Something for everyone...

...except me. Once again, City of God is nowhere to be found within this confounded pretentious city. "Oh, we rent that like once an hour. It's propably our most popular rental," the clerk at I Love said. "Good movie, though" her co-worker chimed in, to make it sting a little more. I felt like I was riding the tail end of some hipster wave, and missing out on, like, the best movie ever. The same thing happened with Lost in Translation.

So with nothing else to do, Danny, Robert, and I are vegetating in the living room watching Samurai Jack on DVD. If you've never seen the cartoon, it's hard to explain. Basically, this samurai is trapped in the future by an evil spirit, and he spends every episode trying to find a way back to his time while the spirit sends lots of bad guys at him, in a different futuristic setting each time. What makes it so remarkable is the way they tell their stories: in the best episodes, nearly all of the communication is done without dialogue. Narrative, emotion, action, tension — all are communicated through an artistic use of sound and/or animation, both of which are beautifully simple. Some episodes are kids stuff; others are downright astounding. Anyways, I didn't even come close to doing it justice, so just check it out.

So, some other thing I've been meaning to point out, for your time-wasting needs.

One of the few columnists I've found that actually stands out week after week is Leonard Pitts. Even in a column on reality TV he comes through with an insight that sticks to the brain:

What is apparent is our Pavlovian relationship with the television camera. You sense this sometimes in watching people outside the Today show studio squeal on cue when the light goes on. Some of us seem to think being seen somehow validates us, makes us matter more than we otherwise would. It's as if getting on camera were so important that the ''how'' of it hardly matters.

I use this example because I saw it reprinted on the same Statesman page as this piece by Larry Dudley Hiibel, the defendant in the Supreme Court case that ruled a suspect has to give his name to the police just because they ask. Now, I haven't studied the case, so I can't comment on the ruling itself, but Hiibel's editorial isn't your typical opinion page fare:

And it's not just because it's in the Constitution. It's something that you just kind of know. It's kind of obvious. If you haven't committed a crime, you shouldn't be harassed by the police. If they suspect you of something, I don't see why they shouldn't explain it. ...

These days, it's as if we're all guilty until proved innocent. ...

I don't have a superclear understanding of the Constitution. I'm not an attorney. I've never even read the whole thing. I went through only eighth grade. But I remember what I learned, and it seems to me that the whole idea of "your papers, please" goes completely against the grain of the American people.

As I understood it, the state was supposed to serve us — we aren't supposed to serve the state. Laws were supposed to protect the people against the government, not the other way around.

That last sentiment intrigued me because I recently saw it in an E.B. White essay that was written over 50 years ago. I don't have any particular insight on this topic. I just think it's an idea that we all lose track of during the muck-a-muck that poses for political discourse in this country. I guess. I'm not really sure. I just liked those editorials.

Moving on...

Re: the NBA — What the hell is happening over there? Nash in Phoenix? Ray Allen is on the block? Vince Carter wants out? Utah and S.A. are going after Kenyon? And the Lakers want Coach K? What the fuck? On the bright side, Rick Pitino, commenting on Coach K, apparently managed to say with a straight face: Why not? I believe Bill Simmons would call that high comedy. The whole league is weird, wacky, wild stuff these days.

Let's see, what else...

The Washington Monthly recently ran a piece praising Adult Swim. Now, I hate to nit-pick with a man whose sensibilities are so obviously refined, but I think in writing a piece intended for general consumption, he misses the point:

The emergence of such high-quality commercial animation begs an intriguing question about the entertainment industry as a whole. How is it that the same economy that gives us bland fodder like Vin Diesel, Evanescence, and "According To Jim" can sometimes suddenly produce the sort of wonderful, bizarre material that we see on Adult Swim? It's because the good stuff tends to come when nobody's looking--created by those on the fringes of the studio system, occupying marginal creative real estate with minimal supervision.

The rest of the piece mixes praise for creative license with trying to explain and analyze the humor behind shows like "Aqua Teen Hunger Force." Not that I don't appreciate the guy's enthusiasm, but he never points out the crucial fact that these shows succeed because they are allowed to fail.

Creativity only thrives in an environment that tolerates failure. Without addressing this concern, you’re looking at all the wrong points. People come back to sitcoms and Leno because they know night in, night out exactly what they’re going to get. And many times, as great as I think Adult Swim shows are, many times an episode is simply not funny. They were going for something, and they just missed. You see the same thing in Conan's skits. This is the balance between pop culture and cult followings. Shows like Seinfeld only became extraordinarily popular when they became largely predictable. By the end of the show, the characters were predetermined and then dropped into different scenarios to act accordingly. Before, I think the characters drove the action — their desires were the active agents, whereas by the end they were purely reactive in ways people could easily anticipate.

Anyways, back to my point. What the WaMo article refers to as "post-modern" a couple different times — and many of you know just how much I hate that word — I prefer to think of as "random." I guess it irks me to see someone analyzing humor, applying big words to it, which takes all the fun out. I don't know if you can call these shows "the best on TV," as he does, because so many of the people who aren't watching them wouldn't enjoy it if they were. I know, I've watched them with my parents. In the end, we can lament the sitcom culture all we want, which is realy the gist of the article, but it exists for a reason — and that reason isn't people's ignorance of the "good" stuff. I think it's easier and more worthwhile for us to sit back and mock it, while going elsewhere for entertainment.

Hmm....

One more Washington Monthly article: Michelle Cottle writes on why hypocrisy bothers liberals more than conservatives. The key sentence: "But this speaks to an even deeper source of liberals' need to demonize hypocrisy: It is one of the precious few weapons in their moral arsenal." The rest of the piece devolves into "liberals do this, but conservatives do this" variety. I'll just say that the piece did get me thinking, but I still can't figure out why she based her argument on morality. As if we godless liberals were wandering through our brothels looking for some sense of right and wrong in the world. Okay, I'm exagerating because it's late and I'm tired, but I think that's the basic assumption that, if not embraced by Cottle, underlies a great deal of this debate.

Again, I think the answer is something simpler. I, for one, get so annoyed with hypocrisy because I want to be left alone. As far as the government's concerned, I want to live my life the way I want to live, so long as I'm not infringing on another person's rights. Now this doesn't necessarily mean that I think government should be as small as possible, but that it should take a hands-off approach when it comes to me and my life. And often the people who drive me bonkers with hypocrisy are the ones who want to legislate what they believe to be the righteous path, yet don't meet their own standards — see: Rush.

I think it's one of the fundamental misconceptions of public debate that left-leaning people like me want to somehow indoctrinate others into living as we do. No, not at all. I want to pay my taxes to receive my basic government services — including a social safety net, which I think benefits every citizen — and go about my business. My government should only interfere to make sure that all it's citizens are receiving a fair shake — and I don't think that happens when you try to legislate Christianity into our laws, as so many of our legislators seem intent on doing, or when you try to require people to be racially sensitive. You know, as much as I hate it, I think every person in this country has the right to be a racist in personal belief. It's the government's place to make sure that those beliefs don't manifest themselves in ways that interfere with the rights of others. Which, in effect, is the opposite of something like an anti-gay marriage amendment.

(Looking back on those last two grafs, I find it strange that I am swayed by "public good" arguments for some of the things I support. In other words, it seems like I view environmental regulation the same way Bush views morality-based policy, such as abstinence-only education. It's all for the public good, we say. Then again, I heard that three of the four health text books approved by the state of Texas don't make any mention of condoms at all. I would hope that no matter your beliefs, you would realize you can't educate children through ignorance.)

Well, this is getting way too long, so I'll leave without drawing any definite conclusions. These things had just been rattling around in my head lately and I wanted to hash them out, although I'm sure the arguments are full of holes. Anyways, there they are, for what they're worth.

I guess I should reward people who made it this far down by talking about the juicy details of my personal life, but there's nothing much going on in that department. The last time I saw Nicole, I told her to call me sometime so I could "check out her portfolio." I really did want to see her work, so those euphemism quotes are purely for effect. Really. Anyways, no call from her all week, which is no surprise. There was another girl, one I met while doing a story for the Texan. She was a tall, beautiful journalism major with an interest in international affairs. She sent me an email asking me to look over her story for her class. I did. She never responded. So it goes.

I did hear that there are some scandalous pics from Lilly's birthday last night floating around, so I'll hopefully be able to post those soon.

Thank you and good night.