Thursday, December 06, 2007

Killing to Be Famous

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God.
--Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29


Yesterday, possibly the deadliest shooting in the history of Nebraska took place in an Omaha shopping mall. Myriad horrible reasons can lead a person to shoot fellow humans en masse a la Columbine or Virginia Tech, and I don't believe any one reason can explain a complex situation. But the BBC news coverage included information about the shooter's suicide note not found in other news I read. Rumored to have lost his job that day at McDonald's, the gunman's note apparently also described his desire to be famous.

I refuse to write his name in this blog for that precise reason. While I am certain that a desire for fame could not be the sole reason that he committed an atrocity prior to suicide, the possibility of its contribution to this occurrence hangs heavy on my head. We as members of this culture are guilty in our support of fame over excellence. My friend Valerie, a Gen X-er, often challenges that those of us in our 20s tend to value fame over the excellence that should be a natural predecessor to fame. While excellence may have led to Meryl Streep's fame, it certainly had nothing to do with Paris Hilton's. What does it mean to seek fame for fame's sake?

I began this post with a quotation from Paul, not because he has the most psychologically stable advice to offer us today, but because its rhetorical valuation of what is dishonorable to the Roman world popped into my head today. Robert Jewett draws on this quotation from Paul in Saint Paul Returns to the Movies: Triumph Over Shame in part as a call for people to seek themselves in things other than those deemed great by the world. Excellence is not something the outside world can measure for us as individuals. I can only assume that we seek fame, at least in part, to relieve the existential quandary of human existence, but, though not myself famous, I am certain fame alone cannot solve that quandary. And if we, in that cultural space that somehow transforms individual psychology, cannot learn to value an excellence completely unmeasurable by how often our youtube video is played then we may all end up killing ourselves in Nebraska shopping malls.

---
On a completely unrelated note, I just had to note that NewsCorp bought beliefnet.com, citing, at least in the Financial Times, the Pew study finding that 82 million people in the USA turn to the internet as part of their faith. What will Murdoch controlled online religion look like? And to what purposes will it be put?

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Where have all the funny girls gone?



This is really just a short follow up on an earlier post. Today, the Los Angeles Times has a really good piece" on the dearth of strong women in comedic roles on the big screen. Carina Chocano makes some excellent observations about recent comedic films, and her observations should prompt further questions about why these movies have unappealing men playing opposite women with no character to speak of. Is it just money in the movie industry? Does Hollywood doubt that comedies with strong female characters and flawed male heroes can make money? Could they be right? Is there something more going on in our culture? I think it is worth noting that the U.S.A. may be the only film industry with such a problem. The film Persepolis suggests that France is capable of launching a solid film about a strong and complicated comedic female lead.
--------
Image still comes from the website for Persepolis.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Superhero is Super-zero

Last summer, on this blog, I claimed that the Sci-Fi Channel's Who Wants to Be a Superhero? was the answer to the reality show genre. I thought that a show that forced people to be good people in order to win did, in some small way, redeem the reality show genre.

I am sorry to say it. I was wrong.

The first season was charming, but the second season clarifies how much Superhero is just another reality show. A second season does not serve as a referendum on the genre, but a perpetuation of much that is wrong with the reality show genre: play-acting old scripts with a cast of characters far less compelling than the first.

Watching tonight's episode, I found myself wondering how they cast women for this season. Perhaps strong women don't need to be fake superheroes? Then, watching the treatment of the one woman left, it is clear that the show does reward a certain kind of behavior more common among the show's men: taking charge even when you're not really paying attention to how other people are reacting. Hygena, the woman left, does not take charge, but she also knows when she may not have the skill set that others have and that it might be good to let them air out their ideas.

On the other hand, she was not eliminated. The openly gay superhero, Parthenon, who has been a strong contender and the most compelling character for much of the season, was eliminated because he failed to inspire children. The winner from last season, Feedback, also failed that challenge, but he went on to become the superhero. I can't help but wonder if sci-fi feels children aren't ready for a gay superhero?

This leaves one superhero for whom the competition is his to lose, and that is Hyperstrike. The sad thing though, if he does win, is that he is the character who, at least on camera, has seemed the most scripted and least well acted. But then reality shows tend to reward those who follow the script best.

This season of Superhero has proven itself to be ruled by certain normative scripts. Even if they are scripts more to my liking, I still can't help but wonder why we (and obviously I am included here) want to watch "reality" shows that just perpetuate old scripts instead of helping us to create our own new ones.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Settling for Less


I just read a movie review for Dedication in the New York Times. It was a relief to read Jeannette Catsoulis' opening remarks. I haven't seen the film, but I have seen Knocked Up, which she references. Good humor aside, I was really struck by the completely flat portrayal of women in the film. Not only that, but I have always assumed successful, intelligent, and beautiful women don't generally settle for whatever random man they find in a bar. Whatever happened to the being alone, having friends, and having cats option? Oh wait, I just remembered, these are movies being made by men. I suppose it is a certain ever-adolescent male fantasy to somehow find a woman capable of standing on her own two feet and yet choosing to add this man to her life. And somehow, these same men would like to imagine they don't actually have to mature past the age of 20 in order to convince this woman to stay with them. Well, girls, I hope that you don't let these movies convince you of that. We all have to grow up and maybe the best thing to do in a situation like this is to grow up alone.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Hook a Canuck and Get Free Healthcare



I just saw Sicko, and I wanted to testify to my own experience that there is better healthcare in other countries who believe in socialized medicine. As Michael Moore tracked us down the list of WHO rankings, I noticed that the #36 spot, just above the U.S.A. was occupied by Costa Rica. Having actually been treated in hospitals in Costa Rica as well as the U.S.A., I would say that this feels accurate. Costa Ricans do get better (and guaranteed) healthcare than the average person in the U.S.A.

So I also ask, what is so wrong with the term "socialized"? Sometimes, it's a good thing to have if it works better than what we've got.

As tear-jerking and over the top as Sicko could be at points, it is a good reminder of the devastation that a for-profit health care system leaves behind. The logic of the free-hand globalized capitalist marketplace is not, in fact, always the best logic for everything. Those of us who have health insurance in the U.S.A. can generally testify to the hassles of dealing with our insurance companies just to get the basic coverage supposedly guaranteed to us by our insurance policies.

The next president will probably not revamp the system the way we need (which is to remove the "over 65" from Medicare and convince companies, business executives, and the middle class that they will all actually save money by supporting a socialized health care system with taxes). So I can see why, even jokingly, there would be some appeal in marrying a Canadian for a good health care system as proposed in the video above from a website advertised at the end of Sicko.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Catholics didn't play fair in American colonization



Or so the Pope admitted, after he had claimed the indigenous peoples of Latin America were "silently longing" for Christianity. Having been criticized for that statement by a number of people including Brazilian leaders and Venezuela president Hugo Chavez, the Pope responded "It is, in fact, not possible to forget the suffering, injustices inflicted by the colonizers against the indigenous population, whose human and fundamental rights have often been trampled." This is not actually an apology for the statement, just an acknowledgment of certain historical facts.

I find this whole story quite amusing. In my undergraduate school's daily paper, there was once a profile of a Latino janitor. The title included the terms "Spic and Span." Admittedly, these students came up with this title at 2AM. But what the titling reveals is the difference between their contexts and those of Latino/as, especially the janitor they profiled. While not intending to offend, the editorial staff of the paper did apologize for their limited vision that had led to the offensive title.

The Pope's initial comment in Brazil reflects a similar situation. An aging German man living in the Vatican, his context is radically different than that of the majority populace of Latin America. An apology is not to be expected from the Vatican. But maybe the Cardinals should consider, in the next papal election, someone whose context is more representative of the Church's faithful. Maybe next time around they can look to the descendants of those colonized by Christian Europe, i.e. Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians who make up the bulk of the Church's population now.

------
Photograph from Reuters.

Monday, April 30, 2007

The Los Angeles Times Festival of Lies



Just wanted to post a short montage of our favorite booths at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books. Thank you Katy for the appropriate title for these photos.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Warning: Don't Try Theology at Home



I have been away, and pretty uninspired to blog by the world around me, but a small news item came to my attention this morning. I am by no means an expert on liberation theology, but I am quite certain something important happened in the last few days. The Roman Catholic Church's inquisitory arm, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has officially admonished Jesuit priest Jon Sobrino. Though of Basque heritage, he lives and teaches in El Salvador where he has been forbidden to lecture on theology.

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith made clear that Sobrino's teachings were "incorrect." Intriguingly, they focused not only on his emphasis on the humanity of Jesus but also upon his teaching that the "Church of the Poor" is the true setting for understanding who Jesus is. While the Congregation wished to make it clear that they of course share Sobrino's concern with the poor in Latin America, they sought to remind people not only of Jesus' divinity but of the Church hierarchy's own intractable authority in these matters because "it is only the apostolic faith which the Church has transmitted through all generations that constitutes the ecclesial setting of Christology and of theology in general."

I definitely believe that people should seek education in all forms and think critically about the world around the. But in essence, this statement is telling people that they can only think critically about certain things in so far as they accord with what more qualified thinkers believe. For right and for wrong, for better and for worse, the Church wanted to remind those who might follow Sobrino that certain issues of faith are up to the deciders. The Church is not liable for the dangers of engaging in theology in your own home, especially if that home is poverty in Latin America, and that home might lead you to conclude things that differ in small and large ways from what important powerful people tell you. In other words, theologizing is to be done by a chosen professional on a closed course. Don't theologize at home.

Friday, February 02, 2007

China supports genocide in Darfur



A couple of weeks ago, I went to see Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka deliver a lecture in Claremont, CA: Deities for a Secular Dispensation. In the lecture, he acknowledged that while religion had been invoked for horrible atrocities, it may have been a restraining factor in human history. Perhaps without religion, the human species would have been even worse.

While I am plagued with concern over the role of religion in contemporary global politics, I thought of Wole Soyinka today when I heard that China is strengthening its economic ties with the genocidally criminal government of Sudan (see BBC article, “Chinese leader boosts Sudan ties”, from which the above image was taken).

The Sudanese government has committed unpardonable atrocities in Darfur, carrying out an ethnic cleansing that involves a religious dimension (just in case you thought I was letting religiously motivated murder off the hook). But for a major political and economic power like China to support such a regime is equally unpardonable. Of course, the Chinese government likewise has its own horrendous record of human rights abuses (consider, for example, the ways in which the Chinese government silences the dissent of its own people).

Yet this decision on China’s part combined with its own history of human rights abuse does remind us of the need for universally accepted (and enforced) ethical standards for the treatment of all human beings (something the USA would benefit from having as well). What would be remarkable in the real adoption of universal ethical standards like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the decreased emphasis on national boundaries in dictating the application of such universally recognized standards. I know this is a complex issue, and I don’t mean to talk about it overly simplistically. Yet we as citizens of the world are over a half-century too late. We should already have recognized the universal appeal of truly adopting these standards.

In cases like China economically supporting the Sudan, or the USA economically supporting apartheid South Africa under Reagan, one can recognize that the lack of any ideology higher than nationalism is indeed the problem. In both cases, these decisions were not made for the good of Communism or the good of Christianity (although one cannot deny the atrocities committed in the names of both); they were made purely for the economic and political power of the nation. Nationalism has often colluded with what it likes from a particular religion or ideology in perpetrating horrific violence. Yet as dangerous as fundamentalist religious and/or ideological views have been and continue to be for the world, perhaps it is unchecked nationalism that still poses the gravest danger to the future of humanity.

Monday, January 22, 2007

“I’m not racist because I’m an ignorant fool.”

Today I was forwarded this really disgusting email, and I just felt the need to post a reply on why this supposedly “non-racist” post is in fact really really racist. The email is in quotations, and my responses are not.
“You call me "Cracker", "Honkey", "Whitey", "Gringo" and you think it's OK.”

First of all, the very use of “you” as though the author can speak about anyone, of whatever ethnic/racial background as a giant conglomeration operating as a unit not only proves that the author of this text is racist (because it’s a racist move to make these generalizations), but it also proves the author's complete inability to recognize how racism operates. It’s not just about the terms a person uses (and I’m not condoning the use of racial slurs against “white” people either); it’s about a system of thinking that sees people as stereotypes instead of individual people. Then that system, in order to be truly racist, requires power. And whatever the author of this might think, “white” people are pretty much in charge, i.e. the people with the power to perpetrate racist violence tend to be "white" (though I admit this is not always true). Condoleeza Rice may be Secretary of State, but the people in charge are still pretty much “white” men as far as I can tell
“....But when I call you Kike, sand nigger, rag head, Towelhead, WOP, Camel Jockey, Gook, nigger, slant eyes or Chink you call me a racist.”

‘Cause “you” are. Oh, and by the way, according to the US Census, Jews and Middle-Eastern Americans are “white.”
“-You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?”

Two things here – uh, the history of the USA and European colonialism would bear out that most violence across dynamics of power and crossed ethnic/racial lines was perpetrated by “whites.” This violence was then embodied in a system of slavery and after that a socio-economic system that made it very difficult for the descendants of enslaved Africans to live anywhere other than the ghettos. And by the way, some “white” people do live in the ghettos. So, dear author, may I recommend that you move to a neighborhood that government services have pretty much abandoned and tell me how happy you are to be there.
“-You have the United Negro College Fund."

And when the systemic imbalance has been corrected and definitively made it just as possible for African Americans (specifically the descendants of the USA's enslaved Africans, who by the way are not being well represented in the USA's universities) to succeed in the USA and to get a good college education, then maybe there would be no need for such a college fund.
“-You have Martin Luther King Day.”

Martin Luther King belongs to the history of the world and the history of everyone in the USA. Dear author, is there something you don't like about the end of segregation? Why don't you see Martin Luther King Day as your day too? Do you, dear author, seriously believe that Martin Luther King and his work are not worth honoring? Why on earth do we celebrate President's Day either? Maybe we should get rid of Memorial Day, Labor Day, the 4th of July, Veterans Day, and Christmas as national holidays. And of course, what about Columbus Day? That one seems not to disappear no matter how many people demand Leif Ericson Day instead!
“-You have Black History Month.”

What month of the year isn’t “white”-American history month? That’s the main history taught in schools and remembered on the History Channel. It’s good for people to know that there are other histories out there worth knowing because those histories are also part of everyone’s history. No one group of people has a lock on “history.”
“-You have Cesar Chavez Day.”

Well, given dominant USA culture’s disdain for the hard-working labor of the United Farm Workers, maybe we should just ditch this day too? Again, dear author, as with Martin Luther King, why is it that you don't see Cesar Chavez Day as your day as well? I suspect it's either racism or classism or both, but what do you say?
“-You have Yom Hashoah”

Do we all celebrate this broadly? Is not any community welcome to have a day in which they focus on losses that are not even a century old, and yes, were motivated by racism? We should all be forced to spend time thinking about the horrors of genocides that have plagued Homo sapiens for as long as recorded history can recount. Maybe then we would be less inclined to let them happen again.
“-You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi”

I could be wrong here, but doesn’t the celebration of Muhammad’s birthday predate the existence of the USA? And again, dear author, it only proves your racism that you continue to lump all non-“white” Christians of the world in as one unit completely alien to yourself. This is especially significant here as I am pretty sure there are “white” Muslims who celebrate the prophet’s birthday!
“-You have the NAACP.”

See my point about the Negro College Fund above. Plenty of legal groups have been active advocating for rights for "white" people (and often for all people in general - thank you ACLU!). If their legal activities still leave you, dear author, feeling disempowered, you may recall that “white” people have a terrorist organization known as the KKK they can join. And because it's a free country, everyone is allowed freedom of speech, even the KKK; they only get into trouble when they try to hurt people and/or property.
“-You have BET.”

And dominant culture (or your average “white” American) has FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. I have lived in New York. The fact that shows like Friends and How I Met Your Mother can have only “white” people running in circles of all-“white” friends (oh, wait, some of those Friends’ characters were Jewish, and I guess you don’t think that Ross Gellar is “white”!) is a statistical improbability. Yet these shows exist on major networks because most non-"whites" are not seen as a primary audience to pursue. BET exists in part because of the wisdom of capitalism. Find an untapped market and become a channel that an untapped market can turn to.
“-If we had WET(white entertainment television) ...we'd be racist.”

Just because the author doesn’t call certain television programming WET doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. More importantly, such a name would be unnecessary, because, as pointed out above, WET already had a lot of channels competing for market share.
“-If we had a White Pride Day... you would call us racist.”

I have no argument with this. Dear author, I would call you racist. There are lots of days when people of different ethnic backgrounds share pride in their heritage together. For instance, the Rose Parade has a diversity of people celebrating a diversity of things with a lot of pride. Is that not good enough for you? But, if I'm not mistaken, the allusion is really to "Gay Pride Day" so I'm guessing, dear author, that you are a wee-bit homophobic as well and you assume that being “white” not only includes being Christian and from the USA but also being heterosexual. Amazing how those unexamined views can sneak up on a person.
“-If we had white history month... we'd be racist.”

I already addressed this when I talked about “Black History Month.”
“-If we had an organization for only whites to "advance" our lives... we'd be racist.”

Well, as some of the slamming of Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee’s 2006 Senate race proved, there are still parts of the USA where racist “white” people can run the Republican party, so, dear author, I suggest you move there and work with them.
“-In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights...you would call us racist.”

I believe the KKK does still have rallies if you want to join them. This just isn’t worth rebutting a third time, but I will do my best. When equality really is available to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, class, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, or belief, then stuff like this won’t be needed. And dear author, have you heard recently of how Barack Obama has been slandered because of his father’s Muslim heritage (and slyly because of his mother’s atheist heritage)? Does it sound like the injustices that redress is being sought for have stopped?
“-Did you know that some high school students decided to make a club for only the white students because the other ethnicities had them... they all got sent to court for being racist but the african-american, Latino, and Asia clubs were not even questioned.
-You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange,”

Uh – who are the “orange” people? The old racist term for the indigenous peoples of the Americas was “red.” And a lot of people from different ethnic groups don’t like sporting terms of "color."
“and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.”

And yeah, some different people are proud of their ethnic heritage, but so are “white” people who have Irish heritage on St. Patrick’s Day.
”I am white.”

How do you know? I have pretty fair skin myself, and I compared it to a “white” table. Not really close in color. Besides, statistically, most "white" people in the USA are part African and part indigenous American, so you may want to think about what "white" even means.
“I am proud.”

Of what, exactly?
“But, you call me a racist.”

I covered this point already. Dear author, the challenge that lies before us in taking down racism is for people to realize that racism is more than just people in the KKK burning crosses on lawns. It's a complex system in which we all participate, and we all have to work to change it if we want to live in a more just world. Though, based on this message, I am not certain that a more just world is something you, dear author, are really interested in.
“Why is it that only whites can be racists?”

Well, not only “whites” can be racist. The issue is about power, and a homeless person of any ethnic background just doesn’t have the same power over you, dear author, that you have over him or her.
“Now watch, I'll be a racist for posting this”

Admission is the first step. But I don’t think dear author that you are past denial yet.
“So what? no one will re post this for fear of being called racist”

Well if my half Mexican-American friend can get this in an email forward and send it to me (because she was equally disgusted and angry), it appears not to be the case that some “white” people fear being called racist.
“if you think its true re-post it saying "im not RACIST but its true”

Well, as I said, you, dear author, are RACIST (and so is anyone really nodding in agreement with your email), and that's TRUE!