Books to Movies

There is something deeply unsettling that occurs when a great book (comic or regular) gets made into a movie. I love movies. a Lot. I own hundreds. I've probably seen nearly a thousand. I think that movies are a wonderful medium. They really do have tons of potential.
But when a good book gets made into a movie, baby jesus weeps a little. Very rarely do you see a good book (or other medium) get made into a good movie. Rarely might be giving it a little bit too much credit.
We all know this. But we all bite on the hook anyways, and I don't get it. Harry potter fans, for example, get so damned excited when a new movie comes out. Even if they have read the book, they are excited to exclaim "don't spoil the ending!!!" ... I've never read the books, but even I know that snipe kills dumbledore. (please forgive me if I spelled either name wrong)
I guess what exasperates me is wondering why we collectively suspend our disbelief when we make our ticket purchases, hoping against all odds that the movie we are about to see will be able to hold a candle to the sunlight that is our true passion (in movie form) and then are disappointed when they aren't exactly up to par with the book. We should know by now that movies aren't as good as the books. They will be different, and you know what? We should know better by now.

If the movie isn't as good as the book, then don't buy it on dvd dammit.

but we will. We always do.

-Ron

Change

As we are all aware, we were promised that change would come to America. It was a good promise, and I believe that the promise really was made with good intentions. But lately, I began wondering what kind of changes that I would like to see. After a little thinking, I think I have a little list. The problem that I have encountered so far resides in the interconnectedness that I see between many issues, so the list has many sub points.

First and foremost, I would like to see healthcare reform. I don't want us to rush into things-- I want us to do things right the first time. I would like to see a system that is a mixture between what the British have, and what the Canadians have. The only thing that I worry about would be the inequalities that would arise, manifesting similarly to the way that k-12 public schooling gets paid for. Essentially, this means that it cannot be local taxes that pay for this system.
I don't have insurance, and I sure as hell don't have the $$ to pay for a doctor's visit. I haven't had a physical check up in years. My dad has the V.A. and my mom is in the same boat as I am. (Even though shes had a steady job for the last 45 years)

I believe that the second step in healthcare reform, after policy changes that would institutionalize universal healthcare, would be in changing how people eat. Our food intake is ridiculous. The quantity is high, the quality is low. We are inundated by quick energy coming from refined wheats and high fructose corn syrup. We are packing nurtrients into smaller things. We are creating items for consumption that don't resemble real foods, and as a result, our health is failing. We are getting cancers and heart disease at unprecedented rates. Every product now gets to make claims about their health benefits, but watch our for these claims. Someone is selling you snake oil. If your great grandparents wouldn't recognize it as food, be suspect.

Another great way to increase the health of the population would be to increase the amount, and usefulness of public transportation. Studies have shown that places with public transportation have skinnier populations as they have to walk more. The average new yorker walks 4 miles a day. Texas people drive everywhere. Nuff said. This is important because obesity is now one of the top killers in America.


For the second issue, I would like to see Jail Reform. 1 in 32 Americans are currently in jail or are on parole, and to me this means that there is a problem with the system. What would I change? For starters, the idea of a for-profit prison system bothers the hell out of me. The emphasis on religious services, including giving religious believers special privileges, bothers me and ought to be illegal.

However, those issues aren't as important to me as the death penalty. Also, they don't solve the problem of overcrowding, or the fact that 10% of americans are in jail. For starters, I believe strongly that the death penalty ought to be abolished. I do NOT want the government to have the right to kill anyone. Period. I don't condone killing in any fashion. (Note, I don't believe that Abortion is killing unless the baby could survive outside of the mother)
Furthermore, its cheaper in legal fees to just keep prisoners in jail than to kill them. And the inmates on death row are mostly African Americans, which obviously shows the innate bias and injustices of the system. (Especially considering that African Americans don't commit a majority of the crimes that would normally 'merit' the death penalty) So getting rid of the death penalty would be the first thing that I would do.

However, to combat the increase in prison populations, I would, by and large, remove jail sentences from people who don't commit violent crimes. What would I consider violent crimes? Taking away another person's rights, Killing someone, Battery, Rape, and Burglary(not necessarily theft). I think the three strike rule is also fucking stupid. I might have accidentally omitted some crimes that I would consider jail worthy, but drug use would not, in any circumstance lead to jail time. Drug use ought to be considered a social problem, and treated as such. The war on drugs costs taxpayers billions of dollars, and hasn't worked. If anything, more people do drugs now than ever before.

Its time that our practices forgo ideologies that lead to failed policies. Acting tough, and doing the right thing rarely go hand in hand. Lets learn from our mistakes and do the right thing. Jailing Potsmokers leads to over-crowded jails. It ruins families, it hurts the economy, it ties up our court systems, and it is a possible source of revenue that could (would) generate billions.

I am against the use of psiologically addicting drugs like coke, heroin, and ketamine, however I believe that if we do not want these drugs to affect our society, we need to rehabilitate people. For example, in California, clinics will inject people with Heroine if the junkies come in and ask them to. This leaves to less accidental deaths due to accidentally injecting air, less overdoses, and less dirty needles. This also means that healthcare visits will cost less in the long run, as there will be less emergencies that require expensive, immediate care.
This also gives the junkies the option to be rehabilitated. As a result of these policies, California has seen drastic decreases in prolonged heroine use.


And lastly (because three is a good number for a list) I would argue that environmental reform is a must. Recycling should be a no-brainer. Policies should be developed such that they encourage innovation. Developers should realize that going green is almost always more profitable. Talking about environmental reform is the hardest for me, since it can be achieved in so many different ways. The mores and social customs of our society have been corrupted by the ideology that we have infinite supplies of things. But supplies are not infinite, and these overindulgences have left the US, as a people, weak. We are pampered, and we no longer have any need to challenge ourselves. A change in environmental policy must begin with our built environment, which must include a change in our transportation systems as they dialectically interact in ways that are often overlooked.

But most importantly, a change in our Environmental policy must change the mechanism which previously allowed pollution to occur. If that means upping prices so that we must ration our energy use, then so be it. There aint no such thing as a free lunch, and we are just now starting to realize the extraneous costs of using too much energy. What we havn't been paying in up front costs for our energy, we have been paying for in bigger stomachs, worse hearts, worse lungs, and a need to have everything illuminated at all times.

These are the issues that I find important, first and foremost. I also believe that Educational reform is a necessity, but I think that the three issues that I listed are far more important and pressing matters.

Feel free to chime in. I'd love to hear what you have to say.

Everyone gets a little monkey wrench now and again

I just eyed over my itinerary thoroughly for the first time. And it turns out that I am going to be arriving at one airport in Washington, and get to depart in another one. I've never quite been on an adventure like this, so it should be worth writing home about.

Don't have too much time to talk about other things. Stuff to be done. Plans to be made.

Aloha
-Ron

Getting ready for ABQ

Tomorrow, I get to go see Kacie. And it is going to be good. I've been doing my best not to think about how much I miss her, but the last few days have dragged on forever.
Mom took me to see Public Enemies. It was alright, I suppose. Fairly mediocre, considering the awesome cast. However, I suppose I've never been that into the glamour of gangster life. Robin hood was appealing to me, because he stole for a cause, and he was hella subversive. However, in the Media portrayal of gangster life, they live overglorified lavish lifestyles by being (largely) cold hearted murderers that institutionalize the black market, making it in such a way as to have complete control over it. They don't want control for benevolent reasons, like Robin Hood, but instead to insure their source of power. And whats the best social format for retaining power over an indefinite amount of time than an institutionalized one?

Prostitution rings, drugs, and so forth are being institutionalized by criminal organizations (instead of governmental onces) that create their own laws (and subsequently take the enforcement of their laws into their own hands).
Gangsters, and their types of group organizations are the reason why drugs get (incorrectly) associated with violence. Not that I'm blaming gangsters for this association, because its certainly the media that conflates the issue, but they play their part.

At the heart of the issue, I don't believe that drug disputes automatically leads to violence. I have plenty of circumstantial evidence to support this, as well as the backing of a few sociological studies which the government sponsored. While drugs happen to hold the focus and attention of the media, the violence could have been attributed to anything. This type of association falls into the classic logical fallacy, just because A) came before B) doesn't mean that A) caused B). Explaining gang violence by looking at drugs, or by looking at turf battles (although that is leaps and bounds closer to the truth), or by looking at honor killings often overlooks the socioeconomic conditions which makes that type of group organization a feasible option in daily life.

Dads making eggs and potatoes. Its a good breakfast. Gotta go eat.

Endless precession

In hindsight, I realized that I never gave the river the time it deserved. It really was something special. The current was cold, and cool and a feeling was of contentment washed over all of us. As Mike would say, the day was solid.
But the best part was that on the river there was no definitive end in sight. Just an infinitely changing expanse of beautiful scenery that was a visual treat. It was never overwhelming, and it moved at just the right speed. The day went from Sunny, to pleasantly overcast and back again. It could have gone on forever, and none of us would have minded. We would have been better for it.

Or would we have? Because on the other hand, the human experience thrives off of making meaning through suffering hardships. Some would argue that good Art gets fueled by different forms of temporary suffering. Like what the Japanese call Wabi Sabi-- which argues that beauty resides inside imperfections. Wabi Sabi argues for an aesthetic that embraces transience-- or in other words, embraces the idea that this too shall pass.

They turn something frightening- the end of something- into something beautiful- the idea that we were able to experience it in our own space time, and that it was something only witness-able once. The beauty was in the moment. Any attempts at prolonging the moment indefinitely are seen as being perverse.

We mentioned that the river was heavenly. But that makes me wonder whether an existence that lacks both strife and an end could ever truly be heavenly? The river was a grand experience, and while the feeling was of a timeless wonderland, the river had an end. It was the end that made it meaningful.

Macguffin

Couch surfing for the fifth day straight now and still going strong. Last night, we went to the grog house. I thought there would be more dancing, but you know how it goes. It was the closest thing to a club that i've ever been to. Going to a real club tonight. We'll see how that goes. Mikes roommates are watching tennis -- quite different than what would be going on @ ncf. I kind of like some of it here though, the people are far more active. And tend to eat healthier. Lots of them are foodies, which was unexpected.
I spent today setting up my blog, and getting things just right. Getting a feel for what I want this to be about. I finished re-reading the Moon is a harsh mistress, and started re-reading the cat who walks through walls. I dig it somethin fierce.
I think this week away has been a much needed tonic.
Soon I have to begin working on my Independent study project. It will be on whether or not daylight savings time affects the # and possibly severity of vehicle crashes. I intend to make that into a discussion about Time and Power, and how academic notions of power tend to overlook the importance of time and how society conceptualizes time. Afterall, the Hour wasn't even invented until the 13th century, and wasn't made a part of everybody's life until the industrial revolution, when people had to begin clocking in.
I think thats all for the day. I'll be seein you around.

-Ron

Talking a little bit about art-- its been a while

I woke up thinking about the nature of art, and what it had the ability to do. I spent a lot of time arguing with myself over whether or not art ought to do something. Whether or not it should have a purpose. And I found myself adding to the discussion while beating around the bush about whether or not it should have a purpose, so I figured I would write it down. I certainly believe that art should be an experience, and that it should not only be made available to those who can afford to do it. Which means that I believe graffiti is just as much of a legitimate form of art as any other artwork. As long as its done with care.

I tend to dislike corporate artwork-- stuff thats sold to the masses has no heart -- it doesn't care about anything but how much revenue that it can generate. And I believe that, at its heart, art ought to be free from those constraints. Which is why I am not against government sponsored art programs. To me, this means that artwork ought to be somehow personal but unafraid of criticism. Punches must not be held back because I believe that self conscious art leads to obfuscation. I believe that Art should speak for itself. If people cannot understand it without a three hour lecture, i'm not convinced that its art, so much as an practice in mental masturbation.

When asked whether or not a computer generated mona lisa would be as good as the original, I would say no. But why? If the colors were identical, and the strokes were copied perfectly, it would not carry the same value. In fact, replicas are made all the time, and aren't weathered the same way-- so quantitatively some might argue that the replicas are better. But I have never bought those arguments. Those kinds of replicas aren't done with care. They don't have a story to tell, like the original does. The experience is adulterated by the knowledge that people (potentially without any artistic vision... whatever that means) wanted to make even more money off of someone else's hard work. Lame.

However, I believe that banksy's work tends to be art. Even if lots of it is replicated, its tongue in cheek shots at some of the new trends in society are, I would argue, helpful. It points out the absurdities of modern society without being utterly disgusting. Its good because it hits home without turning stomachs. I understand that repulsive art is meant to be experienced as such, but I also believe that the world is a scary enough place, and that art could be a legitimate form of escapism. And I can't speak for everyone else, but i prefer my escapism to be energizing, not make me want to slit my wrists. Obviously, artists are free to express themselves in whatever way they want, but i'm not convinced that they are helping things.

Dreadful art has, in the past, demotivated the hell out of me. In one instance, it gave me an image of the world as being utterly and insufferably complex-- full of people with no compassion. And so I wonder, what was the artist attempting to do? That kind of dread-- that kind of generated apathy doesn't help things. If people are convinced that there is nothing out there-- that there is no reason to help one another, the art piece becomes, in many ways, a self fulfilling prophecy. I believe in the potential for human compassion and believe that, at the heart and soul of the world, things aren't as bad as they seem.

I believe that art has the ability illuminate a very specific truth (something that I believe is a very, very relative thing). I suppose that, to me, artistic vision is the ability for somebody to explain their particular truth to an audience in a way that viscerally or intellectually affects an audience. I don't believe that the truth exists in a sui generous universe, which has emancipatory potential. Instead, I believe that truth is largely contextual-- and being able to illuminate bits of the truth can be very beautiful.

So on the subject of art, I'll leave you with the words of one of my good friends Harrison B. When he joined a discussion of art that I was having with another friend Alexa, he said that "Art is inevitable." While this doesn't answer whether or not art should have a purpose, its certainly food for thought.
As for what that means to me, or means to you-- thats a discussion for another day.

-Ron