Marriage isn't a salad bar
May. 31st, 2005 11:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatI have a few things I want to discuss in this entry.
1. This Day in Music
I've done this before, but not for my eighteenth birthday. On THAT day, the number one hits were:
US: Fantasy - Mariah Carey
UK: I Believe / Up On The Roof - Robson & Jerome
2. The Simpsons Season 5
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bethje and I watched a few more episodes with commentary from the Season 5 DVD set last night. It's common for the staff to mention how they originally wanted different guest stars from the ones they could actually get, and they originally wanted to have Michael Caine work at the Kwik-E-Mart in "Homer and Apu," rather than James Woods. From some of the jokes they mentioned, I think I would have liked it better if they HAD been able to get Caine, although Woods did do a good job with the role.
Season 5 might be my favorite season of the show. If not, it's definitely up there. Even when the premise of an episode wasn't so great, there were usually enough great jokes to make it work. It does seem to be around when the show started becoming really wacky, but I think it was an actually funny kind of wackiness. In later seasons, it was more common for them to do stuff that was supposed to be funny simply BECAUSE it made no sense, like the jockey elves in "Saddlesore Galactica," or pretty much the whole episode of "Simpson Safari." There really didn't seem to be that much effort put into these jokes; it was more like, "Surrealism is automatically funny, right?" What's kind of odd is that "Safari," as well as the almost-as-lousy "The Mansion Family" and "Kill the Alligator and Run," were written by John Swartzwelder, who turned out a lot of excellent episodes back in the day. I know the head writer on an episode doesn't always come up with everything, but the impression they give on the commentaries (which, for some reason, Swartzwelder himself never participates in) is that he would often come up with some of the funniest sequences by himself. I believe he hasn't been officially on the staff for some time, though, so that might have something to do with it. Mind you, Swartzwelder was also the main writer for "Hungry, Hungry Homer" (one of Season 12's better episodes, as far as I'm concerned) and well as the 2003 Halloween special (which was much better than other recent Halloween episodes), so it isn't like he totally lost his touch. Besides, I guess that, when you write more Simpsons scripts than any other person, some of them are bound to be clunkers.
3. Bullshit!
Beth and I also watched two episodes of Penn and Teller's Bullshit! last night. The first one was about circumcision, and how the idea that it has health benefits is probably a myth. According to the episode, circumcision became popular in the United States when people started promoting it as a way to decrease sexual pleasure. I think they made their case pretty well, but I still have to say that, as a circumcised male, I still find the idea of having to clean underneath the foreskin to be somewhat disturbing. I guess it's just an aesthetic thing, like they said on the show.
The second episode was about a topic that I've thought about a fair amount myself, and I agreed beforehand with the point that Penn and Teller were trying to make, but I'm still glad they addressed it. It was about the myth of the traditional family, and how such a thing has never really existed, at least in the ways that modern "family values" types want us to think. They talked to a lesbian couple and a foursome, as well as a guy who thought he could cure homosexuality. I've written before on how much homophobes bother me, but the idea that some people think homosexuality is a disease that has to be cured really disturbs me. Most of the arguments put forth by the typical People You Aren't Supposed To Like were of the "If kids don't have a mother and a father, they'll end up becoming gay criminals!" variety, which are not only totally ignoring the facts, but also really sexist. I don't recall them bringing up the statistics that anti-gay-marriage advocates sometimes cite, about how same-sex parents are more likely to abuse their kids or whatever, but even if these statistics are accurate (and I definitely have my doubts), where's the proof that these correlations are at all relevant? I could easily imagine homophobes charting two variables, and then getting excited when they find a correlation, so they rush to publish without bothering to think that there might be other factors at work. Of course, the "gay parents will raise gay kids" thing is totally false, but I can't really see what the problem would be if it were true. In an overpopulated world, isn't it GOOD that there are couples who are in no danger of reproducing? So many people are mired into the ancient "Having kids is good!" mentality, with no consideration for how the world has changed over time. Which certainly isn't to say that I don't think anyone should have kids, just that it's not what's best for everyone. The ultimate point of episode was that the individual people, not the government or "family values" busybodies, should be able to decide how they want to handle relationships and families. This fits in with Penn and Teller's general Libertarian agenda, but I definitely agree with it. (As I've probably said before, I think libertarian principles are pretty good as far as social matters go, but they're totally wrong about economics, and have some ideas that are a little difficult to buy in terms of psychology.)
I will say that, while I don't think polygamy is evil, I do think it would be really complicated, and jealousy would come out. So it's not something I would recommend in most cases, but for practical reasons, rather than moral ones.
In the circumcision episode, there was a mention that they had originally wanted to do a show on Jungian psychology, but Showtime said no. I would have liked to have seen where they would have gone with that. All I really know about Jung is that he posited the existence of a collective unconscious, and that he saw archetypes as manifestations of this unconscious. I wrote a paper on Jungian archetypes in literature back in my undergraduate Research Writing class, and I thought there was a significant amount of stretching going on. That becomes particularly true when numbers are involved.
4. Ring, by Koji Suzuki
Beth loaned me this book, and I just finished reading it today. It was the basis for the Japanese film Ringu, which in turn was the basis for the American film The Ring. While you could tell where a lot of the ideas in The Ring came from, there were many differences between the book and the movie. I'm hoping to see Ringu sometime soon, so I can see whether it's closer to the book or to the American movie.
The book came off as rather sexist, which I guess isn't too surprising for something that came out of Japan. There were some interesting aspects of the book that didn't carry over to the movie. The video, for instance, had a more clear and detailed explanation in the book, and there was more specific information on the various images. Sadako's family history was quite different from Samara's, and there was an odd explanation for Sadako's psychic powers, involving a statue of the Buddhist Ascetic En no Ozunu. I'd be interested in reading the other books in the trilogy, and seeing how much they differ from the story in the American films.
5. A Quiz Result
You Are The Outlaw
"Sure, I'll do it. My way."
Just because you do not conform to the same laws and rules as everyone else does not mean that you are a bad guy. You travel your own path, separate from those around you, with your own reasons for doing what you do. Because of this and your own nature, it goes without saying that you are generally misunderstood. That does not matter much, though, as people love you for being who you are. You are pretty well set in your ways and have no real intention of changing. This can come across as a flicker of arrogance if your not careful. You do what is right for you, and God help anyone who stands in your way.
Which Classic Story Role Do You Play?
brought to you by Quizilla
1. This Day in Music
I've done this before, but not for my eighteenth birthday. On THAT day, the number one hits were:
US: Fantasy - Mariah Carey
UK: I Believe / Up On The Roof - Robson & Jerome
2. The Simpsons Season 5
bethje and I watched a few more episodes with commentary from the Season 5 DVD set last night. It's common for the staff to mention how they originally wanted different guest stars from the ones they could actually get, and they originally wanted to have Michael Caine work at the Kwik-E-Mart in "Homer and Apu," rather than James Woods. From some of the jokes they mentioned, I think I would have liked it better if they HAD been able to get Caine, although Woods did do a good job with the role.Season 5 might be my favorite season of the show. If not, it's definitely up there. Even when the premise of an episode wasn't so great, there were usually enough great jokes to make it work. It does seem to be around when the show started becoming really wacky, but I think it was an actually funny kind of wackiness. In later seasons, it was more common for them to do stuff that was supposed to be funny simply BECAUSE it made no sense, like the jockey elves in "Saddlesore Galactica," or pretty much the whole episode of "Simpson Safari." There really didn't seem to be that much effort put into these jokes; it was more like, "Surrealism is automatically funny, right?" What's kind of odd is that "Safari," as well as the almost-as-lousy "The Mansion Family" and "Kill the Alligator and Run," were written by John Swartzwelder, who turned out a lot of excellent episodes back in the day. I know the head writer on an episode doesn't always come up with everything, but the impression they give on the commentaries (which, for some reason, Swartzwelder himself never participates in) is that he would often come up with some of the funniest sequences by himself. I believe he hasn't been officially on the staff for some time, though, so that might have something to do with it. Mind you, Swartzwelder was also the main writer for "Hungry, Hungry Homer" (one of Season 12's better episodes, as far as I'm concerned) and well as the 2003 Halloween special (which was much better than other recent Halloween episodes), so it isn't like he totally lost his touch. Besides, I guess that, when you write more Simpsons scripts than any other person, some of them are bound to be clunkers.
3. Bullshit!
Beth and I also watched two episodes of Penn and Teller's Bullshit! last night. The first one was about circumcision, and how the idea that it has health benefits is probably a myth. According to the episode, circumcision became popular in the United States when people started promoting it as a way to decrease sexual pleasure. I think they made their case pretty well, but I still have to say that, as a circumcised male, I still find the idea of having to clean underneath the foreskin to be somewhat disturbing. I guess it's just an aesthetic thing, like they said on the show.
The second episode was about a topic that I've thought about a fair amount myself, and I agreed beforehand with the point that Penn and Teller were trying to make, but I'm still glad they addressed it. It was about the myth of the traditional family, and how such a thing has never really existed, at least in the ways that modern "family values" types want us to think. They talked to a lesbian couple and a foursome, as well as a guy who thought he could cure homosexuality. I've written before on how much homophobes bother me, but the idea that some people think homosexuality is a disease that has to be cured really disturbs me. Most of the arguments put forth by the typical People You Aren't Supposed To Like were of the "If kids don't have a mother and a father, they'll end up becoming gay criminals!" variety, which are not only totally ignoring the facts, but also really sexist. I don't recall them bringing up the statistics that anti-gay-marriage advocates sometimes cite, about how same-sex parents are more likely to abuse their kids or whatever, but even if these statistics are accurate (and I definitely have my doubts), where's the proof that these correlations are at all relevant? I could easily imagine homophobes charting two variables, and then getting excited when they find a correlation, so they rush to publish without bothering to think that there might be other factors at work. Of course, the "gay parents will raise gay kids" thing is totally false, but I can't really see what the problem would be if it were true. In an overpopulated world, isn't it GOOD that there are couples who are in no danger of reproducing? So many people are mired into the ancient "Having kids is good!" mentality, with no consideration for how the world has changed over time. Which certainly isn't to say that I don't think anyone should have kids, just that it's not what's best for everyone. The ultimate point of episode was that the individual people, not the government or "family values" busybodies, should be able to decide how they want to handle relationships and families. This fits in with Penn and Teller's general Libertarian agenda, but I definitely agree with it. (As I've probably said before, I think libertarian principles are pretty good as far as social matters go, but they're totally wrong about economics, and have some ideas that are a little difficult to buy in terms of psychology.)
I will say that, while I don't think polygamy is evil, I do think it would be really complicated, and jealousy would come out. So it's not something I would recommend in most cases, but for practical reasons, rather than moral ones.
In the circumcision episode, there was a mention that they had originally wanted to do a show on Jungian psychology, but Showtime said no. I would have liked to have seen where they would have gone with that. All I really know about Jung is that he posited the existence of a collective unconscious, and that he saw archetypes as manifestations of this unconscious. I wrote a paper on Jungian archetypes in literature back in my undergraduate Research Writing class, and I thought there was a significant amount of stretching going on. That becomes particularly true when numbers are involved.
4. Ring, by Koji Suzuki
Beth loaned me this book, and I just finished reading it today. It was the basis for the Japanese film Ringu, which in turn was the basis for the American film The Ring. While you could tell where a lot of the ideas in The Ring came from, there were many differences between the book and the movie. I'm hoping to see Ringu sometime soon, so I can see whether it's closer to the book or to the American movie.
The book came off as rather sexist, which I guess isn't too surprising for something that came out of Japan. There were some interesting aspects of the book that didn't carry over to the movie. The video, for instance, had a more clear and detailed explanation in the book, and there was more specific information on the various images. Sadako's family history was quite different from Samara's, and there was an odd explanation for Sadako's psychic powers, involving a statue of the Buddhist Ascetic En no Ozunu. I'd be interested in reading the other books in the trilogy, and seeing how much they differ from the story in the American films.
5. A Quiz Result
You Are The Outlaw
"Sure, I'll do it. My way."
Just because you do not conform to the same laws and rules as everyone else does not mean that you are a bad guy. You travel your own path, separate from those around you, with your own reasons for doing what you do. Because of this and your own nature, it goes without saying that you are generally misunderstood. That does not matter much, though, as people love you for being who you are. You are pretty well set in your ways and have no real intention of changing. This can come across as a flicker of arrogance if your not careful. You do what is right for you, and God help anyone who stands in your way.
brought to you by Quizilla
