A Tale of Two Camerons

Kirk Cameron on gay marriage:

"I think that it's unnatural. I think that it's detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization....

I believe marriage was defined by God a long time ago.... One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage."

 David Cameron:

"I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative."

One doesn't want to do it, so wants to ban it.
The other doesn't want to do it either but is insistent on protecting the democratic rights of those who may want to.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as defined by some poorly-educated, washed-up creationist.

Putting the Mary In Maryland

So Maryland becomes the latest state to legalize gay marriage.
So that means you have to marry someone of the same sex now?
Hell no. You don't have to.
But you can if you want (and the other wants to as well).
That's called freedom.

8 down, 42 to go.  

Act of Valor...to sit through this garbage

Below, there may be spoilers. However, the film-makers themselves created the biggest spoiler, by making this crock.

Saving Private Ryan, Three Kings, Jarhead.
Great war-movies.
Act of Valor is not one of them.

Act of Valor is a poorly acted, terribly written and superficially directed series of money shots for the Navy.
It started off as a commercial for the Navy. It never became anything else. Instead of uniforms, the "actors" should be wearing khakis and rolled-up blue shirts - it was that much of an infomercial.

If you want to compare it to another war film, use this: TROPIC THUNDER.  Where Tropic Thunder showed us that actors can't fight, Valor shows us what happens if soldiers go and act. It ain't pretty.

DON'T ASK, PREY TELL...
On the plus side, kudos for going full-gay with the sub-text between the two leading SEALS. The two guys seemed to spend half of the movie having romantic, golden-hour strolls through shit they've just blown up, where they talk about relationships and babies.

SWEATY TREACHEROUS JEW ALERT!!!!!
Do you think the sweaty, treacherous Jew is a good guy or a bad guy?
Mmm, clue please.
He's not Christian.
And he's foreign.
And he ain't got no standard issue crew-cut. Got to be a bad guy.

But what about the portrayal of a Muslim? Let me reframe that...

THE CONVERT TO ISLAM WITH FACIAL SCARRING....
Good guy or bad guy? Well he ain't no Christian that's for sure. And he's an ex-Ruskie.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE FULL CLICHE
A guy in the first act learns his wife is pregnant....
Now what's going to happen to him?
Is he the cursed cop on the last day on the job?
Is he a Star-Trek red-shirt?
Oh no, they can't go full-cliche can they?

Hell yeah. Full cliche and proud, ma;am!

PLOT HOLES? WE GOT 'EM BY THE SHIP LOAD
Example.  Why does the guy who makes millions of dollars smuggling shit into the US, give up all that to let his one-time pal smuggle in explosives? They either get caught smuggling it in (thereby shutting down his smuggling routes) or else investigations will lead to his smuggling routes. Either way, he's unmotivated in shutting down his business.

ACTION SEQUENCES YOU'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE
If you've never watched an Army or Navy commercial?
Or seen a Michael Bay or Tony Scott movie.
Or played a video game.
Then sure, they'll be new to you.

BUT IT'S GOT TOBACCO FILTERS
That add a nice glow to the action and to the romantic gay-subtext walk on the deck scenes.
If you like your war movies with tobacco filters, then this is the one for you.

CALLING MR BAY
I was longing for the character "subtlety" of Bay or Scott. Believe me, if you hadn't appreciated those directors before, you will do now when you see what incompetent film-making really is.

WHERE'S CHUCK?
This is the kind of movie Chuck Norris might have starred in, many wars ago. It's border line though, as he may have wanted the script rewritten to get all the way up from garbage to mediocre.

Ultimately, the worst thing that can be said about this movie though is it's boring. Really boring.

If you want to ban gay marriage, then you're a socialist.

Democracy is about citizens pursuing life and happiness in a manner which pleases them.

If you want to interfere and stop others from doing that, then you have to have sound reasons such as the protection of our fellow citizens who cannot protect themselves.

You cannot intervene merely on the grounds that you don't like something. That is nothing but state-sponsored bullying.

If you are a Republican, someone who believes in freedom of choice and that government intervention should be kept only to minimal and necessary actions, then how is it possible to justify preventing other people from being happy?  If two gay people chose to marry, it has no impact on non-gays. If we're against gay marriage then we don't have to marry someone of the same sex. That is the limit of our opposition and that should be the limit imposed by the state. We don't like it, we don't have to do it. And as it has no direct impact on us, we don't have the right to stop others from doing it. Anything else is an unwarranted intrusion from big government. It is anti-democratic.

Dicks and Dictators: On why crotch shots are democracy's friend

Weiner's been hounded out of Congress for sending pictures of his crotch to various people. Why? What he wants to do in his spare time is his concern and his alone.  He's been forced out for moralistic reasons; forced to resign because it was against the aesthetic and ethic tastes of certain other people. He did nothing illegal, so what has he done exactly that really means he should not serve his full term?

In a democracy and a society that is truly egalitarian in citizenship, we  must be accepting and tolerant of difference. Whether we like or embrace that difference is irrelevant. If something is legal but not to our taste or our way of doing things, it doesn't matter. We still have to let others go about and do their thing and we still have to stand up and defend their right to do it. If we don't then we're nothing but a bunch of moralizing egomaniacs who believe our way and our tastes are the only way of doing things. That is, we become intolerant dictators of how others should live.

It's your constitutional right to be a dick

David Tyree says the push to legalize gay marriage in the United States will be "the beginning of our country sliding toward ... anarchy"  and that "... two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."

It's clearly his right to be a sexist, ignorant, bigot, but it is beyond his right to impose his sexist, ignorant bigotry upon others. He doesn't like it, he doesn't have to support it and he doesn't have to partake in it. He doesn't like or agree with gay marriage, then simply put, he doesn't have to marry someone of the same sex. That should be the limit of his power of veto on the subject. It doesn't affect him, so he should have no say on the matter. In a phrase, he should butt out.

What Happens In Vegas

Waiting staff who don't pay attention and argue with you even when they are wrong.
Hotels that stink of Febreze to hide the cigarette smoke.
Rancid smokers who insist on smoking indoors, just because they can.

Hookers.
Strippers.
Chinese.
Fat people.
Fat Chinese people.

Chain restaurants.
High end stores in malls.
High end restaurants in malls.
High end restaurants selling their hard-earned name to make a fast buck at an ersatz restaurant bearing the same name.

Ersatz.

College students who think it is wild to be able to carry an open beer in the street.
People who want your money.
Security at hotels who let the hookers go to the rooms without a glance but who check the foreign looking families.
The rich and famous selling their over-priced wares to the poor and anonymous.
People who think all of this is good.

All of what happens in Vegas, can stay in Vegas.

They're welcome to it.

IMHO

People who preface a statement with "In my humble opinion..."

Never have one.

Anti Social Network

People who think The Social Network is a great movie probably think that Facebook is a great thing.
They probably think that most things they say or do is interesting.
They probably think their virtual friends say and do interesting things.
With standards that low, of course they're going to like that movie.

Cheap shot? Meh.

Some thoughts on the movie.

If it's true, make it true. 
If you know them, then follow the facts and follow the characterizations and relationships.
Do not make them up.
Do not sell them as truth when they are known to be not.
Do not hide behind the laziness of "it's a movie so we had to change some things to make it dramatic".
If you change ANYTHING from the truth, it is no longer a true story.
And you should not sell it as such.
If it's not the truth, then don't use the real names of living people and active corporations. Make them up. You're creative, you can probably stretch and do that.
Otherwise, hell, some people might be deceived or get lost between the truth and the "film-makers truth".

If you're making a film purporting to tell  the true story of real, living people, then do you not have a moral obligation to tell that story as truthfully as possible?  If you knowingly make things up/fabricate events, relationships or characterizations, then surely you no longer have the moral right to use real names? You're bullshitting the audience and you're doing the real people who share the same names as characters in your movie, a huge disservice.

The lead character doesn't give a shit so why should I?
Unempathetic characters flow throughout this movie. There is no one who I wanted to win. They all could have done with a quick corrective slap and been told to behave.

However, this point is not about liking or disliking the characters. But, if I didn't feel for them, then I can't give a damn about the outcome.  This is not about them being good or bad, heroes or villains.  I love "Dexter" and he's a reprehensible character. But the writers there use their skill to make us feel what he feels - they allow us to be passengers on his scary ride. Here, we weren't on the rollercoaster with these characters, we were watching them ride from some distance.

The Stakes are low
They're ultra smart.
They're privileged
They're kids.
They're at Harvard.

How bad can it be?

What do they want?
What will happen if they fail to get what they want?
What is the worst thing that can happen to them? They don't become billionaires? Well boohoo. They're still educated, intelligent and living way beyond poverty.

What's the worst thing that could happen to Zuckerberg in the movie?
If Zuckerberg's character lost the Facebook battle, then he'd only lose the Facebook battle. According to the movie, he's not motivated by money. So even if he loses the money battle, he loses. He's still the guy who invented Facebook.
No big deal there.

If he wins, he's still the guy who invented Facebook and is now worth multi-billions. If he loses, he's worth a few billion less, but still worth billions. The difference in stakes for the character (especially one who doesn't give a shit about money)  between becoming a billionaire and multi-billionaire is pretty small.

Compare this to The Bicycle Thief - the difference between having a bicycle and not having a bicycle is a job, a marriage, a family and happiness. There is something to be won and something to be lost and there is a vast and discernible difference between the two possible outcomes.

The outcome of the movie is known.
Zuckerberg has control of Facebook.
So we know he wins.
So it has to be about how he wins that engages us.
However, it would appear, he just does.
After the first couple of weeks of avoiding the twins, he doesn't outmaneuver or fight.
He doesn't use his skills to outwit the twins at Harvard or in the depositions.
He just got in first and then had his lawyers do the rest (apart from a couple of snarky comments in the depositions).
Not really a hero or anti-hero fighting for what he believes is right.
He bitches, pays good lawyers and wins.

And I won't even start on all of Sorkin's characters always sounding the same and always sounding like Sorkin...

Dead Men's Law

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

We
Who is we? 
Who is included in this group? Men? Americans? Whites?

Truth
What is a truth? 
Something we know to be real. 


Is a pure truth something that exists without an experience of that truth - it is just there, a fact, a real thing that exists without interpretation? 
But how can anything exist without an interpretation? 


Self Evident?
Ok, accept we've somehow gotten a truth, how do we know it is a truth? 
Where is the objectivity in deciding we've attained it truth? 
How do we even know we have been objective and know what objectivity is?  
Surely the best we can hope for is mutually corroborated inter-subjectivity.
Therefore, how can any truth be self evident? 


We decide amongst ourselves and mutually corroborate what is objective and then, because we're all in agreement, we decide that something is self evidently a truth.

"that all men are created equal"

All men.
All? Regardless of race or religion or nationality?
Just men? Not women? All humans?  Including those with IQs of 40? 


Created?

Are men created or just born? 

Created implies a creator and is therefore inherently religious - bringing the metaphysical once more into politics and what is supposed to be the realm of the practical and possible. Therefore should such a notion even be considered?

Equal

What is equal? 

All humans are created equal? 

Where is the evidence to support this?

Equal is defined as what?

Equal in what terms? Mental ability? Physical ability? Some kind of ephemeral and theoretical equality?  Mentally and physically we are clearly not equal. Some people are quantifiably different  than others. Some are bigger, faster, stronger, quicker. 

Where does the notion of equality come from?

It is a construction of humanity. 

Why should it exist when there is nothing in nature to indicate this should be so? 

Why must we be thought of as equal when the facts indicate that in reality, we're anything but?  Equality is a fine notion but it is a notion that appears to be a nothing more than a naive, romantic contrivance. 

In order for this statement to be true, then equality must refer to something vague and intangible, something metaphysical? 

Or something that plainly does not exist.

"that they are endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable Rights"

They
i.e. Men

Are endowed by their Creator
Who or what is that creator? 

A single creator? 

What evidence is there to support this? 

How can we know this? 
If we cannot know this for sure, should we be including it within the political arena?

Certain unalienable rights
What are those rights?
Why are some things considered rights and others are not?
Why are they rights?
Why are they unalienable?
What makes them unalienable?

"that among these are Life, 

Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life
The right to Life is an unalienable right?
So the State cannot have the right to take this from anyone?


Liberty
Liberty is unalienable?
The State has no right to take this?

The Pursuit of Happiness 
What is Happiness? 
How can we quantify it so the state can regulate it or protect it? 
It's vague, it's opinion and in politics, it has no place. 


Conclusion
The statement is meaningless. It's rhetoric and it was designed to sound good. Upon examination, it doesn't really hold up. It's an ancient artifact and though the intentions may have been good, the execution needs to be replaced with one that is relevant to a modern society.

Back off

So...

Lindsay Lohan is off to jail for cocaine use. She broke the law, she has to go to jail. Fine.

But who did she harm in this? Who did she threaten to harm? Who did she potentially put at risk of harm?

Was it only herself?

If she was driving under the influence of drugs, then sure, lock her up. However, she was not charged nor convicted of this. She was jailed for taking drugs.

Ultimately, the state has told the individual what she can do with her own body. And when she was unwilling or unable to comply with the edict,  the state used its power to remove her from society.

Where does this power come from? Is there a right to command the adult individual to live her or his life in such a way that meets state approval? If so, where is the line drawn between acceptable state inference and unacceptable state interference?  The state can lock you up for taking coke, so why can't the state lock you up for having bad tats? Hey, a bad tat only harms the individual who chooses to get it, it does nothing of consequence to anyone else. Same with taking drugs.

Now there are peripheral crimes that can happen because of taking drugs such as those associated with acquiring the drugs, acquiring the money for the drugs and actions undertaken while under the influence of the drugs. You steal to fund your habit, you drink or drug up and you behave like an ass, then tough. You freely took the substances that made you behave that way. As citizens, we must be responsible for our own actions.

It's a common defense for the outlawing of drugs to say that drug taking leads to these other crimes. Well sure, it can do. It doesn't always but often it does. That doesn't matter because we already have laws covering those other crimes. We don't need the extra law that says you can or cannot take this substance just in case other things might happen.

We are all adults here. We have to have the right and the duty as citizens to make these responsible decisions for ourselves. The state currently has the power to do this for us, but it clearly does not have the moral right.

Don't Blame Stupid

So...

Teresa Lewis was executed today by the State of Virginia. Those protesting against the death sentence cited her low IQ as a contributing factor in her defense.

I call BS on this.

The law must be blind. It has to apply equally to anyone regardless of status: men or women, Christian or Muslim and the intelligent and the stupid.  The law cannot be applied only to the intelligent.

If the argument sticks that you are too stupid to know any better, then its implications can be far reaching.

What is the cut off point for stupid?  If you have a good day on an IQ test and get 72, you're culpable and frying tonight. You have an average day and get 69, then good for you, you're staying alive.

If you are too stupid to be killed by the State, what other implications are there?  Can a low IQ person enlist? Can a low IQ person own a gun?  Drive? Vote?  If they can, should we not be taking these rights away?  They are clearly unreasonable and do not know the difference between right and wrong and cannot be trusted with these things.

And yet we allow them to operate in these arenas. Because they are citizens. They have equal rights with the rest of us.  If we stop allowing low IQ people to function as citizens and talk about "protecting" those too stupid to know better, we are essentially taking away their responsibilities as a human.

So, if a person is low in intelligence should they still have a place in society?  Should not low IQ people be removed for our protection?  As they know no reason and can't be trusted to know the difference between right and wrong, then they are clearly time-bombs ready to kill at the drop of a cliche. They should all be rounded up, have their rights removed and locked up.

That's the conclusion that we must draw if we accept the argument that people cannot be held responsible for their actions if they are not too smart.

Citizenship is essentially about the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a society. It is not a shopping basket to pick and choose as we please. We're in or we're out. There is no in between. If you're fit for society, then you're in - all in - and you must be subjected to all the rules and laws as everyone else is. If the law provides exceptions, then that law is not just and equitable and should be removed.

If you are convicted of a murder in a society that has the death penalty for murder then you risk being executed by the state. Teresa Lewis broke the law and had to face the commensurate punishment for that crime. Under a democratic and equal society, she had to die.