I just finished reading 1984 by George Orwell the other day, and let me tell you, it is the perfect book for someone disillusioned by the partisan politics that are rampant today. Nevermind that it is an allegory for the direction in which the Communist Party in the Soviet Union was headed in the 1930's, because that is not the context in which I read the book. A few days after I finished it, Mark Dayton was sworn in as the first Democratic governor of the state of Minnesota in almost 20 years. Don't get me wrong-I don't mind at all that he is a Democrat, what I do mind is that his motivation, and what motivates all our elected officials seems to be favor in their party, rather than favor with their constituents. If you take the telescreens in 1984 to be analogous to modern journalists who follow politicians every move, then politicians are not free to think their own thoughts because THE PARTY will know about it. Pro-life Democrats are heavily criticized by other Democrats because they don't follow party lines. Anti-death penalty Republicans are chastised for being soft on crime. When a politician goes against the will of The Party, they are in a sense taken to the Ministry of Love and tortured until they agree with the party, or they are just never allowed to run for office via never receiving a party endorsement. Evidence of this is on talk radio. Sometimes I listen to conservative talk radio (for some laughs) and I've heard Rush Limbaugh say that compromise should not be an option and anyone who compromises is not a true Republican. He paints President Obama in the same light that Emmanuel Goldstein is painted in Orwell's book: as the ultimate enemy of the state. Other evidence of politicians being slaves to their party is Mark Dayton and president Obama*. Dayton wrote an editorial for the Star Tribune (that I'm having a really hard time finding now) where he outlined his plans as governor: tax the rich, feed the poor, maintain womens right to choose etc. blah blah blah. There was not an original idea in the whole thing. He just recycled the platform of the Democratic party and called it his campaign. Obama made himself look like a giant tool by coming to MN, endorsing Dayton and saying it was important that Democrats take back the governors mansion here. I was very disappointed with Obama because of that. Not because of a million other things I could choose from to be disappointed with him about, but because he made himself a tool for his party.
This is how bad partisan politics in the United States has become. Every politician, even president Obama, wants to satisfy their party so badly, that I wonder who is even in power. The terrifying conclusion that I came to is that we are a country of two kings who are at war with each other. The war they wage is for control of the government our founding fathers set up 230some years ago. The problem is that the two main parties have such a stranglehold on the general public. They use fear tactics and repetitive mantras (no new taxes! tax the rich!) to get the crowd mentality to take over. Some lyrics by Tool really sum it up: "Choices always were a problem for you/what you need is someone strong to guide you. Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow, what you need is someone strong to guide you." (Opiate, from their Opiate EP). I know I sound crazy, and that's why I try to keep my mouth shut about these things and just vote for goofy third party candidates. I proudly wasted my vote on Tom Horner in 2010. I would do that again.
As for the book 1984 by George Orwell, I enjoyed it a lot. Look what I took from it. What I most enjoyed was the level of detail in the book. It was very vividly described. Winston's fall from rebel to party loyalist was a little quick, but it still felt natural, and I'm sure in his place I would probably have done the same thing. I hadn't even finished reading this when I recommended it to people.
*I know I harp on Obama a lot, he's not a bad guy, and I even feel kind of bad for him. He came into office with so many good ideas and promises, and he hasn't been able to do a thing because of the oil spill and the wars and recessions. Between him and McCain in '08, I would have been satisfied with either, between Dayton and Emmer in '10, I fear an apocalypse either way.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
the Bicentennial Man
Recently, I watched The Bicentennial Man starring Robin Williams. It is based on an Isaac Asimov short story by the same name that I have not read (yet). It was an enjoyable movie about a robot that serves the same family for four generations.
It was kind of a romantic comedy/sci fi, and wouldn't normally be my kind of movie, except that I enjoyed it because of how they held on to the themes from Isaac Asimov's stories about robots. In his robot stories, he blurs the lines between humanity and robot and asks "what makes us human?" The movie does the same thing. Throughout, the robot transforms from a big, blocky machine to basically being human. It becomes a human not just on the outside via face-upgrades and skin, but also on the inside and mentally/emotionally. In it's childhood, the robot needs to be taught how to behave, how to respond to different greetings. One funny scene near the beginning is when Andrew (the robot) learns how to say "good night." His owner says "good night" to him, and he responds by agreeing and saying that the night is good. His owner then says that he just responds with "good night." The turning point in Andrew's life is when he is bored in the basement (robots don't need sleep, so what is he supposed to do all night?) and decides to start repairing all the broken junk they have down there. His owner notices his initiative and starts nurturing him (probably at the expense of raising his daughters). Andrew takes to woodcarving, and starts selling "hand" made clocks. He gets rich doing that, and then questions of who "owns" his money arise. Should the robot get the money? What does a robot need money for? Eventually they decide that Andrew should have his own bank account. Later on, he uses his money to try and buy his freedom. His reasoning is that people have given their lives for freedom for thousands of years, and he sees it as something worth giving up everything he has. He is granted his freedom for free by his very generous owner and moves out. What I like about the movie is that all of his more mental/emotional developments are complimented by exterior developments as well. After he gets his bank account, he decides to spend his money on facial upgrades that would better show his emotions.
Overall this is a very excellent movie that I would recommend to anyone who likes sci fi, but specifically anyone who enjoys Isaac Asimov's stories about robots, since it is the perfect adaptation of them.
It was kind of a romantic comedy/sci fi, and wouldn't normally be my kind of movie, except that I enjoyed it because of how they held on to the themes from Isaac Asimov's stories about robots. In his robot stories, he blurs the lines between humanity and robot and asks "what makes us human?" The movie does the same thing. Throughout, the robot transforms from a big, blocky machine to basically being human. It becomes a human not just on the outside via face-upgrades and skin, but also on the inside and mentally/emotionally. In it's childhood, the robot needs to be taught how to behave, how to respond to different greetings. One funny scene near the beginning is when Andrew (the robot) learns how to say "good night." His owner says "good night" to him, and he responds by agreeing and saying that the night is good. His owner then says that he just responds with "good night." The turning point in Andrew's life is when he is bored in the basement (robots don't need sleep, so what is he supposed to do all night?) and decides to start repairing all the broken junk they have down there. His owner notices his initiative and starts nurturing him (probably at the expense of raising his daughters). Andrew takes to woodcarving, and starts selling "hand" made clocks. He gets rich doing that, and then questions of who "owns" his money arise. Should the robot get the money? What does a robot need money for? Eventually they decide that Andrew should have his own bank account. Later on, he uses his money to try and buy his freedom. His reasoning is that people have given their lives for freedom for thousands of years, and he sees it as something worth giving up everything he has. He is granted his freedom for free by his very generous owner and moves out. What I like about the movie is that all of his more mental/emotional developments are complimented by exterior developments as well. After he gets his bank account, he decides to spend his money on facial upgrades that would better show his emotions.
Overall this is a very excellent movie that I would recommend to anyone who likes sci fi, but specifically anyone who enjoys Isaac Asimov's stories about robots, since it is the perfect adaptation of them.
Friday, January 7, 2011
was 2010 really necessary?
I of course mean the book/movie, not the year. Debating whether or not a year was really necessary is kind of pointless since you can't stop it from coming or going. I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, and honestly that's because I'm afraid to start reading it, based on my previous experiences reading Arthur C. Clarke.
As a movie, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is enjoyable. It was exciting, and fun to watch, even if John Lithgows character was really whiny and annoying. The reason I ask whether or not it was "necessary" is it's merit in continuing the story started in 2001: A Space Odyssey. 2001 was a conceptual film about human evolution, and ends with the next step in human evolution (after humans). To continue that story means it would have to continue following human evolution after that, into abstract forms that aren't relateable and don't make sense since they would have to be energy beings or something. It would be a really boring movie, and not the same kind of boring that 2001 was. Rather than continuing down that path, the storytellers (Clarke and Peter Hyams) decided to try and explain why HAL tried to kill everyone in 2001, and explain what the monoliths are. It's a noble endeavor, however it takes away from the mystery of 2001. I liked 2001 because it was whatever you wanted it to be. You could interpret the ending in a lot of different ways, and it could mean something different to everyone. When Clarke and Hyams decided to explain what happened, they took all the mystery out of it, and I think they took the fun out of it too. To answer the original question "was 2010 necessary?" I say no, it wasn't. I enjoyed it, but it was not a necessary continuation of the story that began in 2001.
As a movie, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is enjoyable. It was exciting, and fun to watch, even if John Lithgows character was really whiny and annoying. The reason I ask whether or not it was "necessary" is it's merit in continuing the story started in 2001: A Space Odyssey. 2001 was a conceptual film about human evolution, and ends with the next step in human evolution (after humans). To continue that story means it would have to continue following human evolution after that, into abstract forms that aren't relateable and don't make sense since they would have to be energy beings or something. It would be a really boring movie, and not the same kind of boring that 2001 was. Rather than continuing down that path, the storytellers (Clarke and Peter Hyams) decided to try and explain why HAL tried to kill everyone in 2001, and explain what the monoliths are. It's a noble endeavor, however it takes away from the mystery of 2001. I liked 2001 because it was whatever you wanted it to be. You could interpret the ending in a lot of different ways, and it could mean something different to everyone. When Clarke and Hyams decided to explain what happened, they took all the mystery out of it, and I think they took the fun out of it too. To answer the original question "was 2010 necessary?" I say no, it wasn't. I enjoyed it, but it was not a necessary continuation of the story that began in 2001.
Monday, January 3, 2011
New years resolutions
I'm going to start writing for the blog again. I'll still publish posts on Friday mornings at 11AM. I'm going to try and get Michelle to write for it consistently, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)