Friday, May 1, 2009

Distorted View of Importance

The following was originally part of an email to a friend, but after typing in a trance for ten minutes, I blinked and realized what I typed no longer made sense in her email. I decided to put it here instead. She was talking about how we were blowing the Swine Flu epidemic out of proportion when there's other diseases that kill more per year and have been around longer. I agree with her, but that started me off on a tangent that after reading it I was like, "this has nothing to do with what she was talking about." Still, I like what I was saying. So I'm putting it here in hopes that someday I'll find a better place to use it.

Oh I completely agree with you that here in America we have a very distorted view of what's important. For example, so many people want to give to charities that help children starving on the other side of the planet, but we have a homeless problem here in America that needs to be addressed more fervently. The problem is appearances. A crazy guy in his forties wearing rags doesn't illicit the same kind of concern and sympathy as a toothless crying baby in Tanzania with flies buzzing around her. However, that baby probably has a better support system around her than the poor old man does. I personally have a slightly more vested interest in the crazy guy in his forties, cuz take away my home and my car and my job and my paycheck, and that's all I am. A crazy middle-aged guy in rags. It is selfish selflessness that makes me think we here in America have a very distorted view of what's important.

I'm beginning to think a worldwide refocus of priorities is necessary. I just wish if we ever get that New World Order crap that some want and others fear, that THAT is what would be addressed. It's SO not. I guess that makes me one of the ones who doesn't want the NWO. Cuz I don't trust human beings. However, what we NEED as humanity is not either socialism or capitalism but what some may incorrectly perceive as a bit of both.

Some things need to be addressed in the common market. I used to think EVERYTHING needed to be addressed through capitalism. However, without a redistribution of wealth, eventually everything goes topheavy somewhere, and that develops caste systems based on economic well-being. When you corner the market on something, you don't easily let go of your grip. It's king of the hill. The toughest kid's gonna eventually take a stand and the only way to keep the possession of that hill from turning into a dictatorship of the playground, is if the rest of the playground bands together. There's some things we shouldn't have to fight over. Everyone deserves a piece of that hill. No one should be dismissed from the playground.

Every human being on this planet should be given Universal Rights. Those rights are built around necessities for physical and psychological well being. The right to live, to be happy, and to be unrestrained. This won't happen, but this is what we need and so long as we don't assure this for every single member of society, we're a worthless species.

I'd like for us to at least start with a Universal Agreement to food, drink, shelter, and function. All humans should be allowed to exist unencumbered by worries over those basic four things. That way, when it comes to combating in the marketplace for everything else, we all start on an equal level. Everyone needs shelter. Not everyone needs an entertainment center. However, not everyone can buy what you want to sell, if we don't all have a place to keep it. So it benefits capitalism, if all consumers' most basic needs are managed outside of capitalism.

If a charity isn't focusing on one of those big four, preferably in the community that a philanthropist is using his money, then that philanthropist needs to seriously reconsider how and why he is spending charity funds on something more frivolous outside his own neighborhood.

The problem with my mindset here is that some believe it to be unamerican. I know it. Which is why we'll never see it happen. One cannot force their will upon others. Well... you can, but no one's gonna invite you to parties if you do that. Unless of course you force them to invite you to their parties. No, the answer is not coercion or force, but education. We're not well-enough informed to make wise decisions about how to improve our community or our world.

The way I see it, most people look at the argument of capitalism vs socialism as if it were an either/or situation. It's not. One can have socialized medicine, but leave other things open to the marketplace. That's not unamerican. That's making sure all Americans can function - can have their inalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness without being encumbered by the weight of oppressive poverty and starvation and ill-health.

A person watches a commercial on TV that tells them about how horrible it is on the other side of the world for poor children and that person's heart reaches out to them. We all want to be the one to save their lives and make the world a better place. However, that commercial only tells one side of the story. We don't see what's behind that camera - only what the camera wants us to see.

Why doesn't the camera man give the kid a Snickers bar? Why are those children in poverty? Who is causing this? How can they be stopped? Or is there more to the story that leads one to believe a sack of rice is not going to solve the problem, but getting world leaders to settle their differences and focus on what's really important, WILL solve the problem? Provided those bastards can get their heads out of their asses long enough to realize what they've been doing all these years is precisely what's making those kids starve.

A person doesn't get to see commercials on TV about the poverty and starvation happening right under their noses, sometimes just a few houses down from their own. Nobody makes those commercials, cuz there's no money in it.

Maybe it feels better to anonymously give a few dollars a week to war torn provinces on the other side of the planet than it does to cook a homemade meal for people shuddering in the cold wind on the other side of town. How does that help us though? How does helping someone in India help me in America? I'm never even gonna meet that guy over there. Ideally it'd be great to help everyone everywhere on the planet, but shouldn't we start closer to home, and then help others elsewhere after our own home is in order?

But who am I to talk right? I don't frequent homeless shelters. I don't give, cuz I don't have a lot. I don't even know how to cook. I sure don't put my money where my mouth is, but then I don't have a lot of money. I'm constantly reminded that I'm often a paycheck away from being one of those middle aged men in rags wandering the street corners panhandling. Maybe my problem is I don't watch TV commercials about Indonesia or Ethiopia. I'm too frighteningly close to the images staring me back in the face.

This is about when I blinked out of my reverie and my own breath got caught in my throat. I tell you what, if I actually had any money to give, I'd probably start here with the Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance. So if what I just typed affected you at all, please send them a little something if you can afford it. Or better yet, find the homeless shelter in your area, give to them, and tell them Zach sent you. So maybe when everything is stripped from me, and all I am is a crazy person without a roof over my head, I'll have a place to go. And you to thank.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

TweetLand

With Fans Like These, who needs idiots?

TheEmperfect
: Okay. Way too many tweets from @BrentSpiner And the tweets are about? Later dude
mollywas
: @BrentSpiner is scaring me, and I never watched Star Trek anyways, so I think I might stop following him.
vancgirl: @BrentSpiner I think i am going to vomit with this crap.
AuthorPenn
: @BrentSpiner note to self, "unfollow @brentSpiner ASAP!
cam_rock: @BrentSpiner Whatever it is you are doing, it is excruciating to read these posts.
tracy_tiz
: @BrentSpiner bullshit.


This is just a sampling of responses people have sent to Brent Spiner regarding his recent foray into storytelling via Twitter. Responses I might add, that he has personally labelled 'favorites.' This does lead one to interpret his reaction to people telling him how bad his Tweets are; he is entertained by their juvenile ignorance.

What is he doing exactly? He's telling a story. Something he has done, in one form or another, his entire theatrical career, for what is an actor of any calibre if not a story teller? What he's doing on Twitter is unique. This is something I have yet to see done with such success by anyone else on the Internet. Brent Spiner is single-handedly expanding the envelope of what it means to Tweet. While sycophants like Ashton Kutcher and Oprah Winfrey are obsessed with numbers, Brent Spiner is challenging the medium, and yet others who claim to be supporters of his past work are questioning his content.

For those who are not in on the loop, Twitter is a social network program allowing people to tell one another what they're up to and what's on their mind, but only 140 characters at a time. While most people are using Twitter as an opportunity to describe the trivial minutiae of their daily lives, Brent Spiner is describing what might be his day, if he actually had a life as exciting as we fans of the celebrity think he should. However, he's self-conscious of his audience and turns that anticipation we fans have on its ear, by describing a fantasy life that's even better than we could imagine, but not in the way one might imagine. Rather than describing himself as some world reknowned celebrity that everyone knows and loves, Spiner describes a more shadowy world of uncertainty and hidden truths. It's a world of hardship and hope, where women can love and men can dream and jewish agents can cut twenty percent off the top of nothing, leaving you with less than zero.

Most recently, in this meta-soap opera that is Brent Spiner's life, he's been framed for a murder he didn't commit, and so is forced to change his appearance to look like that of Patrick Stewart, attempt to hide inside a darkened movie theater where his accusers are witnessing new Star Trek Movie premiere. That's where Spiner's narrative has led him thus far, but how he got here is plainly fascinating. Spiner thought he could change his name to "Norman" and get a job as a man's chauffeur, where he wouldn't be bothered by people who recognized him for playing an android on a tv show two decades ago. He weaved for himself a life of anonymity, yet described this other life to an avid and affable audience.

Yet, as well written as the story has been, albeit constricted by the limitations of the Twitter medium, it's not real. It's not truth. ...well okay. What's truth? Some can argue fiction is more honest and descriptive of The Human Condition than news, but I digress.

Apparently, many people who signed up for Brent Spiner's tweets wanted him to tell them when he next brushes his teeth. They don't want fiction. They want him to do what everyone else is doing with the medium. When he doesn't do that, they call him boring. What the rest of us are doing with the medium is what's boring. He's thinking outside the proverbial box.

Those who allege to be fans of him are rejecting what he offers, because they can't wrap their minds about the idea of fiction being presented via Twitter as if it were fact. They don't want a storyteller. They want to peer inside the private life of a man who quite frankly has already gone above and beyond the call of duty of any celebrity. Anyone who bitches about his Tweets but hasn't bothered to buy his latest CD Dreamland need to just shut the hell up. See what he's offering to entertain the audience for what it is, and quit trying to tell him what he should do. Either hop on board or get left behind, but don't drag the rest of us down with you. ...No I haven't bought Dreamland yet either. I want to, but I've been unemployed recently. Let me get a few paychecks under my belt and maybe I'll be able to afford to do that.

In Tweetland, Brent Spiner sees yet another stage, and he is filling it with a vibrant world of wonder and cruelty. He pads it with snarky sentiment and a wink and a nod to melodramatic pathos. Yet, those who claim to be his fans can't hold on to this ride. They complain, "
can't stand this torture, my head is about to explode" and "I feel bad but his nonsensical tweets are befuddling and annoying."Are people really this insipid? What were they wanting? Grocery lists? Veiled requests to buy his latest CD (available for purchase)? Brief thank yous and a link back to their own Tweets? It's like they're all saying, "enough about you Brent! What do you think of me?" The answer? Not much. Nor should he. After all, he IS Brent Spiner. We're just the audience.

Either hop on the ride or don't, but telling Mr. Spiner his storytelling is bad because you are not intelligent enough to understand it? Not his fault.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

To Retweet or Not To Retweet That Is The Question

Recently Dave Winer talked about Retweet which features a petition for Tweeters to sign if they want twitter.com to incorporate a "retweet feature" into the website design. I'm torn regarding this concept. The website in question doesn't go into detail about how this retweet function would work. Winer says, "Digg does it right, Twitter --> wrong."

I don't mean to pick on Dave Winer. The name may or may not ring a bell for you. He's a big wig on the Internet but not in a way that makes him a household name, unless the household is filled with web geeks. A lot of people look up to him and respect his views and I think other people whine and complain about whatever it is he's saying. Probably cuz he's usually right and they don't wanna admit it. I don't understand the politics of it but the bottom line is he's smarter than me. Chances are he's smarter than you. Let's leave it at that.

I've been on Digg. I've been on Reddit. Yes, their systems are very good at showing how many other people liked whatever it was a person said. Retweeting isn't exactly the same concept. When I "RT" something, it's not just because I agree with the sentiment. It's because for some reason I believe people who are following my tweets (or more specifically my blips cuz I have a few more blippers than I do tweeple) might be interested in seeing a tweet I've happened upon. Rather than just pretend the idea was mine, I want to acknowledge who said it. Personally, I prefer rewording the sentiment, or shortening it and adding my own two cents, but you only get 140 characters to do all this and oftentimes something gets lost in the translation.

What I'd prefer to see on Twitter, is a way to display the tweet I want to retweet, while leaving some or all of the 140 characters of MY Tweet open for me to add my two cents to what's already been said by someone else. I don't want just a retweet button that automates all this. I want to cheat, essentially. I wanna be able to display all of the previous tweet while still maximizing room for my opinion. Be it a rebuttal, a punchline, a ditto, or a crude ascii picture of boobs using parentheses in a way unsuitable to general audiences.

Currently the way it works now is tolerable for me cuz I can manually sculpt the previous RT to suit what I'm trying to say and add my thought, but I have to do all this in 140 characters. I'm a longwinded son of a bitch. Tweeting is already trying my patience as it is.

There's probably a way to just manually link to the other person's tweet, and I could make one of those tinyurls to minimize space, but then someone has to click to that other screen to see what I'm talking about. Since I'm usually going for the funny, that rather ruins the set up; not that what I want to say is going to be funny to the person reading it but it might help if I could better present the intended joke.

So if someone can better explain to me what the petition over at retweet.com is going to look like, if it matches what I'd like to see, then maybe I can hop on board this particular parade.

Reasons Why My Girlfriend Thinks I'm Gay

  1. I don't enjoy sports.
  2. When I was a kid, I had a sissy bar on the back of my bicycle. Bullies used to pull on it and throw me off my bike.
  3. I'm not interested in cars. I can't even fix them. I can barely fix a flat tire.
  4. I'm not any good with tools.
  5. I play with dolls. I call them puppets but she calls them dolls.
  6. I'm homophobic, which she says is an obvious give-away.
  7. I used to be into theater back in college, and still have a very strong interest in most things theatrical. This is apparently an area that has been usurped by the homosexual community, so my interest in it automatically makes her think I'm gay.
  8. I like show tunes. Notably anything from A Chorus Line, Cats, Fiddler On The Roof, Grease, Spamalot, West Side Story, Avenue Q, Wicked, and Chess' One Night In Bangkok by Murray Head. However, I draw the line at Rent.
  9. I enjoy the music of Mandy Patinkin, Brent Spiner, Barry Manilow, Neil Diamond, Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, and Billy Joel, but I draw the line at Boy George.
  10. I enjoy the music of Bernadette Peters, Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, Judy Garland, Liza Minelli, and Cher, but I draw the line at Celine Dion.
  11. Women I tend to be attracted to are invariably semi-butch lesbians. Famous examples include Laurie Anderson, Janeane Garofalo, Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Ethridge, Sara Gilbert, Janis Joplin, Lucy Liu, Michelle Rodriguez, Jamie Lee Curtis, and The Indigo Girls. However, I draw the line at Margaret Cho.. just this side of Margaret Cho. I mean I think she's hot but anyone beyond her is too much.
  12. I'm self-conscious about the idea of watching Brokeback Mountain, but I have no problem watching Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire dance together.
  13. Not that I am gay, but I would rather tell my mom I'm gay, then tell her I'm an atheist.
  14. I haven't had sex with anyone of any gender since the summer before Nine Eleven, and I'm very okay with this.
  15. My girlfriend is located in Kentucky and I am not, and I am very okay with this.
  16. My girlfriend is dating another man and I am not, and I am very okay with this.
  17. I have no problem at crying. I don't cry often, but if it happens I welcome it. As I get older, my eyes tend to dry up anyway, so I think it's therapeutic and healthy to cry whenever possible. Saves me money on Visine.
  18. I have to qualify whether or not its okay to cry by writing an entire paragraph about it.
  19. Objectively I'm aware that it's wrong to think being gay is wrong, but due to a southern Baptist upbringing and a lifetime of heterosexual presumptions, gay men creep me the hell out. I do enjoy the company of lesbians, but I'm painfully aware it's mostly because I want to fuck them. All this makes my girlfriend think I'm gay.
  20. Also, I think this list is FAB-ulous!

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Heroes Has Jumped The Shark

Reasons why I am no longer going to watch Heroes starting with season four.

  1. Greg Beeman was let go, and in my opinion he was one of the most passionate and talented creative minds behind the series. With him gone, I really don't care about the story from this point forward. I might reconsider if the network realizes their error and hire him back, but this is just one of a number of reasons why I'm leaving the series now.
  2. I loved season one, but after Sylar survived the first season finale, despite the fact he stood alone against the entire rest of the cast at the time, which I found to be absurd and terribly written, the series has gone down hill from there.
  3. Season two had some good moments, and I love many of the characters, but the writers often have characters doing things inappropriate to their characters for purpose of storytelling, which is pisspoor storytelling.
  4. Season three had a great opening, where the vast majority of powered characters were captured and in a plane which then crashed. It started great, but bad writing coupled with obvious financial restrictions turned what started as a powerful and suspenseful opening into a very anticlimactic and laughable season three. By the time we get to the season's end, it's obvious that behind the scenes there's been some sort of power struggle for creative control, with constant changes of opinion regarding the direction of the series.
  5. In season two, DL was written out of the series in a terrible way, and the series has suffered for the lack of Leonard Roberts' unique on screen quality and formidable talents.
  6. In more recent seasons the series has suffered from an inability to properly decide to make tough decisions and keep the cast small by killing off or writing out of the storyline roles that aren't supporting the story or being interesting to the audience. Admittedly, every time a character is killed off, the series is risking to alienate a chunk of its audience. However, the series is top-heavy with featured characters.
  7. This series has always essentially been between three to five different television shows merged together so as to keep an appearance of action when really we're just juggling multiple storylines. First, there's the story of the Petrellis. Second, there's the story of the Bennets. Third, there's Hiro and Ando. Fourth, Matt Parkman. Fifth, Mohinder's story. The sixth major storyline was Niki, DL, and Micah, but this story suffered the most in this juggling game and has all but disappeared in later seasons. Each of these plots alone could have been sufficient for a tv series of its own. The majority of episodes have essentially been telling snippets of each storyline through an intercutting song and dance. Some episodes would reveal a focus of one or more storylines as they merged, but most episodes feel more like a badly produced and frenetic soap opera. I'm reminded of the days of Love Boat & Fantasy Island which were formulaic in generating three plotlines that would be told interchangeably with the impression that if an audience didn't find anything of interest in one story, in a few minutes another story would be told that'd make up for it. Heroes did not need such a crutch. It just needed better writing and more focus. NBC's audience would have been better served if these half dozen or so storylines had each been given their own separate television series within which to truly grow and stretch its legs and fluorish. However, that would have probably been more expensive, and each story would have had to stand on its own legs, rather than letting other stories take up the slack when one story failed to properly interest an audience.
  8. Though the publicity has dressed Ali Larter up as a talented actress who could play multiple roles, which has become a necessity due to what the writers have done with her various characters, the actual logic behind why they need to do this has been lost, and Ali Larter has not proven to be believable in multiple roles. In season one I was buying the difference between Niki and Jessica. However, Tracy never seemed to have a convincing identity of her own. Ali Larter is pretty, but I'm not convinced she's an actress capable of meeting the challenge demanded by the psychotic writing.
  9. I really don't give a shit about Sylar. Oftentimes the writers treat him as if he's the most important character in the entire series, but he's not why I tune in and I do not want to see his redemption. I want to see him fry, and I want the writers to come up with some real villains that are far more interesting. I don't want to know about Sylar's past. I don't want to know about Sylar's future. Yes, Zachary Quinto is a talented man. The character the writers have devised him to play is more dastardly than JR Ewing of Dallas and less appealing than Major Nelson of I Dream Of Jeannie.
  10. I have never bought Claire forgiving Noah. Hayden Pantierre is admittedly talented beyond her youth, but the dialogue the writers have shoved down her throat at times has been pathetic and laughable. Noah lied to his entire family repeatedly. Yes he had to, but I wanted to see more of Claire struggling with this, when she struggled a little bit and then got over it as if Noah just grounded her for a week or something. He betrayed her family.
  11. The writers made a point to dramatically change Peter's powers for storytelling purposes, yet didn't hold true to the rules they stipulated for themselves. Peter's power has always been empathy - his ability to borrow powers from others was not originally based on touch. It was based on his affinity with other people. Taking that from him suddenly made him not Peter. What happened at Pinehurst changed all that, but when he got his power back, it was by physical contact, and not empathy. How is that Peter Petrelli?
  12. The writers made a point to place limits on Hiro Nakamura's powers for purposes of storytelling. Admittedly, they simply started him off as way too powerful. However, his response to it did not seem in keeping with the character's previous behavior. Also back in season two the whole thing about going back in time to ancient Japan suffered from budget constraints and did not live up to the hype.
  13. Mohinder injecting himself to get a power and then going all buggy and loony mad scientist crazy and then with the incident at Pinehurst he was able to retain the strength without the buggy side effects... somewhere in all that the writers completely lost sight of who Mohinder was, and that character ceased being remotely interesting. He turned into a plot device.
  14. They kill off Brea Grant's character and then bring back Ali Larter? Yuck. I liked Brea Grant. I've lost interest in Ali Larter. Both women are beautiful, but Grant is simply more entertaining and talented as an actress than Larter.
  15. The series has spent far too much time separating these characters and moving them around so that they almost meet or meet briefly. There should come a point where they band together more. The plot strings stretch too thin turning the series into a very boring soap opera. If I wanted a soap opera I'd watch daytime television.
  16. Due to financial constraints, oftentimes the writers are forced to show that special abilities and combat happen off camera. So focus is placed on character interaction which is nice, but if you can't actually show characters with super powers using their powers, then why the hell are you telling a story about characters with super powers? It's like telling a story about firefighters but never actually using fire because you can't afford to show fire special effects. If that's the case, make the series about librarians or something that doesn't involve fire.
  17. My favorite characters on the show are Matt Parkman and Hiro Nakamura. While both characters do get face time, what the writers are doing with them is a disappointment and a waste of character potential as well as talent resources.
  18. The introduction of Denko proved ultimately very anti-climactic. It would have been much more powerful had Denko not been introduced. Instead, Nathan & Noah were doing everything Denko had been doing. The conflicts would have been much more dynamic, but the writers weren't willing to let Nathan & Noah go that dark.
  19. The season three finale means Nathan's dead, and Sylar is taking his place. Tracy's apparently back from the dead and is the new Big Bad. Big deal. Sylar now being Nathan? That's jumping the proverbial shark. I presume that eventually we'll learn Nathan's real body was preserved and later regenerated. Like comics, no characters really die on this show unless the writers just don't want to write about them anymore.
  20. What the hell happened to Caitlin? She's just lost in an alternate future that no longer exists. WTF?
  21. If you're gonna hire Michael Dorn, and have him play the president of the United States, effin use the guy! He was little more than a glorified extra! Dorn's a rare and precious talent with a great screen presence and booming voice. You don't just have him stand there and smile for five seconds and that's it. Give him a scene where he says and does cool shit.
  22. If you're going to introduce characters on the Internet and then promise to later have them incorporated into the tv series, do it so that it actually has meaning. If you can't do it in a way that's valid, don't pretend to do it and insult your audience's intelligence.
I may add to this as I come up with more examples, but I have to wrap it up somewhere. I've weighed the pros and cons as I tend to do with every series I like to watch, especially around the time of the season finales, and Heroes no longer passes the litmus test. It actually jumped the shark a long time ago, but Sylar being forced into believing he's Nathan because Angela Petrelli can't bare to part with him is patently absurd, and that Noah and Matt would go along with it? That's the proverbial straw that broke this camel's back.

I can't believe the writers to expect us to swallow this malarkey. The series has spent the majority of its time after season one trying to find itself. We're going into volume five now. If it can't find its identity, it's not gonna. I'm done waiting for Heroes to get good again. I'm convinced it won't. I'm sure it'll get better and wow people and blow everyone's socks off the second I stop watching. That's fine. Whatever. I'm getting off at this stop. I for one am just tired of devoting another second of thought to something so disappointing.

Up until now, even when the show didn't go where I would have liked it to go, I would be pleasantly surprised and have had my share of fun with it. However, I'm now at a point where I am wondering why I am still watching this. It's turned from an amusing roller coaster into a sad and unfortunate train wreck, and this past season I've just been hanging on because I'd like to see how it ends. Like a person who started watching The Fugitive back in 1963. Even if one didn't like the occasional episode, one would still want to eventually see Dr Richard Kimble come face to face with the one armed man that killed his wife. Here with Heroes, I no longer believe the writers have the slightest idea where they're going with the series. There's no end game. There's no light at the end of the tunnel. There's just very disjointed writing with inconsistent characters that have short memories and no attention spans. The show seemed to have a soul on the outset, but now it's just a shadow of its formal self. With several shows this year being canceled that I believe are very good, it seriously saddens me that something this terrible is yet again being renewed for another season.

It's been an interesting ride, but I no longer want to go where Heroes is going, nor do I care to look at the destination. I will miss the acting talent, for the most part. I could say wonderful things about almost all of the actors on the show. It's the insipidly insulting and creatively retarded actions and dialogue they are being made to do that I can no longer stomach. I largely blame the writers, but more importantly I blame the money, because most of these writing choices probably are coerced by the lack of proper funds to tell a more realistic and intelligent tale about the What If Fantasy behind specially powered individuals. If you can't tell this story the way it should be told, why bother?

I used to wonder why television doesn't make an episodic tv series based on the comic books of my youth. I guess this is why. It can't properly be done. At least, not yet.