AIDS stand for?
Raffle Winner: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
Girl Host: Very good! You know about AIDS! May you have more clients in the future.
Guy Host: Yes!
Audience: [Inwardly Groaning]
Me: Morons....
3. After said party, I was out with my buddies when Iza Calzado walks by. Just behind her, I saw some douchebag walking two paces back stare at me, point at her and give me the "like my piece of poontang?" thumbs up. As I walk out, I see that the douche master is actually unaffiliated with the lovely Ms. Calzado.
4. I saw a five-minute atheist. Unbelief makes a brief, awkward cameo.
5. I've also seen a student-repellent teacher. Bok has been slated to give the Bodega writing lecture for three straight sessions now, but the newbies he was supposed to lecture to never showed. I thought it was just coincidence, until earlier today when Bok left, we decided to have someone else lecture next session. Two newbies promptly showed up, very late, but with perfect comic timing. Sorry, Bok McFly. He he he...
6. I heard a student ( a fairly young one) call me by my nickname. I suppose I should get used to it for now, but it still seemed surreal.
7. I watched a British actor playing an American character in an American TV series deliver a trademark British joke. Its kinda like the Downey Jr. / Lazarus "I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude!"
House: What else floats on water?
[Silence.]
House: The correct answer is...a duck.
8. I saw a meme with no questions. It's kinda weird. What makes a meme interesting is the responses various people have to questions posed over a wide array of respondents for comparison. The responses are mere phrase collections without the questions to give them context. As far as I can tell, it looks like a meme asking for a random list of names. Could be asking for a guy's rape list for all I know.
9. I heard teen girls squealing over a "vampire" movie with no discernible vampires.
10. I just heard "Animal Farm" translated as "Hacienda Animal". (Animal Property?) Now, I understand that some translation work is tricky. However, I question the prudence and translating chops of any translator who did not consider for even a second that translating a classic like "Animal Farm" into "Hacienda Animal" will invoke images of sweaty Mexican couples rolling in the hay. That is, after being kidnapped, lied to or having acid thrown on their faces before a bout of amnesia, etc. etc.
______________________________
* Disclaimer: Jonathan Wolfe's opinions are not necessarily Jonathan Guillermo's...
1. During the school's Eucharistic Procession, I saw some random stranger be let in, while students were kept from going out. I'm no pro, but doesn't security involve keeping people out, instead of keeping people in? There's only one place I know that uses that security scheme on adults.*
They must be having a Eucharistic Procession too...
2. I saw a pro-contraception ("safe sex", whatever that is) party hosted by two candidates for the Darwin Awards. Natural selection at work?
Girl Host: So, you're a medical practitioner? Tell me, what does AIDS stand for?
Raffle Winner: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
Girl Host: Very good! You know about AIDS! May you have more clients in the future.
Guy Host: Yes!
Audience: [Inwardly Groaning]
Me: Morons....
3. After said party, I was out with my buddies when Iza Calzado walks by. Just behind her, I saw some douchebag walking two paces back stare at me, point at her and give me the "like my piece of poontang?" thumbs up. As I walk out, I see that the douche master is actually unaffiliated with the lovely Ms. Calzado.
No douchebags attached...for now...
4. I saw a five-minute atheist. Unbelief makes a brief, awkward cameo.
5. I've also seen a student-repellent teacher. Bok has been slated to give the Bodega writing lecture for three straight sessions now, but the newbies he was supposed to lecture to never showed. I thought it was just coincidence, until earlier today when Bok left, we decided to have someone else lecture next session. Two newbies promptly showed up, very late, but with perfect comic timing. Sorry, Bok McFly. He he he...
6. I heard a student ( a fairly young one) call me by my nickname. I suppose I should get used to it for now, but it still seemed surreal.
7. I watched a British actor playing an American character in an American TV series deliver a trademark British joke. Its kinda like the Downey Jr. / Lazarus "I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude!"
House: What else floats on water?
[Silence.]
House: The correct answer is...a duck.
8. I saw a meme with no questions. It's kinda weird. What makes a meme interesting is the responses various people have to questions posed over a wide array of respondents for comparison. The responses are mere phrase collections without the questions to give them context. As far as I can tell, it looks like a meme asking for a random list of names. Could be asking for a guy's rape list for all I know.
9. I heard teen girls squealing over a "vampire" movie with no discernible vampires.
Guy: Seen any vampires around here?
Girl: I've seen a sparkly fag. Does that count? No? Then, I haven't seen any.
Girl: I've seen a sparkly fag. Does that count? No? Then, I haven't seen any.
10. I just heard "Animal Farm" translated as "Hacienda Animal". (Animal Property?) Now, I understand that some translation work is tricky. However, I question the prudence and translating chops of any translator who did not consider for even a second that translating a classic like "Animal Farm" into "Hacienda Animal" will invoke images of sweaty Mexican couples rolling in the hay. That is, after being kidnapped, lied to or having acid thrown on their faces before a bout of amnesia, etc. etc.
Self-Proclaimed Dramaturg Presents..."Hacienda Animal"...
Bluebell: I want puppies, Jess...
Jess: What if Napoleon finds out, mi amor? Dios mio, he might take our little perritos...
Bluebell: But what about our love?
Jess: What if Napoleon finds out, mi amor? Dios mio, he might take our little perritos...
Bluebell: But what about our love?
______________________________
* Disclaimer: Jonathan Wolfe's opinions are not necessarily Jonathan Guillermo's...
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thomas More Redux
It seems that, just when you thought that democracies have made monarchies irrelevant, along comes an aristocrat whose actions make you think again.
I present as a case in point, the Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg, a man who lost his last vestige of actual power in his government through a great act of conscience. The Parliament of Luxembourg stripped him and his descendants of his executive veto because, in an unprecedented act of defiance, he vetoed a euthanasia law. The law was pushed for by Prime Minister Juncker (an EU shill), in opposition to his own party. The law passed narrowly, but the Grand Duke vetoed it for "reasons of conscience". As a reward for this moral act, Parliament under Juncker will strip him of his veto power.
Personally, I believe that democracy is government only for virtuous people, for only a virtuous people can prevent the abuse of power that comes with what is essentially representative mob rule. Where the people are not virtuous, they ought to be ruled by a virtuous monarch. Or, they ought to be ruled by a tyrant, and both evil people and evil ruler will do justice to each other.
God bless the Grand Duke. It says a lot about our times wherein we have singular monarchs or aristocrats more virtuous than all of "the people" (or their representatives) that we so revere in our contemporary political literature. Here is a ruler who thought, "it benefits no man to gain the world but lose his soul in the process...but for Luxembourg?"
Plus ultra! May more monarchs shame "the people" of our times and their pretensions to virtue! Unfortunately, one need only look at our sins to see a people crying out to be ruled with an iron fist. I only pray that the wielder of such a fist has a conscience like this Duke's.
I present as a case in point, the Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg, a man who lost his last vestige of actual power in his government through a great act of conscience. The Parliament of Luxembourg stripped him and his descendants of his executive veto because, in an unprecedented act of defiance, he vetoed a euthanasia law. The law was pushed for by Prime Minister Juncker (an EU shill), in opposition to his own party. The law passed narrowly, but the Grand Duke vetoed it for "reasons of conscience". As a reward for this moral act, Parliament under Juncker will strip him of his veto power.
Left: Thomas More, Right: Thomas "Craven" Cromwell
Personally, I believe that democracy is government only for virtuous people, for only a virtuous people can prevent the abuse of power that comes with what is essentially representative mob rule. Where the people are not virtuous, they ought to be ruled by a virtuous monarch. Or, they ought to be ruled by a tyrant, and both evil people and evil ruler will do justice to each other.
God bless the Grand Duke. It says a lot about our times wherein we have singular monarchs or aristocrats more virtuous than all of "the people" (or their representatives) that we so revere in our contemporary political literature. Here is a ruler who thought, "it benefits no man to gain the world but lose his soul in the process...but for Luxembourg?"
Plus ultra! May more monarchs shame "the people" of our times and their pretensions to virtue! Unfortunately, one need only look at our sins to see a people crying out to be ruled with an iron fist. I only pray that the wielder of such a fist has a conscience like this Duke's.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
3rd Place Essay, Advocates for Youth 5th Annual Essay-Writing Contest
Here's my piece, as promised.
You’ve laid eyes on that special someone, that other half of your soul, while eating in the cafeteria, or riding on the MRT. You muster up the courage to take the first step. You talk, you hang out, and slowly but surely, to the tune of soft montage music, you’re falling in love. But, your love is forbidden. Maybe your parents are strict, conservative, church-going dinosaurs who frown on you having “relations”. Maybe the two of you are of the same sex. Maybe you’re ugly, fat and lower middle-class while she’s pretty, sexy and rich. No matter, no taboo is going to hold back your love! Love conquers all! You defy the world, tell her that you love her, and for some inexplicable, scripted, movie-logic sort of reason, she says yes. Then, the two of you tumble into bed. Your personal journey of sexual self-discovery is complete. All in two hours.
Here is where those fickle story-tellers yell “cut!” They tell you that “love” is the end of all things, and that “love” has no purer ecstatic manifestation than sex. Here’s what they don’t tell you. Let’s assume that it all turned out like the movies. Your personal journey of sexual self-discovery ends after about three minutes of writhing around in the dark. (An hour longer if you’re lesbian.) Now comes the real world. You used no prophylactic last night, since you couldn’t really think of putting that blasted rubber on, what with all the heady romance of the moment. After all, there’s nothing romantic about treating sex like a surgical procedure or a crime scene investigation. Does she have an STD? (Much greater chance if “she” is a “he” and so are you.) She can’t! Love conquers all, right? Then, the pain and the itching start. If you’re a guy and your girl was as pure as driven snow, you’re still not out of the woods. Four months later, you get a call. Congratulations, you’re a dad! Nine months after the fact, you’re forced to become a man in a boy’s body. If you chose to have her abort, then you won’t become a man at all, you pussy.
But, what if you’re both girls? No STD’s, no pregnancy, no problems, right? Life’s still a fairytale. That is, until you finally realize why instances of domestic violence occur in higher rates among lesbians (and gays) than in the general population. You also discover that you’re liberal parents cry at night because you’re never going to give them grandkids. Way to make you and everybody around you happy, champ. After surviving all that, you get your little moral victory, until you discover your “life partner” in bed with your best girlfriend. It’s a small community.
Okay, so you might think that these are just the horror stories. Fine, let’s pretend that everything turned out alright. The two of you have a disease-free relationship. What now? The annoying habits movies leave out pile up, and sex becomes the only thing keeping you together. That’s a lot of pressure on a three-minute exercise (longer for lesbians). You try new things, but for how long? Once even auto-erotic asphyxiation gets old, what now? You break up.
The movies lie. It’s no fun watching your dreams crushed and your heart torn out. After your fairy-tale romance, you’ll feel like a used up condom, even if you did use condoms. You’ll be kicking yourself so hard for giving everything to that bitch (they’re all bitches after a break-up), and you didn’t even get a stupid T-shirt for it. What have you learned then?
Love is not sex. Love is not even an emotional high. Love is an act of the will. Just ask the old man caring for his Alzheimer’s wife. True love is when you are able to force yourself to love the person you wake up next to, even if she now looks like your Mom and the magic’s all gone. You can’t do that while as a care-free teenager, or as a brash career achiever still nursing his fragile ego. You have to grow up. Sex is part of that process. If you take the time to build a relationship before bumping uglies, you’ll find that it is much more satisfying because there is no pressure on the act at all. What will keep you together is not the sex, but each other. You’ll find that this is doubly-enhanced when the protection you put on is not some rubber CSI dick glove, but a wedding ring, for the ring protects by binding the two of you together and not by shielding you from each other with a thin rubber layer. The sex may eventually disappear, but love never gets old.
Sincerely,
Jaded Yuppie
________________
Now that I read it again, I realize that it does look like its been put together in just an hour. The ideas are not very organized. I think it only won based on style, and the need for a token voice for abstinence. The other two who came above me seemed to have essays that delved into the topic more closely. The winning one even had the theme in its title...
Anyway, I'm just glad it won something.
A Letter About the Day After
Dear Lonely Teenager,You’ve laid eyes on that special someone, that other half of your soul, while eating in the cafeteria, or riding on the MRT. You muster up the courage to take the first step. You talk, you hang out, and slowly but surely, to the tune of soft montage music, you’re falling in love. But, your love is forbidden. Maybe your parents are strict, conservative, church-going dinosaurs who frown on you having “relations”. Maybe the two of you are of the same sex. Maybe you’re ugly, fat and lower middle-class while she’s pretty, sexy and rich. No matter, no taboo is going to hold back your love! Love conquers all! You defy the world, tell her that you love her, and for some inexplicable, scripted, movie-logic sort of reason, she says yes. Then, the two of you tumble into bed. Your personal journey of sexual self-discovery is complete. All in two hours.
Here is where those fickle story-tellers yell “cut!” They tell you that “love” is the end of all things, and that “love” has no purer ecstatic manifestation than sex. Here’s what they don’t tell you. Let’s assume that it all turned out like the movies. Your personal journey of sexual self-discovery ends after about three minutes of writhing around in the dark. (An hour longer if you’re lesbian.) Now comes the real world. You used no prophylactic last night, since you couldn’t really think of putting that blasted rubber on, what with all the heady romance of the moment. After all, there’s nothing romantic about treating sex like a surgical procedure or a crime scene investigation. Does she have an STD? (Much greater chance if “she” is a “he” and so are you.) She can’t! Love conquers all, right? Then, the pain and the itching start. If you’re a guy and your girl was as pure as driven snow, you’re still not out of the woods. Four months later, you get a call. Congratulations, you’re a dad! Nine months after the fact, you’re forced to become a man in a boy’s body. If you chose to have her abort, then you won’t become a man at all, you pussy.
But, what if you’re both girls? No STD’s, no pregnancy, no problems, right? Life’s still a fairytale. That is, until you finally realize why instances of domestic violence occur in higher rates among lesbians (and gays) than in the general population. You also discover that you’re liberal parents cry at night because you’re never going to give them grandkids. Way to make you and everybody around you happy, champ. After surviving all that, you get your little moral victory, until you discover your “life partner” in bed with your best girlfriend. It’s a small community.
Okay, so you might think that these are just the horror stories. Fine, let’s pretend that everything turned out alright. The two of you have a disease-free relationship. What now? The annoying habits movies leave out pile up, and sex becomes the only thing keeping you together. That’s a lot of pressure on a three-minute exercise (longer for lesbians). You try new things, but for how long? Once even auto-erotic asphyxiation gets old, what now? You break up.
The movies lie. It’s no fun watching your dreams crushed and your heart torn out. After your fairy-tale romance, you’ll feel like a used up condom, even if you did use condoms. You’ll be kicking yourself so hard for giving everything to that bitch (they’re all bitches after a break-up), and you didn’t even get a stupid T-shirt for it. What have you learned then?
Love is not sex. Love is not even an emotional high. Love is an act of the will. Just ask the old man caring for his Alzheimer’s wife. True love is when you are able to force yourself to love the person you wake up next to, even if she now looks like your Mom and the magic’s all gone. You can’t do that while as a care-free teenager, or as a brash career achiever still nursing his fragile ego. You have to grow up. Sex is part of that process. If you take the time to build a relationship before bumping uglies, you’ll find that it is much more satisfying because there is no pressure on the act at all. What will keep you together is not the sex, but each other. You’ll find that this is doubly-enhanced when the protection you put on is not some rubber CSI dick glove, but a wedding ring, for the ring protects by binding the two of you together and not by shielding you from each other with a thin rubber layer. The sex may eventually disappear, but love never gets old.
Sincerely,
Jaded Yuppie
________________
Now that I read it again, I realize that it does look like its been put together in just an hour. The ideas are not very organized. I think it only won based on style, and the need for a token voice for abstinence. The other two who came above me seemed to have essays that delved into the topic more closely. The winning one even had the theme in its title...
Anyway, I'm just glad it won something.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
More "Twilight" Hate, And I Love It
“I am not anti-female; I am anti-human.” - Stephanie Meyer, responding to critics accusing her of misogyny.
Its a little tongue-in-cheek irony, but it was unintentionally (ironically?) confirmed by the fact that she chose to inflict "Twilight" on a gullible, inherently moronic market: Tweener girls, and by extension, their poor, quality-time-starved Moms.
Much has been said about the "values" promoted by "Twilight". It is a "chaste" vampire romance novel, which would take balls to pull off because of the inherent smuttiness in that God-forsaken genre. Now, I would normally be happy with such a development. Problem is, it has to be done well. Stephanie Meyer does not do it well. She's not half-bad...she's practically all bad. And she's supposedly on my side of the culture wars. Yech.
First off, the "values" of "Twilight", its only redeeming factor, is compromised by very shitty characterization.
Here's are excerpts of a review of the series from a conservative mag:
But how much is a pro-abstinence message worth when the unconsummated relationship is so unhealthy? It gets even worse after the wedding night in Breaking Dawn, when Bella finds herself trying to cover up a multitude of bruises left by the super-strong Edward. That scene, which Meyer treats with appalling lightness — “This is really nothing,” Bella tells her remorseful husband, insisting that the experience was “wonderful and perfect” — should send a chill down the spine of any parent with a daughter.
How much indeed? The last thing we need to be the face of abstinence education is a freaking battered girlfriend / wife constantly enabling her dick boyfriend / husband. What was Meyer even thinking? Then, there's the simply amateurish romance novel crap.
Edward . . . lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. His glistening pale lavender lids were shut, though of course he didn’t sleep. A perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marble, glittering like crystal.
Good God Almighty, that is horrible prose. What the fuck is an "incandescent chest"? Is he radioactive? (I wouldn't be surprised.) Oh, and he's sparkly! Its a combination of the dumbest and douchiest vampire in history.
But, back to values:
One can see his point. Becoming one of Meyer’s glorious and godlike vampires is a horribly painful process, leaving the subject with uncontrollable bloodlust. Bella would have to be forcibly restrained until she could learn to control herself. In fact, she would emerge so changed in every way that her family would not be able to see her again, for vampires are not permitted to tell humans what they are.
Families are expendable. Some "pro-family" value that is...
The amazing thing is that, just when one thinks that the system of values here can’t get any more bankrupt, it does exactly that. For in Breaking Dawn, swept off her feet by her romantic fantasy, Meyer recklessly breaks her own rules to ensure that the ending is not just happy, but — in Bella’s word — “perfect.” Bella undergoes almost none of the expected post-transformation struggles or sacrifices; instead, all at once she’s gorgeous, talented, self-controlled, and even more admired than before (and goes from self-deprecating to insufferably vain). Awkward and implausible solutions are worked out to let her keep the relationships she’d given up. And by means of a wild plot twist that is never explained, Bella and Edward get to add to their family. (Bella is still human at that point, but Edward is, technically, a walking corpse without normal bodily fluids.) Even Jacob the werewolf gets Meyer’s idea of a happy ending — which involves both an age-inappropriate relationship and the loss of his own free will.
Looks like Meyer has never heard of the nature of natural law. Then again, it seems that she never grasped the nature of writing either. This is consequentialism 101. The ends justified the means. Oh, and somebody tell Meyer that you have to be really good to pull off Deus ex Machina without sounding like a total retard. If the ending is any indication, Meyer has probably never encountered the human race before. Paging Tom Cruise.
In the final analysis, Meyer has deprived her characters of both choices and consequences. And young readers are left with the image of a girl who discovers her own worth and gets all she ever wanted, by giving up her identity and throwing away nearly everything in life that matters.
That’s scarier than any vampire.
Aye. Stupid tweeners are an alarming portent for any believer of natural selection. Funny thing about Meyer and her values is that, in the end, her wish-fulfillment avatar Bella Swan has more in common with your local ho than with a virgin queen.
Here's another review of "Twilight" which comes to the same conclusions:
If there is anything striking in The Twilight Saga it is Bella’s seemingly total lack of a sense of her own dignity and worth. Ultimately, she is killed during the delivery of Edward’s child because the vampire baby eats its way out of her body. She is then reanimated by vampire venom which allows her to go on living - not as a human, but as a vampire. This requires the surrender of her human soul, which she willingly relinquishes because, as she says earlier to the already damned Edward “You can’t make me go somewhere you won’t be…That’s my definition of hell.”
Bella reminds me of Kirk Lazarus and Tugg Speedman talking about method acting.
"You mean, become a moron?"
"Yeah"
"Like, moronical? Like you're the dumbest mother-fucker that ever lived?"
(Pause.)
"When I was in character."
Once more, Meyer's tone-deafness when it comes to human nature is so breathtaking, one wonders if she's even human at all. Paging Tom Cruise...again. Looks like we have a live one.
Edward sneaks into the house without her father’s knowledge and lies in bed with her all night long - every night! Old fashioned? Chaste? The descriptions certainly aren’t.
For Stephanie Meyer to claim her books are all about values means that she's either an alien, or insane. Take your pick.
Its a little tongue-in-cheek irony, but it was unintentionally (ironically?) confirmed by the fact that she chose to inflict "Twilight" on a gullible, inherently moronic market: Tweener girls, and by extension, their poor, quality-time-starved Moms.
Much has been said about the "values" promoted by "Twilight". It is a "chaste" vampire romance novel, which would take balls to pull off because of the inherent smuttiness in that God-forsaken genre. Now, I would normally be happy with such a development. Problem is, it has to be done well. Stephanie Meyer does not do it well. She's not half-bad...she's practically all bad. And she's supposedly on my side of the culture wars. Yech.
First off, the "values" of "Twilight", its only redeeming factor, is compromised by very shitty characterization.
Here's are excerpts of a review of the series from a conservative mag:
But how much is a pro-abstinence message worth when the unconsummated relationship is so unhealthy? It gets even worse after the wedding night in Breaking Dawn, when Bella finds herself trying to cover up a multitude of bruises left by the super-strong Edward. That scene, which Meyer treats with appalling lightness — “This is really nothing,” Bella tells her remorseful husband, insisting that the experience was “wonderful and perfect” — should send a chill down the spine of any parent with a daughter.
How much indeed? The last thing we need to be the face of abstinence education is a freaking battered girlfriend / wife constantly enabling her dick boyfriend / husband. What was Meyer even thinking? Then, there's the simply amateurish romance novel crap.
Edward . . . lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. His glistening pale lavender lids were shut, though of course he didn’t sleep. A perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marble, glittering like crystal.
Good God Almighty, that is horrible prose. What the fuck is an "incandescent chest"? Is he radioactive? (I wouldn't be surprised.) Oh, and he's sparkly! Its a combination of the dumbest and douchiest vampire in history.
But, back to values:
One can see his point. Becoming one of Meyer’s glorious and godlike vampires is a horribly painful process, leaving the subject with uncontrollable bloodlust. Bella would have to be forcibly restrained until she could learn to control herself. In fact, she would emerge so changed in every way that her family would not be able to see her again, for vampires are not permitted to tell humans what they are.
Families are expendable. Some "pro-family" value that is...
The amazing thing is that, just when one thinks that the system of values here can’t get any more bankrupt, it does exactly that. For in Breaking Dawn, swept off her feet by her romantic fantasy, Meyer recklessly breaks her own rules to ensure that the ending is not just happy, but — in Bella’s word — “perfect.” Bella undergoes almost none of the expected post-transformation struggles or sacrifices; instead, all at once she’s gorgeous, talented, self-controlled, and even more admired than before (and goes from self-deprecating to insufferably vain). Awkward and implausible solutions are worked out to let her keep the relationships she’d given up. And by means of a wild plot twist that is never explained, Bella and Edward get to add to their family. (Bella is still human at that point, but Edward is, technically, a walking corpse without normal bodily fluids.) Even Jacob the werewolf gets Meyer’s idea of a happy ending — which involves both an age-inappropriate relationship and the loss of his own free will.
Looks like Meyer has never heard of the nature of natural law. Then again, it seems that she never grasped the nature of writing either. This is consequentialism 101. The ends justified the means. Oh, and somebody tell Meyer that you have to be really good to pull off Deus ex Machina without sounding like a total retard. If the ending is any indication, Meyer has probably never encountered the human race before. Paging Tom Cruise.
In the final analysis, Meyer has deprived her characters of both choices and consequences. And young readers are left with the image of a girl who discovers her own worth and gets all she ever wanted, by giving up her identity and throwing away nearly everything in life that matters.
That’s scarier than any vampire.
Aye. Stupid tweeners are an alarming portent for any believer of natural selection. Funny thing about Meyer and her values is that, in the end, her wish-fulfillment avatar Bella Swan has more in common with your local ho than with a virgin queen.
Here's another review of "Twilight" which comes to the same conclusions:
If there is anything striking in The Twilight Saga it is Bella’s seemingly total lack of a sense of her own dignity and worth. Ultimately, she is killed during the delivery of Edward’s child because the vampire baby eats its way out of her body. She is then reanimated by vampire venom which allows her to go on living - not as a human, but as a vampire. This requires the surrender of her human soul, which she willingly relinquishes because, as she says earlier to the already damned Edward “You can’t make me go somewhere you won’t be…That’s my definition of hell.”
Bella reminds me of Kirk Lazarus and Tugg Speedman talking about method acting.
"You mean, become a moron?"
"Yeah"
"Like, moronical? Like you're the dumbest mother-fucker that ever lived?"
(Pause.)
"When I was in character."
Once more, Meyer's tone-deafness when it comes to human nature is so breathtaking, one wonders if she's even human at all. Paging Tom Cruise...again. Looks like we have a live one.
"Come with me, Stephanie Meyer!"
Edward sneaks into the house without her father’s knowledge and lies in bed with her all night long - every night! Old fashioned? Chaste? The descriptions certainly aren’t.
For Stephanie Meyer to claim her books are all about values means that she's either an alien, or insane. Take your pick.
Meyer's wedding day photo...*gasp* Kinda hot for an alien though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)