Stratovania

1. I feel somewhat obliged to defend Lady Gaga, inasmuch that a lot of the criticism of her that I see tends to be along the lines of, "She thinks she's a performance artist/shocking/weird, but she's really not!" (Either that or "she's a man," in response to which I direct you to this, a creation of not_glimmer.) I guess I don't really know what Miss Germanotta is going for, but if she's just a regular pop star who enjoys playing dress-up, is there something wrong with that? Why does someone wearing a goofy costume have to be seen as shocking or controversial? Oh, and speaking of Lady Gaga, do you think this is real? (WARNING: Picture not safe for work.)


2. What was Sarah Palin THINKING by not signing the books of people who'd waited in line to meet her? Wait, I just used "thinking" and "Sarah Palin" in the same sentence, didn't I? Maybe that answers my question right there. Really, though, the woman obviously isn't afraid of alienating people, but it always seemed previously that her disdain for certain people and institutions was calculated to make her Joe Six-Pack base like her more. The strategy apparently didn't work too well in her bid for vice president, but there's a certain amount of sense to it. But these people who came to her signing actually LIKE her, and bought her book to prove it! Does she really want to risk turning these people against her, if she really IS hoping for a presidential run in 2012? Well, maybe her friends in the right-wing media will find some way to spin this in her favor, like how she wasn't REALLY drastically unprepared and in over her head at the Katie Couric interview, but was simply taken aback by Couric's audacity in bashing Alaskans by asking if she reads any newspapers. People who like Palin might well be a vocal minority by this point, but they still baffle me.


3. As you might have seen if you read my Twitter updates, I was pondering the other day over how many cartoon characters have nephews, but no children of their own. Just offhand, I can think of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Scooby-Doo, Popeye (actually, he might not count because I believe Swee'pea was originally conceived as being his adopted child, but the cartoons put her in Olive Oyl's care), Bugs Bunny, Kermit the Frog (not a cartoon, but it's the same basic idea)...I'm sure there are plenty of others as well. I suppose it's easier for characters who have been established as single not to have unexplained children, but in how many of these cases do we see the sibling who did reproduce? I believe Huey, Dewey, and Louie have been officially established as the sons of Donald's sister Della, and the Duck Family Tree obscures the name of their mysterious father. It's interesting that Goofy apparently reproduced when Mickey and Donald never did, though.

Isn't it odd that the same people who seemed to think Bush could do no wrong (even when he actually DID do wrong) and that criticizing him was unpatriotic are more than willing to criticize Obama for just about anything? Okay, it's really NOT that odd, but it is quite blatant. Hey, Fox News, do you think you could be any MORE transparent in your party affiliation? Maybe elephant-shaped hats would help. I also hear a fair amount of insistence that the media can't do anything but drool over Obama, and while I have heard from people who have an almost worshipful awe of the current president, these tend to be individuals rather than the media at large. Or maybe I'm just not watching the right networks. Regardless, I think it's fair to say that ANY president is going to receive an inordinate amount of criticism, whether deserved or not. I think a key difference between Bush and Obama, however, is that Bush never seemed to LISTEN to the criticism, while Obama seems almost too likely to take it to heart. While I admire his desire to be liked by everyone, I'm not sure why he even bothers to try with the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh crowd, who would rather chew off their own feet than acknowledge that a Democrat could do a decent job.

On some issues, it seems like Obama's hope to please everyone results in compromises that please no one. Take the proposed health care plan, for instance. I read a little while ago that the people instituting the plan wanted to make sure that, if health care was made mandatory, the plans would be affordable. But if we're aiming for universal health care, shouldn't the health plans be, well, free? It makes the Republican tactic of referring to "socialized medicine" even more ridiculous than it already was, as mandatory health insurance that you still have to pay for doesn't strike me as any more socialistic than the auto insurance industry, which also forces drivers to buy insurance. If Obama IS a socialist, as his critics love to say, he's not doing a very good job of it. It's funny that I sometimes hear that the Republican Party is falling apart, because apparently no one told the president. Or is it just that many Democrats nowadays are practically indistinguishable from Republicans, except they probably don't want to force public schools to teach the creation of the firmament as science?

I also think the attempt of some (like Sean Hannity, for instance) to call attention to and repeatedly criticize Obama's statement that Jim Crowley "acted stupidly" in arresting Henry Gates is really grasping at straws. I guess I could see if they think Obama should have just avoided broadcasting his opinions to the entire nation when they only affect one small part of it, but I think that it's a rather minor matter in the end. And really, for anyone bad-mouthing Gates, would YOU remain calm if someone tried to arrest you for breaking into your own house? I'm not necessarily saying that he was right, or that Crowley shouldn't have made sure everything was in order (although, from what I've heard, there WAS some racial profiling involved, as much as the Hannitys of the world want to deny it), just that it's a normal human reaction to be indignant if you're being hassled by law enforcement when you haven't done anything wrong. Regardless of this, however, I think Obama might have once again paid too much attention to his critics in this matter. It's fine if he regretted his choice of words (although I have to say I was all right with it), but it kind of seems like he felt he had to keep coming back to the issue because of the comments of a vocal minority.

These are just a few issues I've been thinking of recently, but didn't get a chance to write about until now, all combined into one post.

1. Hey, more crap from Sarah Palin! Does she really expect anyone (except possibly Joe Six-Pack, who's probably a Leno fan) to believe that David Letterman intended to make a joke about statutory rape? Sure, the jokes weren't all that funny, but we're talking about Letterman, not Howard Stern. Besides, even if the age weren't a factor, how would it make any SENSE to joke about Willow being promiscuous? She's not the one with the reputation! But Palin thinks Letterman was insulting to all young women, and that there's a double standard as far as people feeling free to make fun of her family and not Obama's. You know, it's really not fair to complain about that when you kept trying to use your kids as political stepping stones. But then, is anyone surprised by the fact that someone who asked about getting library books banned would be the sort who'd go around looking for something to be offended by?

2. I'm not sure why I'm bothered by the idea of Amanda Palmer and Neil Gaiman dating. bethje thinks I'm jealous, but it's not like I would want to date Amanda, as cool as I think she is. Maybe I just prefer it when celebrities date non-celebrities. I'm not really all that surprised by how celebrity relationships are always failing, because I think a lot of them are just people living out their fantasies because they can. You know, the "I've always thought Neil's writing is cool, so now that I'm famous too, we can go out!" way of thinking. Since they're both active on the Internet and there's a very slim chance they might see this, I should point out that this quite possibly isn't how it is with Amanda and Neil. It's just kind of where my mind goes, I guess. Besides, isn't he a little too old for her? Eh, whatever.

3. One question that constantly comes up at the Monster-Mania Conventions is what the stars think of remakes, to which there are a variety of answers. From my somewhat geeky viewpoint, I think a lot of it comes down to how important the details are, since it's the details that tend to get changed from one version to another. You can talk about originality, and I know I've done that myself from time to time, but I don't think lack of originality in the film industry is anything new. I believe there was a shorter turnaround time for remaking movies back in the early days of the cinema, and films are typically based on SOMETHING, be it a book, a video game, another movie, an actual event, or what have you. Originality is kind of a tricky thing to define, because what constitutes a new idea? But, well, I remember mentioning in an earlier post that all the different versions of The Wizard of Oz are kind of annoying. It's cool that L. Frank Baum's story has reached traditional fairy tale status, but it's also kind of a shame. I see Oz as a quite well-realized fantasy land, and when Dorothy and the Scarecrow are reduced to archetypes, it's sort of like someone is showing disrespect for my old friends. On the other hand, most classic fairy tales had a bunch of different versions anyway. If there are old takes on Cinderella where she gets her fancy clothes from a fish, a godmother, and a tree, coming up with new takes on the tale is basically taking place in the same tradition in which the story was originally spread. Or maybe it's more a matter of a remake being a better idea when the original had some gaps that could be filled in. I don't know. Bringing this idea back to horror movies, I don't think Friday the 13th needed to be remade, and I didn't care for the remake itself. Still, I don't really see it as disrespecting the franchise, since it was already kind of a mess. I mean, Part 9 had Jason possessing people's bodies and finally getting dragged down to Hell at the end, then the next one had him mysteriously back in his own body to be frozen and end up in space. Nightmare on Elm Street was, I think, a somewhat more coherent narrative, with each film building off the last. I guess Freddy's Dead was only sort of related to the others, but it was still consistent, as far as I can recall. Hence, the idea of a Nightmare remake bothers me a bit more, since it would presumably mean changing things the fans have come to know. Sort of like the new Star Trek, I guess, although at least that was a good movie.

4. Also at Monster-Mania, Bruce Campbell told a story about how he was filming a movie in Romania, and everyone but him refused to wear their seatbelts, claiming that they'd heard of a case where people were thrown from a car and lived, while the ones buckled up in the car died. That got me to thinking about how an odd condition of the human mind is that, while most of us are probably aware that you can't really prove things with anecdotal evidence, yet we're totally swayed by it anyway (and I certainly don't exclude myself from this). After all, statistics are difficult to digest, while anecdotes provide situations that we can totally imagine.

5. That actually ties in with another issue I was thinking about recently, which is the current trend of not having children vaccinated. A few years ago, I would have figured vaccination was just as basic for a young child as giving them a name and clothes to wear. Avoiding vaccination is apparently pretty popular nowadays, though. Beth also told me that there are a fair number of people these days who think they can get pregnant without gaining any weight, which at first glance strikes me as a blatant contradiction to the basic laws of physics. I believe some pregnant women DO actually lose weight (for instance, I think Rosemary did when she was pregnant with the spawn of Satan), but it's hardly normal. All I can say is, if you somehow manage to have a baby with no mass, you'd better get him or her vaccinated! I wouldn't want to lose such a biological miracle to the measles! Seriously, though, I think part of the rationale involved in avoiding immunization is the anecdotal evidence thing ("Hey, I heard of someone who became autistic because of a booster shot!"), although in this case I'm not even sure the anecdotes are true. And I've actually seen some people show their complete ignorance of how the immune system works, saying that doctors are pumping people full of disease. Well, sort of, but that's missing some key points, isn't it?

From what I've heard, one of the reasons why people who would most likely benefit from a greater degree of socialism continue to support economic policies that support the rich is that they feel they'll BECOME rich someday. In other words, perhaps optimism is the greatest enemy of socialism. I'm kind of the opposite, really. I can imagine becoming destitute more easily than I can striking it rich. So I tend to support economic ideas that favor the poor, because I can picture myself as one of them.

One argument I keep hearing from the anti-socialist brigade is "I work hard, so why should I share my money with someone who doesn't want to work?" Well, no one really WANTS to work (even people who love what they do for a living would probably prefer to do it without having to conform to the whims of bosses and customers), but that doesn't mean we don't realize it's a necessary evil. It's like these people don't realize that some of the unemployed or underemployed might be perfectly willing and able to work, but unable to find gainful employment. And who decides what "working hard" is, anyway? Both the manual laborer and the business executive have jobs that I would almost certainly find taxing, but who works harder? Isn't that a relative matter? And who decided that working hard was the important thing, anyway? Isn't it more important that you do something useful? I mean, counting every grain of sand in a sandbox would undoubtedly be hard, but what use would it be to anyone? Isn't the basic model of human society that we do what we can to be useful to society, and it in turn provides what it can for us? Contrary to what JFK did, I see no problem with asking what your country can do for you, provided you're willing to do something in return. That's really the basis of economics, as far as I'm concerned. All the stuff about money and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is just a way of keeping score. But we live in a society that's obsessed with keeping score.

While some of the current economic bailouts might be necessary, the fact remains that they're really another form of trickle-down economics. Or, as the popular saying has it, "Wall Street, not Main Street." If the recession affects public television, they might also need to bail out Sesame Street. My point, however, is that I think the idea of looking at the economy from the top down has become so standard that even the liberal politicians do it to some extent. But wasn't business created by and for people, not vice versa? When I hear about vast numbers of people losing their jobs, my thought is that the solution has to involve providing for these people first. Instead of giving more money to the wealthy so that they can "create jobs" (now THERE'S an incredibly optimistic and overly trusting idea), shouldn't the government be looking to help these suffering people find useful things to do? And if that involves giving handouts to banks, so be it. It's just that I think the government is really looking at the whole thing backwards. I don't particularly care if the corporations survive as long as everyone who needs a job has one.

Talk about your frivolous lawsuits! Model Liskula Cohen wants Google to reveal the name of the owner of a blog that makes derogatory comments about her, and is suing Google due to their refusal to concede. She commented, "It's petty, it's stupid and it's pathetic. And when I do find out who did this, at least I'll know who my enemies are." Wow, is that the pot calling the kettle black, or what? And someone making fun of her is an "enemy"? Is this chick, like, six years old? She's a public figure (although I hadn't heard of her prior to this), the blog isn't saying anything libelous, and the author has the right to remain anonymous on the Internet. Not to mention that the blog in question hasn't even been updated since August. Why would she think she has a case? Stop reinforcing stereotypes about blondes and models, Liskula!

Incidentally, I couldn't find the name "Liskula" on Behind the Name, but there WAS an early twentieth century Polish Army officer named Leopold Lis-Kula. Maybe the model was named in his honor. Also, bethje tells me that Bill O'Reilly reported on this story, and actually thought Ms. Cohen had a legitimate case. Personally, I think Andrea Mackris had a MUCH better one. ;)

I'm sure you've all heard about the security guard at a Long Island Wal-Mart who was killed by a Black Friday shopping mob. What I have to wonder is whether Wal-Mart did anything to try to prevent this sort of thing. Did they limit the number of people who could enter the store at any one time, or make them go in single file? Or did Wal-Mart just think, "Hey, if someone dies, we won't have to pay them for working today!" Yes, I know controlling a crowd can be difficult, and people might well have pushed their way in even if they HAD been told to wait, but it seems to me like a lot of retailers don't even try. For that matter, why not find some other way to distribute rare items, instead of making it whatever person can reach and hold on to it?

I'm sure I'm not the first one to make this point, but isn't pretty much everyone in a crowd like that shopping for Christmas, or some similar holiday? You know, peace on Earth, good will toward men, and all that? Are you showing good will to your fellow man by shoving him out of the way and trampling on him? I'm sure whatever joy you bring into the world by giving a loved one a $300 off-brand laptop is more than counteracted by any acts of violence you perpetrated in obtaining said gift. To these people, "holiday spirit" presumably means crushing someone until they become a ghost.

I haven't yet started my holiday shopping, and it's never easy for me to do so, because I have no idea what most people want. Can't they at least give me SOME idea, even if it's something as vague as "clothes" or "a book"? Mind you, I'm not always sure what to ask other people for either, but I DO have an Amazon wishlist that to which I've directed people in the past. Granted, a lot of the items on it are currently unavailable from Amazon, but that doesn't mean they can't be found elsewhere.

Hey, two entries in a row on my friends page mention Sarah Palin. One is about how she hates science, and the other about how the McCain campaign is angry at her not following the script. So they want her to be in a position where she could be President at any time, but they don't trust her to decide what to say on her own? Could they make it any more obvious that they only want her as a figurehead? But then, I guess the President and Vice President are essentially figureheads anyway. I mean, sure, they have considerably more power than, say, any twentieth century Emperor of Japan, but their main function is a largely ceremonial one. It does bother me how pretty much ALL politicians feel they have to stick to the script, but I guess they'd never have a chance of being elected otherwise.

Speaking of which, slfcllednowhere posted an article about Obama that was written by a conservative columnist as a joke, but was later forwarded through e-mail as if it were real. Here's one selection from it:

Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, 'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem its elf conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

Really, though, flag lapel pins DO bother me. Flag worship in general does, for that matter. Besides, if you really care about the flag, isn't it kind of lessening its significance to use it as a fashion accessory? I'd appreciate a candidate who actually DID denounce those stupid pins, but you know there would be people who would get angry about that.

And for my final political topic of the day (I think), I find Palin's talk about "special needs children" to be rather patronizing. I get the impression that it's something she's so keen on bringing up because it's something no one is likely to come out against. But hey, maybe I think ALL children have special needs. It's not like only kids with Down Syndrome are suffering from the impersonal mass-education system, or need help to get ahead in life.

I'm not sure whether this will become an ongoing Monday feature, but probably not. I do like making posts like this on occasion, though, as I have a lot of things to say that are too short for regular entries (yeah, I know there's no minimum length, but I don't like to make really short entries unless they're important), and too long for Twitter. Anyway, I have five items today.

1. One thing I've heard people say about Bill Clinton is that he was calm during a crisis. (Yeah, maybe it was because he'd always get a blow job before addressing the nation, but hey, whatever works, right?) It seems like Obama, who always appears to be cool and composed, might be the same way. He also has charisma, an area in which John Kerry was seriously lacking. I think there's a good chance these traits will prove beneficial to him in the election. Unfortunately, there's still a lot of racism in the country to work against him.

2. Sometimes, when I hear people talking about how badly the stock market is doing, I kind of want the whole thing to fail. I mean, I don't really (after all, I probably wouldn't have been able to pay for college if it hadn't been for my family investing in mutual funds), but I do think the system needs SOME incentive to change. Isn't it a bit absurd that the basis of our economic system involves people on Wall Street gambling?

3. When I did my post about annoying commercials, there was another kind I'd meant to list, but forgot. Those are the ones that show Ashton Kutcher playing with his camera. Maybe I should feel sorry for the guy, though. He can't get any acting roles anymore, and the only way anyone will pay him any attention at parties is if he shows off his camera.

4. Speaking of commercials, colbyucb reminded me of how Subway's "hey, we're healthy" campaign is rather irritating. I'm not even sure they started down that road until Jared, and his weight loss plan involved a lot of walking and eating the veggie subs. No one is going to get into shape by having an Italian BMT every day, you know?

5. bethje and I went to PetSmart last week, and looked at the cats they had available for adoption. It really bothers me when one of the cages says something like, "My family moved, and left me behind." Why would anyone DO that? Poor kitties!

Okay, to be fair, I actually wrote most of these on Sunday. But I'm POSTING them on Monday morning, so the title is still valid.

1. bethje and I have now watched both parts of Kill Bill, and I liked it. I have to say, however, that parts of it really felt like a video game. That was especially true of the scene where Uma Thurman (man, she's one skinny chick, isn't she?) fought the Yakuza, first taking out all the minor enemies who went down with one hit, then the mini-boss (the giggly schoolgirl with the mace), and finally defeating level boss Lucy Liu. (Serves her right for being in Ally McBeal!) The scenes in Japan, by the way, had a band made up of barefoot girls, who first played a song that was in Hairspray (the original movie, not the musical), and then that obnoxious number from the Vonage commercials. But while a lot of the movie reminded me of a game, the flashback to the assassin checking the pregnancy test during a battle was more like something out of Family Guy.

2. One of the headlines in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer is, "Offshore wind farm plan gets N.J. funds." What does it say about me that I'm imagining some farm where people plant wind seeds, and then harvest winds once they're ripe?

3. So O.J. was finally found guilty of something. About time, huh? But wait, maybe they should leave the Juice loose to try to find the REAL sports memorabilia robber! Of course, it must be a huge boon to Jay Leno that O.J. jokes are actually topical again.

4. Beth told me that one of the creators of The Naked Gun became a conservative after September 11th. Now, I don't expect everyone to agree with my political views (sometimes I don't even agree with my own political views), but he's not the only person to have done that, and I have to wonder what thought process goes into that sort of a decision. "Hmm, the attack happened during a Republican administration, and the Republicans have been exploiting the tragedy ever since. I know! I'll become a Republican!" Maybe they figure the party that got us into the mess has to also get us out. Not that I think the attack wouldn't have happened if we'd had a Democratic president, but the Republicans have done nothing since to convince me that they're the best ones to fight off future terrorist attacks, and plenty to convince me of the exact opposite.

5. It baffles me that, even today, there are people who argue for the gold standard. These people will say that paper money has no intrinsic value, and that's true, but couldn't you say the same about gold? Sure, it's rare, and you can make things out of it, but it's still really only valuable because people decided it was. And hey, I could make an argument that paper is MORE valuable than gold, because it can be used to convey ideas, which are of much more use than bracelets.