As I sit here, listening to the rain fall lightly on the quiet streets, I find myself lost once again.
I lose myself more often than one might think, but it's something I've grown accustomed to over the years. It usually happens during periods of personal difficulty and stress, or when I get so absorbed in the tide of worldly affairs that I get swept out to sea. This time, I think it's a bit of both.
In seeking to define myself and my place in the world, I've been ripped from the shore of self-knowledge and swept out into the sea of existential dread. And in the midst of my ever present mortality, I struggle to find something to cling to.
But where is there a refuge to be found? My heart itself is a sea of contradictions that storms with the winds of emotional fury. Anger. Sadness. I want to rage against the world and cry out of compassion at the same time. Idealism. Hatred. I want to right all the world's wrongs and I want destroy everything. Terror. Desperately gasping for air as I find myself being pulled under by currents stronger than I can endure.
What is it that I'm so afraid of? What more is there to lose than one's self? Why do I bother screaming at the world to save me when I know that it wouldn't even if it could? What is it that I'm looking for?
Maybe I'm not really looking for anything. Maybe there's nothing to find. Maybe it's in the search itself that I simply find some semblance of comfort.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
mind-blowing films
Over at Icrontic, they kicked off their "theme of the week" series by asking people to highlight the movies that blew their mind. As usual, I was late to the party. But it got me thinking, What are the films that have made a lasting impression on me?
Honestly, there are so many great films out that have blown me away I could never name them all, but right off the top of my head I can think of at least two films by Ingmar Bergman that have had a major impact on me: Det sjunde inseglet (The Seventh Seal) and Nattvardsgästerna (Winter Lights).
They're probably too slow for most people, but there's something deeply contemplative and existential about them that really draws me in. That, and I think they're both examples of great filmmaking. For me, atmosphere and story are everything, and Bergman was a master storyteller.
Other honourable mentions include Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring), Dellamorte Dellamore (Cemetery Man), Kontroll and Pi.
I'd also have to say that most of the animated films I've seen in the past ten years have been mind-blowing in various ways.
Anything by Studio Ghibli, for example, is simply great. Whether it's a cute and lighthearted retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Little Mermaid" (Gake no Ue no Ponyo) or a powerful and heartbreaking portrayal of 1945 wartime Japan (Hotaru no Haka), I've yet to see one of their films that hasn't impressed me.
And, of course, there are companies like Laika, Pixar, etc., who are also putting out some great material. It's a seriously underrated genre, in my opinion.
Honestly, there are so many great films out that have blown me away I could never name them all, but right off the top of my head I can think of at least two films by Ingmar Bergman that have had a major impact on me: Det sjunde inseglet (The Seventh Seal) and Nattvardsgästerna (Winter Lights).
They're probably too slow for most people, but there's something deeply contemplative and existential about them that really draws me in. That, and I think they're both examples of great filmmaking. For me, atmosphere and story are everything, and Bergman was a master storyteller.
Other honourable mentions include Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring), Dellamorte Dellamore (Cemetery Man), Kontroll and Pi.
I'd also have to say that most of the animated films I've seen in the past ten years have been mind-blowing in various ways.
Anything by Studio Ghibli, for example, is simply great. Whether it's a cute and lighthearted retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Little Mermaid" (Gake no Ue no Ponyo) or a powerful and heartbreaking portrayal of 1945 wartime Japan (Hotaru no Haka), I've yet to see one of their films that hasn't impressed me.
And, of course, there are companies like Laika, Pixar, etc., who are also putting out some great material. It's a seriously underrated genre, in my opinion.
Monday, February 1, 2010
marble hornets: innovative storytelling in the digital age
I'm a bit of a latecomer to the whole Marble Hornets phenomenon, but better late than never. I got sucked in by a friend of mine last Saturday when I stopped by to hang out and have a couple of beers. We were waiting for a couple of more people to show up when he asked if I'd seen it. I said no, and since we had some time to kill, he started playing entries beginning with the introduction.
For anyone not familiar with Marble Hornets, it's a YouTube video series that seems to be inspired by the Slender Man urban legend started on The SomethingAwful Forums. The videos are uploaded by a man named Jay, who, at the beginning, takes them from tapes that were originally shot three years ago — mostly by his friend, Alex — during the filming of a student film Alex was making called "Marble Hornets." The tapes are in random order, and Jay sets out to systematically watch them all in order document some of the strange events and anomalies that occur after he realizes there's more going on than just the making of a student film. Later on, Jay begins to upload some of his own videos as well.
To be honest, I wasn't all that impressed at first. The entries were short (most of them less than a couple of minutes long), and I didn't quite get what was going on until a few entries in, but I quickly became immersed in the story once I started to piece together what was happening.
The series is fairly unique. I can only describe is an interactive, low-budget paranormal mystery that's supported by a large online community dedicated to solving it. People piece together the time line, uncover hidden messages and decode various puzzles that are found in the videos themselves, as well as in the strange and unnerving video responses left by a mysterious figure known only by their YouTube username, "totheark." What really intrigues me about the series, however, is the way the story evolves — especially with the introduction of totheark — and how the viewer is able to interact with the story and other viewers via social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.
I didn't really find it all that scary while I was watching it, but it definitely creeped me out as I soon discovered on my way home. I left my friend's house at around 1:30am. It was dark and drizzling. As I was walking home, I kept thinking that I heard someone behind me, although nobody was there whenever I turned to look. If that wasn't bad enough, the lights surrounding a nearby school started to buzz and flicker eerily as I was walking by. I kept glancing around half expecting to see the Slender Man standing in the distance. I'll admit it, I started walking a lot faster.
So if you're into horror and you've got some time to kill one night, I suggest checking Marble Hornets out.
(A version of this post also appears as an article on Icrontic Life.)
For anyone not familiar with Marble Hornets, it's a YouTube video series that seems to be inspired by the Slender Man urban legend started on The SomethingAwful Forums. The videos are uploaded by a man named Jay, who, at the beginning, takes them from tapes that were originally shot three years ago — mostly by his friend, Alex — during the filming of a student film Alex was making called "Marble Hornets." The tapes are in random order, and Jay sets out to systematically watch them all in order document some of the strange events and anomalies that occur after he realizes there's more going on than just the making of a student film. Later on, Jay begins to upload some of his own videos as well.
To be honest, I wasn't all that impressed at first. The entries were short (most of them less than a couple of minutes long), and I didn't quite get what was going on until a few entries in, but I quickly became immersed in the story once I started to piece together what was happening.
The series is fairly unique. I can only describe is an interactive, low-budget paranormal mystery that's supported by a large online community dedicated to solving it. People piece together the time line, uncover hidden messages and decode various puzzles that are found in the videos themselves, as well as in the strange and unnerving video responses left by a mysterious figure known only by their YouTube username, "totheark." What really intrigues me about the series, however, is the way the story evolves — especially with the introduction of totheark — and how the viewer is able to interact with the story and other viewers via social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.
I didn't really find it all that scary while I was watching it, but it definitely creeped me out as I soon discovered on my way home. I left my friend's house at around 1:30am. It was dark and drizzling. As I was walking home, I kept thinking that I heard someone behind me, although nobody was there whenever I turned to look. If that wasn't bad enough, the lights surrounding a nearby school started to buzz and flicker eerily as I was walking by. I kept glancing around half expecting to see the Slender Man standing in the distance. I'll admit it, I started walking a lot faster.
So if you're into horror and you've got some time to kill one night, I suggest checking Marble Hornets out.
(A version of this post also appears as an article on Icrontic Life.)
Saturday, January 30, 2010
long live the people's historian!
I was saddened to learn that Howard Zinn died Wednesday at the age of 87. I never really knew anything about him until I bought one of his short plays, Marx in Soho, at the local bookstore about a year ago.
I had locked myself out of my apartment, and Annie wasn't going to be home from work for a few more hours, so I went to look around the local bookstore for something to read until she got home. I happened to notice the small, reddish book sitting in the philosophy section—it was short and cheap, so I grabbed it. I spent the rest of my time reading it at a nearby coffee shop.
Not long after that, I rented a documentary about Zinn called Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train from the local video store. It was an excellent documentary, and from that moment on, Zinn became one of my heroes. But more importantly, it got me interested in American history, especially the history of the American labour movement. I ended up buying a copy of A People's History of the United States, and that book knocked me on my ass!
Zinn not only taught me a lot about the American labour movement, but he helped me to find my political bearings as well. At the time I discovered Zinn, I was in the process of figuring out where I stood and how far I wanted to go with my political activism. Zinn inspired me to get politically active for progressive causes at a time when I could easily have been lulled into being just another passive voter.
So, in memory of his passing, my favourite Howard Zinn quote: "The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory." RIP, comrade.
I had locked myself out of my apartment, and Annie wasn't going to be home from work for a few more hours, so I went to look around the local bookstore for something to read until she got home. I happened to notice the small, reddish book sitting in the philosophy section—it was short and cheap, so I grabbed it. I spent the rest of my time reading it at a nearby coffee shop.
Not long after that, I rented a documentary about Zinn called Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train from the local video store. It was an excellent documentary, and from that moment on, Zinn became one of my heroes. But more importantly, it got me interested in American history, especially the history of the American labour movement. I ended up buying a copy of A People's History of the United States, and that book knocked me on my ass!
Zinn not only taught me a lot about the American labour movement, but he helped me to find my political bearings as well. At the time I discovered Zinn, I was in the process of figuring out where I stood and how far I wanted to go with my political activism. Zinn inspired me to get politically active for progressive causes at a time when I could easily have been lulled into being just another passive voter.
So, in memory of his passing, my favourite Howard Zinn quote: "The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory." RIP, comrade.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
conservative-leaning scotus strikes again
Not surprisingly, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has struck again with a 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that overturns certain longstanding limits on political campaign spending by corporations. The decision not only overturns section 441b of the McCain-Feingold Act, it effectively overturns Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission as well.
The majority opinion that such restrictions amount to "censorship" and a violation of the First Amendment further solidifies the "personhood" of legal entities such as corporations stemming from the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, and puts them on even more of an equal footing with "natural persons."
Moreover, the ruling further bolsters the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo equating money with speech, which doesn't bode well for the majority of Americans who can't afford to have their 'voices' heard. Corporations are now able to spend as much money from their general funds as they want in any congressional or presidential election they so choose via campaign ads. As Ralph Nader puts it:
Maybe I'm just overreacting, but this could very well be the beginning of the end for democracy as we know it. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, and I couldn't agree more with the dissenting opinion penned by Justice Stevens, especially this glaringly obvious point:
As for the issue of the First Amendment, it doesn't explicitly state who's entitled to these protections, except near the end where it mentions "the press" and "the people," and it can certainly be argued that corporations are included. However, my opinion — which is mostly based upon some of the Founding Fathers' statements regarding large corporations and the fact that the states strictly limited the power of corporations — is that these protections were meant for the press and the people, as in natural persons or citizens, and were never intended to apply to corporations.
Personally, I think the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" was negatively impacted the day corporations were essentially granted personhood, which effectively extends certain constitutional protections to corporations and other legal persons, such as the ability to contribute to political campaigns.
The way elections are currently conducted and financed in the U.S., the average citizen has enough trouble competing with the lobbying power of large multinational corporations, thereby severely limiting their 'voice' in the political process.
And despite the fact that this ruling means other legal entities such as unions, environmental groups, etc. can also run unlimited campaign ads, this new ability of corporations to relentlessly bombard newspapers and airwaves with ads using their general funds will merely serve to bring these big-monied interests that much closer to Washington, and consequently, the U.S. one step closer to a plutocracy.
The majority opinion that such restrictions amount to "censorship" and a violation of the First Amendment further solidifies the "personhood" of legal entities such as corporations stemming from the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, and puts them on even more of an equal footing with "natural persons."
Moreover, the ruling further bolsters the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo equating money with speech, which doesn't bode well for the majority of Americans who can't afford to have their 'voices' heard. Corporations are now able to spend as much money from their general funds as they want in any congressional or presidential election they so choose via campaign ads. As Ralph Nader puts it:
Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.
Maybe I'm just overreacting, but this could very well be the beginning of the end for democracy as we know it. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, and I couldn't agree more with the dissenting opinion penned by Justice Stevens, especially this glaringly obvious point:
The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. Austin set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural persons, corporations have "limited liability" for their owners and managers, "perpetual life," separation of ownership and control, "and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets...that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return of their shareholders' investments." 494 U.S., at 658-659. Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been "effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society's economic welfare"; they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. "'[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,'" furthermore, "'are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.'" Id., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U.S., at 258). "'They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas,'" 494 U.s., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U.S., at 258).
It might also be added that corporations have no conscience, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
As for the issue of the First Amendment, it doesn't explicitly state who's entitled to these protections, except near the end where it mentions "the press" and "the people," and it can certainly be argued that corporations are included. However, my opinion — which is mostly based upon some of the Founding Fathers' statements regarding large corporations and the fact that the states strictly limited the power of corporations — is that these protections were meant for the press and the people, as in natural persons or citizens, and were never intended to apply to corporations.
Personally, I think the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" was negatively impacted the day corporations were essentially granted personhood, which effectively extends certain constitutional protections to corporations and other legal persons, such as the ability to contribute to political campaigns.
The way elections are currently conducted and financed in the U.S., the average citizen has enough trouble competing with the lobbying power of large multinational corporations, thereby severely limiting their 'voice' in the political process.
And despite the fact that this ruling means other legal entities such as unions, environmental groups, etc. can also run unlimited campaign ads, this new ability of corporations to relentlessly bombard newspapers and airwaves with ads using their general funds will merely serve to bring these big-monied interests that much closer to Washington, and consequently, the U.S. one step closer to a plutocracy.
Monday, January 18, 2010
happy mlk jr. day
Today celebrates the life of one of America's most influential figures, Martin Luther King Jr. King is most known for his "I Have A Dream" speech, and for being a prominent civil rights leader, but he was much more than that. He was also a radical activist, pacifist and revolutionary.
The day he was assassinated, King was in Memphis, Tennessee, supporting a strike of African-American sanitation workers who were fighting against unequal wages and poor working conditions, as well as for union recognition. King wasn't just a champion for civil rights, he was also a champion for economic justice, freedom and peace, using his style of nonviolent direct action to fight against racism and the Vietnam War as much as for major economic reforms.
For me, King's revolutionary spirit is characterized by these words, which were given in a speech at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination:I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a 'thing-oriented' society to a 'person-oriented' society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
I'd always known that King was a revolutionary figure in American history, but hearing these words today for the first time, I finally realize just how revolutionary he was. In a world where people often assume that violence is the only effective means of change, King showed us just how powerful nonviolence can be in combating racial inequality and social injustice.
Before his untimely death, King was helping to organize the Poor People's Campaign, a national campaign designed to address the issues of economic justice and housing for the poor in the U.S. He was in the middle of crisscrossing the country, trying to mobilize what he called a "multiracial army of the poor" to march on Washington to demand an Economic Bill of Rights, when he took that fateful detour to help support the Memphis sanitation workers.King was a brave man. He received numerous death threats, but he was willing to give his life for what he believed in—perhaps in part because he knew that his death wouldn't be in vain. As King said in a speech he gave the night before he was assassinated:
The day he was assassinated, King was in Memphis, Tennessee, supporting a strike of African-American sanitation workers who were fighting against unequal wages and poor working conditions, as well as for union recognition. King wasn't just a champion for civil rights, he was also a champion for economic justice, freedom and peace, using his style of nonviolent direct action to fight against racism and the Vietnam War as much as for major economic reforms.
For me, King's revolutionary spirit is characterized by these words, which were given in a speech at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination:I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a 'thing-oriented' society to a 'person-oriented' society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
I'd always known that King was a revolutionary figure in American history, but hearing these words today for the first time, I finally realize just how revolutionary he was. In a world where people often assume that violence is the only effective means of change, King showed us just how powerful nonviolence can be in combating racial inequality and social injustice.
Before his untimely death, King was helping to organize the Poor People's Campaign, a national campaign designed to address the issues of economic justice and housing for the poor in the U.S. He was in the middle of crisscrossing the country, trying to mobilize what he called a "multiracial army of the poor" to march on Washington to demand an Economic Bill of Rights, when he took that fateful detour to help support the Memphis sanitation workers.King was a brave man. He received numerous death threats, but he was willing to give his life for what he believed in—perhaps in part because he knew that his death wouldn't be in vain. As King said in a speech he gave the night before he was assassinated:
And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
Friday, January 15, 2010
opportunism rears its ugly head in quake's aftermath
Nothing disgusts me more than exploiting natural disasters to push your own political agenda. (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Heritage Foundation.)
On Thursday, less than 24 hours after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck approximately 15 miles from Port-au-Prince, the capital city of Haiti, the Heritage Foundation released this statement:
Things to Remember While Helping Haiti
Besides the original title ("Amidst the Suffering, Crisis in Haiti Offers Opportunities to the U.S.") and the part about using this as an opportunity "to re-shape Haiti’s long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region" (which has since been taken out), the parts that bother me the most are the lines about using our military presence there to aid in relief efforts AND fight suspected drug trafficking while also preventing Haitians from trying to flee to the U.S.
These are the same people who, back in 2005, tried to push though their own pro-corporate, free-market policies just 13 days after hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, LA.
The island nation of Haiti and its inhabitants have suffered greatly over the last 200 years (if not longer), from gaining its independence through a successful slave rebellion to enduring endemic political instability, violence and crushing poverty, and I completely agree with Naomi Klein that:
To use this catastrophe as a way of advancing free-market policies while encouraging the U.S. military to enforce immigration policies and fight suspected drug trafficking — when they should really be helping the 10s of 1000s of victims — is simply unconscionable.
On Thursday, less than 24 hours after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck approximately 15 miles from Port-au-Prince, the capital city of Haiti, the Heritage Foundation released this statement:
Things to Remember While Helping Haiti
Besides the original title ("Amidst the Suffering, Crisis in Haiti Offers Opportunities to the U.S.") and the part about using this as an opportunity "to re-shape Haiti’s long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region" (which has since been taken out), the parts that bother me the most are the lines about using our military presence there to aid in relief efforts AND fight suspected drug trafficking while also preventing Haitians from trying to flee to the U.S.
These are the same people who, back in 2005, tried to push though their own pro-corporate, free-market policies just 13 days after hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, LA.
The island nation of Haiti and its inhabitants have suffered greatly over the last 200 years (if not longer), from gaining its independence through a successful slave rebellion to enduring endemic political instability, violence and crushing poverty, and I completely agree with Naomi Klein that:
"We have to be absolutely clear that this tragedy—which is part natural, part unnatural—must, under no circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations."
To use this catastrophe as a way of advancing free-market policies while encouraging the U.S. military to enforce immigration policies and fight suspected drug trafficking — when they should really be helping the 10s of 1000s of victims — is simply unconscionable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)