The Curious Case of Kevin Spacey

Anyone see that film, American Beauty? Anyone remember the moral of that film: consumerism and twisted dreams? Well I saw the movie Horrible Bosses recently and thought to myself, wow that Kevin Spacey sure sold out. Right after that I thought that there was a weird moment where I sort of just laughed at the ALL the irony. What the hell am I talking about, well you may be asking yourself that, three simple concepts:

Message, storyline and appearance. Very broad and very important concepts in their own right. With all three you sell a very complete package, an aesthetically pleasing, feel good/sentimental piece that has a very ephemeral 'profound' impact. I'm sure many of us watching films like Apocalypse Now, or Milk or even Titanic have felt that spike, that heady wave of emotion that makes us believe something. Something grandiose like the futility of life, the beauty of everyday, the value of integrity, brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Brilliant film making that is, it is every artists intentions to write a story, and then have the audience see the message underneath. No story is free context, and as much as everyone would like to think that a comedy or action or horror is free of personal context, everything we write, say or think is influenced by our pasts and our desires of the future. Which is why good film making and good writing makes us ignore our personal contexts, it's very enveloping. Ever sit in a shitty film like Scary Movie and think, man wish I was doing something fun, shitty film making. A good is a lucid dream, you know your world, you know its not real, but you feel everything around you like a second skin.

Which brings me back to the Kevin Spacey, having watched American Beauty, it was impossible not to get enthralled with the self deprecating and surprisingly layered character that was Burnham. The everyman in every respect serving as a figurehead for crushed dreams and sombre reality. Watching American Beauty you could easily perceive that the storyline was present, the message was very clear and the appearance was well executed. A simple premise and an entrancing execution, made the entire film very easily to swallow, made you feel bad about giving back your dreams of becoming an astronaut. Made you feel guilty about sitting in front of a screen watching the ASX200 move up or down, made you feel guilty about not having an idealistic world. Compared to Horrible Bosses, I would've said that Horrible Bosses was a very sedate and done formula. 3 white males, middle class blue-ish/white collar existence with their own quirky problems. Likeable leads, confusing storyline and very polished, a satire of a satire of the target audience. Undoubtedly the people who view the film think of themselves and how much they hate their jobs or bosses and in a way serves a feel good experience, a band-aid to remedy boredom and a twinge of annoyance. My problem initially viewing was that Kevin Spacey had become a sellout douche bag boss archetype, my first thought was the irony the situation. Kevin Spacey however is not most ironic part, no. Casting him I found was ironic, but the most ironic part I found was that in viewing Horrible Bosses that I thought about what I was doing.

What I, as an audience was, after experiencing so many different emotions and phases, and ritualized "I will become who I want to be" mantras, they all wear off like a faded scar. The most ironic thing was that I hadn't given a shit about all those supposed messages I had gained from movies, instead I had bottled my fantasies in cliched lucid dreams hiding in a nook within my head. I might explore my guilt ridden dreams which I base off movies, movies that each follow the same 3 concept style, funded by the same few big studios, selling one message. Sell out.

My thoughts on: Religion

Religion has always been a popular subject for most of humanity throughout time whether it be the archaic polytheist religions of the ancient Greek and Romans, with their numerous Gods for most aspects in life, to the modern monotheist religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam and of course, the even more modern religions of Scientology and the religion of Star Trek, both involving worship of extraterrestrial beings.

My thoughts on: Time Travel

Hollywood blockbusters have never strayed away from the imaginative possibilities that time-travel brings whether it be the flux capacitor of Back to the Future, or the killer robots of the Terminator franchise. Science-fiction has always relished the ideas of quantum leaping and defying the most difficult dimension to transverse through, time.

Running

Something i wrote while procrastinating:

Running

I ran as fast as I could away from them but no matter how fast I thought I was, my steps left only a trail for them to follow. I was finally backed into a corner and looked up at the sky polluted with light, like an information matrix with interference patterns. I was hoping for some divine intervention, the same type that ancient scriptures often spoke of. There was only the hard brick surface of the wall, a reminder that there was still difference – jagged edges and a pattern of colour seemingly random – the art of an ancient magician. There was a ladder access attached to the building’s frame. The metal, chilled by the night air gave me a shiver as my cold hands grasped the first stair. Holstering myself up I began to climb. My forearms burned with exhaustion, until finally I reached the roof. The sprawl of downtown created a grid of fluorescence. Every light would move, only to be replaced by another. Beep - beep, the vibration was alluring.

The next roof was only an arm-length away. I backed up, hoping to build up velocity just in case. Then, with one mighty leap, I crossed the gap between the two roofs and landed on a dustier floor. There was one lone plastic fold up chair, sitting alone upon the roof, watching the skyline of the city. I sat on its blue exterior, and it creaked with years of neglect, then straightened, sturdy as the day it was manufactured. My legs began aching, reminding me of how long I actually began running. Beep - beep the small green light was hypnotic.

The billboards were plastered over the city, advertising the newest beverage, the most up-to-date advances in personal computer augmentation. In bright colours, designed to attract helpless eyes and customers, they created a rainbow that darkened the city. Nearby cats were rummaging through garbage bins. Others were prowling the city’s streets. There was a child with a mother walking quietly when all of a sudden, the little boy, barely five years old began shouting. He was pointing through the store window. His mother turned away and muttered that he would get it some other day. The boy frowned then began walking in silence half-angry and help-hopeful that one day he would eventually get what he desired. They eventually turned the corner and disappeared amongst the city’s lights. Beep - beep. It became just too much. I peered at the touchscreen that read: 11:11

New Wave Fundamentalism

It is hard to believe that in a day and age where we can travel in space, move information across the world in a fraction of second and cure all manner of disease, that fundamentalism is still alive, and it appears it is making a rebirth. From the crowded city of Tehran, or the rugged of Afghanistan, we've been hearing about how intolerant Sharia Law is, and how having a religious law imposed is so constitutionally wrong, and so violates democracy and basic human rights. It is a moral grey area where the rich democracies of the world (read: United States) have the 'right' to 'liberate' areas that voted for a non secular governing body, however in their own 'free' society, countries like France have banned Burqas[1]. Even in the United States, a supposed secular country, the mostly Christian denomination takes many liberties with it free speech.

However it is only barely tolerable that discrimination against minority groups, like trying to build the Mosque at Ground Zero[2], or even the Chaser joking around about a mosque in Mosman[3]. People would like to think that as countries get richer, more educated and more diverse, there should be greater tolerance and less segregation should occur.People WOULD LIKE TO THINK, however in the fervor of post 9/11 setting, the entire multicultural facade was unraveled. Like how 'open' minded people started looking at their neighbours differently because the people who attacked the Twin Towers were from 'the Middle East'. It's truly disgusting to see that this what globalistation breeds, secret intolerance that bubbles to the surface (see Cronulla Riots and Indian student assaults). This is political climate we live in, a politically correct but socially incorrect democracy that is like a jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces in the wrong place. With people who'd like to think, yeah we love the culture of other races, we love the cheap labour and the tourism, but just don't live in MY country. This is quickly changing ideology, but still a current and extremely relevant one. It is not the immigrants fault that they are willing to work harder, or work for less, or be more talented at your job than you are. That inherent criticism that people are having their jobs 'taken' is redundant. The fact that the industrial juggernaut that was America is in decline is a showing that after centuries, laziness breeds inefficiency and also pent up frustration. The end result is like a spoiled child, wanting the privileges but not wanting to compete for less. As a result people become annoyed, it's all the Mexicans fault that they will work for less and work harder than we do. It's all the Chinese fault that we're out of manufacturing, not that our production techniques were obsolete and our wages too high.

What recently transpired in Bastrop[4] High is a travesty, not only a travesty but a farce on the very foundations of what the United States is built on. To ostracize and make a pariah out of a student, who was only following the LAW, trying to stop a STATE funded Christian prayer at a graduation, is wrong. It is not a worshiping ceremony, it is not a Christian celebration party, it is an entire school graduation ceremony, celebrating the years of education and not the church. The hypocritical nature of the American secularist ideal is so twisted and wrong it challenges any sane person to try argue with a Christian conservative. "It was wrong for the Muslims on the other side of the world to have their religion forced upon their people, however it is totally fine for our secular state to shove Christianity up every single citizens ass and call it a free country". A free country should be free of tolerance, free to worship however you want, but it shouldn't be a bigoted community that wont tolerate another culture other than the majority. I am sure that if a Muslim prayer was heard in the ceremony, every Christian the goddamn United States would be up in arms, crying the shit out of themselves that they let a Muslim pray in their country. I'm sure they would say that this violates the law they themselves violate every single day, and only add to the list of hypocrisy that country is founded on. I end this by saying, not everyone is stupid and not everyone believes in one thing or is totally intolerant of beliefs, because they're not. Some people are don't need to force their religion, after all I believe worship is a personal affair and that organizing it makes a fallacy of it. After all, what logic is a divine being that requires people to congregate and openly worship him/her/it. Don't believe the millenia old hype, I don't need to worship publicly to know how to be a good person. I don't need a man in robes to tell me that murder is wrong, however I especially don't need a man in robes to tell me that how people living their life should be impending by an organisation with no credibility.

And don't get me started on homosexuality and fundamentalism. Two gay people should have every right to be happy. [take for example my friend Botong, he and his partner should be free to love each other... and not get bashed for being in Melbourne by either racists or homophobes, or worse Christian fundamentalists]

[1]http://www.smh.com.au/world/first-arrests-as-france-bans-burqa-20110412-1dbcg.html
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51
[3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R6DfwqUSuY
[4]http://www.alternet.org/belief/151086/high_school_student_stands_up_against_prayer_at_public_school_and_is_ostracized,_demeaned_and_threatened/

Modern English vs eng

Modern English vs eng
Neo-"Politics and the English Language"

English is one of the most remarkable languages in the world for its ability to adapt, evolve and create new words every day. The dictionary is always expanding, and although many words fall into oblivion, the beauty in English is in the ability to choose unique words to create tone, even though the words are mostly synonymous with each other. However, the rise of a "Modern English" a term coined by Orwell in his famous essay "Politics and the English Language"[1] is apparent everywhere in society, however whether or not it is a entirely bad thing as prescribed in 1950, can be argued.

Indeed Orwell was attempting to criticise writing where the "concrete melts into the abstract", in other words, where the ambiguity of "Modern English" hides the truth, or disguises a lie. Stereotypically, the "Modern English" he was referring to is the same used by politicians, or by those of literary prowess - whether self-proclaimed or otherwise. Yet, Orwell also warns in 1984 of "Newspeak", an exaggerated language of over simplification, where simplicity creates ambiguity, in much the same way as in "Modern English". Therefore Orwell was preaching not only of the problems with unneccesary complexity, but also simplicity, in both corrupting language and thought.

Like most things in life, it is about the efficient allocation of resources to maximise their potential or in simpler terms, it is about balance. For like most modern politicians, Orwell's stance on language was centrist. The ancient Ying-Yang belief in applicable to most things including language. Language must be complex enough to express ideas accurately, but simple enough to be understood. Too much of either will generally cause bad prose, as already expressed by Orwell.

Most strikingly though is the fact that language most naturally evolves along with society, and in particular technology. The rise of mobile phones, 'texting' and instant messaging has arose a new form of English. "Text English" is the use of irregular pre-fabricated phrases to represent proper English. This new idea brings upon the fact that the 'centre' of English language is growing increasingly simple. There must be a time where one must stand up and rebel against this simplification. Old English, or the English used during the Enlightenment era, would be considered "Modern English" to a person who reads Orwell, and one day perhaps, Orwell's words will one day become "Modern English" for one who reads text messages.

For example, a passage in Frankenstein[2]:
"I do not know how long i remained in this situation, but when i awoke i found that the sun had already mounted considerably. The wind was high, and the waves continually threatened the safety of my little skiff. I found that the wind was north-east, and must have driven me far from the coast from which i had embarked."
can be translated into English used today:
"I don't know how long it was, but when i awoke, the sun was up. The wind threatened my little skiff's safety. The north-easterly wind blew me far away from where i embarked."
which can be translated into "Text English":
"iono how long, but sun=up when i woke. wind threatend my lil skiff. NE wind blew far from where i was."

One cannot possibly say that simplicity is beauty. Nor can one say that complexity is also beauty. The balance between the two must be judged to the best of the ability of the writer in order to communicate the ideas. Despite the constant evolution for English, one must define a 'Golden Age' of the language, much like those scholars of Latin have placed upon 70BC-43BC[3]. In English, i would like to think that this 'Golden Age' falls upon its form in formal documents today.

It is natural for a language to eventually decay and be superseded by another but i do wish that the current form of English be preserved as long as possible and one day be studied by scholars as the 'Golden Age' of English. This decay has already formed as an idea in many people's minds including one professor who claims that everyone "should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell"[4]. It is up to those who choose to write to balance the battle between the complexity necessary for idealism, and the simplicity needed for comprehension, and although this balance is shifting further into simplicity, one can only retain the English they know best, one that passes the Spell Checks currently in word processing programs.

References:
[1]http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
[2]Frankenstein - Mary Shelley (1818)
[3]http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/237476/Golden-Age
[4]http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403092

Socialism 2: Modern Welfare

Now the issue of welfare has been topical ever since the institution of government. Taxation of the rich and redistributed to the poor, is welfare not just a modern rendition of 'Robin Hood' and his jolly men? The notion whether or not welfare is generous, or insufficient, has been discussed notably by current affair shows on television many times a year. Australia does have a relatively generous welfare system spending 18% of our near one trillion dollar economy on welfare, comparing this to the 14.8% spent in the United States. The question being raised is not whether welfare should exist, or whether it should be more generous, but "the social and economic reality of our country is that there are people who can work, who do not"[1] and these people should not receive benefits that others do.

Now if words like socialism and communism were thrown up in a capitalist obsessed country such as America, chances are that you would be excommunicated as if you were atheist. In Australia, in which the mixed market dominates, and government intervention is frequent, and relatively high, welfare is generally considered to collectively be productive or at least morally acceptable. The problem is that the generous welfare system has enticed many to simply 'dole bludge', that is those hard-core unemployed have less incentive to progress to an active occupation and as such, remain unemployed. Welfare reform would be best if money were spent rather than paying people to not contribute to Australia's Gross National Product, but spent on programs such as apprenticeships and training, so that those who are unemployed can obtain a job that both suits them personally, but has an enticing income. Even though we have a system "Work for the Dole" already in focus, the incentive on actually obtaining a job is not emphasised enough.

Of course, the welfare problem is not isolated to just mis-allocation of state resources but is a deeper socioeconomic issue. For example, a teenager decides to have sexual intercourse and ends up getting pregnant. She then decides to keep the baby, and as such, no longer has the opportunity to a normal life, and the education and training associated with it. She is then forced to claim welfare but is the baby the state's responsibility? It is easy to feel sorry for the teenager and offer as much help as possible yet she did have a choice in the matter. She chose to dismiss her own opportunity so is it right that the state pay for her inefficiency? Of course, many underprivileged may not have such a choice in their opportunities, for example some may get caught up in the same problems as their ancestors, namely drug or alcohol abuse, lack of motivation to progress monetarily and bad family or housing conditions. In an example of an teenage boy who may have the opportunity to self-betterment, but is constrained by his way of life - let's use the example of a alcoholic abusive father, does he not deserve compensation?

The issue of welfare is deeply ingrained in other socioeconomic problems and reevaluation of the current system will be difficult if not near impossible. The answer is not that simple, thus the reason there are many questions, and not a lot of statements concerning welfare in this post. The dynamics of society and those receiving welfare currently is hard to simply quantify or generalise however something must be done. The correct intervention is to slowly redistribute income into programs to help people, rather than simply playing them every week for inefficiency. Understandably, some people are incapable either mentally or physically to be employed, but for the others who choose to 'abuse' welfare, welfare should be reduced or taken away entirely. In particular, the 'baby bonus' should be abolished, because if you are unable to look after a baby, then the logical decision is to not let it be born in the first place, or let the state care for it, considering it is already paying for it already. Harsh it may be but until there are welfare reforms, money will be given to people simply do not deserve it. Thereby unable to be redistributed to those who truly deserve it such as those genuinely incapable or to those who are actually productive.

N.B. Lapses in expression may be contributed to by illness. Welfare is a deeper issue, and in order to not bore people, i have shortened my opinion based on few examples and generalisations, as opposed to a lengthy post issuing a lot of examples. Simply, this post is to raise awareness and opinion rather than actual factual discussion.

[1]http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/13/3190877.htm

Rebecca Black and the Zeitgeist

For those who are ill-informed about the current state of literary contribution, it is advised that one should view the latest top-40 music video, popular movie franchise, or any YouTube video. Indeed popularity is dynamic, and in today's society, fifteen seconds of fame is obtained as easily as creating a nonsensical song that's lyrics are sheer escapism from conventional pop-lyric writing. The reference is to a song named 'Friday'[1] by young artist, Rebecca Black. With nearly a hundred million views on YouTube, and spawns of parodies across the internet, the question "Who has the last laugh?" must be asked. Millions who have expressed aggravated threats of hatred, or a thirteen year old girl whose infamy has generated enough revenue to help the Japanese disasters more than me or you could ever do.

One should not be hasty to dismiss her song and a recent Billboard article[2] claims that self-proclaimed music elitists would dismiss the song but many are embracing it. Its melody and standard beat do allow for its simple message to be caught up in one's mind. Most would say Rebecca Black is simply another "fifteen seconds of fame" or "one hit wonder" artist and eventually her song and presence will dissolve in the sands of time. Yet history has always been kind to most artists whose work has been under-appreciated, many painters such as Van Gough were never understood nor relished until postmortem, as with poets including Emily Dickinson whose nonsensical words are now studied in high school institutions. These people were considered the 'Rebecca Black' of their time, and yet now go down in history as great artistic geniuses. Who is to say Rebecca Black will not go down the same?

Unfortunately it is the intelligentsia, the select group of literary intellectuals who stipulate the canon: the film, book, song, and art critics who decide the impact a piece of art may have upon the world. They rarely get it wrong and as such, their revised manuscript does usually dictate mandates of artistic significance. Music critics cringe at the idiocy of Rebecca Black's song. Her character and contribution to the zeitgeist should rather be judged on her reaction to society's critique on 'Friday' and not the song itself. Conducting numerous interviews and acoustic covers, she has never resigned herself to the 'haters'. Whether or not she has been influenced by her record company to continue raising interest thus revenue is irrelevant, she is one artist who has "stood by her dump"[3] on the zeitgeist and that is what should truly be commended. Now what seat should i take?

N.B. The random rapper in the music video should reconsider his job as a rapper and producer of music.

References:
[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0
[2]http://www.billboard.com/news/rebecca-black-looks-to-move-beyond-friday-1005093722.story#/news/rebecca-black-looks-to-move-beyond-friday-1005093722.story
[3]Family Guy: "Brian Writes a Bestseller" Season 9 Episode 6

Further Reading:
Links between Rebecca's Work and other literary contributions: http://thedailywrazz.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/rebecca-black-puckers-up-to-kiss-the-zeitgeist/
Satire on Friday's 'true' meaning: http://procrastinatorsrant.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/yesterday-was-thursday-today-it-is-friday/

Revitalisation of Idealism

This post is not actually about the revitalisation of idealism, which in a world that is largely concerned with conformity, is rare. Instead, the title refers to the fact that for a extended period of time, no one has expressed ideas for others to read and perhaps learn of. In any case, this is a post actually about the notion of Elitism.

Elitism

Now as we all know as far as institutionalised conventions go, Wikipedia.org is not only a secondary source of unreliable information but can also be contributed to by anyone who can operate a computer. However, in any case, it could be claimed that Wikipedia is in fact perhaps the ideal collective subjective perspective that is needed. A ambiguous word such as elitism would mean different things to different people however as defined in Wikipedia:
"Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern"

Therefore, it could be argued that democracy and any form of representation in any system would be in fact, embracing the notion of elitism. When people choose parties, and members of parliament every election, they elect a representative who best suits the job, a candidate that best displays the values aligned with oneself, or a candidate who has the best ability. In any case, you are electing a select group of people to govern the country. Using this simple example as a basis, discounting donkey voting, informal voting and non-voters in general, you would still be able to claim that the vast majority of people are embracing an elitist ideal.

Then again, the definition given is of course at most a bone fide one that is rarely ever achieved by humans due to morality issues stemming from what most would believe to be instinctual. That is, humans are likely to deceive, and disadvantage a fellow human for self-benefit. Survival of the fittest is claimed as an instinctual defense for such human traits. The argument proposed here is not whether human morality is instinctual or otherwise, rather that human morality causes elitism to not always be one for the benefit of society. "The term elitism is also sometimes used to denote situations in which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an in-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. This form of elitism may be described as discrimination." Such elitism does exist in society, and is much apparent in the dissatisfaction of the working class with the upper class and their abuse of power predominantly their promotion of self-monetary success (sic in other works as the current most accurate measure of success [as far as hedonism goes]) at the expense of the lower classes' monetary demise.

History has always claimed this class struggle, and as far as recorded civilisations have gone, elitism has always existed, and has fulfilled its prophecy to be benefiting to society in the majority of cases. Then again, never has a true egalitarianism system ever been created - or sustained for any reputable moment of time in any large scale. In words, it may be more logical in that more beneficial to more people, however the classic saying that humanity itself is largely illogical is indicative of its impossible outcomes. Human morality will always, until modified which is inhibiting freedom itself, be a hurdle for human evolution. The closest system would be those outlined by Marx, and other communists. Indeed, the ideal world would probably allow the ideals of communism to work and create a harmonious society but as far as real life applications go, it has never risen to much more than a failed Soviet Union, and a China that has now undergone capitalist reform.

Egalitarianism is a belief that many people wish to believe in, as with any human belief and should be respected. However, much like any major religion, its idealism may only lay within the books and rituals. Preaching, forcing or otherwise making it the only form of social determination will only let human morality cause the outcome to be much like the Crusades or the Third Reich. The belief in egalitarianism is like the belief in a omnipotent being, its gospels speak of greatness, but its real-life applications are impossible. Even Christianity speak of egalitarian values of every man being born the same, yet also speak of the inferiority of women, and the unacceptance of those who do not believe in the same god (even though to a agnostic person: all monotheist gods are the same one god). This contradiction exemplifies the simple notion that elitism is clearly abundant even in the bible.) Not to say one cannot somehow gain from believing in such things as religion is a good form of morality, and belief in egalitarianism is highly repututable in a more acceptable society with less descrimination and more acceptance. As long as currency, and money rule the world, and until humans rid themselves of sterotypes, and the so called instinctual mannerisms of self-betterment and selfishness, elitism will rule. Egalitarianism will rule once hell freezes over, and the earth will have more problems with migrating archdemons than with whether one person is actually better than another or not.

[1] Highly biased but interesting read: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

N.B. The argument whether or not the evolution of humanity's idealism does affect the evolution of elitism is not discussed. This argument is that elitism will one day be less significant that egalitarianism and is evidenced by less discrimination and more acceptance.