Today I'm Thinking About Political Correctness & Respect

Today, I'm thinking about this article.

It reminds me that politics, especially in the United States but I'm sure elsewhere to, has degraded into a kind of elementary school bullying match.  A crowd of children surrounding one or two other kids shouting things that may or may not have anything to do with the original conflict. There's a lot of media coverage on cyberbullying and bullying among children/teens but there's little to no coverage about the bullying that adults do.  Unless you're an adult screaming at your child at a sporting event, you probably can sit at your computer happily typing your angry retorts and no one will be the wiser.

I have heard from more than a few people that they don't like the idea of, "agreeing to disagree," about things.  There are certainly times that it isn't appropriate but there are a fair number of topics where disagreement shouldn't mean that we stop respecting each other.  I think that the level of polarization we experience now -- amped up by the way we consume media and the communities that we join -- is constantly telling us how stupid those people are.  It also gives us a sense that there's a tougher crowd (or perhaps a smarter crowd or a crowd that is more correct or more picked on) of us which means that we must put up our dukes and defend this idea/this person/this thinking vehemently.  We use social media to pass around notes that tell anecdotes and little stories proving our point; they get attributed to admirable historic figures and authors who never thought or said them because, well, it's the internet -- who really needs citation?  We offend and please hand-in-hand and we celebrate getting our backs patted by our like-minded pals and de-friend/unfollow that obscure relative who has pointed out the inaccuracy of our anecdotal evidence.

The worst part of it is that this means we don't talk about anything of substance because we can't hear what anyone else is saying over the roaring of our own outrage.  Personally, I engaged with a friend on a very different side of a particular topic than myself.  I was trying to point out that the problem she was so worked up about is a symptom of greater and further reaching problems and that it can't be the thing that we pounce on to fix.  I didn't say it wasn't a problem or that it didn't need to be addressed, just that it wasn't the problem but rather a part of the problem.  Instead of understanding or hearing I was literally called a name and given a treatise about seven topics I never brought up.

We both make points and instead of hearing what the other person is saying we hear the drone of our enemy and we have a laundry list programmed of what's wrong with that argument we're sure we're hearing even if that's not what we're hearing at all.  We carry around entitlement and rage over topics we don't understand because we don't like to acknowledge that our standpoint is human and imperfect and perhaps even wrong.  If we yell loud enough, that makes us right, doesn't it?

Or maybe we should try to understand each other a bit more.  Maybe we could give listening a shot.  Maybe we could let go of our preconceptions and perhaps understand that our basic standpoint is a little biased.  Maybe we could care a little more.

Today I'm Thinking About True Literacy

Today I'm thinking about this article about Snooki from that Jersey Shore show.

I haven't had cable in ages.  I have a little bit of a thing for MTV.  I was a kid when we last had cable and I recalled distinctly seeing Stevie Ray Vaughn's video for Crossfire on it.  I fell in love with that music.  I was also curious about The Real World and the whole concept of a house filled with different people being able to get along and have a life together.  (Little did I know that that was not what reality TV is all about, but it was early days.)

I was just wondering, as I read about Snooki's wedding, about the theme.  It says that it was The Great Gatsby themed and I wonder if it was just patterned after the recent film adaptation or if Snooki or her husband have actually read the book and understood it. 

It's a book about excess, about the perils of social status, about the changes happening in the world and the ways that the world stayed the same.  Those fantastic parties that Jay Gatsby throws are a means to seduce a woman he wanted way back when she didn't feel he was good enough for her and he does things -- potentially sacrificing his freedom but for an even more tragic turn of already tragic events -- that she still doesn't appreciate. 

Wow - what a theme for a wedding!  Nothing like a little tragedy for your happy day.

So, reading this made me think it's a bit sad that a person who is seeking to change her fortune with the fame (or infamy) of television chose to follow the pattern of a film based on a book that is all about how those excesses don't truly change the underlying person and that, despite surface changes, those that a person changes for can't really be expected to change their colors in a true way.

Let's hope that it was an uneducated misstep and not a symbol of things to come.  Better a happy marriage than really having a Gatsby themed life.

Today I'm thinking about Diversity in Film

*Side Note: Happy Thanksgiving!  I love this holiday... the eating together, not having to worry about presents, and family time part.  (The destruction of native culture thing is not so pleasing.)

Today I'm thinking about this Huffington Post article about Ridley Scott's new movie.

It seems that Ridley Scott has been getting a bit of flack over the white people he cast in his movie and, according to the article, he's given two explanations.  There's this quote, "Egypt was –- as it is now -– a confluence of cultures, as a result of being a crossroads geographically between Africa, the Middle East and Europe," which seems to be a subtle way of trying to say, "Oh, you noticed they're mostly white... well, way back then there were white people in Egypt too because it was a central place," as a way of excusing the casting choice.  The other explanation is funding.

Neither of those explanations is really sufficient.

They sound... true... kind of.

But then, this is not Ridley Scott's first movie.  Are we really supposed to believe that he couldn't secure funding if he had cast people of color in those major roles?  When I think I about that question my next thought is this: Does he actually need to secure funding or does he have enough money in his bank account to eliminate the need for outside funding?

What's he afraid of?

Alien was a film with a female lead.  Yes, she's terrified and yes, she hides a lot, but she's also part of a mining crew in space fighting a gigantic monster alien.  It was action, horror, and a woman.  Action movies very often get a pretty side female who has perfect hair, big boobs, gets kidnapped and the big bad man fights off many a bad guy to recover and/or seduce her.  Alien was different because of the choice to create a female character who was a well-rounded human being.  Sure, she was scared - but who wouldn't be?  She didn't worry about perfect hair or high heels or if the male lead approved of her; she just did her best not to be murdered by a scary alien monster.

Blade Runner mixed film noir/hard-boiled detective with a big ol' dose of What does it mean to be human?  Granted, it was based on P. K. Dick novel, but it was a tremendous examination of what he define our humanity by.  It takes Dr. Frankenstein and, instead of doing the same ol' movie simplification and making everything the monster's fault, really looks at that.  Sure the "monster" gets killed at the end but we don't feel good about it and we don't like it.  (Also, depending on which cut you watch, it turns out that the one doing the killing of the "monster" might actually also be a monster too!)

He's done a fantastic job of creating well-rounded female characters.  (I use the term, "well-rounded," intentionally.  It seems like that strong female character is pretty much the same one over and over and she's not a developed, full character.)  Thelma & Louise presents a pair of friends loyal to each other in a unique way that didn't involve tissue boxes or cancer or swelling orchestras.  G.I. Jane, while casting a "hot" actress, also had her shave her head (back when that wasn't a necessarily positive thing for actresses... even though it seems to be more and more popular) and was a well-rounded female character doing her best in a tough situation.  Even Prometheus, which wasn't as good as we'd all hoped it would be, it tried its best to represent a well-rounded female lead who wasn't easily defeated or just a male character in a wig.

Maybe that's giving him too much credit on the front of females in film.

Maybe Ridley's just had screenwriters who do well at that part.  Perhaps it was just a set of pretty good casting directors or second unit directors or costuming or something outside of Mr. Scott altogether.  Maybe those positives were accidental and incidental.

I would like to give the man more credit than that.  I would like to think that he's a thoughtful filmmaker and that, in the course of translating from page to screen, that he's actually a very good puppeteer and he's intentionally and methodically putting things together.

I would also hope that the criticism about race in film doesn't offend him or prompt him to bristle at the notion that he's done something wrong while staunchly sticking to his notion that it's not wrong.  I think we have a tendency to deny our errors when we make them without intent and I hope that doesn't happen for him.

Just because you're not aware that it's wrong doesn't mean that it isn't.  But  then you know.  You know better and so next time you do better.  Hopefully that is what will happen.

I look forward to the better.

Today I'm Thinking About Income Inequality

I read this article earlier.

I confess that I have already seen Inequality for All.  I'm already aware of the issues of income.  I grew up in an affluent area of my community as one of three children of a homemaker and a blue collar union member.  That gave me a unique perspective on the issues of income inequality -- mostly because we were inside and outside the issues of income all the time.  The fees for extra curricular activities were painful at times and, yet, most of my friends never noticed.

As an adult, I have an enormous amount of student loan debt.  I should have been smarter about it.  At the time I signed on the dotted line I wasn't aware that student loan debt is sticky.  I didn't realize that it would follow me or that it would the way it has.  Like many Americans, too, I didn't know that it would be incredibly hard to find a job that would cover that debt and I wish I'd had a little more perspective.

It's also pretty sad that the arguments we're given about why the extremely wealthy don't need more taxation is that they are providing jobs.  Really?  I know very few people outside of a select few industries that really have something they can call a career.

In my area, we have call centers.  I worked at one; it was the customer service call center for a vehicle financing company... except... it was a subsidiary of that vehicle finance company because being an actual part of that company meant that the workers would be covered by a union contract.  So I worked for a subsidiary... and I answered the phone with the parent company name.  And then, when it would have incurred them more taxes, they moved.  First they moved to Kansas and then altogether overseas.   

It is not that a call center job is a terrible thing.  The problem is that dropping in for a few years, providing jobs for a few years and then moving your company to a place where you can pay people less and reap more profit means the people you employed for a few years have to find work elsewhere. The head of the office, a man from the Chicago area who didn't believe that Oregon snow is not quite the same as Chicago snow, even went so far as to say wages weren't higher because our call center wasn't really intended to be a "breadwinner" job but rather a job for a bored spouse.  Who has heard of a bored spouse these days?

When I have looked at politics the past few years I was hoping that we'd get another FDR.  Back in school as a child I loved him.  The older I've gotten the sadder I feel about the difficulties of FDR and Eleanor's relationship, but I am still pleased that he stood up for the little guy.  I feel like we see glimmers of that here and there. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Jeff Merkley really impressed me in this article with how they took the bull by the horns and asked pointed questions about how the financial industry is being handled.  It certainly seems like Washington is bought and paid for but it's nice to see those glimmers - those politicians who aren't quite paid for and certainly can't be bought. 

Today I'm Thinking About Ted Cruz's Ability to Split Hairs

Today I'm thinking about this:

Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

It seems to me that Ted Cruz is just deciding not to understand what Al Franken said.  Taking issue with the use of the term, "the same," rather than understanding the concept.  It seems like what children do when they can no longer support their arguments.  Just yell, "Nu-uh," enough times and you win, right?  Or, at least, you feel like you've won.  After all, winning a debate is less about actually and clearly having a concept of the issues and making valid points and more about who gets the other's goat.

Would you really decide to willfully misunderstand just so you don't agree with a guy from the other side of the isle?  That seems... dumb.  Also, petty.  Petty and dumb.

To me, it appears that if Net Neutrality is changed, then every product and service you get from the internet would have to pass on those costs to consumers.  From my understanding it would also give many ISPs a direct ability to sabotage their competitors.  What about competition giving us better prices?  You'd also have less internet overall and all those little things that make you want to scream at your ISP would probably get even worse.

I was once told that the reason the internet speed was slow - when we upgraded - was that the speed we'd paid for wasn't "sustainable" in our area and, thus, the default speed for us had been set with a top speed significantly lower.  The price had not been set lower, however, and when I asked if he could change it, despite a rambling set of pre-written excuses, the technician told me that he could, indeed, set that top speed where the price said it was.  Then he did.  He hadn't seemed particularly convinced of the rationale provided for the lowered top speed for the area and I assured him that, though the excuses sounded pretty much like outright lies, I didn't fault him for his employers trickery.

He's the little guy, of course, and the policy did not come from his mind.  It came from the a-hole upstairs who realized that there would be families that didn't call in the first place and would be fine with about half the service they were paying for or who, if they did call, would accept the scripted explanation about sustainability and tolerate never achieving the speed in the price.  Mr. Upstairs A-hole could continue to charge that extra little bit for a service he knew full well they would never actually have to provide.

When I see the clip of Sen. Ted Cruz willfully not understanding what Net Neutrality is, I am reminded that a lot of corporate policies seem to have more to do with what is best for the bottom line and less about what is best for the consumer and for those employed there.  (Another example: I once had a credit card customer service person explain to me that the term, "due date," is not actually the date a payment is due, but rather the last day of the grace period.  Instead, your payment is due the date of the billing and the time between the billing date and the due date is a grace period.)

Undoing Net Neutrality isn't akin to developing a new model telephone.  It's more like typing up a pre-written list of excuses to explain why the new telephone looks remarkably similar to the old model and, despite bells and whistles touted in the advertising, none of the bells and whistles work right.