Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Disturbing data from a study in Memphis. The answer is clear. Demolishing the large housing projects in the inner-city, and dispersing their residents throughout the city using rent vouchers also spread violent crime.
Full story in The Atlantic. Link from Instapundit.
Full story in The Atlantic. Link from Instapundit.
I have not seen Sex and the City the movie--but I am a big fan of the HBO TV series. On general principle, I reject the negative reviews from critics who are not fans going in. Why? The film is a reunion. Hopefully, artistically, it will be better than the Return to Gilligan's Island, but, in a larger sense, Sex and the City (the movie) is little more than a lucrative bow to nostalgia along the lines of a Very Brady Christmas. If you like and care about Carrie Bradshaw, Miranda Hobbs, Samantha Jones, and Charlotte York-Goldenblatt, surely you will be keenly interested in and mildly entertained (at the very least) by the Sex and the City movie.
Earlier this week, the Okie Gardener wrote:
Home and family, the traditional destination of a woman's path, is not where the quartet are. They are obsessed with material objects and sex. And the sex is not remotely related to procreation. Fun only, without commitment to future generations. Sterile fun.
Not to nitpick with the Gardener (who admits not knowing much about the characters), but the girls are actually much less one-dimensional (and much more concerned with procreation) than a casual observer might guess. When we last encountered the fabulous foursome in TV land, Miranda had a young son (and a husband), Charlotte was married but devastated by her inability to conceive a child of her own and making arrangements to adopt, and Carrie had rejected the penultimate man in her life partly because of his inability to father a child. Samantha? The Gardener pretty much gets her right.
Rather than "sterile fun" as a group motif, however, a much more dominant theme within the series is the search for meaning in a world bereft of traditional values.
An Aside: in this way, Sex in the City is not unlike Seinfeld (another snappy commentary on modernity to which the Gardener objected).
In truth, Carrie Bradshaw is our liberated and self-sufficient protagonist, but no fan of the show could possibly describe her as truly happy, at peace, or at all satisfied in her independent and non-traditional life.
Nevertheless, the Gardener correctly notes that the modern Manhattan girls of Sex and the City reject domesticity. This morning, as luck would have it, NPR featured a discussion of Jo March, the protagonist from Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, perhaps the ultimate independent woman of the nineteenth century, and her impact on modern American womanhood. Surprisingly (or not), several female former fans of the work, upon reaching adulthood and a certain feminist enlightenment, have reconsidered their previous childhood devotion to the book.
"At a time when women's lives were restricted to hearth and home," NPR's Lynn Neary reports, "Jo represented the possibility of another kind of life."
"'Jo always makes you think anything is possible and anything is possible for a woman,' says children's book expert Anita Silvey."
More Silvey: "She really softens the hard edges of her life. She makes Jo a much more lovable, accepted character than Louisa May Alcott herself ever was."
Was that a betrayal to the cause?
Others object to Jo March as too needy and excessively adoring of the man who eventually comes into her life. Ironically, what some modern readers find unappealing about Jo and the March family, the need "to be liked," many modern women also detest about Carrie Bradshaw, her need for "validation" by men.
Most striking to me, however, was this complaint:
"Who could possibly live up to Jo's standards?"
Neary "discovered something of a backlash against this idealized vision of a woman who is at once a loving sister, a good daughter, a best friend, a career woman and a devoted wife."
One woman confessed, "I didn't really like the book" after rereading it as an adult.
"That family was just too good... and I think part of the thing that bothered me when I was growing up was that it made me feel very guilty because I knew I couldn't be that good."
Is Sex and the City in vogue and Little Women passé for the simple reason that what we really want in twenty-first century America are role models who are just as lost as we are and who set standards we can live DOWN to?
Earlier this week, the Okie Gardener wrote:
Home and family, the traditional destination of a woman's path, is not where the quartet are. They are obsessed with material objects and sex. And the sex is not remotely related to procreation. Fun only, without commitment to future generations. Sterile fun.
Not to nitpick with the Gardener (who admits not knowing much about the characters), but the girls are actually much less one-dimensional (and much more concerned with procreation) than a casual observer might guess. When we last encountered the fabulous foursome in TV land, Miranda had a young son (and a husband), Charlotte was married but devastated by her inability to conceive a child of her own and making arrangements to adopt, and Carrie had rejected the penultimate man in her life partly because of his inability to father a child. Samantha? The Gardener pretty much gets her right.
Rather than "sterile fun" as a group motif, however, a much more dominant theme within the series is the search for meaning in a world bereft of traditional values.
An Aside: in this way, Sex in the City is not unlike Seinfeld (another snappy commentary on modernity to which the Gardener objected).
In truth, Carrie Bradshaw is our liberated and self-sufficient protagonist, but no fan of the show could possibly describe her as truly happy, at peace, or at all satisfied in her independent and non-traditional life.
Nevertheless, the Gardener correctly notes that the modern Manhattan girls of Sex and the City reject domesticity. This morning, as luck would have it, NPR featured a discussion of Jo March, the protagonist from Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, perhaps the ultimate independent woman of the nineteenth century, and her impact on modern American womanhood. Surprisingly (or not), several female former fans of the work, upon reaching adulthood and a certain feminist enlightenment, have reconsidered their previous childhood devotion to the book.
"At a time when women's lives were restricted to hearth and home," NPR's Lynn Neary reports, "Jo represented the possibility of another kind of life."
"'Jo always makes you think anything is possible and anything is possible for a woman,' says children's book expert Anita Silvey."
More Silvey: "She really softens the hard edges of her life. She makes Jo a much more lovable, accepted character than Louisa May Alcott herself ever was."
Was that a betrayal to the cause?
Others object to Jo March as too needy and excessively adoring of the man who eventually comes into her life. Ironically, what some modern readers find unappealing about Jo and the March family, the need "to be liked," many modern women also detest about Carrie Bradshaw, her need for "validation" by men.
Most striking to me, however, was this complaint:
"Who could possibly live up to Jo's standards?"
Neary "discovered something of a backlash against this idealized vision of a woman who is at once a loving sister, a good daughter, a best friend, a career woman and a devoted wife."
One woman confessed, "I didn't really like the book" after rereading it as an adult.
"That family was just too good... and I think part of the thing that bothered me when I was growing up was that it made me feel very guilty because I knew I couldn't be that good."
Is Sex and the City in vogue and Little Women passé for the simple reason that what we really want in twenty-first century America are role models who are just as lost as we are and who set standards we can live DOWN to?
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
A Disclaimer: I have not, nor in all probability will I, see the new movie Sex and the City. I watched parts of two or three of the TV episodes to see what the fuss was about--and found them tacky and boring. I have some thoughts prompted by Roger Ebert's review.
“Sex and the City” was famous for its frankness, and we expect similar frankness in the movie. We get it, but each “frank” moment comes wrapped in its own package and seems to stand alone from the story. That includes (1) a side shot of a penis, (2) sex in positions other than the missionary, and (3) Samantha’s dog, which is a compulsive masturbator. I would be reminded of the immortal canine punch line (“because he can”), but Samantha’s dog is a female. “She’s been fixed,” says the pet lady, “but she has not lost the urge.”
Samantha can identify with that. The dog gets friendly with every pillow, stuffed animal and ottoman and towel, and here’s the funny thing, it ravishes them male-doggy-style. I went to AskJeeves.com and typed in “How do female dogs masturbate?” and did not get a satisfactory answer, although it would seem to be: “Just like all dogs do, but not how male dogs also do.”
The "girls" in Sex and the City represent one possible destination on the paths open to modern women: hedonistic narcissism. Home and family, the traditional destination of a woman's path, is not where the quartet are. They are obsessed with material objects and sex. And the sex is not remotely related to procreation. Fun only, without commitment to future generations. Sterile fun. The play of a sterile masturbating bitch.
“Sex and the City” was famous for its frankness, and we expect similar frankness in the movie. We get it, but each “frank” moment comes wrapped in its own package and seems to stand alone from the story. That includes (1) a side shot of a penis, (2) sex in positions other than the missionary, and (3) Samantha’s dog, which is a compulsive masturbator. I would be reminded of the immortal canine punch line (“because he can”), but Samantha’s dog is a female. “She’s been fixed,” says the pet lady, “but she has not lost the urge.”
Samantha can identify with that. The dog gets friendly with every pillow, stuffed animal and ottoman and towel, and here’s the funny thing, it ravishes them male-doggy-style. I went to AskJeeves.com and typed in “How do female dogs masturbate?” and did not get a satisfactory answer, although it would seem to be: “Just like all dogs do, but not how male dogs also do.”
The "girls" in Sex and the City represent one possible destination on the paths open to modern women: hedonistic narcissism. Home and family, the traditional destination of a woman's path, is not where the quartet are. They are obsessed with material objects and sex. And the sex is not remotely related to procreation. Fun only, without commitment to future generations. Sterile fun. The play of a sterile masturbating bitch.
A life-long friend and dedicated reader from Southern California, known on the Bosque Boys as "Football Coach," wrote last week (his thoughts in italics) concerning the ongoing situation with the "Yearning for Zion Ranch" case:
*** It concerns me that a state as Libertarian as Texas took 400+ kids away from their parents because of one phone call and a basic dislike for the lifestyle of the people involved. If that can happen in Texas, what can happen in the Democratic Peoples Republic of California?
Reality Check: the rugged "frontierism" of "libertarian" Texas is mostly myth and memory these days. Big Government in Texas is not so unlike Big Government in California. Perhaps the popularly elected state judiciary has resisted this trend somewhat (in some cases) over the last decade or so--but that has proven anomalous within an otherwise thoroughly modern conception of government within the Lone Star State.
*** While I certainly disagree with their theology and lifestyle, the group appears to be following firmly held religious beliefs. Most of us would agree that polygamy is wrong (ironically however, we’re told that homosexual marriage is OK), but what about other religious parenting issues, such as spanking? Many well-meaning Christians would disagree on the issue, but you can make a pretty strong case from the book of Proverbs that corporal punishment is Biblically mandated.
Excellent point, Coach. The general problem with polygamy, of course, is underage victims forced against their will to submit to unions ordered by church authority. But, in this day and age, how long can folks continue to inveigh against plural marriage for consenting adults?
One other point worth noting: the ACLU has been instrumental in fighting for the rights of these accused and accursed religious "others."
Speaking only for myself, for all their silliness, thank God for the principled atheists at the ACLU.
Note: the latest on the reunification of families from the AP.
*** It concerns me that a state as Libertarian as Texas took 400+ kids away from their parents because of one phone call and a basic dislike for the lifestyle of the people involved. If that can happen in Texas, what can happen in the Democratic Peoples Republic of California?
Reality Check: the rugged "frontierism" of "libertarian" Texas is mostly myth and memory these days. Big Government in Texas is not so unlike Big Government in California. Perhaps the popularly elected state judiciary has resisted this trend somewhat (in some cases) over the last decade or so--but that has proven anomalous within an otherwise thoroughly modern conception of government within the Lone Star State.
*** While I certainly disagree with their theology and lifestyle, the group appears to be following firmly held religious beliefs. Most of us would agree that polygamy is wrong (ironically however, we’re told that homosexual marriage is OK), but what about other religious parenting issues, such as spanking? Many well-meaning Christians would disagree on the issue, but you can make a pretty strong case from the book of Proverbs that corporal punishment is Biblically mandated.
Excellent point, Coach. The general problem with polygamy, of course, is underage victims forced against their will to submit to unions ordered by church authority. But, in this day and age, how long can folks continue to inveigh against plural marriage for consenting adults?
One other point worth noting: the ACLU has been instrumental in fighting for the rights of these accused and accursed religious "others."
Speaking only for myself, for all their silliness, thank God for the principled atheists at the ACLU.
Note: the latest on the reunification of families from the AP.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I hear people talkin' bad,
About the way we have to live here in this country,
Harpin' on the wars we fight,
An' gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be.
An' I don't mind 'em switchin' sides,
An' standin' up for things they believe in.
When they're runnin' down my country, man,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
First, in pursuit of full disclosure and intellectual honesty, please accept this relevant and noteworthy caveat:
Much has changed for Merle Haggard since 1970. In his dotage, the great voice of the common man in country music has argued for the impeachment of George Bush, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2007, and wrote a song a few years back advocating U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Read my shoulder shrug and perplexed expression. But, oh well, God bless Merle and an America where one can switch sides and stand up for things that one believes in.
Notwithstanding, Merle's simple and powerful poetry from nearly four decades ago, generally, continues to resonate with me much more than his current political viewpoints.
Why?
I continue to meet too many Americans who gleefully exhibit complete disdain for our national heritage, evincing absolutely no perceptible appreciation for the good fortune of their birthplace, even as they enjoy the myriad privileges and blessings associated with American citizenship.
They love our milk an' honey,
But they preach about some other way of livin'.
When they're runnin' down my country, hoss,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Jeremiah Wright: there is no dastardly act so heinous of which he could not believe the American government capable.
Michelle Obama: she finds nothing in our history of which she is personally proud.
Why is this a problem?
Quite often, we are who we say we are and believe we are. Of course, a healthy amount of skepticism regarding governments implemented and executed by the sons of Adam is a wise precaution--but rank and unadulterated cynicism produces a whole array of deleterious ramifications.
The American story is one in which we have consistently transcended our imperfections by working toward American ideals as expressed in our founding documents and "glorious" history. Over time, we have consistently outperformed reasonable human expectations, in part, because we have striven to be great and good. In large part, we believed that our heroic past demanded a heroic present as merely fair recompense for our birthright seeded with endless possibility. To whom much is given much is expected.
However, modern man sees the past as corrupt. Heroes are for suckers. George Washington was a slaveholder. Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite. Andrew Jackson was a racist and a genocidal monster. Abraham Lincoln was a clever political manipulator.
In other words, our past was just as degenerate as our present. In fact, our moral impotence is actually more honest (from our culturally relative perspective) than the integrity and bravery of our ancestors, mustered only to propitiate a ridiculously disingenuous corporate ethos. That is, our predecessors were only heroic because their history had misled them into believing that they were somehow linked by "mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone," which somehow required superhuman sacrifice and subordination of self for the good of a grateful and worthy nation.
They were fools--but we know the truth.
An' I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on bein' free.
About the way we have to live here in this country,
Harpin' on the wars we fight,
An' gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be.
An' I don't mind 'em switchin' sides,
An' standin' up for things they believe in.
When they're runnin' down my country, man,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
First, in pursuit of full disclosure and intellectual honesty, please accept this relevant and noteworthy caveat:
Much has changed for Merle Haggard since 1970. In his dotage, the great voice of the common man in country music has argued for the impeachment of George Bush, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2007, and wrote a song a few years back advocating U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Read my shoulder shrug and perplexed expression. But, oh well, God bless Merle and an America where one can switch sides and stand up for things that one believes in.
Notwithstanding, Merle's simple and powerful poetry from nearly four decades ago, generally, continues to resonate with me much more than his current political viewpoints.
Why?
I continue to meet too many Americans who gleefully exhibit complete disdain for our national heritage, evincing absolutely no perceptible appreciation for the good fortune of their birthplace, even as they enjoy the myriad privileges and blessings associated with American citizenship.
They love our milk an' honey,
But they preach about some other way of livin'.
When they're runnin' down my country, hoss,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Jeremiah Wright: there is no dastardly act so heinous of which he could not believe the American government capable.
Michelle Obama: she finds nothing in our history of which she is personally proud.
Why is this a problem?
Quite often, we are who we say we are and believe we are. Of course, a healthy amount of skepticism regarding governments implemented and executed by the sons of Adam is a wise precaution--but rank and unadulterated cynicism produces a whole array of deleterious ramifications.
The American story is one in which we have consistently transcended our imperfections by working toward American ideals as expressed in our founding documents and "glorious" history. Over time, we have consistently outperformed reasonable human expectations, in part, because we have striven to be great and good. In large part, we believed that our heroic past demanded a heroic present as merely fair recompense for our birthright seeded with endless possibility. To whom much is given much is expected.
However, modern man sees the past as corrupt. Heroes are for suckers. George Washington was a slaveholder. Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite. Andrew Jackson was a racist and a genocidal monster. Abraham Lincoln was a clever political manipulator.
In other words, our past was just as degenerate as our present. In fact, our moral impotence is actually more honest (from our culturally relative perspective) than the integrity and bravery of our ancestors, mustered only to propitiate a ridiculously disingenuous corporate ethos. That is, our predecessors were only heroic because their history had misled them into believing that they were somehow linked by "mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone," which somehow required superhuman sacrifice and subordination of self for the good of a grateful and worthy nation.
They were fools--but we know the truth.
An' I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on bein' free.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!
Down went the gunner, a bullet was his fate
Down went the gunner, then the gunners mate
Up jumped the sky pilot, gave the boys a look
And manned the gun himself as he laid aside The Book, shouting:
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!
Praise the Lord and swing into position!
Can't afford to sit around and wishin'
Praise the Lord we're all between perdition
and the deep blue sea!
Yes the sky pilot said it
You've got to give him credit
for a son - of - gun - of - a - gunner was he,
Shouting:
Praise the Lord we're on a mighty mission!
All aboard, we're not a - goin' fishin;
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" relates the partly true story of a chaplain ("sky pilot") and his reaction to Pearl Harbor. The song was a huge pop hit for Kay Keyser and his orchestra in late 1942. For a revealing window into our current sensibilities, view this You Tube video (with the actual music as sarcastic background to some classic conservative baiting) and then read the accompanying discussion (from the beginning).
-----------
One other hit song from the era (#1 in 1943):
When The Lights Go On Again All Over The World
Note: In truth, unlike 1943, only a small slice of America is actually at war today (the rest of us are drafting off the heroic sacrifice of a select few stalwart souls). For all those Americans on their third and fourth tours of duty, and all the families waiting at home, our sincere thanks. This song is dedicated to you.
When the lights go on again all over the world
And the boys are home again all over the world
And rain or snow is all that may fall from the skies above
A kiss won't mean "goodbye" but "Hello to love"
When the lights go on again all over the world
And the ships will sail again all over the world
Then we'll have time for things like wedding rings
and free hearts will sing
When the lights go on again all over the world
One last thought, FYI: The number one song again this week (three weeks running) is “Lollipop” by Lil’ Wayne: “She she lick me Like a lollipop; She she lick me Like a lollipop; She she lick Like a lollipop; She lick Me Like a lollipop….”
Unfortunately there is much much more to “Lollipop.”
Remember the bad old days when we sang silly songs that assumed God was on our side in a just war against evil doers? Thank goodness we have elevated our culture above that brand of provincialism.
Down went the gunner, a bullet was his fate
Down went the gunner, then the gunners mate
Up jumped the sky pilot, gave the boys a look
And manned the gun himself as he laid aside The Book, shouting:
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!
Praise the Lord and swing into position!
Can't afford to sit around and wishin'
Praise the Lord we're all between perdition
and the deep blue sea!
Yes the sky pilot said it
You've got to give him credit
for a son - of - gun - of - a - gunner was he,
Shouting:
Praise the Lord we're on a mighty mission!
All aboard, we're not a - goin' fishin;
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" relates the partly true story of a chaplain ("sky pilot") and his reaction to Pearl Harbor. The song was a huge pop hit for Kay Keyser and his orchestra in late 1942. For a revealing window into our current sensibilities, view this You Tube video (with the actual music as sarcastic background to some classic conservative baiting) and then read the accompanying discussion (from the beginning).
-----------
One other hit song from the era (#1 in 1943):
When The Lights Go On Again All Over The World
Note: In truth, unlike 1943, only a small slice of America is actually at war today (the rest of us are drafting off the heroic sacrifice of a select few stalwart souls). For all those Americans on their third and fourth tours of duty, and all the families waiting at home, our sincere thanks. This song is dedicated to you.
When the lights go on again all over the world
And the boys are home again all over the world
And rain or snow is all that may fall from the skies above
A kiss won't mean "goodbye" but "Hello to love"
When the lights go on again all over the world
And the ships will sail again all over the world
Then we'll have time for things like wedding rings
and free hearts will sing
When the lights go on again all over the world
One last thought, FYI: The number one song again this week (three weeks running) is “Lollipop” by Lil’ Wayne: “She she lick me Like a lollipop; She she lick me Like a lollipop; She she lick Like a lollipop; She lick Me Like a lollipop….”
Unfortunately there is much much more to “Lollipop.”
Remember the bad old days when we sang silly songs that assumed God was on our side in a just war against evil doers? Thank goodness we have elevated our culture above that brand of provincialism.
Newsweek has a story on "The complete list of the 1,300 top U.S. high schools."
Public schools are ranked according to a ratio devised by Jay Mathews: the number of Advanced Placement, Intl. Baccalaureate and/or Cambridge tests taken by all students at a school in 2007 divided by the number of graduating seniors.
What this criteria measures, therefore, is the ratio of top college-bound seniors to the total number in their graduating class in each school. Notice that the results of the tests are not a factor, simply whether a student took one of the exams. In other words, the list is simply a ranking of the percentage of ambitious college-bound seniors in each school's graduating class.
Big deal.
(1) When I was a high-school classroom teacher, I figured my students could be divided into three groups: those bright hard-working kids I could take no credit for because they would learn in spite of me; those kids who for whatever reason could be reached by no one that year; and the large group in between whose learning or lack of it I could take credit or blame for. A better measure of school success, but hard to measure, would be how well a school does with this middle majority of its students--those whom the school has a direct impact upon their learning or not learning.
(2) This list accepts the falsehood that the real purpose of high school is to prepare students for college. Wrong. College is over-rated. I know the owner of a plumbing company in Lawton, Oklahoma. He anticipates a possible shortage of licensed plumbers in a decade or so. A licensed plumber starts work for his company at $20-25 per hour, based on experience. Getting a skill is important in life; getting a college degree may or may not be important. Vocational education matters also.
Public schools are ranked according to a ratio devised by Jay Mathews: the number of Advanced Placement, Intl. Baccalaureate and/or Cambridge tests taken by all students at a school in 2007 divided by the number of graduating seniors.
What this criteria measures, therefore, is the ratio of top college-bound seniors to the total number in their graduating class in each school. Notice that the results of the tests are not a factor, simply whether a student took one of the exams. In other words, the list is simply a ranking of the percentage of ambitious college-bound seniors in each school's graduating class.
Big deal.
(1) When I was a high-school classroom teacher, I figured my students could be divided into three groups: those bright hard-working kids I could take no credit for because they would learn in spite of me; those kids who for whatever reason could be reached by no one that year; and the large group in between whose learning or lack of it I could take credit or blame for. A better measure of school success, but hard to measure, would be how well a school does with this middle majority of its students--those whom the school has a direct impact upon their learning or not learning.
(2) This list accepts the falsehood that the real purpose of high school is to prepare students for college. Wrong. College is over-rated. I know the owner of a plumbing company in Lawton, Oklahoma. He anticipates a possible shortage of licensed plumbers in a decade or so. A licensed plumber starts work for his company at $20-25 per hour, based on experience. Getting a skill is important in life; getting a college degree may or may not be important. Vocational education matters also.
Wednesday night Martian Mariner and I went to see the movie Ironman. I confess a weakness for comic-book movies, probably the result of my passion for comic books as a boy. I would walk the ditches looking for pop bottles to redeem at 2 cents each; when I had 6 I could buy a comic, then 12 cents.
(In keeping with my conservative cred, we went to a theatre that shows first-run movies for $3.50 per ticket for all shows.)
He and I found the movie entertaining and well-done. The leads deserve applause for their performances. The special-effects worked, and did not overshadow the characters. Even the spoken Arabic was accurate and sounded like native-speakers, reports MM.
The basic plot: Robert Downey, Jr. (Stark) is an engineering genius who designs weapons; a playboy patriot who sees himself giving America the tools she needs to defeat her enemies. While in Afghanistan to demonstrate a new tactical missile, his convoy is ambushed and the attackers take him to a cave where he is held. During the ambush he noticed that the bad guys are using weapons manufactured by his company. He will be released, they promise, once he builds them the same missile. Helped by another prisoner, who tells him that Stark weapons have destroyed his village, he instead constructs a beweaponed suit in which he kills bad guys, destroys stockpiles of his company's weapons in the camp, and escapes. Once back home he holds a press conference in which he announces that his company will henceforth work for peaceful purposes, much to the annoyance of his business partner.
But, Stark has unfinished business, foiling the bad guys in Afghanistan who are using his company's weapons. He builds a new and improved suit, flies back, liberates a village, kills a number of bad guys, and destroys the weapons. Eventually he learns that his business partner has been selling weapons to both sides, leading to a showdown between the two of them, both in beweaponed suits. The good guy wins. (Thoughts below)
(In keeping with my conservative cred, we went to a theatre that shows first-run movies for $3.50 per ticket for all shows.)
He and I found the movie entertaining and well-done. The leads deserve applause for their performances. The special-effects worked, and did not overshadow the characters. Even the spoken Arabic was accurate and sounded like native-speakers, reports MM.
The basic plot: Robert Downey, Jr. (Stark) is an engineering genius who designs weapons; a playboy patriot who sees himself giving America the tools she needs to defeat her enemies. While in Afghanistan to demonstrate a new tactical missile, his convoy is ambushed and the attackers take him to a cave where he is held. During the ambush he noticed that the bad guys are using weapons manufactured by his company. He will be released, they promise, once he builds them the same missile. Helped by another prisoner, who tells him that Stark weapons have destroyed his village, he instead constructs a beweaponed suit in which he kills bad guys, destroys stockpiles of his company's weapons in the camp, and escapes. Once back home he holds a press conference in which he announces that his company will henceforth work for peaceful purposes, much to the annoyance of his business partner.
But, Stark has unfinished business, foiling the bad guys in Afghanistan who are using his company's weapons. He builds a new and improved suit, flies back, liberates a village, kills a number of bad guys, and destroys the weapons. Eventually he learns that his business partner has been selling weapons to both sides, leading to a showdown between the two of them, both in beweaponed suits. The good guy wins. (Thoughts below)
14/05: Truly Heroic
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
In a healthy country, these men's names would be known and celebrated. Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter and Cpl. Jonathan T. Yale, RIP.
Story.
Story.
This article from the Washington Post offers a sobering, even frightening, look at the future of Japan.
An excerpt:
The proportion of children in the population fell to an all-time low of 13.5 percent. That number has been falling for 34 straight years and is the lowest among 31 major countries, according to the report. In the United States, children account for about 20 percent of the population.
Japan also has a surfeit of the elderly. About 22 percent of the population is 65 or older, the highest proportion in the world. And that number is on the rise. By 2020, the elderly will outnumber children by nearly 3 to 1, the government report predicted. By 2040, they will outnumber them by nearly 4 to 1.
The economic and social consequences of these trends are difficult to overstate.
In the U.S. we have seen an overall decline in the birthrate for decades. Why? Many causes, but let me raise a few possibilities and questions.
When the social ideal for both sexes is a successful career, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the economic ideal for couples is a house their grandparents would have regarded as a mansion, plus travel and at least two nice cars, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the societal ideal for old age is a carefree extended vacation requiring invested money, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When self-satisfaction and personal leisure are high priorities, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When stable family life until death seems an impossible ideal, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the social ideal of the child-centered household means that children are terribly expensive, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
I do think that it is a responsible decision to choose to have a limited number of children for the sake of the environment (we seem to have obeyed one of God's commands, to fill the earth), but I suspect we have fewer children for lots of not-so-good reasons.
An excerpt:
The proportion of children in the population fell to an all-time low of 13.5 percent. That number has been falling for 34 straight years and is the lowest among 31 major countries, according to the report. In the United States, children account for about 20 percent of the population.
Japan also has a surfeit of the elderly. About 22 percent of the population is 65 or older, the highest proportion in the world. And that number is on the rise. By 2020, the elderly will outnumber children by nearly 3 to 1, the government report predicted. By 2040, they will outnumber them by nearly 4 to 1.
The economic and social consequences of these trends are difficult to overstate.
In the U.S. we have seen an overall decline in the birthrate for decades. Why? Many causes, but let me raise a few possibilities and questions.
When the social ideal for both sexes is a successful career, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the economic ideal for couples is a house their grandparents would have regarded as a mansion, plus travel and at least two nice cars, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the societal ideal for old age is a carefree extended vacation requiring invested money, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When self-satisfaction and personal leisure are high priorities, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When stable family life until death seems an impossible ideal, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the social ideal of the child-centered household means that children are terribly expensive, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
I do think that it is a responsible decision to choose to have a limited number of children for the sake of the environment (we seem to have obeyed one of God's commands, to fill the earth), but I suspect we have fewer children for lots of not-so-good reasons.
