Weblog

Friday, 27 March 2009

  • Ryan Moats Story, The Media, and Schadenfreude

    NFL runningback Ryan Moats is delayed by a Dallas cop from seeing his dying mother-in-law. The details are here (complete with video) in blog entry by Matt Mosley titled “Sickening Story involving ex-Eagle RB Moats”.

    http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfceast/0-8-326/Sickening-story-involving-Ex-Eagle-RB-Moats.html

    I think it's pretty easy to gang up on the cop, and yes I do believe that what he did was idiotic and that he should be punished, but this is a perfect example of how crazy the media is. If that cop pulls over a non-celebrity there is no front cover news and the Dallas police department probably sends a small token apology to the family (if any).But because this was an NFL football player the cop's career is over and this one moment will probably define the rest of his life; it doesn't matter how many babies he pulls out of burning buildings from here on out, this dude is the asshole cop who prevented a family from seeing their dying mother.

     Not going to lie, watching the misfortune and incompetency of this officer made me feel bigger, smarter, and more morally outstanding. This story is symbolic of one of the sad conditions of us human beings, we relish in the misfortune and mistakes of others because it elevates our self-confidence. This is why people would rather listen to Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann than a more reasonable and patient political pundit. This is why people scrutinize the appearance of celebrities and judge their every move http://omg.yahoo.com/news/kim-kardashian-so-what-i-have-a-little-cellulite/20457?nc . People, including myself, desire (perhaps need?) victims and 'losers' to elevate themselves and affirm their own existence. We want pundits who give us someone to look down upon condescendingly and give us an excuse to moralize and remind ourselves of how awesome we are; we don’t want someone who tries to justify the mistakes of losers who are beneath us. 

    Another strange thing is that sometimes I find myself being the most scornful of people who make mistakes or do shameful things that I can imagine myself doing. For instance, I never really detested or expressed scorn for Hitler or Josef Stalin; massacring millions of people out of hatred or to secure political power is something that I cannot imagine myself doing. However, I did enjoy watching Elliot Spitzer get persecuted for hiring a hot young prostitute and cheating on his perfect wife. Could this be because I could imagine myself doing the exact same thing if I were in his shoes? Perhaps criticizing him makes me feel like I would never do such a thing and helps conceal one of my own flaws. Maybe this is why the most critical anti-homosexuals have affairs with male prostitutes and why some of the most self-righteous priests have affairs with boys.   

    One fuck up or embarrassing moment caught by the media can immortalize one's shame for the entire world to enjoy at their leisure. Certainly it helps bring some people to justice, as was case here, but sometimes it replaces the phrase "blown out of proportion" to "exploded out of proportion." Examples that come to mind are the famous Star Wars kid and the Chicago Cubs fan who caught an otherwise in play ball from the stands. Both were normal people who were at the wrong place at the wrong time and the unfortunate casualties of the schadenfreude of us crazy human beings. We can’t get enough of this shit; the only time we learn to detest it is when we are the victims. But that will never happen anyways because we are too awesome.

    F my life.

    P.S. What makes this depressing is that I feel superior for being able to realize my own flaws while other people cannot. What makes this even more depressing is that I feel even more superior for admitting that I feel depressed for feeling superior because I realized my own flaws. Purity is so elusive.

Sunday, 25 January 2009

  • ~Thought of the day~

    How come when people make an analogy to the battle of David versus Goliath, David is the underdog and Goliath is the favorite? Shouldn't it be the other way around? The way I remember things, David took down Goliath without suffering a single scratch and he was divinely destined to win. Seriously, can Goliath possibly be a bigger underdog?

Friday, 26 September 2008

  • W. and 21st Century Film

    http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810026489/video/988
    http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810026489/video/98801200120

    This George W. Bush "bio pic" titled "W." will be released this October directed by the controversial Oliver Stone. According to Wikipedia.com*, Stone remarked it would be a "fair, but true portrait of the man." When I first heard these remarks, I was actually pretty excited because Stone made some serious (albeit in JFK's case, very bogus) Presidential bio pics. The whole stupid President shtick utilized in numerous calenders, comedy central TV shows, late night talk shows, bumper stickers, etc. etc. was just getting old; it would just be so refreshing to see someone make a movie that treated the President without any kind of blatant agenda. I thought this would be the movie to do that, and I thought wrong.

    As you can see from the trailers, this movie treats it's subject matter more like Ace Ventura the Pet Detective than an actual human being who really lived. Yes I know we all like to ridicule G.W., but this movie was a great opportunity to look at the man more in-depth. What drove him to invade Iraq? How did his religious beliefs affect his decision making? What redeeming qualities did he have that may have been overlooked in the media blitz? But alas, look at what we get instead. Another slap stick portrayal of the President and his administration that has jumped the shark about half a decade ago.

    It's sad, I've been an avid movie goer all my life and I feel like I am watching the extinction of cinema before my very eyes. A big reason why W. isn't being treated seriously, even though it claims to be, is because Stone knows that a movie portraying G.W. as a clown is going to attract more viewers. Watching those clips of him getting drunk and doing an assortment of dumb stuff has more shock value and will fill up the seats. Movies are no longer about trying to make a movie that is actually creative or compelling; it's all about recycling popular material and pimping it up with some bling to get the attention of the audience. Just take a look at the Top 20 Box Office hits that were released in the 21st Century:

    2. The Dark Knight
    4. Shrek 2
    7. POTC: Dead man's Chest
    9. SWIII: Revenge of the Sith
    10. LOTR: Return of the King
    11. Spider Man 2
    12. Passion of the Christ
    14. LOTR: Two Towers
    15. Finding Nemo
    16. Spider Man 3
    19. Shrek The Third
    20. Transformers

    Ten of the twelve movies are sequels, one of the movies only got up there because of the subject matter, and the last was a miserable movie of a recycled cartoon that was basically a bad live action Playstation 3 game. The only original movie from the 21st century is Finding Nemo. Now look at the other movies top 20 movies from before the 21st century. These titles were: Titanic, the ORIGINAL Star Wars, E.T., Jurassic Park 1,  and Forrest Gump. These are movies that actually tried to be original and capture an audience through an intriguing story line, plot development, and interesting characters (gasp)! 

    Good thing it's football season or I would be really bitter right now. 

    *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Stone

Tuesday, 10 June 2008

  • Spike Lee vs. Clint Eastwood

    http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/91496

    In the article, Spike Lee accuses Clint Eastwood of being biased against blacks because he didn't feature black soldiers in either of his WWII movies. IMO, Spike Lee's sentiment is a perfect example of how PCness in Hollywood can be taken to nauseating heights.

    I mean, dude, this is WORLD WAR II!!!! The military did not become racially integrated until the Korean War five years later. Black soldiers, to my knowledge, were not in the front lines of Iwo Jima because the Marine Corps was almost all-white. Is this racist? You're damn right it is. But guess what? Clint Eastwood addresses the issue of racism in BOTH of his movies. Flag of our Fathers deals with how a Native American marine was trivialized just because of his race and Letters showed the racial animosity between both Japanese and American soldiers. But why must all movies address race issues anyways? If the movie was a Vietnam movie, I think Lee would have a case that blacks aren't being treated fairly, but it's not! If we force film makers to constantly ensure their movies are PC, the sincerity of the message is going to be highly questioned. It's going to be just like product placement- something that is put in for purely financial reasons, in this case, protection against the feared race card.

    What does Spike want Clint Eastwood to do? Make sure EVERYONE is represented? Oh blacks served but aren't represented, let's have a token black officer so we make sure they are represented. Oh Jews served but aren't represented, let's make sure we make the sergeant be Jewish so they are represented. Oh the Japanese-Americans who served as interpreters served but aren't represented, let's make sure we have at least half an hour of film dedicated to these guys. Oh women aren't represented but they served, let's make sure we get a couple of scenes with the signature hot nurse who gives the soldiers flash backs of home. And you can go on, and on, and on...
    Gawd.

Sunday, 30 March 2008

  • Let's keep it real sports fans

    As most (all) people in Hawaii know, former UH Head Football coach June Jones left to take up another job coaching at SMU. Since then, sports talk radio has been on fire with rabid Warrior football fanatics chastising UH 'bandwagon jumpers' for 'abandoning' the team when they need them the most. Citing their quarter decade of loyalty to elevate them on some kind of moral pedestal, they will talk about how Warrior fans should feel an oligation to fill empty seats and that people should donate money to help pay for the Head Coach and other team expenses.

    Let's keep it real sports fans. We shouldn't even try to pretend that we are making some kind of 'sacrifice' whenever we show up for a game. Let's face it, we go to games because they are entertaining, not because we are trying to do the team some kind of favor.

     "But I've been showing up to every UH game even when we were 0-11," a hardcore fan will cry out, "I knew we sucked, but I still showed up to show my Rainbow Warrior pride!" Well good for you, that is indeed pretty conclusive evidence that you are an absolute football freak! If you are willing to pay $50 to watch a crappy football team play that is your business, but don't hate on other people because they aren't as fanatical as you are. You're not there to give moral support, you're there because even if the team does suck watching a ball game in Aloha Stadium on a Saturday night is still FUN! You would'nt be there if your hard earned money was going to be spent observing some kind of Math or Science competition. Cmon, now.

    Sports fans, if you want to donate money to show Hawaii pride there are better ways to do so than trying to procure our football team shiner helmets. Use the money to sponsor a local soldier up in Iraq, help buy textbooks for a public school, or donate to the Red Cross to show the mainland that Hawaii cares as well. I'm not trying to get on a high horse or anything, I rarely practice any form of philanthropy, but I feel that sports fans need to have more perspective. Just keeping it real.

Top Tags - Weblog

[no tags]

Cross_Punch

  • Visit Cross_Punch's Xanga Site
    • Name: Justin
    • Member Since: 3/23/2008

Weblog Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.

About Me

  • Five years of college Now in mid-20s limbo Madden and pizza

Pulse

Cross_Punch has no pulse!...