People argue that McCain wouldn't be attacking Obama so much if he were winning. He has to go after him, they say, because Obama's out front!
But he can't be out front by attacking. Part of the reason, in my humblest of opinions, that Obama has done so well is that he doesn't go after McCain specifically. When he does, the two of them slug it out over a specific issue or attack, but the majority (the large majority) of Obama's speeches are focused on changing America. The attacks, when they do happen, are just as much against Bush as they are McCain.
McCain, on the other hand, hasn't spoken at length about his desire to change the country. He does now, at the 11th hour, because he has nothing left to lose. But "back in the day" (early September, when he was ahead) he didn't take the high ground. He stayed in the trenches and promptly lost his bounce-inspired lead. And unleashing Palin--who simply can't make positive remarks because she hasn't the ability--has driven this home.
McCain is an entirely negative campaign. There's no "here's what we will do for you" anymore; it's only "here's what Obama will do to you." And people aren't responding, because that's not the mood of the electorate.
Too bad for him. I am about 48 to 72 hours from actually being excited about this election, instead of worried. It will be a strange feeling if Obama wins.
Also of note: do you hear anything about Hillary supporters voting for McCain anymore these days? I've no doubt there are a few nutjobs left that are doing so, but the furor over their quisling movement has completely dropped off the radar. And I've been reading a LOT of political stories lately.
October 31, 2008
October 28, 2008
Tipping Point
Notwithstanding some colossal polling error or a very, very late October surprise, Obama should win this thing next week.
What's most interesting to me is that, by and large, the commentary by people who are still in favor of John McCain are not actually voting for him. They're voting against Barack Obama.
I don't criticize this as inherently wrong. The questions about Obama's experience are somewhat valid (though, in my mind, such questions are easily negated by his intelligence and the strength under pressure he has shown during this campaign).
But I question the wisdom in voting for a ticket that includes the least experienced vice-presidential candidate in modern history. Palin has nothing--nothing--to offer this country. It is an embarrassment and a joke that we would even consider putting someone with such little ability in the nation's second-highest office.
It is, flat out, unpatriotic. You can't love this country, and then hand it over to someone who has no ability to lead it whatsoever. I cannot say this about any other candidate I can remember--even George W. Bush, though he comes close--but I will say it here: I would make a better Vice President.
So say what you will about Obama's lack of executive experience, but the man is smart. Smarter than you, and smarter than me. He has nuanced and strong opinions, he is steady, and his "on-the-job training" will take a fraction of the time that Palin's would.
I don't envy you Republicans this year. Those GOPers who still admire intelligence and wisdom are in a bind. Because the intelligence and wisdom lies entirely with the Democratic ticket this year.
What's most interesting to me is that, by and large, the commentary by people who are still in favor of John McCain are not actually voting for him. They're voting against Barack Obama.
I don't criticize this as inherently wrong. The questions about Obama's experience are somewhat valid (though, in my mind, such questions are easily negated by his intelligence and the strength under pressure he has shown during this campaign).
But I question the wisdom in voting for a ticket that includes the least experienced vice-presidential candidate in modern history. Palin has nothing--nothing--to offer this country. It is an embarrassment and a joke that we would even consider putting someone with such little ability in the nation's second-highest office.
It is, flat out, unpatriotic. You can't love this country, and then hand it over to someone who has no ability to lead it whatsoever. I cannot say this about any other candidate I can remember--even George W. Bush, though he comes close--but I will say it here: I would make a better Vice President.
So say what you will about Obama's lack of executive experience, but the man is smart. Smarter than you, and smarter than me. He has nuanced and strong opinions, he is steady, and his "on-the-job training" will take a fraction of the time that Palin's would.
I don't envy you Republicans this year. Those GOPers who still admire intelligence and wisdom are in a bind. Because the intelligence and wisdom lies entirely with the Democratic ticket this year.
October 27, 2008
No on Prop 8
A fairly obvious statement, given my previous entries on the subject of gay marriage. I'm all for it! Marry! Be happy!
But I wanted to point out an interesting and hypocritical twist on the Prop 8 battle here in California.
Conservatives who don't wish to sound overly harsh are often quoted as saying that decisions of this nature should be "left to the states". That is, California decides who can marry in California; Wyoming decides for its own, and so forth. This position has some legal problems that I won't get into--recognition of marriages in other states being necessary under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution--but in California, the hypocrisy of the "leave it to the states" position has been exposed.
How? The entirety of the funding and support for this ballot initiative is coming from outside California. They're specifically not "leaving it" to us; outside conservatives are funding the commercials and overall support of the initiative.
(Also, ballot initiatives of this kind are completely asinine. I do not want amendments to the state constitution coming because of popular vote. It's the least-thought-out method of legislating our democracy allows. Ballot initiatives are crap.)
That's not to say the opposition hasn't received donations from non-California sources. But the disparity, according to news reports, is staggering. Opposition to Prop 8 is largely California-based; proponents are found pretty much everywhere else.
Just so it's official: No on Prop 8, people. I defy any of you to come up with a logical or rational explanation as to why a constitutional amendment banning marriage between gay people is a good idea.
Because "God said" is neither logical or rational.
But I wanted to point out an interesting and hypocritical twist on the Prop 8 battle here in California.
Conservatives who don't wish to sound overly harsh are often quoted as saying that decisions of this nature should be "left to the states". That is, California decides who can marry in California; Wyoming decides for its own, and so forth. This position has some legal problems that I won't get into--recognition of marriages in other states being necessary under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution--but in California, the hypocrisy of the "leave it to the states" position has been exposed.
How? The entirety of the funding and support for this ballot initiative is coming from outside California. They're specifically not "leaving it" to us; outside conservatives are funding the commercials and overall support of the initiative.
(Also, ballot initiatives of this kind are completely asinine. I do not want amendments to the state constitution coming because of popular vote. It's the least-thought-out method of legislating our democracy allows. Ballot initiatives are crap.)
That's not to say the opposition hasn't received donations from non-California sources. But the disparity, according to news reports, is staggering. Opposition to Prop 8 is largely California-based; proponents are found pretty much everywhere else.
Just so it's official: No on Prop 8, people. I defy any of you to come up with a logical or rational explanation as to why a constitutional amendment banning marriage between gay people is a good idea.
Because "God said" is neither logical or rational.
October 24, 2008
Cabo San Lucas
It is a good place, this Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.
It was: beaches, pools, lounge chairs, midnight swims, mosquito bites, mild sunburns, a sunset cruise, girls from Portland, a girl from Utah, a drunken family, doing shots upside down, simulated humping, tequila sunrises, margaritas, pina coladas, tequila shots, Coronas, Pacificos, Modelos, and one big pineapple drink thing.
Pictures, if there are any that I am comfortable putting up on the blog, will be put up this weekend. Or whenever my sister stops getting in bar fights long enough to send me what she took with her camera.
It was: beaches, pools, lounge chairs, midnight swims, mosquito bites, mild sunburns, a sunset cruise, girls from Portland, a girl from Utah, a drunken family, doing shots upside down, simulated humping, tequila sunrises, margaritas, pina coladas, tequila shots, Coronas, Pacificos, Modelos, and one big pineapple drink thing.
Pictures, if there are any that I am comfortable putting up on the blog, will be put up this weekend. Or whenever my sister stops getting in bar fights long enough to send me what she took with her camera.
October 16, 2008
Let's Clear This Up
I've been trapped in deposition hell for a few days, but am now finally free. The Lions are still awful, the last debate went well, and I'm going to Mexico in 2 days.
But let's talk about voter fraud.
That bastion of community activism, ACORN, has been fraudulently registering voters for the general election this year. That's not cool, but let's review the different between registration fraud and voter fraud.
So far, nobody besides ACORN has been defrauded. They (improperly) paid volunteers for registrations, and thus got screwed when it turned out the registrations they paid for were not valid. But none of the fake registrants--including Bugs Bunny and Indiana Jones--will be showing up to vote on election day.
You see, registration fraud only becomes actual voter fraud when those persons who have filed false registrations show up to vote (multiple times, in theory). Since it's going to be tough to convince a poll worker that your name really is "Mickey Mouse" it is unlikely that that will happen with any of these registrations. No voter fraud.
Voter fraud is a big boogeyman in politics, especially in right wing circles. It preys on the "us and them" mentality that super conservatives often embrace. It conjures visions of a horde of liberals and minorities roaming the countryside come election day, voting dozens of times and pushing the Democrats into power.
But in the last few decades, despite the cries of "fraud" by BOTH parties, there has been little evidence that it has actually occurred. And when they do arise--Ohio in 2004, for example--it's not the liberals or minorities that are accused of perpetrating the fraud.
ACORN acted stupidly. But they haven't damaged our democracy, as a clearly out-of-his-mind McCain stated last night. They've damaged themselves and their credibility. But they can't really touch Obama on this, as even McCain was as recently as 2006 a supporter of the organization. Obama's legal work in the 90's is grasping at... well not even straws. Air.
But let's talk about voter fraud.
That bastion of community activism, ACORN, has been fraudulently registering voters for the general election this year. That's not cool, but let's review the different between registration fraud and voter fraud.
So far, nobody besides ACORN has been defrauded. They (improperly) paid volunteers for registrations, and thus got screwed when it turned out the registrations they paid for were not valid. But none of the fake registrants--including Bugs Bunny and Indiana Jones--will be showing up to vote on election day.
You see, registration fraud only becomes actual voter fraud when those persons who have filed false registrations show up to vote (multiple times, in theory). Since it's going to be tough to convince a poll worker that your name really is "Mickey Mouse" it is unlikely that that will happen with any of these registrations. No voter fraud.
Voter fraud is a big boogeyman in politics, especially in right wing circles. It preys on the "us and them" mentality that super conservatives often embrace. It conjures visions of a horde of liberals and minorities roaming the countryside come election day, voting dozens of times and pushing the Democrats into power.
But in the last few decades, despite the cries of "fraud" by BOTH parties, there has been little evidence that it has actually occurred. And when they do arise--Ohio in 2004, for example--it's not the liberals or minorities that are accused of perpetrating the fraud.
ACORN acted stupidly. But they haven't damaged our democracy, as a clearly out-of-his-mind McCain stated last night. They've damaged themselves and their credibility. But they can't really touch Obama on this, as even McCain was as recently as 2006 a supporter of the organization. Obama's legal work in the 90's is grasping at... well not even straws. Air.
October 7, 2008
Eight-Year-Olds, Dude*
I've gone on rants against bad drivers before--who hasn't, really, unless you are one of those bad drivers--but today I thought I'd share the wealth and tear pedestrians a new one.
We're all pedestrians at some point. Most of us are pedestrians on a daily basis. I don't drive to get lunch, and sometimes I have to cross streets to do so. Pedestrian! So when I'm driving and I get pissed at people walking, I tend to try and relax a little.
It helps to remember that pedestrians have the right of way, no matter what. Also, it should be noted that technically, you're supposed to wait for a pedestrian to completely clear a crosswalk before driving through it. That means all the way to the other side. Nobody does this, of course, but when I keep that in mind it calms me down at intersections.
All that being said, what the hell is wrong with you people? When I'm walking around town, I'm acutely aware of traffic signals and the hints they give as to when it's clear to walk. But countless pedestrians--this happens daily--seem to forget the existence of a left turn arrow. As soon as the light is red, they think they can start crossing, even when not given the "Walk" signal.
How stupid are these people? If you're walking to work, then you should know exactly how the traffic works. If you're walking in your neighborhood, same deal. I cannot believe that every single day there are random solo tourists wandering the city with no understanding of how these work.
Granted, there are different types of idiot pedestrians. One type I almost have respect for--that's the local who doesn't give a shit what the light says, he's crossing now. I don't honk at these folk, I just glare. They glare right back. I only happen across them once every few weeks because most locals are aware that it's a risky attitude to take in Oakland. Some drivers WILL run you down.
The other type is what really pisses me off. Young urban professional-looking morons who can't be bothered to look up and take note of the light. Maybe because I am this person, and know exactly how little brainpower it takes to stop at an intersection. One guy actually gave me the FINGER when he started walking into the intersection about 3 seconds after I had the green. It wasn't like he didn't make it to the other side before the green, he started walking on a Don't Walk signal. I honked, because WTF, and he flicked me off!
So there, I officially hate both drivers and pedestrians. You're all idiots.
*Because pederast is really close to pedestrian. And I really like The Big Lebowski. Shut up.
We're all pedestrians at some point. Most of us are pedestrians on a daily basis. I don't drive to get lunch, and sometimes I have to cross streets to do so. Pedestrian! So when I'm driving and I get pissed at people walking, I tend to try and relax a little.
It helps to remember that pedestrians have the right of way, no matter what. Also, it should be noted that technically, you're supposed to wait for a pedestrian to completely clear a crosswalk before driving through it. That means all the way to the other side. Nobody does this, of course, but when I keep that in mind it calms me down at intersections.
All that being said, what the hell is wrong with you people? When I'm walking around town, I'm acutely aware of traffic signals and the hints they give as to when it's clear to walk. But countless pedestrians--this happens daily--seem to forget the existence of a left turn arrow. As soon as the light is red, they think they can start crossing, even when not given the "Walk" signal.
How stupid are these people? If you're walking to work, then you should know exactly how the traffic works. If you're walking in your neighborhood, same deal. I cannot believe that every single day there are random solo tourists wandering the city with no understanding of how these work.
Granted, there are different types of idiot pedestrians. One type I almost have respect for--that's the local who doesn't give a shit what the light says, he's crossing now. I don't honk at these folk, I just glare. They glare right back. I only happen across them once every few weeks because most locals are aware that it's a risky attitude to take in Oakland. Some drivers WILL run you down.
The other type is what really pisses me off. Young urban professional-looking morons who can't be bothered to look up and take note of the light. Maybe because I am this person, and know exactly how little brainpower it takes to stop at an intersection. One guy actually gave me the FINGER when he started walking into the intersection about 3 seconds after I had the green. It wasn't like he didn't make it to the other side before the green, he started walking on a Don't Walk signal. I honked, because WTF, and he flicked me off!
So there, I officially hate both drivers and pedestrians. You're all idiots.
*Because pederast is really close to pedestrian. And I really like The Big Lebowski. Shut up.
October 6, 2008
Economic Apocalypses Are Boring
So, do we have a plan B?
Clearly my boned statement from a few weeks back was accurate, although at the time I meant McCain was boned.
But Shock of Shocks, people, the bailout may not work! In fact, Wall Street lost more money than the entire liquid value of the bailout before I got out of bed today!
I won't subject you to another poorly-thought-out rant on economic policies, mostly because I don't have it in me. Because it's so boring to lose your life's savings this way. I expect that we will eventually rebound and the economy will be fine, but mostly I'm hoping this isn't the End of It All because what a lame way to go down. There are so many better dystopian near-futures we could have!
The Planet Runs Dry of Oil - Mad Max covered this nicely, at least if you're an Aussie. It's unclear how the massive fuel shortage effected the U.S. during the events of The Road Warrior, but if the movie is any indicator, we'll wear lots of football gear, be into punk rock, and maybe be a little gay.
The Planet Runs a Little Hot - We could go the opposite route, and melt the polar icecaps. Less desert, more coastline. Except the coastline will be in Ohio. That would necessitate a mass migration, it would probably happen slowly enough to limit the loss of life, but the potential for starvation would be significant. Now, I'm not advocating for this at all, but that there's a doomsday scenario you can hang your hat on. Also, I could stop paying off my student loans.
The Planet Gets a Little Exploded - Asteroids are the heavy hitters of doomsday devices. We can't really see them coming--at least, not with enough time to actually do anything about it--and they can conceivably wipe out the whole planet. This is less fun for futuristic dystopia reasons, because a wiped planet means no people to be all anarchistic and cyberpunked. Let's just watch Deep Impact again and pray for a President as awesome as Morgan Freeman.
Clearly my boned statement from a few weeks back was accurate, although at the time I meant McCain was boned.
But Shock of Shocks, people, the bailout may not work! In fact, Wall Street lost more money than the entire liquid value of the bailout before I got out of bed today!
I won't subject you to another poorly-thought-out rant on economic policies, mostly because I don't have it in me. Because it's so boring to lose your life's savings this way. I expect that we will eventually rebound and the economy will be fine, but mostly I'm hoping this isn't the End of It All because what a lame way to go down. There are so many better dystopian near-futures we could have!
The Planet Runs Dry of Oil - Mad Max covered this nicely, at least if you're an Aussie. It's unclear how the massive fuel shortage effected the U.S. during the events of The Road Warrior, but if the movie is any indicator, we'll wear lots of football gear, be into punk rock, and maybe be a little gay.
The Planet Runs a Little Hot - We could go the opposite route, and melt the polar icecaps. Less desert, more coastline. Except the coastline will be in Ohio. That would necessitate a mass migration, it would probably happen slowly enough to limit the loss of life, but the potential for starvation would be significant. Now, I'm not advocating for this at all, but that there's a doomsday scenario you can hang your hat on. Also, I could stop paying off my student loans.
The Planet Gets a Little Exploded - Asteroids are the heavy hitters of doomsday devices. We can't really see them coming--at least, not with enough time to actually do anything about it--and they can conceivably wipe out the whole planet. This is less fun for futuristic dystopia reasons, because a wiped planet means no people to be all anarchistic and cyberpunked. Let's just watch Deep Impact again and pray for a President as awesome as Morgan Freeman.
October 3, 2008
The Inevitable VP Debate Post
"This was supposed to be a no rough stuff type deal!"
I don't know about the rest of you, but after last night I've got a hankerin' for some Fargo.
But putting that aside for a moment, we have the debate. The best that can be said for Sarah Palin is that she didn't turn into a Tina Fey caricature live on stage. She also didn't really answer any of the questions, at all, and at a few points took wildly disconnected tangents. I appreciate her thoughts on education, for instance, but did she even remember that the question was on how she differed from McCain? Granted, it was 3 or 4 responses in, but Biden simply included the word "education" in a laundry list of important topics, and Palin took it and ran.
She clearly can't think of true, coherent answers on the spot. She has canned responses and when somebody triggers the right word ("education") her internal sensors switch on and she tosses out a heap a' folksiness!
So she managed to string some coherent responses together. She didn't actually answer the questions, but at least her answers weren't gibberish. Biden, on the other hand, has a clear command of the issues, and managed to keep from making any significant mistakes or gaffes.
I think this will result in a slight bump for Obama/Biden, but not much for McCain because all it has done is reinforce the Palin fans' opinions. Independents probably won't consider this a terribly successful debate on her part. She's just not a gibbering idiot, and let me just say I'm glad that's where McCain has set the bar for VP candidates.
I don't know about the rest of you, but after last night I've got a hankerin' for some Fargo.
But putting that aside for a moment, we have the debate. The best that can be said for Sarah Palin is that she didn't turn into a Tina Fey caricature live on stage. She also didn't really answer any of the questions, at all, and at a few points took wildly disconnected tangents. I appreciate her thoughts on education, for instance, but did she even remember that the question was on how she differed from McCain? Granted, it was 3 or 4 responses in, but Biden simply included the word "education" in a laundry list of important topics, and Palin took it and ran.
She clearly can't think of true, coherent answers on the spot. She has canned responses and when somebody triggers the right word ("education") her internal sensors switch on and she tosses out a heap a' folksiness!
So she managed to string some coherent responses together. She didn't actually answer the questions, but at least her answers weren't gibberish. Biden, on the other hand, has a clear command of the issues, and managed to keep from making any significant mistakes or gaffes.
I think this will result in a slight bump for Obama/Biden, but not much for McCain because all it has done is reinforce the Palin fans' opinions. Independents probably won't consider this a terribly successful debate on her part. She's just not a gibbering idiot, and let me just say I'm glad that's where McCain has set the bar for VP candidates.
October 2, 2008
Hotels: Gateway to Hell
Why are hotels so scary?
It's a relatively common theme in movies, books and television. 1408, last year, was a hotel. The Shining is probably the gold standard of scary hotels. Motels don't get a reprieve (Psycho, Identity, that one with a Wilson brother that came out last year) but at least with motels, the location is more of a seedy backdrop.
With hotels, they're often the root cause of the evil when they're onscreen. Or they meet a specific need of the evil denizens that would be unmet by other structures.
Is it because they are musty, lived-in places? The older ones, especially, have seen thousands of guests over many decades; is that creepy in and of itself?
I've never been scared when staying in a hotel or motel. No premonitions or lurking evils. Am I unusual? Do other people get routinely creeped out when staying in such a place?
It's a relatively common theme in movies, books and television. 1408, last year, was a hotel. The Shining is probably the gold standard of scary hotels. Motels don't get a reprieve (Psycho, Identity, that one with a Wilson brother that came out last year) but at least with motels, the location is more of a seedy backdrop.
With hotels, they're often the root cause of the evil when they're onscreen. Or they meet a specific need of the evil denizens that would be unmet by other structures.
Is it because they are musty, lived-in places? The older ones, especially, have seen thousands of guests over many decades; is that creepy in and of itself?
I've never been scared when staying in a hotel or motel. No premonitions or lurking evils. Am I unusual? Do other people get routinely creeped out when staying in such a place?
October 1, 2008
Jackass, Prophet, or Something In Between?
I watched Into the Wild last night. This will be a fairly spoiler-laden commentary on the film, so if you haven't seen it and don't know this guy's story, you should probably stop reading... now.
Anyway. To briefly summarize, this is the story of a kid (new college graduate) that takes off and bums around the country with little money, meeting people and trying to "take it all in" to a certain extent. I do not know the degree to which liberties were taken from the "real story" by the film's producers, so I am going to discuss the film as a stand-alone story, without regard to what may have "really happened".
At first, the main character (Chris) bugged the hell out of me. He reads Thoreau and wants to give up all his earthly possessions and live "pure" as Thoreau did, and to further this goal he gives thousands of dollars to OXFAM and heads for the hills.
As most college graduates can tell you, college kids are often idiots. They stumble upon a work of literature, or art, or historical account, and act like the rest of the world hasn't already experienced this "amazing discovery". It is insufferable and one of the few drawbacks of providing an education. Most kids who go through this phase grow out of it, and realize that yes, The Call of the Wild is a great book. Yes, Dostoevsky is a great writer. But you have to add something new to the analysis--a far more difficult task than just "appreciating" the author--to be relevant.
Chris first comes across as nothing more than a whiny, self-involved brat. The film attempts to paint a sympathetic back-story--his parents are assholes--but since everybody butts heads with their parents, it rings a little hollow as an excuse for his behavior.
Later, he becomes a little less obviously jerky, and you do come to believe he really does think that living a ramblin' man life of poverty is the key to happiness. He is pretty happy despite being knocked around by railroad bulls and squeezing through drainage pipes. But the underlying purpose of his travels remains a dissatisfaction with his parents and with "consumerism".
I realize I've gotten a bit off track, because the anti-consumerist attitude was what I initially meant to talk about. The thing about anti-consumerism is that while I fully believe that a healthy dose of moderation is important, like any other ideology, anti-consumerism is extremely stupid when taken to the extreme. It's great that HE can go bumming around the country, working as much as he needs to get by. But someone has to build the grain mill he works at. Someone has to run the fast-food restaurant he (very briefly, in the film) works at to save money. People build the roads, and the cars in hitches with, and so forth. It is naive and insulting to use these tools to achieve your anti-consumerist goals, while backhanding those who provide them as "ignorant" and "superficial".
Furthermore, I take issue with the idea that, survivability aside, everybody should live simply. It is a waste of human possibility to have everybody living in a log cabin, getting by off the land. We have the ability to design and plan massive skyscrapers; to study and manipulate genetics; to write and paint and sculpt truly amazing works of art. If we all give up the tools to do those things, we are dong a disservice to our species.
As far as the film goes, it doesn't come out and push these "live simply" virtues to the degree that I attack them. It is never obvious that Chris wants others to live this way, but that he is doing it himself as part of a search for something bigger. But the film--until the last half hour--makes him into a hero for "kicking off the establishment" and the implication is that he is a role model for that reason.
Of course (Spoiler Alert Again! For Real This Time!) he dies because of his ramblin' man attitude. He starves to death in the cold nowhere of Alaska (the film implies that he mistakenly eats paralytic berries, but in real life it seems that he just plain starved). He realizes at the end that "happiness is only real when shared" and tries to go back to society, only to get trapped. It is a bummer, but how much sympathy can I really have? At multiple points in the movie he is offered friendship and family, and he turns them down to continue his solo adventure.
Overall, I suppose this was a good movie. It clearly left me thinking about a number of issues. And as the stand-alone story of this guy's misguided life, it does a great job as a film. As a "message movie" I'm not so sure how it fares; the message is muddled and unclear--if it's "Chris McCandless was right!" then it's crap. If it's "he died finding out his worldview was wrong" then it shoves that in a bit late to be effective.
Anybody have any thoughts on this? If you even read this far down?
And yes, I know he went to my high school. Graduated 10 years before me in 1986! He died right around the time I was starting at Woodson.
Anyway. To briefly summarize, this is the story of a kid (new college graduate) that takes off and bums around the country with little money, meeting people and trying to "take it all in" to a certain extent. I do not know the degree to which liberties were taken from the "real story" by the film's producers, so I am going to discuss the film as a stand-alone story, without regard to what may have "really happened".
At first, the main character (Chris) bugged the hell out of me. He reads Thoreau and wants to give up all his earthly possessions and live "pure" as Thoreau did, and to further this goal he gives thousands of dollars to OXFAM and heads for the hills.
As most college graduates can tell you, college kids are often idiots. They stumble upon a work of literature, or art, or historical account, and act like the rest of the world hasn't already experienced this "amazing discovery". It is insufferable and one of the few drawbacks of providing an education. Most kids who go through this phase grow out of it, and realize that yes, The Call of the Wild is a great book. Yes, Dostoevsky is a great writer. But you have to add something new to the analysis--a far more difficult task than just "appreciating" the author--to be relevant.
Chris first comes across as nothing more than a whiny, self-involved brat. The film attempts to paint a sympathetic back-story--his parents are assholes--but since everybody butts heads with their parents, it rings a little hollow as an excuse for his behavior.
Later, he becomes a little less obviously jerky, and you do come to believe he really does think that living a ramblin' man life of poverty is the key to happiness. He is pretty happy despite being knocked around by railroad bulls and squeezing through drainage pipes. But the underlying purpose of his travels remains a dissatisfaction with his parents and with "consumerism".
I realize I've gotten a bit off track, because the anti-consumerist attitude was what I initially meant to talk about. The thing about anti-consumerism is that while I fully believe that a healthy dose of moderation is important, like any other ideology, anti-consumerism is extremely stupid when taken to the extreme. It's great that HE can go bumming around the country, working as much as he needs to get by. But someone has to build the grain mill he works at. Someone has to run the fast-food restaurant he (very briefly, in the film) works at to save money. People build the roads, and the cars in hitches with, and so forth. It is naive and insulting to use these tools to achieve your anti-consumerist goals, while backhanding those who provide them as "ignorant" and "superficial".
Furthermore, I take issue with the idea that, survivability aside, everybody should live simply. It is a waste of human possibility to have everybody living in a log cabin, getting by off the land. We have the ability to design and plan massive skyscrapers; to study and manipulate genetics; to write and paint and sculpt truly amazing works of art. If we all give up the tools to do those things, we are dong a disservice to our species.
As far as the film goes, it doesn't come out and push these "live simply" virtues to the degree that I attack them. It is never obvious that Chris wants others to live this way, but that he is doing it himself as part of a search for something bigger. But the film--until the last half hour--makes him into a hero for "kicking off the establishment" and the implication is that he is a role model for that reason.
Of course (Spoiler Alert Again! For Real This Time!) he dies because of his ramblin' man attitude. He starves to death in the cold nowhere of Alaska (the film implies that he mistakenly eats paralytic berries, but in real life it seems that he just plain starved). He realizes at the end that "happiness is only real when shared" and tries to go back to society, only to get trapped. It is a bummer, but how much sympathy can I really have? At multiple points in the movie he is offered friendship and family, and he turns them down to continue his solo adventure.
Overall, I suppose this was a good movie. It clearly left me thinking about a number of issues. And as the stand-alone story of this guy's misguided life, it does a great job as a film. As a "message movie" I'm not so sure how it fares; the message is muddled and unclear--if it's "Chris McCandless was right!" then it's crap. If it's "he died finding out his worldview was wrong" then it shoves that in a bit late to be effective.
Anybody have any thoughts on this? If you even read this far down?
And yes, I know he went to my high school. Graduated 10 years before me in 1986! He died right around the time I was starting at Woodson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)