This has been a very difficult story for me to follow. On paper, it looks as though Israel made a drastic compromise for including Samir Kuntar in the prisoner exchange that officially took place today at the Israel-Lebanon border. Kuntar was convicted for the murders of an Israeli family back in 1979, including a four year old girl whose head he crushed with the butt of his gun. Naturally, the man deserved the five consecutive life sentences that he received. From here, my understanding of recent events becomes extremely fuzzy, and it has brought upon some immense questions in my mind of the validity of several things, namely the media, Arab-Israeli relations, and 'human decency'.
In reporting Samir Kuntar (and five other live prisoners') release back to Lebanon today, the mainstream media (BBC, CNN, etc.) depicted a celebratory reaction in Arab countries. They showed people on the streets holding banners and flags with the face of Samir Kuntar and speeches given by both Hassan Nasrallah (leader of Hizbullah) and Michel Suleiman (President of Lebanon) labeling Kuntar as 'a hero.' On the other side, the news sources showed Israel in a state of national mourning, as it finally received its two fallen soldiers from 2006, who died questionably, either upon being captured or during their captivity.
Regardless of the position you take about this region of the world, this story is naturally morbid and a clear example of the misery that extremists can bring upon each other. However, I'm left feeling disturbed for greater, existential reasons. Why has the media portrayed Kuntar's release as a moment of joy for Israel's neighboring countries? Israel can and does claim responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of innocent women and children. They do this because they go to extreme lengths to ensure the safety of their people and the country as a whole. However, in the aftermath of a Gaza or West Bank raid, you never see celebration for the killings of innocents. They don't necessarily show regret, but they show greater remorse for the deaths that occur. So, has the media decided to continue to defame Arabs (I would argue this is a continuing practice) by choosing to show only the side that celebrates the release of a child murderer? Are there Arabs who say they don't want Samir Kuntar to represent who they are and what they stand for when an American puts on the nightly news? This scenario, unfortunately, is the most idealistic for me in the greater picture. Perhaps the mass media decided to unfairly portray Samir Kuntar, and his 'murder' was in fact accidental, and those who celebrate his release are celebrating the release of someone they truly to believe to be an innocent man-- not for reasons of resistance but because he flat out did not kill anyone intentionally (this is slightly more idealistic, but very doubtful). Then comes my most grim, hopeless scenario that could justify the media's treatment of this story. Perhaps there is so much hatred and evil in that region that Arabs feel only contempt for anything that Israel embodies or stands for, and someone who kills an Israeli child is unarguably a hero. That the people of Hizbullah/Lebanon are so inundated in their passions that they can view the deaths of innocents as not just necessary but heroic. Unfortunately, this is the scenario that the media has shown the world today, and it is so horrible that I am having a difficult time accepting it.
I know that people can be good. I know that the people of Lebanon, while they harbor great resentment for Israel and the American influence in the Middle East, want to live a life of peace and would never end a person's life for their convictions. In light of the disgusting way that the media has allowed this Presidential election to perpetuate the superficiality and divisiveness of the American political process, I am ready and willing to believe that they are not telling the whole story. In the doubtful case that the majority of Arabs in the Middle East do in fact view Samir Kuntar as a hero for his murders, then perhaps I need to reevaluate my own outlooks on idealism.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
How bout Larry Craig?
Did you all hear about this? Larry Craig, the uber-conservative senator from Idaho who voted in favor of the Federal Marriage amendment (no marriage for gays) as well as a bill which stated that the federal definition of 'hate crime' does not include sexual orientation, recently was arrested in the Twin Cities airport for soliciting sex in a bathroom stall... from a cop... a male cop.
With an event like this, I don't know if I should be snickering with satisfaction, or feeling depressed. There is nothing more infuriating to me than the type of 'social conservatives' that the Bush administration has made so prominent in the American political scene. All of these creeps think they are somehow enforcing the greater moral agenda of all 300 million or so people in the country by protecting our families; being good Christians. But hey, guess what, sometimes it's not so easy for all of those moral gentleman to practice what they preach. In fact, sometimes they may tell you that gays should not be permitted to have equal rights, and then give some sort of foot tapping signal to the neighboring bathroom stall that is meant to communicate that they want some good ole bathroom lovin'. The best part is- Larry Craig , despite being caught red-handed, says he is NOT gay! Rather, he just has sex with men. I mean come on, who doesn't know that those two aren't the same thing! Obviously, there is a BIG difference...
My take on something like this happening is that the Republican party lines have been showing some divergence. Some of his good men in the GOP are going right down with the sinking ship that is the Bush administration (it's a very Leo and Kate-esque relationship, they all go down together, even though at times they all could have lived if they had just hopped onto a lifeboat when they had the chance). However, these people are so engulfed with the GOP circa '04 sense of a greater moral America, that they became repressed and completely void of self-awareness! They're more concerned with preserving the party ideals than living anything resemblant of functional lives. The other side of the Republican party does remain conservative in the actual meaning of the word (the definition of 'conservative' has become ridiculously convoluted in the past 8 years). However, they accept that we are in the 21st century and that not everybody considers the bible (or certain people's vicious and closed-minded interpretations of it) to be the law.
I don't want to sound like being a repressed politician is something only found among Republicans. We can all remember back in '04 when Jim McGreevey was found to be having an extra-marital affair with a man. While of course it wasn't acceptable that he was cheating on his wife, it didn't quite bring about the befuddlement and anger that Larry Craig's little incident did because Jim Greevey didn't have a track record of being a gay-basher... he was just a very conflicted guy with a lot of shit to figure out.
However, until being adamantly anti-gay becomes completely eradicated from the American political culture in any of its dimensions, I think we're going to keep on seeing periodic mishaps like Larry Craig's. In fact, Larry Craig will probably go right on back to his old ways (yes, that's a double entendre). All we (or at least I) can hope for is that come '08, the new administration will ease America of its sexual repression, and if a politician is in fact gay, he/she doesn't have to solicit it in a bathroom stall.
With an event like this, I don't know if I should be snickering with satisfaction, or feeling depressed. There is nothing more infuriating to me than the type of 'social conservatives' that the Bush administration has made so prominent in the American political scene. All of these creeps think they are somehow enforcing the greater moral agenda of all 300 million or so people in the country by protecting our families; being good Christians. But hey, guess what, sometimes it's not so easy for all of those moral gentleman to practice what they preach. In fact, sometimes they may tell you that gays should not be permitted to have equal rights, and then give some sort of foot tapping signal to the neighboring bathroom stall that is meant to communicate that they want some good ole bathroom lovin'. The best part is- Larry Craig , despite being caught red-handed, says he is NOT gay! Rather, he just has sex with men. I mean come on, who doesn't know that those two aren't the same thing! Obviously, there is a BIG difference...
My take on something like this happening is that the Republican party lines have been showing some divergence. Some of his good men in the GOP are going right down with the sinking ship that is the Bush administration (it's a very Leo and Kate-esque relationship, they all go down together, even though at times they all could have lived if they had just hopped onto a lifeboat when they had the chance). However, these people are so engulfed with the GOP circa '04 sense of a greater moral America, that they became repressed and completely void of self-awareness! They're more concerned with preserving the party ideals than living anything resemblant of functional lives. The other side of the Republican party does remain conservative in the actual meaning of the word (the definition of 'conservative' has become ridiculously convoluted in the past 8 years). However, they accept that we are in the 21st century and that not everybody considers the bible (or certain people's vicious and closed-minded interpretations of it) to be the law.
I don't want to sound like being a repressed politician is something only found among Republicans. We can all remember back in '04 when Jim McGreevey was found to be having an extra-marital affair with a man. While of course it wasn't acceptable that he was cheating on his wife, it didn't quite bring about the befuddlement and anger that Larry Craig's little incident did because Jim Greevey didn't have a track record of being a gay-basher... he was just a very conflicted guy with a lot of shit to figure out.
However, until being adamantly anti-gay becomes completely eradicated from the American political culture in any of its dimensions, I think we're going to keep on seeing periodic mishaps like Larry Craig's. In fact, Larry Craig will probably go right on back to his old ways (yes, that's a double entendre). All we (or at least I) can hope for is that come '08, the new administration will ease America of its sexual repression, and if a politician is in fact gay, he/she doesn't have to solicit it in a bathroom stall.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Boston makes me mad.
Boston legislature has some serious catching up to do on the subject of the well-being of its under-21 population. Let me start by saying that anyone who ever says, "Oh yeah, Boston is a GREAT college town!", is simply wrong! Yes, there are 500,000 college students here from September to May. That is nice, there are lots of kids around. From there, it all gets a little murky. Before 6 p.m, Boston is a fantastic city. There's tons to see and do, beautiful places to walk, good restaurants, etc. However, once the night starts, the rules and restrictions set in and all of a sudden, you want to be anywhere BUT Boston.
I'll first rant about the inability for anyone under 21 to enter any place where there might be a drop of alcohol in a 100 yard vicinity. This includes being able to enter jazz clubs, god forbid someone underage wants to enjoy some music, it would just be so much trouble to be carded at the table, not at the door. However, the people up top just want to make sure the kids aren't abusing alcohol and getting into trouble. This is very kind of them, and I do appreciate their concern. Now I'll explain why this 'concern' COMPLETELY backfires and is horrifically out of touch and naive on the rulemakers' part. Here it is... you ready?... College kids are going to drink. PERIOD. NO MATTER WHAT. I know, in the city's ideal, puritanical mind, students will get the message, and stop because they aren't 21 and they can't enter places that serve alcohol. However, this just isn't the case. INSTEAD! And oh boy, this is a big instead. Instead, the under-21 college students get to seek alternative measures of consuming. These include the likes of frat parties, open house parties, apartment parties, or just drinking in their dorm rooms. And how much are the students drinking in such speakeasies? A whole lot! Probably even more than they would be at let's say a club, because at most of these places, the main activity is drinking (i.e. beer pong). So, good job City of Boston. You're keeping your night life venues clear of those 18-20 year olds who are such disruptors of the peace. Care to pay for their stomach pump bills? How about instead of trying to act like the restrictive preventative measures are actually making underage students refrain from drinking, you just give them a place to go at night that doesn't close early and that gives a fun, social environment. If Boston woud do that, then maybe, maybe they'd become a more decent college town.
In addition to this, I've recently heard about a push to make clubs close even earlier than 2 am. Obviously, until I'm even allowed into clubs, this isn't an immediate concern of mine. However, city councilman Jerry P. McDermott recently stated a very disturbing rebuttal to the push for places staying open later in Boston. He said, ''If people want to go to a place where the bars are open until 4 a.m., then Boston's not the city for them". I just sure hope he wasn't one who calls Boston a great college town, because this man is not very realistic. College students stay up late and they want to drink. I'm sorry Boston, there's nothing you can do that's going to change that.
Oh yeah, and that whole thing about all public transportation shutting down early? It's all a part of the same mentality. If they cut off the means of getting back late, then OF COURSE people won't stay out late. No, they'll just do fun stuff like drive home drunk, pay too much for a cab, or just walk for over an hour. Even if it's just on weekends, MBTA can only gain from keeping some lines open for just even until 3 am. 12:30 is unreasonable and smacks of hidden agendas.
I'll first rant about the inability for anyone under 21 to enter any place where there might be a drop of alcohol in a 100 yard vicinity. This includes being able to enter jazz clubs, god forbid someone underage wants to enjoy some music, it would just be so much trouble to be carded at the table, not at the door. However, the people up top just want to make sure the kids aren't abusing alcohol and getting into trouble. This is very kind of them, and I do appreciate their concern. Now I'll explain why this 'concern' COMPLETELY backfires and is horrifically out of touch and naive on the rulemakers' part. Here it is... you ready?... College kids are going to drink. PERIOD. NO MATTER WHAT. I know, in the city's ideal, puritanical mind, students will get the message, and stop because they aren't 21 and they can't enter places that serve alcohol. However, this just isn't the case. INSTEAD! And oh boy, this is a big instead. Instead, the under-21 college students get to seek alternative measures of consuming. These include the likes of frat parties, open house parties, apartment parties, or just drinking in their dorm rooms. And how much are the students drinking in such speakeasies? A whole lot! Probably even more than they would be at let's say a club, because at most of these places, the main activity is drinking (i.e. beer pong). So, good job City of Boston. You're keeping your night life venues clear of those 18-20 year olds who are such disruptors of the peace. Care to pay for their stomach pump bills? How about instead of trying to act like the restrictive preventative measures are actually making underage students refrain from drinking, you just give them a place to go at night that doesn't close early and that gives a fun, social environment. If Boston woud do that, then maybe, maybe they'd become a more decent college town.
In addition to this, I've recently heard about a push to make clubs close even earlier than 2 am. Obviously, until I'm even allowed into clubs, this isn't an immediate concern of mine. However, city councilman Jerry P. McDermott recently stated a very disturbing rebuttal to the push for places staying open later in Boston. He said, ''If people want to go to a place where the bars are open until 4 a.m., then Boston's not the city for them". I just sure hope he wasn't one who calls Boston a great college town, because this man is not very realistic. College students stay up late and they want to drink. I'm sorry Boston, there's nothing you can do that's going to change that.
Oh yeah, and that whole thing about all public transportation shutting down early? It's all a part of the same mentality. If they cut off the means of getting back late, then OF COURSE people won't stay out late. No, they'll just do fun stuff like drive home drunk, pay too much for a cab, or just walk for over an hour. Even if it's just on weekends, MBTA can only gain from keeping some lines open for just even until 3 am. 12:30 is unreasonable and smacks of hidden agendas.
Monday, March 5, 2007
My far overdue Iran post
My oh my, Iran, Iran. For over a year now, Iran and its nuclear ambitions has been the news story that I have most consistently followed. I can remember back to an evening from January, 2006 when I was out with some other seniors in high school. I had just started to hear that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had declared that Iran had intentions of generating nuclear energy, which I found very interesting and even moreso disturbing. I tried to weave the topic into conversation that night with the people who i was with (I've since learned that attemps at talking about international affairs with high schoolers are most often in vain), but the topic was rejected, with little to no interest or awareness of the matter.
Over a year later now, while not everybody is actively concerned about the issue, I'm certainly in a less of a minority among folks my age who give a shit about it. And now, without further ado, my opinions on the issue:
I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a complete scumbag. His remarks about Israel and the holocaust are unjustified, completely ignorant and vicious. His views are completely twisted and in fact, I have a hard time believing that he actually believes what he says. So yes, the thought of a country under his rule producing materials that could potentially be used to make a nuclear bomb does in fact rub me the wrong way. However, for the intents and purposes of this blog, I'm going to assume/hope/pretend that the opinions of Iran's leadership do not reflect those of the majority of the country's citizens.
In the beginning of February, I was priviledged enough to see the Iranian ambassador to the UN speak at BU. While his message was laced with disapproval of American policy by means of Iraq, support for Israel, etc., his explicit message that he passionately tried to get across to the over 1,000 BU students in attendance was that Iran has absolutely no ambitions or desires in their enrichment of Uranium for anything besides clean and sustainable energy. This is where I have my crisis of conscience. By nature, I desperately want to give this man and Iran the benefit of the doubt. I want so badly to believe that he is not in fact lying to the faces of many, many concerned and I would say sympathetic students. The one snag in the otherwise chaste argument from Iran is that I am almost certain there is an aspect of power seeking in their energy ambitions. If they succeed, they will be the first nation in the Middle East to have nuclear energy- that gives them a good deal of regional infuence. Also, it seems that behind some of their intentions is the simple desire to stick it to the man, or more specifically, America/George W. Bush. Despite the triviality of whether the nuclear push by the Iranian government is solely in the interests of the wellbeing of its people, lurking in the back of my mind are the detestable words of Ahmadinejad and Iran's very conservative, Islamic leadership. And so, I'm left feeling even more clueless and helpless about the situation than where I began.
Recently, I've realized the key reason that my gut reaction is to sympathize with Iran's push for atomic energy, despite how much I distrust their leader, is that the international effort to sway Iran away from its nuclear efforts has turned into yet again, America telling another country how to conduct its affairs. If the UN were the one putting putting most of the pressure on Iran, it would put me more at peace with disapproving of Iranian policy. It would make Iran as a whole seem much more irrational and stubborn, because they would be defiant towards many countries' voices. Yet, because the US has made Iran's nuclear ambitions its own personal problem, one that conflicts with centrally American interests, then OBVIOUSLY Iran is going to act the opposite of what its being requested to do. This is ironic to me because the country putting the most pressure on Iran is the one that has had no official diplomatic relations with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979-80. Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the US thinks it's going to accomplish anything at all with Iran without having any direct conversation on the issue? It seems almost too obvious to look at North Korea as an example. They have nuclear weapons, they are even past the development phase (probably 10 years ahead of where Iran is right now, at least). However, after just a few direct conversations, the otherwise inpenetrable, inhuman, irrational and evil Kim Jung Il has agreed to comply with the International requests to dismantle its nuclear weapons and allow inspectors into the country! You know why? Because it was not just America saying to North Korea, "Do this or we'll do bad things to you". It was civil conversations with neighboring nations.
The fact of the matter is: nuclear energy is an extremely valuable and perhaps necessary ammenity for a developing country. If Iran truly has peaceful intentions, then they have every right to have nuclear energy, especially if it means cutting back on their current, environmentally unfriendly energy sources.
Do I think that Iran should be able to proceed with its projects? Only if they can actually, truly, postitively prove to the world that they have no ambitions of making a nuclear weapon. Do I think they are at that place yet? No.
Over a year later now, while not everybody is actively concerned about the issue, I'm certainly in a less of a minority among folks my age who give a shit about it. And now, without further ado, my opinions on the issue:
I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a complete scumbag. His remarks about Israel and the holocaust are unjustified, completely ignorant and vicious. His views are completely twisted and in fact, I have a hard time believing that he actually believes what he says. So yes, the thought of a country under his rule producing materials that could potentially be used to make a nuclear bomb does in fact rub me the wrong way. However, for the intents and purposes of this blog, I'm going to assume/hope/pretend that the opinions of Iran's leadership do not reflect those of the majority of the country's citizens.
In the beginning of February, I was priviledged enough to see the Iranian ambassador to the UN speak at BU. While his message was laced with disapproval of American policy by means of Iraq, support for Israel, etc., his explicit message that he passionately tried to get across to the over 1,000 BU students in attendance was that Iran has absolutely no ambitions or desires in their enrichment of Uranium for anything besides clean and sustainable energy. This is where I have my crisis of conscience. By nature, I desperately want to give this man and Iran the benefit of the doubt. I want so badly to believe that he is not in fact lying to the faces of many, many concerned and I would say sympathetic students. The one snag in the otherwise chaste argument from Iran is that I am almost certain there is an aspect of power seeking in their energy ambitions. If they succeed, they will be the first nation in the Middle East to have nuclear energy- that gives them a good deal of regional infuence. Also, it seems that behind some of their intentions is the simple desire to stick it to the man, or more specifically, America/George W. Bush. Despite the triviality of whether the nuclear push by the Iranian government is solely in the interests of the wellbeing of its people, lurking in the back of my mind are the detestable words of Ahmadinejad and Iran's very conservative, Islamic leadership. And so, I'm left feeling even more clueless and helpless about the situation than where I began.
Recently, I've realized the key reason that my gut reaction is to sympathize with Iran's push for atomic energy, despite how much I distrust their leader, is that the international effort to sway Iran away from its nuclear efforts has turned into yet again, America telling another country how to conduct its affairs. If the UN were the one putting putting most of the pressure on Iran, it would put me more at peace with disapproving of Iranian policy. It would make Iran as a whole seem much more irrational and stubborn, because they would be defiant towards many countries' voices. Yet, because the US has made Iran's nuclear ambitions its own personal problem, one that conflicts with centrally American interests, then OBVIOUSLY Iran is going to act the opposite of what its being requested to do. This is ironic to me because the country putting the most pressure on Iran is the one that has had no official diplomatic relations with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979-80. Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the US thinks it's going to accomplish anything at all with Iran without having any direct conversation on the issue? It seems almost too obvious to look at North Korea as an example. They have nuclear weapons, they are even past the development phase (probably 10 years ahead of where Iran is right now, at least). However, after just a few direct conversations, the otherwise inpenetrable, inhuman, irrational and evil Kim Jung Il has agreed to comply with the International requests to dismantle its nuclear weapons and allow inspectors into the country! You know why? Because it was not just America saying to North Korea, "Do this or we'll do bad things to you". It was civil conversations with neighboring nations.
The fact of the matter is: nuclear energy is an extremely valuable and perhaps necessary ammenity for a developing country. If Iran truly has peaceful intentions, then they have every right to have nuclear energy, especially if it means cutting back on their current, environmentally unfriendly energy sources.
Do I think that Iran should be able to proceed with its projects? Only if they can actually, truly, postitively prove to the world that they have no ambitions of making a nuclear weapon. Do I think they are at that place yet? No.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Regarding my weather rant
I had the dream last night that I referred to in that post... so yeah, I wasn't lying about that. Unless I'm lying about this too. Shhhh.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Movies I've seen over break...
Considering my vast abundance of free time on break, I've had an opportunity to catch up on movies, both old and new. Here's what I saw and what I thought of them!
Stranger Than Fiction: This one definitely met and exceeded my expectations. Probably to the fault of my own judgemental nature, I was reluctant to see it because of people's instant name recognition of Will Ferrell (omg the guy from Anchorman and Old School!). However, I did eventually make my way to see it, because I think Will Ferrell's a very talented actor, along with Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman who are okay, I guess... I ended up finding the movie very well done, charming and intelligent, completely free of gratuitous, low-brow humor. It also had a fantastic soundtrack which kept a great beat to the movie. Oh yeah, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a hawtie and she can bake me cookies whenever she wants.
Dr. Strangelove: I know, I know, I know- I'm a shameful human being for not having seen this film before this winter break. Nonetheless, as I've been told it would be many, many times, it was hilarious, creepy and timeless.
A History of Violence: I think a liked this movie a lot....? I think. While lacking a concrete conclusion or explanation, the plot of this movie was provocative and kept me exhillarated. Viggo Mortensen did a great job. Although very subtle, he gave the slightest expression that his supposed past, which a mysterious visitor reminds him of, definitely did exist. With this, it left the viewer (me) completely hopeful that the visitor simply made a fluke mistake, yet knowing right away that the there is something extremely twisted in Viggo Mortensen's character's history. Maria Bello, the wife, added nicely to the strange character dynamics of the movie. Although, the two movies I've seen her star in, this and The Cooler (one of my faves, with William H. Macy), she's gotten nude and had a somewhat disturbing sex scene (or two or three). Still, this was a good watch... no, not just because of the sex.
The Good Shepherd: Let me preface my comments on this one by saying that, despite my efforts, I left this movie about the development of the C.I.A. as we know it with big gaps in my comprehension. This might have been due to me having to hold in pee-pee for about 2/3 of the film, which was 2 1/2 hours long. With that said, the movie itself was not exactly helpful in offering a clear portrayal of events; the chronology was jumpy and several of the character developments were weak (or sometimes non-existent). Still, the acting was terrific. Everyone who you'd expect to dazzle, dazzled. Also, the movie as a whole was just very interesting and exciting. However, some of the mysteries and information that was withheld until the conclusion were rather disappointing in their blandness.
Babel: I'm here to sing this movie's highly lacking, and highly deserved praises. Babel was depressing, that's okay, so is life, we deal. The central plot of the movie was in Morocco where Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are a married couple travelling via tour bus. And then a little boy accidentally shoots Cate Blanchett from a mountain top. However, this plot is quickly put into a fascinating and thrilling perspective, as subplots of people's lives are revealed in Japan and Mexico. Each plot is connected, via local people and their actions. From here, the larger picture of this movie shows a stunning and grim, but beautiful and intricate inter-connectedness of human civilization and the significance of human ties that far exceed the barriers of language. Personally, I liked this movie a lot because I love languages (It's in English, a Moroccan dialect, Japanese and Spanish). I guess some people could say this movie was a little bit preachy, due to American foreign policy shown in action in a bit of a sketchy manner. However, I think the movie was extremely pertinent. Brad Pitt and Gael Garcia Bernal were a power duo as well.
Stranger Than Fiction: This one definitely met and exceeded my expectations. Probably to the fault of my own judgemental nature, I was reluctant to see it because of people's instant name recognition of Will Ferrell (omg the guy from Anchorman and Old School!). However, I did eventually make my way to see it, because I think Will Ferrell's a very talented actor, along with Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman who are okay, I guess... I ended up finding the movie very well done, charming and intelligent, completely free of gratuitous, low-brow humor. It also had a fantastic soundtrack which kept a great beat to the movie. Oh yeah, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a hawtie and she can bake me cookies whenever she wants.
Dr. Strangelove: I know, I know, I know- I'm a shameful human being for not having seen this film before this winter break. Nonetheless, as I've been told it would be many, many times, it was hilarious, creepy and timeless.
A History of Violence: I think a liked this movie a lot....? I think. While lacking a concrete conclusion or explanation, the plot of this movie was provocative and kept me exhillarated. Viggo Mortensen did a great job. Although very subtle, he gave the slightest expression that his supposed past, which a mysterious visitor reminds him of, definitely did exist. With this, it left the viewer (me) completely hopeful that the visitor simply made a fluke mistake, yet knowing right away that the there is something extremely twisted in Viggo Mortensen's character's history. Maria Bello, the wife, added nicely to the strange character dynamics of the movie. Although, the two movies I've seen her star in, this and The Cooler (one of my faves, with William H. Macy), she's gotten nude and had a somewhat disturbing sex scene (or two or three). Still, this was a good watch... no, not just because of the sex.
The Good Shepherd: Let me preface my comments on this one by saying that, despite my efforts, I left this movie about the development of the C.I.A. as we know it with big gaps in my comprehension. This might have been due to me having to hold in pee-pee for about 2/3 of the film, which was 2 1/2 hours long. With that said, the movie itself was not exactly helpful in offering a clear portrayal of events; the chronology was jumpy and several of the character developments were weak (or sometimes non-existent). Still, the acting was terrific. Everyone who you'd expect to dazzle, dazzled. Also, the movie as a whole was just very interesting and exciting. However, some of the mysteries and information that was withheld until the conclusion were rather disappointing in their blandness.
Babel: I'm here to sing this movie's highly lacking, and highly deserved praises. Babel was depressing, that's okay, so is life, we deal. The central plot of the movie was in Morocco where Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are a married couple travelling via tour bus. And then a little boy accidentally shoots Cate Blanchett from a mountain top. However, this plot is quickly put into a fascinating and thrilling perspective, as subplots of people's lives are revealed in Japan and Mexico. Each plot is connected, via local people and their actions. From here, the larger picture of this movie shows a stunning and grim, but beautiful and intricate inter-connectedness of human civilization and the significance of human ties that far exceed the barriers of language. Personally, I liked this movie a lot because I love languages (It's in English, a Moroccan dialect, Japanese and Spanish). I guess some people could say this movie was a little bit preachy, due to American foreign policy shown in action in a bit of a sketchy manner. However, I think the movie was extremely pertinent. Brad Pitt and Gael Garcia Bernal were a power duo as well.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Some weather, eh?
I really wish that I could put the weather and the current warming 'trend' out of my mind. Unfortunately, it is a persistent, nagging concern of mine. For probably at least the past year, I have had a recurring dream... about the weather! It's literally the same thing every time: If it's currently winter, I dream that temperatures in the 5-day forecast reach the 90's, likewise if it's summer, I dream that there's snow in the forecast. I've probably had this dream about 10 times, that's not an exaggeration. As I've read from some meteorological reports, this is the first time since weather started being recorded like it is today, (late 1870's I believe, but I could be wrong) that the entire NORTHERN HEMPISPHERE has been so drastically above average in temperature. Also for the first time since the last ice age, an ISLAND with PEOPLE becamse permanently inundated by rising ocean levels due to the ice cap melting way up north. I read an interesting revelation on an accuweather blog that if Hitler had conducted his invasions today, he would have succeeded over Russia. Know why? Because the weather isn't near-arctic like the weather that crippled the nazi's attempts to sieze Russia, it's balmy and harmless!
I know that just worrying doesn't accomplish anything, I know that in this case, it really is true that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I guess you know things are bad when Bush has come around! Yep, when something white and fuzzy started to become directly threatened by the global warming, and not just some shellfish, even our President starts to get a little fidgety.
I'm not sure what I'm getting at with this post. Obviously, I, as an individual, can't do too much about the problem, which is frustrating. I just find the whole thing upsetting because, honestly, I miss snow. It NEVER just doesn't snow in the northeast. I remember that this past summer, I remarked something to the effect that considering the summer's excruciatingly hot temperatures, the only thing that would make me feel better about our prospects was if the winter had normal, cold weather. As we can see, that did not happen, and thus I don't feel better. Hopefully, in the closing era of his miserable failure of a so-called administration, Bush can pull out some clutch stops for what I think is the most important thing on America, and the world's agenda. We all know we have the means, it's a matter of whether there is the will.
I know that just worrying doesn't accomplish anything, I know that in this case, it really is true that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I guess you know things are bad when Bush has come around! Yep, when something white and fuzzy started to become directly threatened by the global warming, and not just some shellfish, even our President starts to get a little fidgety.
I'm not sure what I'm getting at with this post. Obviously, I, as an individual, can't do too much about the problem, which is frustrating. I just find the whole thing upsetting because, honestly, I miss snow. It NEVER just doesn't snow in the northeast. I remember that this past summer, I remarked something to the effect that considering the summer's excruciatingly hot temperatures, the only thing that would make me feel better about our prospects was if the winter had normal, cold weather. As we can see, that did not happen, and thus I don't feel better. Hopefully, in the closing era of his miserable failure of a so-called administration, Bush can pull out some clutch stops for what I think is the most important thing on America, and the world's agenda. We all know we have the means, it's a matter of whether there is the will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
