Celebrity interviewer Gayl Murphy also believes that ordinary Americans no longer derive Schadenfreude from the antics of stars owing to the very real problems in their own lives. "People used to like seeing celebrities melt down because it made them feel that their own more stable – but ordinary – lives were better. But now people are losing their homes and their jobs. They have their own meltdowns to deal with," Murphy said.While they make a cogent argument, they provide little support beyond anecdotal evidence. In the midst of the economic downturn, the public may be more averse to spending money on frivolous tabloid magazines, but the culture of scandal is still vigorous. Jon and Kate are not traditional celebrities, but incessant coverage of their torrid affair coincides with the vacuous material once the domain of Britney and Paris.
A new TV series entitled 'V' is about the arrival of a duplicitous class of aliens. As with most science fiction, the series involves a rather attractive subtext.
Welcome to ABC's "V," the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president's supporters and delight his detractors.One can generally assign any allusion or interpretation to a piece of art and claim it represents some deep intended meaning. With that in mind, I won't hastily accept the above premise, though if it does reflect the writers' intentions, that is quite exciting. I've watched the first two episodes and the show has matched my expectations thus far. Though generally, while sating my pop culture appetite, I try to avoid the subtle messages unless the author's agenda is too transparent to warrant my ignorance.
Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.
The news media swoons in admiration -- one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: "Why don't you show some respect?!" The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: "Embracing change is never easy."
Speaking of, Invictus, starring Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman, opens next month. The picture tells the true story of Nelson Mandela and the 1995 World Rugby championships. Here's the trailer. The movie lionizes Mandela as a broker who led his nation out of moral destitution. It coalesces his story with a traditional sports narrative, showing Matt Damon leading the now united South African team to victory. While one could dismiss such a juxtaposition as a reflection of true events, the movie creator's consciously chose to tell this story. Thus, we note the idealism of a sports triumph as an allegory for the triumph of a nation disavowing its debased past.
I can not recall any movie that engages in such despicable sophistry. Following the abolition of apartheid, South Africa has devolved into perhaps the most crime ridden country in the world. Whites now live in secluded gated communities, taking immense precautions to avoid the country's almost unbelievable chaos. Of course, to liberals, no injustice supersedes those against racial egalitarianism and even "liberated" South Africa's pervasive savagery can't temper their championing of this ruined nation.
29 comments:
I like that show V also. My only criticism of the show is the portrayal of human-alien interspecies relationships; especially considering the fact that the true form of the aliens is a hideous lizard. Also, I'm a little confused as to how the aliens clone human skin over their reptilian bodies. That sounds a little unrealistic and probably very gross as well.
I also don't like the fact that the show doesn't return until March.
But then again, pretty much every show and movie features interracial relationships these days. So we might as well have relationships with space lizards as well. It’s all pretty much the same thing.
Onestdv,
Did you see the original V series? I vaguely remember watching that in the late 80's.
I'm a Kiwi & remember watching in frustration as we lost the 95 World Cup final to South Africa. NZ were strong favourites leading in, but most of the squad developed severe food poisoning on the eve of the final. There was a strong suspicion amongst the NZ players & coach that this wasn't a coincidence! I wonder if that will be mentioned in the film?
A friend of mine toured South Africa a year later with the school hockey team & said he lost count of the framed pictures showing the World Cup winning drop goal. It certainly was a huge source of pride & a symbol for the new SA.
Unfortunately, it does seem that SA's problems have actually increased since then.
I don't see why people cry over the loss of Apartheid in South Afrcia because, to me at least, it was obviously a mistake for the Europeans to try and run Africa in the first place in the 19th century.
The continent is so fouled up that the European colonialists were just wasting their time and resources with "White Man's Burden."
Instead of crying over Apartheid, it would be more productive to figure out ways to gradually get the remaining Afrikaners out of SA and into Australia, or Chile, or the US, or somewhere where they will be safe.
"I don't see why people cry over the loss of Apartheid in South Afrcia"
I'm not crying over the loss of apartheid. Apartheid to me is a rather immoral practice.
Rather, I'm criticizing the dissimulation engaged in by this movie's producers. SA might be the absolute worst country in the world, yet they depict it as some transformed utopia brought about by the apeothesized Mandela.
I don't see why people cry over the loss of Apartheid in South Afrcia"
The loss of South Africa is an epic tragedy. Before Europeans settled it, it was a barren, sparsely populated land. Black Africans came later, as labor, etc.
Apartheit was more or less unavoidable, once the black population became anything larger than a significant minority, much less 85% or so. In such a demographic arrangement, it's either some from of Jim Crow / Apartheit arrangement, or Afro-anarchy.
The tragedy of South Africa is two-fold. One, a civilized, beautiful, productive nation was obliuterated, primarily by the United States. This was accompanied by massive counts of individual suffering. Rapes, farmers tortured and set on fire, babies slaughtered by blacks.
Secondly, the tragedy of SA is that its unraveling is a template for any future civilized society in which blacks, in significant numbers, are allowed to comingle and live equally with non-Africans.
On topic of SA, and the Boers, this time England's infamy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtKKJSfYraU
I'm not crying over the loss of apartheid.
I was not really refering to you so much as race realists in general.
The loss of South Africa is an epic tragedy. Before Europeans settled it, it was a barren, sparsely populated land. Black Africans came later, as labor, etc.
I know the bulk of the SA African population came in as laborers.
I just don't get as worked up over SA because I view European colonial administration of the African sub-continent - in general - as a substantial waste of European resources and pointless 19th century flag waving.
At this point in time the Afrikaners should just continue to steadily stream out of the country.
I view European colonial administration of the African sub-continent - in general - as a substantial waste of European resources and pointless 19th century flag waving.
Not sure of your point. This also describes European colonization of North America.
Anyway, colonization ended a long time ago, and pre-1994 SA was a sovereign state.
At this point in time the Afrikaners should just continue to steadily stream out of the country.
For their sake, sure. But the bigger point is that this is civilization's surrender to savagery.
Don't blame INVICTUS on Hollywood liberals. The director is the supposedly conservative Clint Eastwood.
One STDV, you strike me as young. So perhaps you don't realize that racial pandering is quite widespread. It's a sickness.
This also describes European colonization of North America.
No it doesn't.
Africans are especially dysfunctional compared to just about anyone else.
It was a mistake to have contact with a people that were so problematic. Moving colonists and trying to plant civilization in such a backwater was largely a waste of time for the Europeans.
This is not true of other European colonial adventures. At least with, say, colonization of India the British left behind constitutional democracy in India and some civilizational foundation the natives were able to work with.
In contrast, contact with Africa did not really bring any worthwhile benefits either for the Europeans nor the Africans who were best left in a tribalistic state of affairs.
I agree with The Undiscovered Jew. If whites in South Africa fear for their safety, it would be wise for them to move to other countries. I don't believe that the current situation in SA is that bad though.
The White man's apparent failure to "plant civilization" in Africa shouldn't be of your concern, because the primary sufferers here are blacks. I suspect that for some reason, OneSTDV and his ilk feel guilty about the atrocities commited against blacks during aparthied, so they try to justify it by saying "things were sooooo much better back then, see...blacks really aren't capable of being civilized like the other races. They NEED US to exploit them for their own damn good!".
Not really. Why should you even care about what Africans do? If blacks fail to create a civilized country when left to their own devices, that's their problem. Rid yourself of white guilt and say what's really on your mind.
BOMBSHELL ARTICLE:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737
Read it, guys.
What it says is nothing new to us, but the fact that it appears in a mainstream liberal mag is remarkable.
Especially the final paragraph, note that the Economist has apparently never reviewed Lynn or Vanhannen's work. The final sentence basically acknowledges that bio-diversity could be a source of economic disparity.
"If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies."
The author of that Economist article is Geoffrey Miller, author of the Mating Mind and more recently, Spent.
He's definitely a progressive and the tone of the article is one of warning. This is sort of what William Saletan tried to do in slate. Note that Prof Miller is much more careful and doesn't mention that all of this stuff is settled but will be confirmed down to the genome level when the data are analyzed.
Yes, Miller has co-authored some papers with Linda Gottfredson about intelligence and s8men quality (available on her site). So I suppose he is familiar with the research & controversy.
It reminds me a bit of Jonathan Haidt's piece earlier in the year.
http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_4.html#haidt
"It was a mistake to have contact with a people that were so problematic. Moving colonists and trying to plant civilization in such a backwater was largely a waste of time for the Europeans....
In contrast, contact with Africa did not really bring any worthwhile benefits either for the Europeans nor the Africans who were best left in a tribalistic state of affairs."
The point about tribalism is really interesting. Blacks in the US didn't keep their tribal connections and largely had to adopt the dominant culture as their own until the 60's when it all fell apart.
The other day I brought up Barbados as an example of a country that is 95% black, yet is a reasonably ok place. I assume they lost their tribal connections during slavery as well. Crime there is comparable to the US and per capita GDP is not in toilet. Yes, yes, I know it subsidized by the Brits inasmuch as they don't have to provide their own defense and they have tourism as a strong sector of the economy. But still it is reasonable, if not great, based on what they have to work with.
So it make me wonder how much of a role their tribal structure contributes to what we see as dysfunction.
So it make me wonder how much of a role their tribal structure contributes to what we see as dysfunction.
It's a tough question.
In the case of Barbados and Botswana, you are right that those countries do have "Ok" living standards because they allowed outside Western forces to run their affairs.
But Barbados and Botswana are small in terms of population and are therefore much easier for foreign businesses/civil administrators to run.
However, running larger sections of Africa would require more than just some businesses setting up shop, but perhaps it is doable.
In any case, having the West run the affairs of large African states would still consume too many resources. Ultimately, I don't think contact with Africa was worth the 19th century imperialists' time and it certainly wouldn't be worth our time today to try and replicate their work.
Wait-A-Minute! This show is about aliens whose true form is a lizard? Good Lord! This would explain Anita Dunn! Anybody see her in her Mao clip? With her left-right head movements and her long, flickering tongue she looked a lot like a Komodo Dragon.
TV sucks. Live less in the virtual world created by a highly corrupt mass media and more in the real world...a main reason the USA is falling apart is so many have removed themselves from the real world in favor of the virtual one.
The USA and South Africa ought to engage in a population transfer -- we will trade America's Black population for the White population of South Africa.
Whites ought to retain at least one major port-city in South Africa though, probably Cape Town - it is needed for world trade and shipping around the Africa. If we do not keep a presence there, the Chinese or other groups will come in and take over the shipping there.
I, for one, welcome our new reptilian overlords.
"But the bigger point is that this is civilization's surrender to savagery."
I kinda agree. What will happen when Iceland is the last majority-white country and UN pressure starts building on Iceland to accept more refugees from the African shithole dujour?
"The continent is so fouled up that the European colonialists were just wasting their time and resources with "'White Man's Burden.'"
During colonial days, Africa was extremely sparsely populated. It's easy to forget this fact when you see pictures of Lagos teeming with blacks.
It wasn't until we (European-descended peoples) gave them modern medicine and food that their populations started exploding.
"the African shithole dujour?"
LOL!
I understand that Ireland is now paying the Africans to leave.
Has Bono issued a denunciation?
I'm not sure about the comment that Africa was a waste of resources for whites. Both SA and Rhodesia were very wealthy countries and big exporters.
And based on what we're seeing now I'm not convinced apartheit was a bad idea after all.
JGP
It wasn't until we (European-descended peoples) gave them modern medicine and food that their populations started exploding.
The prosecution rests its case.
I think you misunderstood me Undiscovered Jew. I don't advocate that we civilize the Africans. In a pre-1994 SA, I saw the possibility of a transplanted piece of Europe in a previously-nearly uninhabited part of the African continent. Similar to how North America became a transplated Europe, not some AmerIndian civiliational project.
The shame of South Africa is the waste of a temperate zone land on sub-saharan africans. It's the fault of white South Africans for being so penny wise and pound foolish for employong sub-saharan africans as cheap labor.
It sickens me to learn that Francois Pienarr's '95 Cup Team is being lionised in a movie.
I remember the series well and my abject disgust at the sight of Seth Efrica signing the Cross on bended knees in the in-goal area after the final whistle.
To any objective Rugby fan the series was a set up. The French were mercilessly robbed in the Semi Final (France were all over the Yarpies but the Welsh ref stood firm and annihilated the French). Even still the Yarps only scraped home by 4.
Then on the eve of the Cup Final nearly the entire All Black team were poisoned resulting in something like half the team with food poisoning.
And again, the Yarps could only manage a close win against opponents who should have been bed ridden.
That 95 Yarpie team would have to be one of the most boring, talentless, bunch of hacks to ever win a World Cup.
I hope the facts are reflected in the movie. The '95 World Cup was setup, a stage for the Terrorist's finest hour as leader of the new South Africa and its inevitable slide into chaos. A sham moment for the sham nation it would become.
On another note: "Apartheid to me is a rather immoral practice." What a bizarre statement. The situation in South Africa today is immoral. Apartheid was a moral necessity.
That comment reminds me of a certain type of South African arriving in Oz of late. Not the stoic Afrikaner but the whiny monied type who ruined his own country, fled it when reality hit home and now spends his days deriding the Australians who give them succour. They just can't help themselves.
Pat
Post a Comment