|
Well
|
Jun. 12th, 2009 @ 04:55 pm
|
|---|
|
I raise a celebratory libation in honor of President-Elect Obama.
There is so much to say and I am in no condition to say it.
My black cynical heart pumps only joy right now.
|
|
We just got back from the polls. We actually cast our ballots at about 10:30 or so, and then went for a nice brunch at IHOP.
I was actually a little worried - we were expecting a long wait. Early reports have suggested that some of Virginia's polling places might not be prepared for the projected turnout. Fortunately for us, there turned out to be no lines at all (although I expect that's a function of the relative earliness of the day). Between that and the fairly straight-forward ballots (only three races and four initiatives - Virginia's state elections are next year), we were in and out in under fifteen minutes.
Now we have the rest of the day to sit back, follow the returns and wait for the results. We even have vodka on hand for either celebratory libations or crushing despair.
If you haven't yet, VOTE GODDAMN YOU!
|
|
Thank Athena the debate cycle is over. I cannot believe I've sat through all four debates without the aid of alcohol.
Although I'll admit, this last debate was the least-boring of the four. That is damning with faint praise indeed.
|
|
Despite a few disappointments, this is the first election in six years that hasn't made me feel like the guy screaming obscenities on the street corner.
We are, thank Athena, still a republic.
|
| » Masterful Craft, Repugnant Themes |
|---|
 Last night ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) pallas_melissa and I watched Zhang Yimou's Hero. I've been hesitant to see it, as I had heard of it (well before before its US premier), and what I heard wasn't good. The criticism I'd read had nothing to do with its cinematography or script; to the contrary, most of what I read praised its craft as a film (unsurprising, as Zhang Yimou is frequently praised as China's most celebrated and successful director). The charge levied against it, then and now, is that it's ultimately apologia for the first emperor of a unified China, Qin Shi Huang, and by extension Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. Others have denied this interpretation, and the director himself claims his film is apolitical.
The verdict, then? Propaganda. Lush, beautiful, delightful, morally repugnant propaganda.
 I'm not exactly certain the world needed a wuxia answer to Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will, but Zhang Yimou delivered one anyway. The film's plot, told through a sequence of flashbacks that the protagonist, Nameless, narrates to the King of Qin, revolves around a daring scheme to assassinate him. The assassins are loyalist natives of the Kingdom of Zhou, one of seven separate kingdoms that Qin Shi Huang would eventually unite under his rule, ending China's Warring States Period. The climax comes as the assassins realize that the would-be First Emperor's goals are the greater good, uniting "Our Land" (in the original release, all under heaven). Zhang Yimou claims Hero's message is "peace"; I would say a more accurate word is "submission".
The historical Qin Shi Huang was a tyrant's tyrant - he united China, yes, by military conquest of the other six kingdoms, by imposing iron law, and by purging his empire of dissenters (in particular the early Confucians, whose philosophy opposed his strict Legalist rule). True, he established a unified writing system and legal code, a standardized system of weights and measures, an extensive network of roads and canals, and built the Great Wall; I submit this is the Third Century BCE version of "yes, but he made the trains run on time". Hell, if you want another parallel, Qin Shi Huang's use of Confucian dissidents as slave labor to construct the Wall is directly comparable to Albert Speer's use of Jewish slave labor to fuel the war industry. The Wolf of Qin's answer to his successors was "ruthlessness, expediency, and iron law", and he demonstrated this in every aspect of his rule.
 (There's a great scene when the Qin army attacks a Zhou calligraphy school, where the assassins Snow and Broken Sword reside. The calligraphers want to flee, but the master urges them to remain at their places, stating that while the arrows of Qin may destroy their cities and nation, they can never destroy Zhou's written word, their culture. One of Qin Shi Huang's most acts was to order the burning of most pre-existing books and the execution of scholars).
Since the mid-Seventies, state-sponsored revisionists have been re-evaluating the Wolf of Qin's role in China's history. The new official version portrays him as a farsighted ruler who established China's first centralized government, praising his willingness to use violence to crush counter-revolutionaries. In this history, he was only brought low by hidden subversives that he hadn't gone far enough to root out (and doesn't that chill the blood just a bit?).
The movie never makes the connection explicit, and I'm willing to go so far as to concede that the Zhang Yimou never consciously intended a pro-totalitarian interpretation. However, the King of Qin's imperial ambitions are portrayed as the greater good - the assassins who pursue "peace" by submitting to his ambition are portrayed as making the correct action. After all, eventually Qin Shi Huang's throne will stand over all under heaven ... propped up by a pile of skulls, but omelets and eggs, y'know? And if Qin Shi Huang's rule brings "peace", so must the current rulers of China, because if the dissidents would just learn their place, they wouldn't have to be killed. Logic!
It's a movie I'm glad I saw, but not one I'd like to see again. I'm not sure what to make of Zhang Yimou - is he China's Leni Riefenstahl, or simply a poor student of history? I'd like to think the latter, but it still makes a poor excuse.
Aug. 6th, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
|
| » I'm so confused |
|---|
The heat wave afflicting many regions of the US has inspired rabid nutterevangelical preacher Pat Robertson to claim rising temperatures are God's way of plaguing homosexuals, feminists and pagans.
Ha! No, that's the sort of thing you'd expect him to say. Actually, Robertson announced Thursday that he's become convinced that rising temperatures are the result of human activity, and that measures must be taken to correct the problem. Roberston joins a large number of scientists and environmentalists, while breaking with the Republican base on this issue.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go check the skies for dirigibles, because I fear I have fallen into an alternate universe.
Aug. 5th, 2006 @ 11:09 am
|
| » What the HELL? |
|---|
Last week, on Fox News, John Gibson noted that today, nearly half of all American children under five years old are minorities, mostly Latino. He then speculated that within the next generation, Latinos would be the majority.
In response, Gibson urged whites to have more babies.
I ... I ... Sweet Marduk on a baby seal skin canoe, I have no words. I'm struggling to avoid turning this into a three-page block of profanity.
Fuck!
Gibson's data comes from this release from the US Census. It's worth noting that the US Census also projects that within 25 years Latinos will make up 25% of the population, which is much less than a majority. So not only is Gibson a racist, he can't do basic math.
I have reached my limit with this godsdamn anti-brown people hysteria. There is already an undercurrent of racism within certain elements of American society, and I don't want them coming to the fore.
Every time I think we've left this shit behind us, the dog fuckers set out to prove me wrong.
May. 17th, 2006 @ 08:56 am
|
| » Texas Getting Kinky |
|---|
The Kinky Friedman gubernatorial campaign has turned in almost 170,000 signatures* in its petition for ballot access this November. For ballot access, an independent candidate requires 45,540 signatures (or, one percent of the total ballots cast in the previous election).
That's right, folks ... looks like Kinky's going to be on the ballot come November. Here's hoping he kicks Rick Perry's only-chosen-by-17%-of-the-electorate ass out of Austin.
How hard could it be?
*including, I'm proud to say, mine and pallas_melissa's
May. 11th, 2006 @ 01:55 pm
|
| » Remember when we all played nice? Neither do I |
|---|
Hollaback, filthy hippies! It's time once again for the Virtual Pub to dip its rhetorical toe into the scummy contaminated waters of the American political process. Grab your macks and hefty golashes, and let's get splashing.
But first, let's pause as we dedicate this entry to one of America's Original Gangstas, Aaron Burr. This smooth Pimp-Name'-Slickback rolled in New England with his posse, the Democratic-Republican crew, until he had to go underground after popping a flint-lock cap into Alexander Hamilton.
Now, as well you know, politics is a nasty, wicked and back-biting activity. A would-be politician can expect to be vilified, humiliated and compared unfavorably to child molesters ... and that from competitors within his own party. Our electoral process has elevated character assassination into an art form. It's an ugly process that reflects poorly its participants, and many citizens are growing sick of it. Voter turnout hasn't reached 60% since 1968, and that's still pretty piss-poor, chums. Today's partisan hostility has Washington Post columnist David S. Broyer pining for a simpler time ... a time of barn-raisings and buggy rides, a time when Democrats and Republicans would frolic gaily together in the flower-laden meadows of the Beltway in between sessions of Congress.
Reading his opening paragraph alone, one is compelled to ask just what political Eden he could possibly be referring to, considering our political history. Perhaps he means the 1850's, when Southern Congressman Preston Brooks beat abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner into unconsciousness with a cane for decrying slavery. There's also the 1960's, when Lyndon Johnson's presidential campaign implied that opponent Barry Goldwater would lead the country into a nuclear war (in fairness, Barry Goldwater's campaign also implied that he would lead the country into a nuclear war). Do we need to go into the McCarthy hearings?
Sorry, folks, but I'm having trouble figuring out what time period Broyer is talking about. Let's try reading further and ... wait, he's talking about the Reagan years? Broyer, you be trippin!
Reagan wasn't called "The Teflon President" because his administration went unplagued by scandal and criticism. The years Reagan served through may not have been as vicious as Clinton's eight or Dubya's past five, but they were hardly sunny - Robert Bork, anyone?
Oh, wait, Broyer's evidence is Tip O'Neil visiting Reagan in the hospital after the failed assassination attempt. That has nothing to do with politics, that's basic human decency. If a crazy radical tried to kill George W. Bush, there would be real and genuine concern and outrage on both sides of the aisles. If some unbalanced individual tried, say, poisoning a liberal Supreme Court justice, partisan politics wouldn't be seen in the outflow of support and consideration. Vehemently disagreeing with a public servant's politics is on an order of magnitude different from wishing for or exulting in his death. The former is the nature of politics, the latter is simple scumbaggery. For all their many flaws, these are human beings we're talking about, and that is how human beings respond to tragedy.
Then, of course, they'd go back to the slandering and back-biting. Remember, they're politicians - they're not very good human beings.
Jan. 31st, 2006 @ 11:18 am
|
|
