Rent = meh

I'm not a big fan of musicals. Sure there are some that I like, but by and large, they just don't do it for me. Rent, impressive in its production values, is pretty much what I expected, except longer. I kept getting taken in by its fake out endings. The first time they resang 525,600 minutes, I thought that was it, and said, "well, I guess at least it wasn't that long". But then it kept on going, and I said, "I guess everyone has to die first." Seeing Team America's spoof of it ("Everybody has AIDS. AIDS AIDS AIDS!"), I think I got the gist of the plot. I don't think I liked any of the songs, but they were sung very well.

Also, Rosario Dawson was quite hot.

Chungking

I've liked them for a few months now, but finally got one of their CDs today. I listened through it and I've got to say, it's pretty good. From an article:

“The feel of it is a kind of early 70s radio sound. It’s a kind of familiar nostalgia,” says vocalist Jessie Banks, describing the sound of her band, Brighton’s psychedelic soul three-piece Chungking. “It took a while to settle on our sound,” she explains. “It really came down to good songs. With a good song you’re prepared to sing it for a long time.”

Here's another interview. I guess they don't have much of a web presence... Anyway, give them a shot if you get the chance...

Meat-eating

F42 from fark.com said, "When we go to the petting zoo, my mom feeds and then pokes the cows like she's shopping for meat, and she tells the cow how tasty it looks... The cows seem to enjoy it."

"If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" -Unknown

"I'm not a vegetarian because I like animals, but because I hate plants." -I forget

A well known hypothetical is, "If you could grow meat without ever killing an animal, would you eat it?"

A favorite story of mine has a girl with something akin to universal understanding; not only could she speak with humans (gasp), but also plants, animals, and the environment itself. She was a very compassionate girl and so, for a while wouldn't eat anything (after all, they were all her friends!). But, the plants were all like, "You've gotta eat! Please eat us!" (paraphrasing)

And of course, there are those who are vegetarian for health reasons or religious reasons. Can't really argue with that.

I eat meat because meat tastes good.

Starship Troopers, part the third

Fascism, from dictionary.com, "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

In the DVD commentary, Verhoeven explains that yes, the point of the film was to point out that "War makes fascists of us all." Looking at the above definition, that's really not what happened in Starship Troopers. The book jacket said it was one of Heinlein's most controversial, presumably because of fascism, but I really don't see it. There's no dictator, there's no indication of economic controls (social sure), the opposition in question was not within the human race, and they were fighting a war against aliens, so it's hard to begrudge them belligerence.

I think Verhoeven's definition of fascism would be more along the lines of using an enemy to distract the people to assume control of the country, a la Goering. Verhoeven likened the government of the story to America. The screenwriter seemed to disagree on that point, but, if I remember correctly, also agreed about the fascism.

As far as the book versus the movie go, I like the movie better. It's flashier, it's got better pacing, it's got better dialogue, it's got characters I like better. But, you really can't get as much out of it as you can the book.

Anyway, the third and final batch of notes:

heinlein brings up evolution on a planet exposed to less radiation than earth. apparently, it was a fear of scientists that colonists of a less-irradiated planet would evolve more slowly than the apparently much more irradiated planet earth. but this doesn't take into account a few things. one: i don't think physical traits are bound to be the dominant survival factor. maybe this is different in a survivalist period such as war. and while people who are physically inept or mentally inept people are passing on their genes all the time, maybe it's my mistake in thinking that this is more widespread than it actually is. two: even if people of earth and sanctuary (the other planet) evolved at the same rate, they are bound to have different evolutionary impetuses. That is, they're bound to be different. three: given a sufficiently diverse gene pool, mutations brought on by radiation might not even be necessary. of course, i am no geneticist, so i have no idea just how diverse is diverse. the book had sanctuary at around a million residents.

heinlein writes about the "revolt of the scientists", in which those who pursue knowledge attempted a coup, which failed. when i wrote up my proposed curriculum, i left off math and science subjects. this was intentional. while math and science have done much for mankind, and mathematical and scientific thought certainly can't hurt decision processes, i think the bare and essential subjects for governing have more to do with man than nature.

said by major reid, "i have never been able to see how a thirty-year-old moron can vote more wisely than a fifteen-year-old genius..." referring of course to governments with age limitations dictating voting rights. which is an interesting point. richard was arguing for voting rights for all, but clearly, even america has no such system. as heinlein lists, we have limitations regarding "age, birth, poll tax, criminal record, or other". (actually, I recall that recently, there was a proposal to remove granting citizenship to births in the US, referring to illegal immigration.) maybe what was meant by richard is that the bar should be set very, very low. is it enough just to be born in america, of the right age, and to have committed no significant crime? is it alright to be a moron but eighteen or older, but not okay to be a genius but seventeen or younger? i know my answer. major reid says, "never mind, they paid for their folly."

here's where there is breakdown, tho. in this very dense, very direct passage (chapter 12), heinlein outlines the basis for this government. it is revealed that it is not because the citizens are smarter, or more disciplined, or a smaller body aware of the consequences of franchise, that the government is successful, but because of voluntary and difficult service that demonstrates that the citizen places the group ahead of the self. well, it can't get more plain than that. i'd like to think that a person aware of history, ethics, and law would be able to recognize what is best for the group, but of course, there is no guarantee that that person would make that decision, even recognizing it. of course, in heinlein's system, i think it'd also be possible to get through without placing the group above the self, particularly in times of peace, but i'd have to admit, it'd be far less likely. and it's this lesson that seems to place service above even delineation from lethargy and apathy.

Starship Troopers, part the second

Hey, I read slow, but here's the next batch of notes:

heinlein uses dubois as his mouthpiece when refuting the founding father's declaration of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". he says that neither life nor liberty are rights; they must be bought and paid for like anything else of value. on pursuit of happiness, tho, he says that any man will pursue happiness regardless. i agree

but reading this, and his dialogue, it seems to me that a lot of this is heavy handed. nothing is subtle. then on some points, such as the one where he insists on flogging juvenile criminals, i can't help but think that it is too simplistic. after all, i have a hard time believing that, for example, a mother didn't spank her child prior to that child joining a gang some years later (heinlein seems to think that a lack of spanking was due to parents believing in "pseudo-scientific" beliefs of the time). a lot has to do with environment (village to raise a child). or perhaps he's suggesting that being flogged by government authority carries some educational weight that a parent's spanking does not.

another part of his extended analogy that didn't make complete sense was spanking a puppy versus spanking a juvenile. depending on the age of the juvenile (which he said was up to 18), a person has a capacity to reason that a puppy does not.

a lot of this led up to heinlein's putting a duty-based society over a rights-based one. i seem to recall an article from a canadian calling for just such a thing. i also believe that if everyone had to do what was right, rather than did what they were allowed, then society would be a much more civl place. but i don't think i'd be one to give up such freedom, even if i never exercised it.

but a duty based society is one in which its citizens championed the group above the individual. that would certainly seem like a hallmark of fascism.

one thing that I was curious about going into the book was heinlein's take on fascism versus the movie's. at this point, with putting forth a duty-based society versus a rights-based one, I think heinlein is firmly in favor of the good of the whole above the freedom of the individual.

Starship Troopers

After rewatching Starship Troopers, I borrowed the book from a friend, and I've started reading it, taking some notes along the way. Here's the first batch:

interesting that heinlein too required a history class (history and moral philosophy), not too different from my proposed history, law, and ethics class. his class was mandatory and had no grades, not even pass fail. of course, that seems right given that citizenship isn't a right. (i too thought that the class should be taught, mandatory, but thought that there would be no passing requirement regardless of voting rights to encourage learning; but i didn't think that'd work either).

another interesting thing is a character, mr dubois i think, said "you can lead a child to knowledge, but you can't make him think", or words to that effect. which, of course, is my own take on mandatory schooling above.

having only a service for citizenship exchange didn't really make sense. as noted by myself and others, it doesn't guarantee intelligence, and that was the whole point of my gripe about the voter pool. although not spelled out, by having the h&mp class above, heinlein espressly advocated governmental education. it is the combination of a properly educated (in h&mp) person with a service-secured citizenship that made heinlein's government.

"What we obtain to cheap we esteem too lightly... it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." Thomas Paine.

Disillusionment...

Of course, no one thinks there's really a Superman, but that there is a concept of Superman (not necessarily in the Nietzscheian sense), is a very heartening idea. So reading about the stark contrast Jerry Siegel was to his character is quite disillusioning. From the article:

Jones said Michael grew up with few memories of his father, only Bella’s anger at how Jerry left them.

Jones said, according to Michael, Jerry “never tried to see me. He never asked about me even when he had to talk to my mother. And after the first few months, he didn't pay a cent of alimony or child support."

In many ways, I think that a comic book company's ownership and continual renewal of a character is very stifling and unimaginitive. However, with a character like Superman, and a creator like Jerry Siegel, it really does seem like the right thing happened in this case.

Gerard Jones (interviewed in the article for his book) makes a comparison between Jerry Siegel's creation and his son:

“Partly to make up for my earlier mischaracterization of Mike, and also because it creates an intriguing contrast between father and son Siegels,” said Jones. “Michael Siegel grew up to be an athlete and a community volunteer, winning Tae Kwon Do competitions and coaching a youth Tae Kwon Do team for the Cleveland Heights-University Heights Board of Education.

One interesting thing is, Michael grew up to be a plumber. In Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (a story about the end of Superman), Superman also ends up as a plumber. Probably a coincidence, but interesting anyway.

At any rate, Jones's book Men Of Tomorrow sounds like it'd be an interesting read.