from stiletto revolt:
Religious States Have Higher Teen Birth Rates.
Coincidence?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
re: notes on some good movies I saw recently
District 9
A simply great example of sci fi, though dirtier and more in your face in look and feel than movie goers are probably used to. Sci fi readers probably were less shocked.
Sci fi gives us a glimpse of our present truth unimpeded by the vision blocking paradigm of "how things are now." The setting of Johannesburg is problematic - contextually and historically it is a relevant and pointed choice for a city for this story to take place. But these events have precedent in North America too. I have a sneaking suspicion that, though I wouldn't accuse the writer of this but rather those that said "Yes" to the movie, the setting serves to move these issues to the "other".
That being said, it was entertaining as shit. AS SHIT. I felt tugged and turned in that way that is exhausting but exciting and great and not superfluous and MichaelBay. The CG was obviously CG but not distracting. It had a lot of stuff to unpack which, to me, is entertaining. I'm glad I put the 10bucks into seeing it big and bawdy and saving the 6 bucks and seeing it small screen style.
Inglourious Basterds
If you already like QT than I would say to you that this is one of his best. Hells yes it is smug and (unintentionally? intentionally?) pastiche but they all are. Judge a director by how well he achieves his own style.
While QT always gets praise/guff/notice for his dialogue, this was bereft of the monologue that has made him famous/infamous. Which was great I think - they're entertaining but distracting. His cinematography was great in this - of the moment, of the setting. Not perfect but great.
And there are many interpretations of the morality of this tale. But as one commentator said, it acts as a moral tablet to inscribe yourself on. (well, I said it better.)
Is slaughtering those Nazis redemptive? vengeful? too close for comfort?
If we are enjoying the slaughter what does that make us?
Anyway, it was a damn fine movie. No Deathproof, but damn fine.
A simply great example of sci fi, though dirtier and more in your face in look and feel than movie goers are probably used to. Sci fi readers probably were less shocked.
Sci fi gives us a glimpse of our present truth unimpeded by the vision blocking paradigm of "how things are now." The setting of Johannesburg is problematic - contextually and historically it is a relevant and pointed choice for a city for this story to take place. But these events have precedent in North America too. I have a sneaking suspicion that, though I wouldn't accuse the writer of this but rather those that said "Yes" to the movie, the setting serves to move these issues to the "other".
That being said, it was entertaining as shit. AS SHIT. I felt tugged and turned in that way that is exhausting but exciting and great and not superfluous and MichaelBay. The CG was obviously CG but not distracting. It had a lot of stuff to unpack which, to me, is entertaining. I'm glad I put the 10bucks into seeing it big and bawdy and saving the 6 bucks and seeing it small screen style.
Inglourious Basterds
If you already like QT than I would say to you that this is one of his best. Hells yes it is smug and (unintentionally? intentionally?) pastiche but they all are. Judge a director by how well he achieves his own style.
While QT always gets praise/guff/notice for his dialogue, this was bereft of the monologue that has made him famous/infamous. Which was great I think - they're entertaining but distracting. His cinematography was great in this - of the moment, of the setting. Not perfect but great.
And there are many interpretations of the morality of this tale. But as one commentator said, it acts as a moral tablet to inscribe yourself on. (well, I said it better.)
Is slaughtering those Nazis redemptive? vengeful? too close for comfort?
If we are enjoying the slaughter what does that make us?
Anyway, it was a damn fine movie. No Deathproof, but damn fine.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
re: the Klondike Man Cave or worst thing
This is the worst thing: the Klondike Man Cave.
WHAT YEAR IS THIS? Is it 1987? 1923?
Note to self: buy freaking SnagIt only to be able to easily post this:
More shots at Jezebel.com who turned me on (off) to this in the first place.
Another note: at the bottom of the screen there is this:
WHAT YEAR IS THIS? Is it 1987? 1923?
Note to self: buy freaking SnagIt only to be able to easily post this:
More shots at Jezebel.com who turned me on (off) to this in the first place.
Another note: at the bottom of the screen there is this:
Saturday, September 12, 2009
re: social media
I won't really understand this until I can afford a smart phone. We talk of the technological revolution, but the gap is still there for access, even spoiled brats like me.
Twitter is not really useful to anyone not connected as long as they are ...awake. And while I'm often on the INTERNET, I'm also at the movies, the park, the coffee shop etc. and my phone can barely text.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
re: do you use the "C-word"?
Do you use the "C-word"?
No. I say cunt.
As some have pointed out, "cunt" is a pretty common slang term for a guy in areas like Scotland and England - occupying an area somewhere between "dude" and "fuckface." But European ubiquity is not an excuse for use - there or here. Cunt it is still one of the last offensive words in North American culture. Or, rather, it's one of the last words that both men or women would say is offensive. Because women don't get to decide.
Now here is the tricky part so forgive me if this is vague; it sounds like I think these instances are the same. They are not. The reason it is okay to say "dick" and make "boys are smelly" Venn diagrams and not for women is that the structural and historical context is just not comparable - in almost any society.
And, technically, one could say it's equivalent to saying "dick". But, of course, it isn't. Is this because of the view of the female sex (organ)? It is more dirty and taboo? Maybe, but really I think it's because using "dick" as derogatory is allowed due to the historical relationship of women and power. Like, give them the "dick" thing and they'll shut up.
So, are these double standards empowering or just fighting prejudice with ignorance? I mean, stereotypes are going to be "solved" with more stereotypes. If this was about women, would it be okay?
I will never be one to call for a ban on words. I hate c--- or c*** etc. Words of any kind have their place - offensive or otherwise - in dialogue. To be afraid to even use the word to discuss it's use is damaging to open and effective dialogue.
At the end of the day, it's not about the word. The word has been infused with meaning, but it doesn't have negative connotations in and of itself. Men use "dick" as derogatory. So, maybe it's the idea of summing up a person as one piece of flesh. And that is hurtful no matter your sex/gender/self perception.
Let's gather our patience, our intelligence, our compassion and our courage and try to understand how to be sensitive and direct at the same time. Do not say C word. Use the word cunt. Write it out. A woman's sex is not dirty or sacred. But don't call a woman a cunt. Don't define her by her biology. And to evolve as people, let's apply all those things to how we treat all sexes/genders/self perceptions.
No. I say cunt.
As some have pointed out, "cunt" is a pretty common slang term for a guy in areas like Scotland and England - occupying an area somewhere between "dude" and "fuckface." But European ubiquity is not an excuse for use - there or here. Cunt it is still one of the last offensive words in North American culture. Or, rather, it's one of the last words that both men or women would say is offensive. Because women don't get to decide.
Now here is the tricky part so forgive me if this is vague; it sounds like I think these instances are the same. They are not. The reason it is okay to say "dick" and make "boys are smelly" Venn diagrams and not for women is that the structural and historical context is just not comparable - in almost any society.
And, technically, one could say it's equivalent to saying "dick". But, of course, it isn't. Is this because of the view of the female sex (organ)? It is more dirty and taboo? Maybe, but really I think it's because using "dick" as derogatory is allowed due to the historical relationship of women and power. Like, give them the "dick" thing and they'll shut up.
So, are these double standards empowering or just fighting prejudice with ignorance? I mean, stereotypes are going to be "solved" with more stereotypes. If this was about women, would it be okay?
I will never be one to call for a ban on words. I hate c--- or c*** etc. Words of any kind have their place - offensive or otherwise - in dialogue. To be afraid to even use the word to discuss it's use is damaging to open and effective dialogue.
At the end of the day, it's not about the word. The word has been infused with meaning, but it doesn't have negative connotations in and of itself. Men use "dick" as derogatory. So, maybe it's the idea of summing up a person as one piece of flesh. And that is hurtful no matter your sex/gender/self perception.
Let's gather our patience, our intelligence, our compassion and our courage and try to understand how to be sensitive and direct at the same time. Do not say C word. Use the word cunt. Write it out. A woman's sex is not dirty or sacred. But don't call a woman a cunt. Don't define her by her biology. And to evolve as people, let's apply all those things to how we treat all sexes/genders/self perceptions.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
re: the reading rainbow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
