We are heading into the holiday season. Notice I didn't say Christmas. In America, everything is holiday this and season's greetings that. Christmas, Hanukkah...seldom mentioned by name.
It isn't like this everywhere. Despite being very politically correct, and probably even more totalitarian in its enforcement of PC dogma (at least for now) than the US, in the UK (still a pretty close relative of the US) people still say Christmas. Go to a UK restaurant website this time of year and you will see advertisements saying, "Book your Christmas dinner now."
This is even true in London; probably the most multicultural city in the world.
Is this because UK residents are more religious than Americans? No. In fact, the opposite is true. Regardless of which survey you view, the UK is always ranked as being more secular or atheistic than the United States.
I wonder if these two trends might be related. Perhaps because in the UK it is assumed that few people truly believe in God or G-d, the word Christ doesn't cause so much discomfort. In the US, where a lot people really, really believe, there seems to be a fear that any allowance of Christ into the conversation is a slippery slope on the road to theocracy.
Once the divine component shrinks into the background, Christmas becomes just another generic good will holiday. Maybe the "War on Christmas" will fade when Americans stop believing in Christ.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Romney should have used some of his money to buy a calculator
Today I read a line in the New York Times saying that Obama's easy win is the result of the
"McGovern coalition coming of age." I would say the victory is the
result of trends predating 1972.
Forty+ years of turning public schools into factories for manufacturing politically correct robots has worked. Doctrinaire egalitarianism now starts in kindergarten, not college. College is merely the honeymoon after thirteen years of egalitarian courtship. Today even cultural conservatives unthinkingly use the language their opponents have prescribed for them.
Why haven't conservatives won a lasting battle in thirty+ years? Under Bush II, when supposed conservatives had all three government branches, the government expanded dramatically. The clock was hardly “turned back.” Why?
Because the war of ideas was lost a very long time ago, through the children. The very premise of even nominal conservative government could only be upheld so long as there were enough Americans with a less jaundiced view of pre-sixties America to keep voting to preserve what was left of it. They are now dead or outnumbered.
Home schoolers comprise a very small sliver of the population, and they are viewed with some suspicion (even by some conservatives). The vast majority attend public schools, where the war of ideas is long over. Yet conservatives continue to pat themselves on the back each time some minuscule home school "victory" happens somewhere. And they complain about liberals being unable to do math...
Forty+ years of turning public schools into factories for manufacturing politically correct robots has worked. Doctrinaire egalitarianism now starts in kindergarten, not college. College is merely the honeymoon after thirteen years of egalitarian courtship. Today even cultural conservatives unthinkingly use the language their opponents have prescribed for them.
Why haven't conservatives won a lasting battle in thirty+ years? Under Bush II, when supposed conservatives had all three government branches, the government expanded dramatically. The clock was hardly “turned back.” Why?
Because the war of ideas was lost a very long time ago, through the children. The very premise of even nominal conservative government could only be upheld so long as there were enough Americans with a less jaundiced view of pre-sixties America to keep voting to preserve what was left of it. They are now dead or outnumbered.
Home schoolers comprise a very small sliver of the population, and they are viewed with some suspicion (even by some conservatives). The vast majority attend public schools, where the war of ideas is long over. Yet conservatives continue to pat themselves on the back each time some minuscule home school "victory" happens somewhere. And they complain about liberals being unable to do math...
The conservative platform as it now exists can't be
effectively transmitted to children. Vague lines like "class warfare"
and "We're on the road to socialism!!!" aren't ideas, and certainly
have no resonance with kids. Liberal principles are easily converted into
talking points that can be repeated and spread. Example: Climate change and its
implications is an idea. Saying it doesn't exist isn't. A kid can't really make an "I don't believe in climate change"
macaroni and paste mosaic for his parents' refrigerator (and if he did his teacher would flunk him).
As for entrepreneurship being "the American
dream," most humans don't have the constitution to be entrepreneurs. Most
people hate their boss (they see themselves as the little guy oppressed by
their boss), so pinning your fortunes on a campaign that emphasizes bosses as
"the backbone of America" is numerical folly. Saying
"entrepreneurs built this country" makes many younger people
automatically think wicked robber barons. Saying "rugged individuals built
this country" makes many younger people automatically think murderous
pioneers (famed "pioneer" state Colorado went to Obama). Thus,
building your platform around these memes is a horrible strategy. America is a
mob rule republic. Numbers matter.
Nearly all of the money and cultural influence now resides
in NY, MA, DC, and CA. The most conspicuous liberals are elected there; Pelosi,
Schumer, etc. These politicians roughly reflect the opinions of those who set
the national agenda. This doesn't look likely to change.
The war of ideas is lost for conservatives, and with it the
numerical battle. John Galt ain't gonna show up to save anybody. Sunday, November 4, 2012
The Inconvenient Truth About Jealousy
Self-help books are worthless, the people who read them are hopeless, and the authors who write them are shameless.
Self-help books about relationships are the worst. Much like economics books, they espouse advice and theory while conveniently ignoring that the situations they're discussing involve human actors.
A typical one size fits all nugget from these tomes: Jealousy results from low self-esteem.
You could just as easily argue the reverse, that the reason some people don't experience jealousy is because their self-esteem is so low they don't think they deserve the person they're with. Therefore, they don't feel jealousy. It's odd that the self-help/psychobabble coven has taken this stance on jealousy. After all, every other exit sign on the self-help highway reads "You're not doing _____ because you don't think you deserve _____."
But not jealousy. For some reason that brand of self-preservation automatically signifies "low self-esteem."
What if you're just really in love and have visions of the agony you'd feel if you lost that person? It's crazy to have concerns about that? People take elaborate steps to avoid disaster in other parts of life. They buy flood insurance in areas that seldom flood. But in your love life it is a sign of low self-esteem to sometimes imagine a worst-case scenario?
[Obviously, I'm talking about jealously in moderation. If the word jealous automatically makes you think Raging Bull, you're already too deep in the Oprah-Dr. Phil abyss to contribute to humanity and I forbid you to read further.]
Sometimes jealousy comes from being realistic. Sometimes you know your significant other could have done a lot better than you, and you don't want to lose your lucky break. That lucky break could very well be the only good thing in your life. So is it irrational to have some anxiety about losing something you were lucky to catch in the first place? If anything, by being realistic about your lover's superior appeal, you are practicing self-actualization, an exercise most self-help parrots recommend.
Let's say you're a stunning couple, a couple comprised of two knockouts...a little jealousy still makes sense. After all, if your partner is a stunner, you know that other people are going to be even more dogged and ruthless in their attempts to seduce that person (being a stunner yourself, you'll have experience with this). Knowing this is the case, is it so neurotic to be a little vigilant? When you have an Aston Martin in your garage, you take steps to protect it.
Another reason being a little suspicious doesn't necessarily mean you have low self-esteem: infidelity is on the rise. Traditional monogamy is taking a beating here in the dying West. Who is to say your mate isn't going to be a trend follower? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
William Shakespeare, who may have coined the expression "green-eyed jealousy," wrote Othello, probably the most enduring take on jealousy. It contains quotes like:
Trifles light as air
Are to the jealous confirmations strong
As proofs of holy writ.
But really, a more useful Shakespeare quote about jealousy would be:
For love, thou know'st, is full of jealousy.
That's from The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Haven't heard of it, have you? Exactly. Ironic, considering The Two Gentleman of Verona sounds like a bad self-help call-in show.
Self-help books about relationships are the worst. Much like economics books, they espouse advice and theory while conveniently ignoring that the situations they're discussing involve human actors.
A typical one size fits all nugget from these tomes: Jealousy results from low self-esteem.
You could just as easily argue the reverse, that the reason some people don't experience jealousy is because their self-esteem is so low they don't think they deserve the person they're with. Therefore, they don't feel jealousy. It's odd that the self-help/psychobabble coven has taken this stance on jealousy. After all, every other exit sign on the self-help highway reads "You're not doing _____ because you don't think you deserve _____."
But not jealousy. For some reason that brand of self-preservation automatically signifies "low self-esteem."
What if you're just really in love and have visions of the agony you'd feel if you lost that person? It's crazy to have concerns about that? People take elaborate steps to avoid disaster in other parts of life. They buy flood insurance in areas that seldom flood. But in your love life it is a sign of low self-esteem to sometimes imagine a worst-case scenario?
[Obviously, I'm talking about jealously in moderation. If the word jealous automatically makes you think Raging Bull, you're already too deep in the Oprah-Dr. Phil abyss to contribute to humanity and I forbid you to read further.]
Sometimes jealousy comes from being realistic. Sometimes you know your significant other could have done a lot better than you, and you don't want to lose your lucky break. That lucky break could very well be the only good thing in your life. So is it irrational to have some anxiety about losing something you were lucky to catch in the first place? If anything, by being realistic about your lover's superior appeal, you are practicing self-actualization, an exercise most self-help parrots recommend.
Let's say you're a stunning couple, a couple comprised of two knockouts...a little jealousy still makes sense. After all, if your partner is a stunner, you know that other people are going to be even more dogged and ruthless in their attempts to seduce that person (being a stunner yourself, you'll have experience with this). Knowing this is the case, is it so neurotic to be a little vigilant? When you have an Aston Martin in your garage, you take steps to protect it.
Another reason being a little suspicious doesn't necessarily mean you have low self-esteem: infidelity is on the rise. Traditional monogamy is taking a beating here in the dying West. Who is to say your mate isn't going to be a trend follower? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
William Shakespeare, who may have coined the expression "green-eyed jealousy," wrote Othello, probably the most enduring take on jealousy. It contains quotes like:
Trifles light as air
Are to the jealous confirmations strong
As proofs of holy writ.
But really, a more useful Shakespeare quote about jealousy would be:
For love, thou know'st, is full of jealousy.
That's from The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Haven't heard of it, have you? Exactly. Ironic, considering The Two Gentleman of Verona sounds like a bad self-help call-in show.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Only the Good Vote Young
When political commentators discuss voting blocs, the age of voters is often a key focus. But political commentators don't treat age blocs equally. Here are the narratives we are given:
When old people vote as a bloc, we are told it is out of fear. And the politicians who target them by demagoguing Social Security and Medicare? They are accused of cynically pandering to the fears of elderly voters.
But when young people vote as a bloc, we are told they are simply making their voices heard! It is the beauty of the political process! And the politicians who pander to them by making impossible promises about issues like education? Why, they are simply paving the way for a brighter future! No cynicism here, friends.
I think this is because the media is enamored with the narrative of the 60s youth movement; the narrative that says young people rose up as one warm and fuzzy voice to cuddle a broken nation. So whenever young people appear to be voting as a bloc again, the media always frames it as "a moment."
Funny, all we ever hear is that today's youth are stupid, lazy, ignorant of history, blah, blah, blah, but when those stupid, lazy youths rise up to force their stupidity, laziness, and ignorance of history on the rest of us via the voting booth, we're supposed to hail this as a wonderful thing.
Pandering is pandering, whether it is lying to deathbed voters about saving Medicare, or lying to young voters about making education cheaper. In either case, one generation is shifting the cost of its preferences onto another. So why does the media present one as "progress" and the other as "fear-based?"
Every move made by every politician is politics, and every promise, no matter how much faux optimism is lacquered on it, and is designed to generate votes from a specific group. Whether the target is old or young, there is always an element of fear:
"Unlike my opponent, I understand the needs of our seniors, which is why I'm going to preserve _____."
"My opponent wants to cut _____. But I know what our young people need to compete in today's global economy, which is why I'm going to invest in _____."
For some reason pandering to the fears of the young doesn't spark accusations of fear-mongering. Maybe politicians should change FDR's phrase to: "The only thing we have to fear is the AARP."
When old people vote as a bloc, we are told it is out of fear. And the politicians who target them by demagoguing Social Security and Medicare? They are accused of cynically pandering to the fears of elderly voters.
But when young people vote as a bloc, we are told they are simply making their voices heard! It is the beauty of the political process! And the politicians who pander to them by making impossible promises about issues like education? Why, they are simply paving the way for a brighter future! No cynicism here, friends.
I think this is because the media is enamored with the narrative of the 60s youth movement; the narrative that says young people rose up as one warm and fuzzy voice to cuddle a broken nation. So whenever young people appear to be voting as a bloc again, the media always frames it as "a moment."
Funny, all we ever hear is that today's youth are stupid, lazy, ignorant of history, blah, blah, blah, but when those stupid, lazy youths rise up to force their stupidity, laziness, and ignorance of history on the rest of us via the voting booth, we're supposed to hail this as a wonderful thing.
Pandering is pandering, whether it is lying to deathbed voters about saving Medicare, or lying to young voters about making education cheaper. In either case, one generation is shifting the cost of its preferences onto another. So why does the media present one as "progress" and the other as "fear-based?"
Every move made by every politician is politics, and every promise, no matter how much faux optimism is lacquered on it, and is designed to generate votes from a specific group. Whether the target is old or young, there is always an element of fear:
"Unlike my opponent, I understand the needs of our seniors, which is why I'm going to preserve _____."
"My opponent wants to cut _____. But I know what our young people need to compete in today's global economy, which is why I'm going to invest in _____."
For some reason pandering to the fears of the young doesn't spark accusations of fear-mongering. Maybe politicians should change FDR's phrase to: "The only thing we have to fear is the AARP."
Monday, October 29, 2012
It's the Quiet Ones You Gotta Watch
What can silent horror films teach us about what makes horror work? Why should any modern horror fan watch a silent horror film?
Though I'm glad the talkies fad is still going strong, I do think silent horror films have one minor and instructive advantage over their talkie counterparts.
When you are watching a silent film, much of the narrative is transmitted through title cards (the original text messages). Yes, action is happening, but often the context of the action is unclear until the title cards explicate it. Some silent films don't have many title cards, so the action can persist for quite a while without explicit explanation. In the case of a silent horror film--the almost silent Vampyr, for example--the mood can build and build as you await the next title card, the next slice of dialogue, to interrupt the momentum of gloom. And as time passes, every movement on screen becomes part of a slow burning, dream-like anxiety; where every dart of the eyes and every cautious step forward seems to have tremendous import. You forget that it's just a scene with a guy walking through a field.
What it comes down to is misdirection. In a talkie horror, with the constant dialogue (and with it, explanation), things are much more on the surface*. The advantage of misdirection that you find in silent horror films can also be found in effective horror novels. There are all kinds of distractions; minor characters, minor character details, location details. These distractions help magnify the story's ending because you're diverted by all the dead-ends and false starts leading up to the ending and therefore less likely to see it coming.
When you read horror short stories, there is less room for misdirective details, so the ending and direction of the plot is easier to guess. Same goes for horror anthology TV shows like "Tales From the Darkside". Because of time constraints, the expositions are necessarily abrupt. The dialogue must come right out and announce what is happening. There are no extraneous details to obscure things, so you fixate purely on the story. And let's face it, it can only end a few different ways. And because the story is so predictably compressed, you know that after that last commercial break, it has to end somehow. And if you have seen a few horror anthology episodes, you can pretty much guess the ending to all of them.
I think these mechanics partly explain why there are so few decent (let alone great) horror films, and why there are so few horror anthology episodes that are even worth watching all the way through. There is a reason why every classic horror film list pretty much has the same handful of titles on it...not that many classics to choose from.
*The Blair Witch Project and the Bela Lugosi Dracula are two talkies with creepy, silent film-like pacing. Many early talkies of all genres were short on dialogue as the medium made the transition out of the silent age.
When you are watching a silent film, much of the narrative is transmitted through title cards (the original text messages). Yes, action is happening, but often the context of the action is unclear until the title cards explicate it. Some silent films don't have many title cards, so the action can persist for quite a while without explicit explanation. In the case of a silent horror film--the almost silent Vampyr, for example--the mood can build and build as you await the next title card, the next slice of dialogue, to interrupt the momentum of gloom. And as time passes, every movement on screen becomes part of a slow burning, dream-like anxiety; where every dart of the eyes and every cautious step forward seems to have tremendous import. You forget that it's just a scene with a guy walking through a field.
What it comes down to is misdirection. In a talkie horror, with the constant dialogue (and with it, explanation), things are much more on the surface*. The advantage of misdirection that you find in silent horror films can also be found in effective horror novels. There are all kinds of distractions; minor characters, minor character details, location details. These distractions help magnify the story's ending because you're diverted by all the dead-ends and false starts leading up to the ending and therefore less likely to see it coming.
When you read horror short stories, there is less room for misdirective details, so the ending and direction of the plot is easier to guess. Same goes for horror anthology TV shows like "Tales From the Darkside". Because of time constraints, the expositions are necessarily abrupt. The dialogue must come right out and announce what is happening. There are no extraneous details to obscure things, so you fixate purely on the story. And let's face it, it can only end a few different ways. And because the story is so predictably compressed, you know that after that last commercial break, it has to end somehow. And if you have seen a few horror anthology episodes, you can pretty much guess the ending to all of them.
I think these mechanics partly explain why there are so few decent (let alone great) horror films, and why there are so few horror anthology episodes that are even worth watching all the way through. There is a reason why every classic horror film list pretty much has the same handful of titles on it...not that many classics to choose from.
*The Blair Witch Project and the Bela Lugosi Dracula are two talkies with creepy, silent film-like pacing. Many early talkies of all genres were short on dialogue as the medium made the transition out of the silent age.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
I always vote for "apathy"
“If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.”
--Emma Goldman
I don't vote.
I also avoid conversations about voting, because when I mention I don't vote,
otherwise reasonable people respond by shrieking like a freebasing hyena.
Man travels in packs; even supposed !INDIVIDUALISTS! feel
better when they can be part of the mob. Voting helps sate this craving, and
trying to argue the herd out of herding is like giving the finger to gravity.
Doesn't accomplish much.
Still, the sanctimony of proud voters during Presidential
races is so feverish I can't help myself.
The least impressive argument I hear from voters: People
died to give you the right to vote.
So what? People also died defending the Third Reich. Their
dying for a cause doesn't alter the merits of the cause one bit. Dying isn't a
big deal. People die running themselves over with their own riding lawnmowers.
Their death doesn't elevate my view of them.
Look at how progressives react when a Christian tells them Jesus died for us. The progressives laugh, gag, or squawk (not a bad name
for a game show). What they don't do is start going to church. Progressives--or
just non-Christians in general--don't feel any obligation to Christ based on
his dying for a cause.
I remember once speaking to someone--a proud progressive,
AND SHE VOTES!--who couldn't leave well enough alone. She kept serving big, clichéd
bowls of "It's your civic duty to vote" chowder.
Finally I said something like, "I don't believe in the political
system, so by not participating, I am being the change I want to see in the
world."
If anyone should appreciate my mentality, it should be
progressives. Or so their slogans--Think globally, act locally--would lead us
to believe. I don’t believe in voting, so by not voting, I am being the change
I want to see in the world. I am thinking globally and acting locally. I am
following Ghandi's advice.
George Carlin said it best:
I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I
don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote,
you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They
say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic
in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and
they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they
have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to
complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the
house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these politicians
have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
The only horror tales you need to read
Robert Aickman, the third best horror writer of all time,
once said: "There are only about thirty or forty first-class ghost stories
in the whole of western literature." If it weren’t for Aickman’s contributions, forty would probably
be on the high side.
There are many reasons why a memorable horror story is so tricky to pull off, but right now I have no interest in mining my remarkable brain for the answers.
“Oh, Whistle, and I’ll Come to You, My Lad”
Casting the Runes
The People of the Pit by Abraham Merritt
There are many reasons why a memorable horror story is so tricky to pull off, but right now I have no interest in mining my remarkable brain for the answers.
Halloween is almost here, and it comes but once a year, so here is a nearly complete list of the only horror tales you
need to bother with (some are novellas/novelettes, so I am bending the rules a
bit). I am going to leave out Poe and Stevenson because they are taught
in school, so people get plenty of exposure to them. I’m trying to highlight
writers that non-horror fans might not otherwise encounter.
Lovecraft
Lovecraft
The Call of Cthluhu
The Music of Erich Zann
The Outsider
The Shadow Over Innsmouth
The Colour Out of Space
The Music of Erich Zann
The Outsider
The Shadow Over Innsmouth
The Colour Out of Space
Robert Aickman
Ringing the Changes
The Hospice
The Cicerones
Meeting Mr. Millar
Your Tiny Hand is Frozen
Thomas LigottiThe Hospice
The Cicerones
Meeting Mr. Millar
Your Tiny Hand is Frozen
My Work Is Not Yet Done
Purity
Our Temporary Supervisor
Purity
Our Temporary Supervisor
Algernon Blackwood
The Willows (Lovecraft called this the finest weird tale ever, and I can’t disagree).
The Wendigo
M.R. JamesThe Willows (Lovecraft called this the finest weird tale ever, and I can’t disagree).
The Wendigo
“Oh, Whistle, and I’ll Come to You, My Lad”
Casting the Runes
Mary Elisabeth Counselman
The Black Stone Statue
The Three Marked Pennies
Metamorphosis by Kafka (Kafka is obviously taught in school, but this is a great weird tale that is often soiled by shaky literary analysis, thus robbing virgin readers of potential enjoyment).
Mimic by Donald Wolheim
Night Wire by HF Arnold
Metamorphosis by Kafka (Kafka is obviously taught in school, but this is a great weird tale that is often soiled by shaky literary analysis, thus robbing virgin readers of potential enjoyment).
Mimic by Donald Wolheim
Night Wire by HF Arnold
Nackles by Curt Clark (AKA Donald Westlake)
It's a Good Life by Jerome BixbyThe People of the Pit by Abraham Merritt
The Canal by Everil Worrell
The Voice of the Beach by Ramsey Campbell
The Voice of the Beach by Ramsey Campbell
N by Stephen King.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)