Taking Personal Responsibility

-
Psychologist Sarah Allen Benton, has written a blog attacking the availability and perception of wine, because alcoholics feel forced to drink. In response, Steve Heimoff has written a blog arguing that self control is the real issue. Yes, Like Steve, I agree with Benton that some people suffer under the mistaken impression that wine is less of an alcoholic substance than beer or liquor. Of course, that's wrong. One can get blitzed on wine, just like one can get blitzed on scotch, gin, or beer.

What bothers me, and what Steve failed to address, is the trend of trying to regulate things, simply because those things may cause problems for some people. We've banned the importation of unpasteurized cheese, many states have banned gambling & public smoking, New York City has even banned trans fats in restaurant food. Where does it end?

Sadly, there ARE alcoholics in the world, and tempting alcoholics with wine is just plain immoral. Personally, I have a hard time picturing adults trying to pressure alcoholic friends and family members to drink at social events. If such behavior is in fact happening, beyond the ninth grade level, as Benton claims, such behavior belongs high up in the @$$hole category along with teasing drug addicts with crack. Yet, the taunting of alcoholics, by moral cripples, is still no reason to legislate access to wine for the rest us. I want to be free to play poker at my local bar while downing a triple cheeseburger, fries, onion rings, and a hunk of French Brie. I want to be free to wash it all down with a good bottle of wine as thick smoke hangs over the table like a cloud.

Not every harmful substance/activity should be banned, and not every bad idea should be illegal. Trying to legislate morality, or even common sense, is not only futile, it's counter productive. Half your population is going to turn to organized crime to get their fix of whatever it was you banned, and the other half will be molded into high fiber eating conformist robots who can no longer think for themselves. Instead of making laws, how about pumping money into education, so folks can make informed decisions about how to spend their Saturday nights and what to put into their bodies?

Better yet, how about taking personal responsibility for our actions, and accepting the consequences, instead of having big brother dictate every little piece of the puzzle? And, if you do have a problem with, alcohol, gambling, or cholesterol, how about surrounding yourself with people who are going to encourage you to do the right thing, instead of tempting you with the substance/activity you’re trying to avoid?

Being Well Watched

-
The 82nd Annual Academy Awards were held last Sunday. Among the winners were:

Best Motion Picture of the Year
Winner: The Hurt Locker - Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier, Greg Shapiro

Best Achievement in Directing
Winner: Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Winner: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Winner: Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Winner: El secreto de sus ojos (Argentina)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Winner: Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Winner: Up - Pete Docter

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original [^] Song
Winner: Crazy Heart - T-Bone Burnett, Ryan Bingham(“The Weary Kind”)

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Winner: The Hurt Locker - Mark Boal

Best Short Film, Animated
Winner: Logorama – Nicolas Schmerkin

Best Documentary, Short Subjects
Winner: Music by Prudence – Roger Ross Williams, Elinor Burkett

Best Documentary, Features
Winner: The Cove (2009) – Louie Psihoyos, Fisher Stevens

Best Short Film, Live Action
Winner: The New Tenants – Joachim Back, Tivi Magnusson

Best Achievement in Makeup
Winner: Star Trek – Barney Burman, Mindy Hall, Joel Harlow

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
Winner: Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire – Geoffrey Fletcher

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Winner: Mo’Nique for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Best Achievement in Art Direction
Winner: Avatar – Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg, Kim Sinclair

I’d seen Avatar, Up, Inglourious Basterds, and Star Trek, plus I kinda knew what The Blind Side was, but that’s it. I was embarrassed not to have been more familiar with films which were being touted as the best. I can’t feel too bad about not being familiar with the short films, documentaries, and foreign offerings. Unless, one lives in New York, or a college town, it’s pretty hard to be exposed to such fair. Still, I must admit that Hank Green, a video blogger whom I follow, recommended The Cove months ago, and I pretty much shrugged it off.

So what? After all, the academy has praised some real stinkers in the past. I still can’t watch Harvey Keitel in a movie without having flashbacks of his free willy from 1993’s, multiple Oscar winner, The Piano. And, don’t even get me started on American Beauty. Yet, for a guy who listens to Fresh Air & Writers’ Almanac, keeps up on the news, a prides himself on his academic prowess, it feels weird to have to admit that films such as The Hurt Locker, Crazy Heart, and Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire weren’t even on my RADAR, man.

I consider myself to be a pretty well read guy. OK, I could stand to brush up on my Melville and Hemingway, but, for the most part, I’m familiar with many of the classics and a good share of contemporary fiction. However, in a day of multiplexes, straight to DVD releases, independent films, and original web content, perhaps being well watched is as important as being well read. To that end, I’ve added the Oscar winners, including 2007's Juno, to my Netflix queue, and I plan to see such movies as The Green Zone and The Ghost Writer when they hit theaters. Will such an endeavor help make me more well rounded as a writer and a person? Hell, I don’t know, but it’s a question worth exploring.

The Marriage Ref Penalizes Intelligent Viewers

-
I must begin by confessing to a general bias against, what has come to be known as, reality TV. Most of it is centered around seeing who can back stab whom in order to further their own interest. If back stabbing people to achieve one’s goals is a reflection some people’s reality, those people probably aren’t living a healthy life style. There are reality shows though, which focus on finding talented individuals, which is a laudable goal. However, in addition to seeing top notch talent, viewers tune in to see untalented buffoons make asses of themselves, and the interplay between the nice judges and rude judges.

Like everyone else, I heard Jerry Seinfeld was creating and producing a new reality series. Being a big Jerry Seinfeld fan, I decided to put aside my general distaste for reality TV and give The Marriage Ref a shot. The premise of the show involves real life couples who have been having an on-going fight for a long time. A video clip is shown to the three-member celebrity panel, showing both sides of the argument. The celebrity panel, made up of comedians, actors, and pop stars, then make jokes under the guise of, "discussing the merits of each side of the argument." Then the panel votes on who they think is right. While the Marriage Ref, Tom Papa, may take their advice, he is free to make up his own mind about who is right, and he announces a winner of the argument.

The first, regularly scheduled, episode began with Paula's gripe about her husband, Joe, a retired Passaic County cop, spending so much time grooming himself that she has to do all the yard work and take the kids to their games, which he won't attend anyway because there are bugs. The panel of Tina Fey, Jerry Seinfeld, and some Desperate Housewives actress made Jr. High School level jokes for a few minutes, then advised The Marriage Ref that cleanliness is good, so the husband was justified in practically living at the salon, at the expense of his family. The Marriage Ref agreed.

I couldn't bear to watch another minute of this shallow minded tripe. OK, Joe’s propensities for getting manicures, pedicures, waxings, hair stylings, and tanning touched on the feminine side of the behavioral spectrum. In fact, he referred to himself as a metro sexual. Thus, I can kinda see celebs leaning his way out of fear of being labeled as homophobic. I get that. However, the core issue wasn’t feminine versus masculine leanings. It wasn’t even about cleanliness. The issue boiled down to selfishness. Primping to the extreme extent he did took it from being about grooming to being a hobby. Joe, putting his hobby before the needs of his family, demonstrated a gross level of selfishness on his part. The fact that nobody on the show was smart enough to recognize the fundamental issue, only proves how unqualified they are to be diagnosing people’s problems.

Now let’s be fair, The Marriage Ref is a comedy show, first and foremost. If you want to gawk at losers so you can talk about them around the water cooler at work, you’ll get a few sophomoric chuckles from this show. However, if your sense of humor, intellect, and moral sensibilities have evolved beyond those of a fifteen year old, I strongly suspect you’ll be offended at the reduction of people’s problems into a string of juvenile one liners topped off with a helping of super shallow advice.

The Evolution Of Language

-
One of the many podcasts I listen to is Fresh Air, for its insightful spins on current events and the arts. Today’s podcast ended with Geoff Nunberg's commentary on linguistic pet peeves, mostly stemming from a relaxation grammatical rules and definitions.

Nunberg's piece states, "…Kingsley Amis held that it was incorrect to use 'pristine' to mean pure rather than 'original,' and that you shouldn't say, 'I was oblivious to the noise,' since 'oblivious' can only mean 'forgetful.' And in a usage book he published a few years ago, Bill Bryson contended that it was wrong to use 'expectorate' as a synonym for spit, since it really means to cough up phlegm from the chest. The word did originally mean that, but it's been used to mean spit since Dickens' day. And Bryson knows perfectly well that it would be unreasonable to insist on the original meaning..."

Essentially, he's saying that, through common usage, words are being used to mean things which they originally didn't mean, but because the misuses are so common, they're accepted as correct parts of language. I must confess, there are two such misuses which drive me batty, to the point that my friends and family, having been subjected to these particular rants much too often, change the subject whenever I bring them up.

The first of these involves people asking if a particular fruit or vegetable is, "organic." The word organic means a thing is carbon based and was alive at some point. Thus, asking, "Is that apple organic?" is the same as asking if the apple is real or made of plastic. What such people are trying to ask is whether or not the apple was grown using the chemical free organic method. However, since that's a mouth full, they've shortened the question, and have bestowed a second meaning onto what once was a scientifically precise term.

The second peeve of mine is much more baffling to me. The word, "decadent," originally referred to something or someone which was physically or morally decayed and rotten. Somehow, we've begun to use the term to refer to rich delicious foods and other luxuries. The only thing I can figure is that deep down we believe such luxuries are sinful, and thus we're being somehow evil, or decadent, by partaking in such things. If so, this is disturbing on more levels than I'm qualified to identify or address.

When someone asks if an apple is organic, unless it is plastic, I'm always tempted to say yes. When someone offers me a decadent dessert, I'm always tempted to ask for something fresh instead. I'd be a jerk for doing either though, because common usage has expanded the meanings of both words. In fact, common usage is constantly changing grammatical rules and patterns.

Very few, if any, of us know how to correctly alternate between "who" and "whom." Even writers who know how to use "whom" correctly, can no longer write dialogue using the word without having their characters come across as phony, or overly highbrow, simply because it has been all but expunged from our vocabulary.

As a whole, we’ve pretty well accepted the notion that punctuation is, for some reason, unnecessary within emails, text messages, and tweets. We don’t even need to be able to spell, when using these types of communication, since most phrases are abbreviated. A “bff” is a best friend forever. When a texter has to use the bathroom, they type “brb” to let fellow texters know they’ll be right back.

With these forms of communication becoming ever more common place, I’m forced to wonder how our language will evolve in the future. Will such things as commas, apostrophes, and capital letters at the beginning of sentences fall by the same wayside as “thee,” “thou,” and “whom?” Someday, will there be a best selling novel in which the protagonist’s bff will brb? Personally, I hope not, but we’ll see.