Why most awards shows suck.

The Golden Globes announced today their nominations. Surprisingly, Milk and The Dark Knight got only one nomination. I've only seen TDK, but I hear Milk is a great movie all around. The lack of recognition of TDK as a great movie is disturbing. In the absurd world of motion picture award giving (think about it, they try to award movies that shoot down the idea of rewarding movies with awards), it is the rare popular movie that gets the recognition. Occasionally, it happens, but often only to celebrate some sort of uplifting triumph or good ole fashioned cheesiness. Titanic and Return of the King comes to mind.

The problem with not recognizing TDK, however, is that not only was it immensely popular, and still is by the recent Blu-Ray/DVD sales, but it is also genre redefining. Missing it would indicate to me the lack of vision that belies these voters' attention. Who can argue that the concept of anarchy as a driving destabilizing force in our culture litters the nuances of TDK. Who could argue that TDK brings to the table a depth of gray to once black and white comic book decisions? Who can argue that the acting is nothing short of impeccable, so much so, that even good acting by our protaganist seems pedestrian through most of the movie. Who can argue that it has changed what we thought possible from comic book based movies?

TDK is not without problems, but given its immense success and its importance to the comic book to movie genre, it deserves at least a Best Picture nod. But will we get that? I doubt it. The retards who run the Academy Awards and Golden Globes don't think about these things. Their selections often reflect their own pretentious view of the world. They look down upon populism and celebrate their brand of elitism - an elitism rooted in excluding those not interested in the nuances. So they pick thsoe movies that don't capture imaginations, they just capture the elitist thoughts of the way it should be.

If I seem down upon the Academy Awards, I am. A few years back, they had a chance to give Best Picture to one of the most groundbreaking movies in recent memory - Brokeback Mountain. What did they do? They gave it to Crash, a wholly unmemorable film that celebrates the LA actors and actresses more than it actually advances the art of filmmaking. Since then, I don't watch much anymore, or at least I don't make it a point to watch anymore. If TDK is not nominated for Best Picture and Heath Ledger does not win, I will boycott the Oscars forever.

Why we'll lose to republicans again.

The inevetibility of disappointment is mounting as my choice for President is coming towards Super Tuesday. As much as I wish, hope, and pray, Barack Obama won't win. And I because I feel its going to happen, I'm afraid to hope anymore.

Have you seen a tragic car accident unfold near you? You feel like it starts in slow motion and no matter what you could do or hope to do, it happens anyways. And you're at a loss, feeling personally and outwardly unjust. Its the same with this election.

Everything points to a Barack Obama win:

1. He actually thinks about the principle and ideals which America is governed upon.
2. He inspires a whole new class of citizens to participate in the election.
3. He gets a ton of endorsements from big names... far better names than Clinton does.
4. He elevates politics to another playing field.

And what about Hillary Clinton? Her negatives seem so obvious, most intelligent people would laugh if someone with her resume would apply for a job.

1. She made a fatal error in supporting the Iraq war.
2. She has always been searching for power and money - Whitewater, Walmart. Oh yeah, Obama did community service instead of getting a corporate lawyer job.
3. She talks like a shrew. Have you heard her raise her voice?
4. She disrespects MLK and elevates LBJ.
5. More than 50% of the general population hate her. Yes that's right. She will NEVER get more than 50% of the general vote.
6. She is the candidate that people think most likely to disrespect the position of POTUS. The least? Barack Obama.
7. Her husband was involved with so many scandals and was only 1 of 2 sitting Presidents to ever be impeached. Do we forget this? And yes, what he did was wrong. Any executive who did that at any company would be tarred and feathered, yet his wife and many democrats said... oh well, Bill will be Bill. How is that not misogynistic?
8. She plays the race card.

Obama has so many positives and Clinton so many negatives, it would be ridiculous not to pick him no?

But yet it won't happen.

We won't see what its like to tune in to watch President Obama addressing the nation. We won't feel the love that other countries will have for a President born from a Kenyan and with Hussein as his middle name. We won't understand what its like to govern on principle and hope, not policies and fear.

See its our time to elect a President with dignity, charisma, intelligence, and manners. Someone who will not lace it with scandal and disgrace.

But it won't happen. Because the American electorate is not ready for a black president. As much as feminists want to say how hard they have it, blacks have it harder. Just 40 years ago, whites were hosing them down and lynching them. It took someone with words of hope to overcome it.

Ultimately, this is the problem with a 2 party system. Even if Hillary gets 50% of the vote, that's only 1/4th of the general vote. Think about it. Those who vote for her have no strategic bone in their body. They lover her realism and practicality, but they themselves don't vote by it. They idealize her candidacy to justify their vote, when they know full well that the her nomination will galvanize the GOP to unite and slam her candidacy. Why shoud we risk another 4 years of McCain? Why risk 4 more years of our kids dying in Iraq for oil? Why subject ourselves to the universally rising hatred of our country outside of the 50 states?

That's why I cannot vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. Instead of walking away though, I'll vote for McCain, as I know many other Democrat friends will. They hate Clinton that much. I suspect Obama '12 will be successful then. Right now, I just can't believe what I'm seeing. And it depresses me to no end.

The problem with the law as it is

I got pulled over for tint today. Too dark on the front windows the CHP officer said. I told him that I did it to prevent theft and constant breakins on my car when I park it overnight, on call at the county hospital where I work. He said, he didn't care - and said he hears all sorts of excuses.

Thats how my day started. Since it is the law, I will abide by it and remove my tint. That said, who's to say the law is correct? Why can't we have tint on our cars? Is everything going to be legislated ad nauseum? And who decided this law and why was it decided that way?

The problem with these laws/ordinances as I see it is that it claims to be grounded in safety for officers. Tint prevents them from seeing into the car. The problem with this argument is that the law says its okay to tint the rear windows. The counterargument is that the front windows need to be free so the officer can see into the car as he/she approaches. While certainly logical, I tend to think that if someone wants to hurt an officer, they will do so, tint or no tint.

But anyways, I don't mind the law. I'll abide by it. That said, I saw 4 or 5 cars drive by this morning that had darker tint, were driving erratic, and speeding. The same cop passed them by.

Which brings me to the next point. If it is not enforced uniformly, than how can it not be subject to criticism? One can easily argue that the cops see an easy target and ticket it seeing that it was a quick revenue stream. 10 minutes to write a ticket, 100 dollars in the bank for the city. Otherwise, he'd have to go chase after the other erratic driving guy and pull him over.

I can't even count the number of times I've called the police to report drunk/reckless drivers and how they never get pulled over despite me following them for 15+ minutes. So why is it that I get pulled over driving to McDonald's?

The problem with the law as it is lies within the reward. For the city, there is no financial gain for arresting and prosecuting a drunk/reckless driver. There is, however, an easy financial gain for speeding and tint tickets. This is a cynical view, yes. But are we naive to think that that does not underly some of the thought process? In our society, moral righteousness seems to have taken a back seat to personal or monetary gain. So while we sit and watch 100s of our youth die in inner city struggle, we tell the cops to pull people over for tint and going 3mph over the limit.

In the end, I'm not protesting the ticket. I broke the law, I pay the consequences. But I am protesting the injustice. Why are we struggling to put cops in the street in Oakland, yet somebody pulled me over for tint at a McDonald's drive thru? I hope we figure it out soon - or else the veil of justice that is barely holding our urban society together will disintegrate.

Lawlessness of the Bay Area - The Common Sense Cure

I really can't take it. There is something very wrong with what's going on in the Bay Area. From the completely health hazardous conditions of the poop-ridden, vomit stained urinal we call some areas of San Francisco to the unregulated warzone we call some streets of Oakland, something is not being done right. The solutions are out there... but they require a community to embrace a combination of liberal and conservative solutions - that's right a moderate solution. But in this polarized climate blessed place we call the Bay Area, being reasonable never seems to amount for much.

Being that I live on the Peninsula and work at the Oakland County hospital - I have a pretty unique position to observe both sides of the bay. Having two brothers in SF also gives me a good (but clearly not all-encompassing) look at the place that at one point was considered the best place to live. I pronounce deaths of homicides at the hospital I work at enough to know that its gotten much worse in the last 7 years I've worked there. More blatant shootings in midday, more innocent bystanders getting hurt, more kids getting shot. Its sad and angering all at the same time. What are we doing wrong to not help this group of young men who kill each other so often?

In SF, the streets have gotten unsafe from not only the crime perspective, but the health perspective. People routinely defecate, urinate, and vomit on themselves or the streets in broad daylight - with no concern for the impressionable toddlers walking the streets with their families. Let me be clear, I don't think its a homeless/poor people problem... its a bum problem - people who do not care about being humane - they are just selfish and dangerous all the same. My parents were poor - 13 people lived in a trailer home in Wisconsin coming from Vietnam with little money. They pulled themselves up with hard work and respect.

So what's gone wrong? Why are we even at this point?

I point to three basic problems.

ONE.
Lack of leadership. Pure and simple - no one is stepping up to the plate to do what needs to be done. Both Gavin Newsome and Dellums are trying to please idealists and constituents and not doing what is best for their respective cities. Newsome is busy cheating with his employee's wife and going on drinking binges. Dellums barely shows up at all and puts his wife on committee's that benefit monetarily. Both point to the age old, simplistic explanations of "Its a poverty problem!" or "Its racism still!" I'm not right wing nut. In fact, I've always been on the liberal side of social things - but its not that easy.

I'm not suggesting that they are bad human beings. Both, I think, have the interest of the people at heart. However, they lack the leadership necessary to do what leaders must do - convince their followers that their agenda is good for society as a whole - even when it'll rankle the feathers of a select groups of people. They need to lead with their own agenda and not follow the multiple special interests that dominate Bay Area politics.

TWO.
Lack of negative reincforcement. Its not the cops fault. Let me say this again. Its not the cops fault. Oh yeah, and do you know... its not the cops fault. While most of us live in the relative safety of work the cops job is to go out and deal with the people you least want to see at work. Take that asshole you hate at work, add violence, drugs, and lack of decency to the fray and mutliply that x 100. Thats what cops deal with on a day in, day out basis. I've taken care of enough cops who get shot, hit by a car, or beaten that I can safely say that they have one of the MOST thankless jobs in the world. I would say that 95% of the time, when they shoot, beat, or punish people physically its justified - they're protecting themselves, their family, and their society and not necessarily in that order - which I don't mind. But now, a few idiotic lawsuits later, the OPD and the SFPD have to constantly have in the back of their heads - hmmm if I protect and serve today, will I be served with a lawsuit later? Is he pulling a gun from his coat or is he pulling out a doughnut? And if he is pulling out a gun, if I shoot will I get sued? Why in the world must a cop think of this? They need the community's support in the face of all the negativity they see and hear on a constant basis. I respect them all.

So back to the paucity of punishment. Let me just say it straight out - we're too easy on criminals. Jail sucks - if you get tossed in, you could get raped, beaten, stabbed or worse. But how different is that from streets at 1am? You actually get 3 square meals - you get access to showers, toilets, and resources like health care. Yes Jail is horrendous, but its better than being homeless on teh streets in my opinion. So why don't we make it harder time? Make them work the old chain gang style. No parole.

While we're at it.. why don't we punish people for petty crimes that affect quality of life - which leads to bigger and worse crime. Poop on the street - you go to jail. Pee on the street - you go to jail. Aggressive panhandling - you go to jail. Its as simple as that. I know the jails are full - build more. Do something.. just don't tell us you're full and let these guys back out on teh streets! And if you rape, molest, or kill somebody after driving drunk - you should get a LIFE sentence in my opinion and someone should castrate some people. Its horrible I know. But sometimes fear of punishment is an effective motivator.

Three.
Lack of compassion. This is tougher to get around. Some people I know will never meet a thug, a homeless bum, or a drug junkie in their entire lives - but yet they still have an opinion on it. I meet this people all the time for what I do. Everybody has an inner hope. Everyone wants to be better. But not everyone has the resources to do so. We can't just punish people without providing them a way out. We ignore the issue of crime because we expect some government agency to fix it. But it requires people everyday figuring a way. Let's promote safe neighborhoods - reward neighborhoods that do well by giving them more money to make it better. Let's elect more neighborhood leaders - each one responsible for leading their neighborhood they live in for the better. Let's stop hugging the tree and start protesting the poor conditions which lead to lawlessness in the first place. Everyone needs to do more, and we can't just sit in a isolated house and ignore it anymore.

The Solution.
I can't say what it is. I think it involves a combination of negative and positive reinforcement. We want to reward those who do better, but punish harshly those who act selfishly and harmfully. Its awfully simplisitic, but its actually what most of society probably wants. We just get pulled to one extreme (left liberal idealists who think there's always a root excuse for this behavior and we shouldn't punish it, and right wing nuts who want to blame groups of minorities and execute them all) with no one to pull for the common sense solution.

I just can't say how sad I am to see the Bay Area decline like this. It is such a culturally rich and beautiful place, we should maximize it to be that shining light on the hill. We should be the showcase of the West Coast. We should be number one again.

A Generation Unable to Narrate

The other day I was watching Ken Burns being interviewed about his new documentary, "The War," about World War II. I'm a big fan of his. I've bought both "Jazz" and "The Civil War" and I think he is one of the greatest filmakers of our time. Hell, we even coin "The Ken Burns effect" after him (that zooming in and out of photos thing). Even better, I feel he has always strived to bring the story of the underpriveleged (not necessarily minorities) to the forefront.

What threw me off about this interview was that he looked pissed. Unlike previous interviews regarding other docs he's done, he looked like he just faceplanted into a pile of dog poo. Why was he mad? Because certain groups feel offended by him not necessarily including their contribution in the war. Funny thing is, they hadn't even seen the thing. They just complained, protested, and threatened a boycott. Never mind that these groups equated to about 1.6% of all American troops sent over. Never mind that Burns covers the African-American and Asian-American subplots incredibly well. Never mind that Burns' own narrator is a minority. He ultimately had to change the doc so he could include more stories of other groups. So where does it end? I suppose those Irish-Americans are pissed they didn't get a full interview. How about the Chinese-American troops? What about the... it could go on forever. And that's the point. He could have gone on forever and this would end up being a 100 hour snorefest, instead of well filmed, well directed, and well written documentary.

But in his response to this, Burns shared an insight that I had been clawing at in the back of my head, but I couldn't place. He agreed with his critics - that there is always more to tell. However, what they wanted him to tell, was a version of their opinion. They don't want the story as it is/was. They want opinions, layered upon more opinions, founded upon passionate opinions. In his mind, we've lost the art of narrative - telling an event the way we remember it, as devoid of opinion as possible. Narrative in itself is an art. We just don't want to hear, see, or say it.

Look at blogs. Look at ESPN. Look at any news show. What you get is a decrease in narrative and an increase in opinion. Not only that, but we want opinions now! As a society, we look to TV and the internet to find allies or sniff out foes. We don't find the middle ground. The middle ground is now deemed too naive. Too dispassionate. A moral dead sea if you will. Either you're with me or you're against me. Its one way or the other.

Even if we are into facts, its usually sensationalism or completely irrelevant to society's function. Do I really need to see all of the Hollywood craplets mess up again?! How does this add anything to my life?

The point I'm trying to make is this. We need to come back to narration. We need to find a moderate ground to agree upon. Extremism needs to be practiced by the extreme people of the far left and far right 5% of the bell curve, not 75-90% of us. Because in the end, most Americans agree on basic principles and basic rights. We're just being told that we're not by TV, by the internet, and by others.

This all leads to the future direction for my blog. Narration. Moderation. Common Sense. I'll look at events or issues and see if I can shed some light on it. Something not extreme. Something maybe most of us think, but few of us express... because a few % of people have controlled the media and our opinions. I think its time we take it back.

My blog is moving... to myspace.

Being that I'm considerably more busy than I was during my research years, my ability to manage multiple blogs has dwindled. Alas, I'm going to be blogging from my myspace page - its my main way of communicating with the outside world outside of work, bars, and restaurants.

So if you want, check out my myspace page and check out my blog in the upper right hand corner... It will be a little less feisty - a lot of my work friends see it, but it hopefully will be more consistent and timely.

www.myspace.com/neoprufrok

Great Cindy Sheehan Article in the Chronicle

Exactly how I feel about this issue as well....

Cindy Sheehan Article in the Chronicle

Buddhism and Cindy Sheehan

Buddhism is a complex religion. Part philosophy, part ritual, Buddhism is poorly understood by many. One of its many tenets involve understanding that life in moderation is part of the road to spiritual realization. Moderation allows one a taste of want, without allowing that want to consume oneself in ignorance and closed mindedness.

I read in appalling fashion the whole Cindy Sheehan incident, wherein she came to the US Capitol during President Bush's (well, his speech writer's speech anyways) State of the Union. She came with a t-shirt saying something like - 2245 lives, how many more? She was promptly arrested and escorted out of the US Capitol gallery. In the ensuing debate, liberal democrats (way liberal I should say) have lambasted the "Bush Gestapo" for their apparently Nazi-like actions. Funny. The Capitol police work for Congress. Not the President.

I'm no Republican. I consider myself a democrat. In the 3 times I've found myself lucky enough to vote - I've always voted for the Democrat for President. I'm socially liberal, fiscally moderate and fairly middle ground in the ways of the world.

But I was appalled by Cindy Sheehan. It at once illustrated her lack of manners, her paucity of a political brain, and her hypocrisy.

What she did was not a statement of her freedom of speech. It was a childlike scream for attention blindingly self gratuitous without any attempt for political benefit. The State of the Union is a tradition that defines the established running of our government. Part of the reason successful civilization has gotten to where it has, is because it has established for itself a set of rules, regulations, etiquette that defines it and elevates it above simple territorial battles for power. Decorum and operating procedure has been proven and established as a beneficial way to be productive, to solve problems, and to increase the acceptance of ones ideas. Why don't we interview at every job with a tshirt that says, "I like a different type of Bush" (yes I've seen that on the street)? Because we know that doing so is not only a hazard to our ability to retain employment - its simply showing a lack of manners for that situation. What Sheehan did was disrespect the institution of government. She regressed to her childhood, where screaming out and being obnoxious was okay. She distinctly crossed the lines of decorum - hiding behind the excuse of Freedom of Speech (yes, its used far too much as an excuse - having manners and being a kind person should be a given, and Freedom of Speech - that's a right two different things completely). I cannot condone that behavior. Furthermore, another Republican was also escorted out for wearing a Tshirt that said something like "Support our troops" or something like that. How come Sheehan didn't say anything about that?

Sheehan's outburst also illustrates the fundamental problem with the radical left. They have no political brain. Has her actions changed the opinions of the pro-war group? Did her supposed crusade change the mind of President Bush or Vice President Cheaney? More likely, it simply offended them as well as any pro-war politician - further distancing them from any sort of thoughts of peace in Iraq. The radical left is no different than the radical right. They behave as stubborn, unrelenting kids who don't learn or share or compromise. Inherently selfish - they hide behind the concept of revolution to justify their existence. They represent 0.000004% of the American political mindset. Most Americans are moderates and actually live in the gray area - understanding that many political issues don't have a black or white answer. The radicals do not. Their blind support of the black or white positions reveal them to be incredibly unsophisticated in the politic of America. What Sheehan did provided a disservice to me as a Democrat. America is becoming kindler and gentler, and most of America does not appreciate blind confrontation - seeing it as a spectacle first, a disrupting demonstration next, and a political action last. That is not the way to convince America that your position is the best. People always wonder why the backlash against republicans for all they do wrong is not as high as the backlash against liberals? You don't see the conservative right making a big fuss and demonstrating on the lawns, breaking decorum, or making poorly worded speeches (yes, Sheehan's speeches are horrible - can't the liberals find a well spoken person to lead them?). You see them pouring money into campaigns, devoting their energies to political lobbying, and finding ways to shore up their red state support. That is how you make a change in America - by doing it in a productive and non-confrontational manner.

Finally, I can barely stomach Sheehan's hypocrisy. I cannot in my good conscience give any value to a woman who claims Free Speech rights but then goes and meets and hugs Hugo Chavez. This president of Venezuela jails any dissidents to his political ideals. He has had numerous human rights violations and is believed to be pushing towards a dictatorship, with socialism as his goal. He also is a military man at heart. He surely isn't walking the road to freedom and peace. Yet there was Sheehan - hugging the guy. Tell me again - how does this mesh with her freedom of speech claims and her need for peace? I wonder how many people Hugo has killed just to climb the political ladder? How many Venezuelan mothers have lost their sons to him? And why isn't Sheehan hugging them?

I could go on and on. I find it horrible that as democrats, we shoot ourselves in the foot like this. We haven't learned from Bush's re-election that America will rebuff overt liberalism. They will embrace a more compromising stance - and that's why Bill Clinton did so well. We've succeeded at giving the right freebies without turnign their mistakes into political clout. As democrats, we need to not only denounce the wrong road that Republicans are guiding us to, but we need to denounce senseless acts of radical liberalism as well. We need to be more productive in this - or we'll be seeing another 8 years of Republican rule. And I can't stomach that.

I saw a gay cowboy movie the other day..... the mancard holding guy's guide to Brokeback.

Actually I didn't. I saw Brokeback Mountain. And if you haven't seen it, or are afraid to see it, you should. It is easily one of the best movies I have ever seen. Hands down. The sorrowful honesty of the simple lines. The complex physicality of the acting. The perfect pacing and timing by Ang lee. The focus on love and relationships - not homosexuality. And the tragedy of dreams unfulfilled pressured by inward and external obstacles. I wasn't prepared to like this movie - but I admit it. I do.

That said, there's a ton of guys who refuse to watch this movie. In a sense, I can't blame them. The thought of watching two guys pitchin tents (literally) and gettin their gay on is not really on the level of say.... watching Jessica Alba in bikinis all day. Frankly, the thought of having feelings for another man doesn't repulse me per se, I'd just rather not go that route. I like my wife the way she is.

So I came up with some good reasons for the hetero, ballscratchin, pee territory markin', and porn watchin (in the AM no less) male to watch BBM. Please tell me you know waht BBM stands for.

Reason 1: There is boobage in this movie.
I must say, the boobage is quite good. Anne Hathaway's boobage is surprisingly nice. I didn't know she had a set like that! But then again, any thought of that while watching the Princess Diaries' movies would be akin to child porn - but she's grown up now, so its okay to talk about it. (Either way, I feel as if I'm stepping on the catwalk of trepidation - I can't believe I admitted that I've seen the Princess Diary no 1. No plans to see the sequel.)

Not only that, but there is boobage with Michelle Williams too - although her boobage is flat on her back boobage - which by any measure is a difficult predictor of normal standup boobage. I think she has good mammaries - and I'm glad I saw it.

Reason 2: You look better to your date.
Let's face it. Women are much more accepting of gay men that guys are. Why? Well, guys offer sex like they offer cash to the bartender - It doesn't matter who accepts the offer a lot of times - there's no shame in offering because the reward is so good. So women get tired of the constant offers disguised as ignorant psuedorecognition (Hey, don't I know you from somewhere), arrogant chest pounding, and/or cheesy (and often greasy) suave-itude (I make up words as I go along to suit me - my linguisticality is simply amazing)

Guys - well guys would love to have it the other way. If women threw themselves at me all the time - hell I'd enjoy it. But we would enjoy simply because it doesn't happen that way. In part, this is due to a guy's introverted self esteem deficits. They won't say it, but many guys lack it. If they say it, they're bitches. Like snitches. Fo shizzle my dizzoggy dizzle double oh pizzle. Fucking butter popcorn high's got me saying crazy shit. So men with lo self esteem need that women attention and crave it.

So what happens with the gay male who lavishes attention on the straight guy? The lo self esteem guy takes it as a shock to his manhood. Like somebody just poured cold water right to his testicles - shrinking them to freeze dried peas. They look at it like they're a bitch being sought out for some behind the alley dropping the soap bar action. The reality is this. Most gay guys are impeccably fashionable. They also know style when they see it (at least not the bonfire flamingly gay ones) - so if you get a compliment from them - you better know that you're on the level, if you know what I mean.

So how does BBM relate to this? Let's just look at it like this. You can sit through a gay sex scene without flinching (eating popcorn furiously fast and staring at teh upper left corner of the screen and counting the number of white dots is not flinching - perfectly normal movie viewing). You can feel the sorrow and pain of a man who loves another man. You can stand up proud and hold your SO's hand. All this means that your self esteem is in check. Your'e comfortable with your own manhood. You know where your penis is pointed. And you are NOT afraid to be comfortable with gaydom. You're gonna get laid.

Reason 3:.... ummm.... uhhh....... Its seriously a great movie.
If Heath Leger doesn't win Best actor, if Ang Lee doesn't win best director, and if the movie isn't the best movie fo the year - something is entirely wrong with the Academy. It's that good. And it has some of the most memorable scenes and lines:
"If you can't fix, you gotta stand it."
"I wish I could quit you."
"Jack Twist. Jack NASTY." (Jack, its TWIST IF YOU'RE NASTY - yes that's right brining it old school with the Janet Jackson reference - gyeah!)

Okay, there's only 2 good reasons for mancard carrying guys to actually try this movie out. But I bet, that more than half of you mancard carrying men will actually like it. The other half - well you're probably already on mancard probation - having already done something that is smolderingly gay - not flamingly - and are now trying to front like you're King Kong or something.

So please put you're squirminess aside and see the damn movie. It's a classic. One I'll remember for the rest of my life (then again, I remember Breakdancin' as a classic movie as well). Even if you end up hating it, you can at least say you saw it and its still memorable either way.

Is Luxury a Sin?

I feel guilty often. Due to my wife's hard work, talent, and ambition, we have a good income which allows me to indulge myself in finer pleasures. There's nothing but happiness in this. No complaints at all. Where it becomes a difficult issue is when my tastes in luxury somehow become the topic of conversation amongst other people. I feel incredibly guilty even conversing about any of my less miserly hobbies. And often, I can't explain it. I can't explain why its worth it to spend so and so amount of dollars on something, when the person I'm talking to is staring at me like I'm the poster child for materialism and excess.

So a question comes to fruitiion almost every day - is luxury wrong?

What is luxury? What is materialism? When does it become wrong?

Some quick searches for the definition of the word luxury reveals various opinions in itself. ONe states that it is anything in excess of necessity. Which then leads to the question, what is necessity? Technically, basic physiologic function is only what is necessary to humans. So really all we need is food, water, and some excercise. So does this mean that clothing is a luxury?

Another definition states that luxury describes anything that carries with it high value and uniqueness, such that it is considered the finest example of a class of activity, good, etc. I tend to think this is the more correct definition. This means that the appreciation of luxury is not an appreciation of excess per se, but rather an acknowledgement of the pinnacle of that class of acitvity, good, etc. This definition lends itself to a slightly more focused and friendly view of luxury, but it also requires examination of how each characteristic of luxury is correct - how do we know that Picasso's art is near the pinnacle of painted art? How do we know that Bentley's are the pinnacle of automotive transportation? Who determines this?

My thought is that luxury is okay. There's nothing wrong with luxury even when defined by BOTH of the above definitions. Desiring a Porsche is in excess of what is necessary, while acknowledging its superiority and high quality in the automotive world. Desiring this luxury on 4 wheels is not at all a sin.

What of materialism then? Materialism can be loosely defined as the desire for possession of wealth and material things. Note that the definition does not mention appreciation of the finer points of welath and material things. It just says that a person desires things.

Is this wrong? If I suddenly become a hip-hop mogul with 20s on my whip with monstrous mansions with recording studios and hos hanging off me like I'm a reincarnation of a Vietnamese pimp - am I being materialistic? And if I am, am I wrong?

I say materialism is both right and wrong. By definition, it contains encompasses those that desire luxury and the pursuit of finer things (and unfortunately, in our capitalistic society - we place a price on finer things - even nature costs money these days). It also encompasses those that, for lack of a better word, flaunt.

I hold no ill will towards those who wish to pursue finer things for their own sake. For example, I love hi end audio. I spend too much money on amplifiers, speakers, wires, etc to eek out the best reproduction of music possible. But this stuff is in my house. No one knows its there unless they come over and discover it by accident. Its only for my own happiness. Purusing luxury for one's own happiness tends to pervade every aspect of one's life. For example, I seek the best in my cars, my audio, my literature, my clothes, etc. It's a distinct perfectionism that seperates a person from the type of people I describe in the next paragraph.

Where I have issues is those who flaunt luxury for purposes of reputation and show. They simply want to portray an image of luxury and an image of understanding of luxury. They really don't know, but they think that flaunting it will automatically make them luxurious. You know who I'm talking about. They think that one thing that costs a lot will give them an air of money. For example, the FOB driving the lexus in his tshirt and pajamas trying to look hard. The loud and obnoxious patron of an expensive restaurant who forgot that it was a jacket and slacks restaurant. The prada toting female wearing only juicy coutre sweatpants to the night on the opera.

Even worse, there are those who have no idea why what they buy costs so much. The Porsche driver who has no idea why a Porsche is so much better than most othe rsports cars. The purchaser of automatic chornographs who have no idea what makes expensive watches so expensive. The lists go on and on.

To them, luxury is the action of flaunting money, and in the process luxury defines their self-esteem. I don't get that.

I have no need to flaunt my luxury (even though I am at the entry level of luxury in my hobbies and interests). I know what I like and I know why I like it. I research it thoroughly. I read about it every week in magazines and online. I embrace the enjoyment of luxurious things, because I appreciate the quality that it represents. Do I care if you notice it? Not really. Will I be happy if you ask about it? Of course. LIke anybody, I love to talk about my interests and what drives me. Does this mean I'm a materialistic, uncaring blowhard? No - I just like fine things.

I know, this particular blog will sound horribly elitist. And some will read into it that I'm spoiled and that I'm not acknowledging the fortunate situation I'm in.

I'd just like to remind those people that my father slaugtered cows to feed and clothe myself and 12 other members of my family who slept and lived in a trailer house in Wisconsin. Oh yeah, and in the meanwhile leaving behind a life of prosperity in a war-torn country. I'd also like to remind people that its not like I've been sitting on my ass enjoying luxury. I actually work, and work hard my whole life to be where I am.

So, am I materialistic? In the fact that I like luxury and that luxury requires money in this day and age - yes. IN the sense that I flaunt materialism - no. But I'll let you decide and see where the chips may fall.