The three Republican-Democrat Presidential debates and the one Vice Presidential debate were covered incessantly. Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, Comedy Central (yes, for the sake of the argument, I'm including it), CBS, MSNBC, whatever - we heard every possible, stupid angle on every possible response.
Factcheck.org pointed out that both sides told lies, or at least untruths. Each news source praised the side they lean toward while lambasting the other. If their preferred candidate did worse, there were other factors at fault - the moderator, the altitude, the questions asked.
Neither of these candidates represent me, and I often find myself surprised at people who allow either candidate to represent them either.
This isn't to say either candidate is bad (although that is my opinion, I respect that others may disagree). It's to say that people who are self-professed liberals will blindly follow President Obama, and people who are self-professed conservatives will blindly follow Mitt Romney. A voter will decide that the other candidate is so hateful and so awful that she forgives faults in the candidate she decides is the lesser of two evils, even if these faults are beliefs or practices that go against everything she stand for.
Obama supporters will focus on Big Bird and ignore the drone attacks. Romney supporters will focus on a confused definition of socialism (seriously, shouldn't you have to define socialism before you use it on national television?) and ignore the seriousness of rape.
During his recap of the third debate, Jon Stewart praised Obama's performance and pointed that Romney would do everything Obama is doing concerning foreign policy. At no point did he mention that Obama's foreign policy often did, in fact, mirror Bush's - a foreign policy he used to tear to shreds. But Stewart is liberal and therefore supports Obama, because the only imagined alternative is too loathsome to imagine.
How, in an age of information overload, in an age where we can barely keep track of how many choices to share ideas we have, do we still only allow ourselves the option of either Democrat or Republican? And how, in the age of the internet, do most of our news sources ignore everything that isn't a part of the two major parties?
Here's where some asshole brings up money and corporations, like I'm some naive child that needs a pat on the head. But sometimes doing the right thing IS the right political move. Barack Obama finally endorsed same-sex marriage, for example. So for us to further democracy (and therefore continue to ensure a thriving middle-class, considering a democracy is the form of government most well-suited to the middle class), we need to make sure we have options, to make sure we can vote for someone we actually believe in.
I know the candidate I'm endorsing has ideas that may be impractical, but she is 100% opposed to drone attacks while also being 100% opposed to transvaginal ultrasounds. She's against drilling for oil (which apparently both Romney and Obama support), and she has a different idea of how to approach education.
I'm not trying to convince you to vote for my candidate. I'm trying to say that there are other options. In an era where we have countless ways to communicate and share ideas, it's mind-boggling that, in the political sphere, we limit ourselves to two schools of thought.
It won't always be this way. It can't. The internet has transformed the way we socialize (Facebook, online dating, Instagram), transformed the way we receive our news (Newsweek is almost out of print), and transformed the way we watch movies (Netflix) and read books (Kindle). There hasn't been an information revolution this drastic since Gutenberg invented the printing press. It is only a matter of time that, with more access to more information than ever before, we widen our options.
The internet will save us all, if we let it. I guess I have to be patient, as difficult as that is. Long live democracy. But only if we, as a society, embrace the change the internet has made possible.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Post Birthday Thoughtzz
Two days ago I turned twenty-three.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, getting philosophical about turning yet another year older, in my twenties no less, is a study in bourgeois privilege - a line of thought most of the world does not have the luxury to pursue. On the other hand, I'm a Millennial with a blog. So it's happening.
Other statistics to consider:
-I graduated almost two years ago (twenty-two months)
-My majors were in History and in Film/Television (focus on television)
-I'm trying to be a writer
-I'm from the suburbs of a big city, attended a large university in a smaller city, and moved back into my parents' home for a good chunk of my post-college existence
In the time I've graduated college, I've had seven jobs, eight job offers, four internships, four residences, and one gym membership I ended early. I've quit three jobs (one out of stupidity, one because I moved, one because an internship boss offered me a better job before taking it back a week later), been fired three times, and worked more than two months at two of these jobs. More than three months? Not quite.
Two of these jobs, Pinkberry and a smoothie store, didn't exactly require a college degree. Two more of these jobs, as a customer service rep and an office assistant, required a degree that was never put to use. One of these jobs fired me after six days. One of these jobs fired me on day one after requiring me to move closer into the city (which I did).
My current job pays the most, offers the best overtime, has the best bosses and the best coworkers, and in general has the best office environment. My current home is fairly new, comes with a dishwasher, and is decidedly not under my parents' roof. (I love you, Mom and Dad, but I can't live with you if there is literally any other option. Well, not literally any other option, but you know what I mean.)
To have gone through all this and learned nothing would be a waste. Some of this could have been avoided. Some of this is just life shitting on me in case I felt left out. Some of it was probably for the best - jobs I got fired from were jobs that either sucked or sounded like they sucked - seriously, after one day, I can only make an assumption.
But I have learned a lot, things I should have learned earlier and somehow didn't.
I learned that you have to work hard, or at the very least pretend you're working hard.
I learned the value of pretending to find work when there is literally nothing to do. I am bad at this.
I learned that it's easy to work when someone tells you to do something, but it's hard when you have to figure out the direction yourself.
I learned that living with your parents not only stunts your personal growth, it reverses it.
I learned that finding a job you enjoy, even if it's not in the field you want to have a career in, could be the best possible thing for a young twenty-something.
Paying your own rent sucks when you want to spend money on stupid shit.
I fucking love paying rent.
Don't EVER quit a job without a Plan B.
People in your life, more often than not, actually don't give a shit about whether or not you succeed. Your family? Yes. Your friends? Eh... most of the time. Especially if you pay for drinks.
Growing pains, in this next phase of life out of school, totally blow.
BUT. Drinking is legal.
California's liquor laws kick Massachusett's liquor laws' ass. Hard.
A day job is for money, but it helps to enjoy it. To succeed, though, you need to schedule time to do all the other stuff too, that's not at work.
Independence is not handed to you on a silver platter. It is something you work for. (Yes, this is a thing I had to learn the hard way.)
Learning things the hard way? Not as fun as common sense.
And perhaps most importantly, everything you learn has been learned by someone else in a more profound way.
Thank you. More frequent updates to follow.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, getting philosophical about turning yet another year older, in my twenties no less, is a study in bourgeois privilege - a line of thought most of the world does not have the luxury to pursue. On the other hand, I'm a Millennial with a blog. So it's happening.
Other statistics to consider:
-I graduated almost two years ago (twenty-two months)
-My majors were in History and in Film/Television (focus on television)
-I'm trying to be a writer
-I'm from the suburbs of a big city, attended a large university in a smaller city, and moved back into my parents' home for a good chunk of my post-college existence
In the time I've graduated college, I've had seven jobs, eight job offers, four internships, four residences, and one gym membership I ended early. I've quit three jobs (one out of stupidity, one because I moved, one because an internship boss offered me a better job before taking it back a week later), been fired three times, and worked more than two months at two of these jobs. More than three months? Not quite.
Two of these jobs, Pinkberry and a smoothie store, didn't exactly require a college degree. Two more of these jobs, as a customer service rep and an office assistant, required a degree that was never put to use. One of these jobs fired me after six days. One of these jobs fired me on day one after requiring me to move closer into the city (which I did).
My current job pays the most, offers the best overtime, has the best bosses and the best coworkers, and in general has the best office environment. My current home is fairly new, comes with a dishwasher, and is decidedly not under my parents' roof. (I love you, Mom and Dad, but I can't live with you if there is literally any other option. Well, not literally any other option, but you know what I mean.)
To have gone through all this and learned nothing would be a waste. Some of this could have been avoided. Some of this is just life shitting on me in case I felt left out. Some of it was probably for the best - jobs I got fired from were jobs that either sucked or sounded like they sucked - seriously, after one day, I can only make an assumption.
But I have learned a lot, things I should have learned earlier and somehow didn't.
I learned that you have to work hard, or at the very least pretend you're working hard.
I learned the value of pretending to find work when there is literally nothing to do. I am bad at this.
I learned that it's easy to work when someone tells you to do something, but it's hard when you have to figure out the direction yourself.
I learned that living with your parents not only stunts your personal growth, it reverses it.
I learned that finding a job you enjoy, even if it's not in the field you want to have a career in, could be the best possible thing for a young twenty-something.
Paying your own rent sucks when you want to spend money on stupid shit.
I fucking love paying rent.
Don't EVER quit a job without a Plan B.
People in your life, more often than not, actually don't give a shit about whether or not you succeed. Your family? Yes. Your friends? Eh... most of the time. Especially if you pay for drinks.
Growing pains, in this next phase of life out of school, totally blow.
BUT. Drinking is legal.
California's liquor laws kick Massachusett's liquor laws' ass. Hard.
A day job is for money, but it helps to enjoy it. To succeed, though, you need to schedule time to do all the other stuff too, that's not at work.
Independence is not handed to you on a silver platter. It is something you work for. (Yes, this is a thing I had to learn the hard way.)
Learning things the hard way? Not as fun as common sense.
And perhaps most importantly, everything you learn has been learned by someone else in a more profound way.
Thank you. More frequent updates to follow.
Monday, October 1, 2012
In Defense of Saturday Night Live
For a month of summer when I was 12, I watched nothing but reruns of old Saturday Night Live episodes. I learned two things. Saturday Night Live makes me laugh. And Steve Martin is a god.
(Steve Martin is a comedic legend. If this idea is something you can get behind, let's be best friends and get matching tramp stamps.)
I say the above to make clear that I'm not attached to any particular cast the way a lot of other SNL fans are. Everyone loves the Original Cast. Some people swear by Eddie Murphy; others are all about Christopher Guest. Adam Sandler gets a fair share of love. Molly Shannon, Will Ferrell, Chris Farley, Jimmy Fallon, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph - all have their superfans. And rightfully so. When they leave and a new cast comes in, loyal fans have trouble giving the new kids a chance.
Sketch comedy, especially sketch comedy that's been on the air this long, is by nature hit or miss. And people are by nature nostalgic for shows or movies they watched when they were younger. So we remember the best sketches from our favorite comedians and skate over the less memorable, less funny ones.
But some sketches from the past totally blow, and some sketches from last seasons are among the funniest the show's ever done. Yet when I ask fellow television fans (people who watch a similar level of TV as I do) if they watch SNL, more than half the time they not only tell me they haven't been watching, they also throw in some derisive line about how the show isn't funny anymore.
People literally have been saying this show isn't good anymore since the Original Cast left in 1980. That particular critique of the show is nine years older than I am. Are we seriously still trotting it out? And you know that means your particular Golden Era of SNL was considered beneath an older generation's definition of Golden Era of SNL?
Or put another way: when's the last time you went back and revisited some of the older clips of your favorite Saturday Night Live era? It's fun to pick a random episode (Netflix unfortunately cuts out a lot from old broadcasts, but it still works for comparison purposes - I tend to go for Steve Martin or Alec Baldwin as host) and compare it to the episode that, say, Maya Rudolph or Jimmy Fallon hosted. Some sketches are Gilda Radnor kidnapped and held in a log cabin while they make jokes about women and anorexia; some sketches are Jesus (Jason Sudeikis) talking to a manically excited Taram Killam as Tim Tebow.
Maybe you can make the argument that funny talent, such as the performers seen in the later years, doesn't always make for comedy gold. This is true. Case in point: The Festrunk Brothers.
In this day and age, a good 7 years after the birth of youtube, it's not necessary to watch the broadcast live. You can skip the bad sketches and watch the good ones over and over again. I don't know what that means for the future of the show - especially concerning the length (90 minutes of sketch comedy every week for almost 40 years? How is possible it's ever decent?) - but when it's so easy to skip the bad stuff, you might as well give it a shot.
SNL has a track record of picking some damn good comedians. It'd be a shame to let personal prejudices and old-school loyalty - not to mention the most clichéd criticism of the past thirty years - get in the way of some solid comedic entertainment.
(Steve Martin is a comedic legend. If this idea is something you can get behind, let's be best friends and get matching tramp stamps.)
I say the above to make clear that I'm not attached to any particular cast the way a lot of other SNL fans are. Everyone loves the Original Cast. Some people swear by Eddie Murphy; others are all about Christopher Guest. Adam Sandler gets a fair share of love. Molly Shannon, Will Ferrell, Chris Farley, Jimmy Fallon, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph - all have their superfans. And rightfully so. When they leave and a new cast comes in, loyal fans have trouble giving the new kids a chance.
Sketch comedy, especially sketch comedy that's been on the air this long, is by nature hit or miss. And people are by nature nostalgic for shows or movies they watched when they were younger. So we remember the best sketches from our favorite comedians and skate over the less memorable, less funny ones.
But some sketches from the past totally blow, and some sketches from last seasons are among the funniest the show's ever done. Yet when I ask fellow television fans (people who watch a similar level of TV as I do) if they watch SNL, more than half the time they not only tell me they haven't been watching, they also throw in some derisive line about how the show isn't funny anymore.
People literally have been saying this show isn't good anymore since the Original Cast left in 1980. That particular critique of the show is nine years older than I am. Are we seriously still trotting it out? And you know that means your particular Golden Era of SNL was considered beneath an older generation's definition of Golden Era of SNL?
Or put another way: when's the last time you went back and revisited some of the older clips of your favorite Saturday Night Live era? It's fun to pick a random episode (Netflix unfortunately cuts out a lot from old broadcasts, but it still works for comparison purposes - I tend to go for Steve Martin or Alec Baldwin as host) and compare it to the episode that, say, Maya Rudolph or Jimmy Fallon hosted. Some sketches are Gilda Radnor kidnapped and held in a log cabin while they make jokes about women and anorexia; some sketches are Jesus (Jason Sudeikis) talking to a manically excited Taram Killam as Tim Tebow.
Maybe you can make the argument that funny talent, such as the performers seen in the later years, doesn't always make for comedy gold. This is true. Case in point: The Festrunk Brothers.
This sketch was funny the first time. You forget it wasn't funny after that because your childhood memories are warped.
In this day and age, a good 7 years after the birth of youtube, it's not necessary to watch the broadcast live. You can skip the bad sketches and watch the good ones over and over again. I don't know what that means for the future of the show - especially concerning the length (90 minutes of sketch comedy every week for almost 40 years? How is possible it's ever decent?) - but when it's so easy to skip the bad stuff, you might as well give it a shot.
SNL has a track record of picking some damn good comedians. It'd be a shame to let personal prejudices and old-school loyalty - not to mention the most clichéd criticism of the past thirty years - get in the way of some solid comedic entertainment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)