The Big Takeaway: Young Adult brings Diablo Cody and Jason Reitman Academy Award Winning pedigree to a poorly written, blandly acted, but deliciously short semi-autobiographical character piece.
The Little Takeaway: A needless “take” on the romantic comedy. Overwrought, supposedly clever dialogue, flat characters and a general unfinished feeling to the script.
I’ll admit, I’m probably NOT the desired demographic for Young Adult. But then again, I’m not entirely sure who is. I do know it’s more for the ladies in the audience than the gentleman. That could explain the long scenes that pad out the movie, with reality shows playing in the background and Charlize Theron napping or passed out in a bed. I’m not sure a lot guys are wont to do that on any given day real or fictionalized, the reality shows in the background bit, I assure you men love the napping and sleeping.
I’ll also admit I’m not a big fan of Diablo Cody, nom de plume and all, either. I find her to be a overhyped, poor man's cynical Amy Heckerling, and not in a good way. Her plots generally go nowhere, and the characters that inhabit them are fine for younger actors who don’t know how to build a character (your Micheal Cera’s, Ellen Page’s), but stymie established actors that could actually bring that character to life. Charlize Theron sleepwalks through movies like this.
Young Adult is the story of Diablo Cody Brook Busey Mavis Gary, a ghost writer of a…young adult…series of books. From the voice over narration of the books, they seem to be glossy retellings of Mavis Gary’s teenage years: vapid, shallow, slutty and all. This is supposed to flesh out the character, but it does so laterally, keeping the character woefully one-dimensional. We get it, she was popular and mean, and so is the main character of her books, but it’s not providing the kind of depth I think Diablo Cody was going for.
Mavis, after getting an e-mail from an old beau, named Buddy Slade, announcing a new baby, gets the notion that he’s actually crying out for help and sets off on an adventure to take him away from his dour wife and hideous baby. Hilarity…ensues!?
The more curious thing, aside from the overwrought, semi-autobiographical, underpinnings, is the fact that Mavis Gary is in her mid-thirties. The lusting and longing for school days gone by doesn’t strike me as something that would compel someone in their mid-thirties to act upon. Perhaps if Mavis was in her mid to late twenties, I could suspend some disbelief. Even with the grand twist that she got pregnant with Slade’s baby when she was twenty and miscarried, did absolutely nothing to redeem the character. Again, I think that Diablo Cody figured this lazy bit of a twist would work on some level. This would be true had there been a third act of some sort. It may explain some of her latent crazy that spills out during that very uncomfortable scene, but there’s only ten minutes left in the movie by that point.
The “Oscar buzz” about Patton Oswalt’s acting in this movie needs to step back and recognize. While he does put in a great performance, if that’s what they want to call it, he’s merely another voice in the movie trying to humanize Mavis enough for the audience to care. It’s almost as if Diablo Cody couldn’t write a script that could make the audience at least empathize with Mavis and instead went with the heavyhanded magical other guy that somehow understands and relates to Mavis. If you wish to see Patton Oswalt act the shit out of something, check out 2009's Big Fan.
More to the point, the script comes across as first draft through and through. It feels like two-thirds of a movie. Perhaps this is supposed to be genre defining or a change of pace for a character driven film. Kind of like Diablo Cody’s take on a tired character driven romantic comedy. Instead of bumping in to things, falling over stuff and changing her life just in time to land the hunky guy, Mavis Gary just sort of shrugs her shoulders and maintains the fuck you attitude that she started the movie with. You’re thinking we’ll go in to Act III and something will happen, at least bring the film to some sort of satisfying conclusion. Instead, the credits start rolling.
Reitman’s directing is falling in to a familiar pattern of non-obtrusive blandness. This movie almost seems like it meant to be put on the television in the background while you do other things. Kind of like schlocky cable shows where you can follow along to them without paying much attention. Young Adult is also kind of movie that sits on your local video rental place and is unobtrusive, but frequently rented by accident. It stands out only in that Charlize Theron is in it and nothing more. You can totally pick it up for a date night, fall asleep halfway through, or pick up a pizza and not really miss anything important.
And while it seems that I didn’t really like Young Adult, it’s not really the case. The move just sort of happened at me, and it made me wonder what’s so great about Diablo Cody and Jason Reitman or this re-teaming in general? On display in this movie is the very real notion that Diablo Cody’s writing may be a tad overrated, and that Jason Reitman's talents may be better spent directing Lexus "December to Remember" commercials.
Final Verdict: A yawn and a Pass
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Profile of a Robot Politician: Mitt Romney
Mitt Romeny’s recent spread in Parade magazine December 4 issue reads a lot like what a robot commercial will look like in the future. As humans, it’s in our very nature to distrust the unknown and the new. Artificial intelligence will also be a check on our egos, and the acknowledgement of our own frailty and mortality. However, since the rise of the machines is at least a few decades off, we do have politicians to bridge the gap in the meantime.
I’ve been having a good hardy chuckle with Parade’s GOP “Meet the Candidates 2012” Presidential Candidate coverage. I loved Perry’s cover, where his jacket front is all open like he’s allowing America to suckle from his Freedom teat. I genuinely enjoyed his answers to tee-ball style questioning. I supremely enjoyed Romney’s, with the pictures of his whole mess of kids and especially the one word blurbs that associates used to describe him that fill the article.
The first one, on the very first page is: “Human”. Rocky Anderson’s blurb then follows that “He’s much funnier than he comes across. But he’s too darn handsome. You feel a bit inadequate around him.” So the blurb should’ve been “Handsome”…maybe it was a typo? Also being described as human doesn’t really explain anything. Aren’t most people “Human”?
The next blurb is much, much better. “Ambitious”, but then the following statement is more a kick in the balls to Romney’s whole article trying to sell, presumably, the moderates and independents who don’t know who to vote for yet: “When he ran for governor he told us he’d be the most effective Republican in the U.S. on choice. But after he was elected, he totally flipped positions”. This totally plays in to the problem Romney’s having with his political inconsistency. But it does nothing to describe “Ambitious”. Was he ambitious in his flip-flopping? Ambitiously able to be a politician and lie to constituents to get much needed Massachusetts liberal votes? It remains to be seen on that on. Not only is Romney inconsistent, so is this very profile on him!
There are a few other blurbs that are essentially boilerplate political bullshit. “High Energy” and “Positive” round out the blurbs and the following statements keep in line with the “One Word” followed by dissassociative sentence. I believe better blurbs could’ve been: “Virile” Romney’s fathered five children, all boys. That is some stallion virility and DNA right there. “Well-Coifed” Mitt Romney’s hair is ALWAYS perfectly in place with nary a wayward strand. Even under intense pressure, the coif stays put. We’ll move forward with the actual article.
It wouldn’t be a Parade interview without the boneheaded interview questions. I’m wondering if David Gergen is actually a real person, or these questions were submitted by a sixth grade English class. Supposedly Americans know Romney’s policy positions. That’s soundly untrue. I’ve been following this clown car GOP rally, and I actually know very little about his policy positions. I’ve seen and read “ideas” that he’s moved to and away from, but nothing substantially concrete. Keyword being substantially, he may surprise me soon. No, we get in to Romney’s father George’s influence on his life. Oh look at this, he was a CEO, but he came from nothing. This is key, especially in the current economic climate we find ourselves in. Romney is worth 250 million dollars, he is not one of us. But all through this article, he’ll be damned if he doesn’t sell the notion that’s he just a guy. Who’s father came from nothing, who somehow sent his son to Harvard. You know, like most of us, who were allowed to go to an Ivy League University for higher education.
Furthering this narrative, Romney’s interview turns to his oddly omitted Mormon mission in the 60’s. It just states he went on a “mission” and that shaped him. Clearly he’s backing away from the whole Mormon thing, because that scares evangelicals in the right wing. Even when asked about how his Mormon faith has affected his life he manages to dodge that and focus on the Ten Commandments, that in his words are “…the basis of Judeo-Christian faiths”. He then goes on to say that religious oppression, my words, are somehow liberating. That being faithful is somehow a well of passion and devotion for marriage, and that tithing makes money less important. The interviewer then surmises that he’s given million of dollars to his church. Since tithes can’t really be accounted for, I’m going to find that REALL, really hard to believe.
The money question then gets in to the very real problem that any GOP, nay, politician is running in to: How do you relate or connect to the person struggling to get by? Romney, ever studious of the political playbook, name drops FDR, Kennedy and his would be analogous figure Eisenhower (of which his grandchildren have been instructed to call him Ike) who served in similar times. He goes on to say that the middle class is struggling, blahblahblah. Problem is, the question was how does Romney, a millionaire, connect to an average American living paycheck to paycheck? He has no answer.
The recent Brett Barier interview spotlighted a major issue with this current crop of candidates: once they wander off the rhetoric/talking point farm they faulter and look stupid. While Romney has yet to do that in any of the myriad of debates, that Fox New’s interview was perilously close to pulling back the curtain to what’s really wrong with Mitt Romney. The fact that he even thinks the interview was too harsh, speaks volumes to how out of touch he is with the general voting public, which is marginally higher than the right-wing on any given day.
This interviews goal was to show people the “real” Mitt Romney. It’s an impossible task, and the interview shows that, and suffers greatly for it. Romney comes across as the political operative robot that he is, well at least this point in the race. Most of the “tough” interview questions are not answered in this article. For instance the interview talks about what he would do with a similar situation of deficit deadlock. Romney goes for a mountain climbing metaphor instead. He tiptoes the Mormon issue and comes across as any other politician would in an interview such as this. He loves him family, his God and his country. I know that you can’t spread that out over five pages but this doesn’t even begin to show the “real” Mitt Romney.
The bulk of this interview comes across as pandering to the Republican establishment and the TEA Party. Romney’s strategy of being whatever the right-wing wants at any given time isn’t working because he’s coming across as the very antithesis of what the right-wing is rejecting. It’s no mistake that the GOP Presidential front-runners at any given time got there more for being candid and less button up same old’ white guy that they’ve been foisting on the general election for the past umpteen decades. It’s the reason why, if Romney gets the nomination he will lose to Obama. Hell, most of the Democrat establishment bucked a Clinton for Obama in 2008, the waves of popular political change are strong. Most of the voting electorate have clearly established that they are done voting for the same old same old. Romney’s even keel approach is fine, if he enjoys the marginal poll numbers he’s been receiving, but he’s costing himself an election in doing so.
I’ve been having a good hardy chuckle with Parade’s GOP “Meet the Candidates 2012” Presidential Candidate coverage. I loved Perry’s cover, where his jacket front is all open like he’s allowing America to suckle from his Freedom teat. I genuinely enjoyed his answers to tee-ball style questioning. I supremely enjoyed Romney’s, with the pictures of his whole mess of kids and especially the one word blurbs that associates used to describe him that fill the article.
The first one, on the very first page is: “Human”. Rocky Anderson’s blurb then follows that “He’s much funnier than he comes across. But he’s too darn handsome. You feel a bit inadequate around him.” So the blurb should’ve been “Handsome”…maybe it was a typo? Also being described as human doesn’t really explain anything. Aren’t most people “Human”?
The next blurb is much, much better. “Ambitious”, but then the following statement is more a kick in the balls to Romney’s whole article trying to sell, presumably, the moderates and independents who don’t know who to vote for yet: “When he ran for governor he told us he’d be the most effective Republican in the U.S. on choice. But after he was elected, he totally flipped positions”. This totally plays in to the problem Romney’s having with his political inconsistency. But it does nothing to describe “Ambitious”. Was he ambitious in his flip-flopping? Ambitiously able to be a politician and lie to constituents to get much needed Massachusetts liberal votes? It remains to be seen on that on. Not only is Romney inconsistent, so is this very profile on him!
There are a few other blurbs that are essentially boilerplate political bullshit. “High Energy” and “Positive” round out the blurbs and the following statements keep in line with the “One Word” followed by dissassociative sentence. I believe better blurbs could’ve been: “Virile” Romney’s fathered five children, all boys. That is some stallion virility and DNA right there. “Well-Coifed” Mitt Romney’s hair is ALWAYS perfectly in place with nary a wayward strand. Even under intense pressure, the coif stays put. We’ll move forward with the actual article.
It wouldn’t be a Parade interview without the boneheaded interview questions. I’m wondering if David Gergen is actually a real person, or these questions were submitted by a sixth grade English class. Supposedly Americans know Romney’s policy positions. That’s soundly untrue. I’ve been following this clown car GOP rally, and I actually know very little about his policy positions. I’ve seen and read “ideas” that he’s moved to and away from, but nothing substantially concrete. Keyword being substantially, he may surprise me soon. No, we get in to Romney’s father George’s influence on his life. Oh look at this, he was a CEO, but he came from nothing. This is key, especially in the current economic climate we find ourselves in. Romney is worth 250 million dollars, he is not one of us. But all through this article, he’ll be damned if he doesn’t sell the notion that’s he just a guy. Who’s father came from nothing, who somehow sent his son to Harvard. You know, like most of us, who were allowed to go to an Ivy League University for higher education.
Furthering this narrative, Romney’s interview turns to his oddly omitted Mormon mission in the 60’s. It just states he went on a “mission” and that shaped him. Clearly he’s backing away from the whole Mormon thing, because that scares evangelicals in the right wing. Even when asked about how his Mormon faith has affected his life he manages to dodge that and focus on the Ten Commandments, that in his words are “…the basis of Judeo-Christian faiths”. He then goes on to say that religious oppression, my words, are somehow liberating. That being faithful is somehow a well of passion and devotion for marriage, and that tithing makes money less important. The interviewer then surmises that he’s given million of dollars to his church. Since tithes can’t really be accounted for, I’m going to find that REALL, really hard to believe.
The money question then gets in to the very real problem that any GOP, nay, politician is running in to: How do you relate or connect to the person struggling to get by? Romney, ever studious of the political playbook, name drops FDR, Kennedy and his would be analogous figure Eisenhower (of which his grandchildren have been instructed to call him Ike) who served in similar times. He goes on to say that the middle class is struggling, blahblahblah. Problem is, the question was how does Romney, a millionaire, connect to an average American living paycheck to paycheck? He has no answer.
The recent Brett Barier interview spotlighted a major issue with this current crop of candidates: once they wander off the rhetoric/talking point farm they faulter and look stupid. While Romney has yet to do that in any of the myriad of debates, that Fox New’s interview was perilously close to pulling back the curtain to what’s really wrong with Mitt Romney. The fact that he even thinks the interview was too harsh, speaks volumes to how out of touch he is with the general voting public, which is marginally higher than the right-wing on any given day.
This interviews goal was to show people the “real” Mitt Romney. It’s an impossible task, and the interview shows that, and suffers greatly for it. Romney comes across as the political operative robot that he is, well at least this point in the race. Most of the “tough” interview questions are not answered in this article. For instance the interview talks about what he would do with a similar situation of deficit deadlock. Romney goes for a mountain climbing metaphor instead. He tiptoes the Mormon issue and comes across as any other politician would in an interview such as this. He loves him family, his God and his country. I know that you can’t spread that out over five pages but this doesn’t even begin to show the “real” Mitt Romney.
The bulk of this interview comes across as pandering to the Republican establishment and the TEA Party. Romney’s strategy of being whatever the right-wing wants at any given time isn’t working because he’s coming across as the very antithesis of what the right-wing is rejecting. It’s no mistake that the GOP Presidential front-runners at any given time got there more for being candid and less button up same old’ white guy that they’ve been foisting on the general election for the past umpteen decades. It’s the reason why, if Romney gets the nomination he will lose to Obama. Hell, most of the Democrat establishment bucked a Clinton for Obama in 2008, the waves of popular political change are strong. Most of the voting electorate have clearly established that they are done voting for the same old same old. Romney’s even keel approach is fine, if he enjoys the marginal poll numbers he’s been receiving, but he’s costing himself an election in doing so.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
It shouldn’t really come as a surprise that Kathleen Parker would defend Mitt Romney’s flippity floppity-ness with her recent article. Flip floppers must circle the wagons and protect one another, don’t you know. Ms. Parker takes a presumptive presidential candidates fatal flaw and attempts to humanize him. What’s becoming a trademark theme with Ms. Parker’s columns is an inability to multitask an article and have a nuanced prose. In other words, she can’t help but funnel down Romeny’s rhetorical inconsistency to a wedge issue change of heart, because she herself cannot write in anything but the singular.
My issue with this article is two fold. First issue, The attempt to humanize a politician is laughable. To then attempt to humanize Mitt Romney is Sisyphean in it’s endeavor. To then also approach it with same simplistic mindset that dictates that the federal government is a business, and therefore must be run by a businessman is the other issue. So of course Romney can be inconsistent morally and ethically. Aren’t we all? Issue one first.
People change, I get that. A lot of world views are shaped by just simply living ones life. To tie in to the whole abortion issue, my take on it was informed by a loved one being raped when I was a teenager. It had a profound impact on me and shaped my views on not only abortion, but women’s (and a larger degree everyone’s) rights to their bodies. I could even argue that if a right-winger ever made a nuanced enough argument about abortion, I could probably at least engage with it, and maybe change my mind, if it made sense. Typically their only argument is:
“It’s Wrong!”
But Why? Do you have a personal problem against it?
“No. ‘cuz God!”
The End
But a politician is not of this world. They are an amalgamation of everything that’s unholy and unkind to every man, woman and child. They will do anything to grab the brass ring of public office, and that mentality does not alter or change no matter the office. They will dance for the highest bidder, and they will do so unashamedly and with gusto.
As an aside, it’s also nice to see a bit of their own medicine washing up on the GOP in terms of this flip flop bullshit. How often during the 04 Presidential run did Kerry have to deal with that nonsense.? Any person with the dearth of publicity is going to be awash in inconsistencies. The same argument being supplied for Romney’s inconsistency.
The idea that a politicians ethics and morality are purely personal is purely bullshit. When Romney wanted to get elected in Massachusetts, he had to out Kennedy a Kennedy. That’s not something that’s done easily, especially on their home field. But Romney did it. Now that he wants to win a GOP nomination he’s going to out republican, out TEA Party, out crazy every single person up on the dais. Right now, all he has to do is sit back and let the also rans fly too close to the sun, which explains the even keel of his poll numbers. To keep with the mythological bent, his inconsistency is the Achilles heel keeping him from getting on top and staying there.
Ms. Parker's argument is that Romney is a man who’s growing and changing as he learns. Not that he’s changing stripes and colors as is politically advantageous to him at any one time, or that his inconsistency as a political figure is on full display for scrutiny. The thing is, sure he can change his mind. But the argument against Romney isn’t just random bouts of flip flop, it’s the full blown outbreak of it that springs up at every turn. For example one day he’s standing outside promoting states rights and that they should handle their own issues, then the very next day saying oh no perhaps some federal oversight is needed here and there. To say that corporations are people one day, and then try and relate to Occupy Wall Street when he’s the kind of person they’re protesting, is just a taste of one of the flavors you can enjoy from the Romney ice creamery and malt Shoppe.
Column size, status quo and protecting like minded inconsistency aficionados, not to mention her inability to craft a nuanced article about a politicians tack-less politicianship is what propels Ms. Parker to provide a singular example of how Romney flipped flopped on abortion. When he was governor he was under intense scrutiny to end a law protecting embryos from that awful “science” stem cell research. Since all politics are local, it was mostly about Harvard striking out as the beacon of all stem cell research (and all that pharmaceutical/federal research cheddar that would flood the state). But did Romney stick to his deeply (supposedly secret) conservative roots and uphold the law? No, but he did have a lunch with a professor of biomedical ethics and was told the birds and the bees. The conversion of a man who was pro-choice, of which Ms. Parkers provides no real proof, to an entrenched pro-life candidate is now proof that Romney isn’t inconsistent at all! Because, here’s the “Aha!” moment, it was a flip flop of the "highest order".
There you go again, Ms. Parker and every evangelically patronizing right-winger. Because, in the end, God and Religion is ALWAYS on the right side of things, this was merely a Saul/Paul revelation to the almighty and not Romney/Romney doing what was politically expedient as a Massachusetts governor who maintained MA pro-choice stance, instead of doing the “right thing” and not doing the will of his states people. But then years later say he’s always been pro-life all along. This isn’t textbook inconsistency? No ma’am this is a politician, through and through.
The lizard brain that dictates the right-wing and most of Ms. Parker’s articles is that there’s a one to one corollary between the general public and public figures. At the end of the day, yes we’re all the same. But public figures have the power to do things that mere mortals cannot, and will not, ever do. They have the power to shape the narrative, change the conversation, and make the world in their own image, if they so choose. If we’re going to lampoon one public figure for perceived inconsistency then every public figure is going to be allowed the same scrutiny in the future. Just because you have an excuse for why it shouldn’t be doesn’t make it any less applicable now. Higher order or no.
Romney is a political operative through and through. Once the GOP circus clowns go away, one by one, the general public will realize this too. Isn’t there a phrase in the bible about a person’s faith being found to be lukewarm would be spat from the mouth God? Inconsistency held no water in ancient times and it holds none now.
My issue with this article is two fold. First issue, The attempt to humanize a politician is laughable. To then attempt to humanize Mitt Romney is Sisyphean in it’s endeavor. To then also approach it with same simplistic mindset that dictates that the federal government is a business, and therefore must be run by a businessman is the other issue. So of course Romney can be inconsistent morally and ethically. Aren’t we all? Issue one first.
People change, I get that. A lot of world views are shaped by just simply living ones life. To tie in to the whole abortion issue, my take on it was informed by a loved one being raped when I was a teenager. It had a profound impact on me and shaped my views on not only abortion, but women’s (and a larger degree everyone’s) rights to their bodies. I could even argue that if a right-winger ever made a nuanced enough argument about abortion, I could probably at least engage with it, and maybe change my mind, if it made sense. Typically their only argument is:
“It’s Wrong!”
But Why? Do you have a personal problem against it?
“No. ‘cuz God!”
The End
But a politician is not of this world. They are an amalgamation of everything that’s unholy and unkind to every man, woman and child. They will do anything to grab the brass ring of public office, and that mentality does not alter or change no matter the office. They will dance for the highest bidder, and they will do so unashamedly and with gusto.
As an aside, it’s also nice to see a bit of their own medicine washing up on the GOP in terms of this flip flop bullshit. How often during the 04 Presidential run did Kerry have to deal with that nonsense.? Any person with the dearth of publicity is going to be awash in inconsistencies. The same argument being supplied for Romney’s inconsistency.
The idea that a politicians ethics and morality are purely personal is purely bullshit. When Romney wanted to get elected in Massachusetts, he had to out Kennedy a Kennedy. That’s not something that’s done easily, especially on their home field. But Romney did it. Now that he wants to win a GOP nomination he’s going to out republican, out TEA Party, out crazy every single person up on the dais. Right now, all he has to do is sit back and let the also rans fly too close to the sun, which explains the even keel of his poll numbers. To keep with the mythological bent, his inconsistency is the Achilles heel keeping him from getting on top and staying there.
Ms. Parker's argument is that Romney is a man who’s growing and changing as he learns. Not that he’s changing stripes and colors as is politically advantageous to him at any one time, or that his inconsistency as a political figure is on full display for scrutiny. The thing is, sure he can change his mind. But the argument against Romney isn’t just random bouts of flip flop, it’s the full blown outbreak of it that springs up at every turn. For example one day he’s standing outside promoting states rights and that they should handle their own issues, then the very next day saying oh no perhaps some federal oversight is needed here and there. To say that corporations are people one day, and then try and relate to Occupy Wall Street when he’s the kind of person they’re protesting, is just a taste of one of the flavors you can enjoy from the Romney ice creamery and malt Shoppe.
Column size, status quo and protecting like minded inconsistency aficionados, not to mention her inability to craft a nuanced article about a politicians tack-less politicianship is what propels Ms. Parker to provide a singular example of how Romney flipped flopped on abortion. When he was governor he was under intense scrutiny to end a law protecting embryos from that awful “science” stem cell research. Since all politics are local, it was mostly about Harvard striking out as the beacon of all stem cell research (and all that pharmaceutical/federal research cheddar that would flood the state). But did Romney stick to his deeply (supposedly secret) conservative roots and uphold the law? No, but he did have a lunch with a professor of biomedical ethics and was told the birds and the bees. The conversion of a man who was pro-choice, of which Ms. Parkers provides no real proof, to an entrenched pro-life candidate is now proof that Romney isn’t inconsistent at all! Because, here’s the “Aha!” moment, it was a flip flop of the "highest order".
There you go again, Ms. Parker and every evangelically patronizing right-winger. Because, in the end, God and Religion is ALWAYS on the right side of things, this was merely a Saul/Paul revelation to the almighty and not Romney/Romney doing what was politically expedient as a Massachusetts governor who maintained MA pro-choice stance, instead of doing the “right thing” and not doing the will of his states people. But then years later say he’s always been pro-life all along. This isn’t textbook inconsistency? No ma’am this is a politician, through and through.
The lizard brain that dictates the right-wing and most of Ms. Parker’s articles is that there’s a one to one corollary between the general public and public figures. At the end of the day, yes we’re all the same. But public figures have the power to do things that mere mortals cannot, and will not, ever do. They have the power to shape the narrative, change the conversation, and make the world in their own image, if they so choose. If we’re going to lampoon one public figure for perceived inconsistency then every public figure is going to be allowed the same scrutiny in the future. Just because you have an excuse for why it shouldn’t be doesn’t make it any less applicable now. Higher order or no.
Romney is a political operative through and through. Once the GOP circus clowns go away, one by one, the general public will realize this too. Isn’t there a phrase in the bible about a person’s faith being found to be lukewarm would be spat from the mouth God? Inconsistency held no water in ancient times and it holds none now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)