But wait, Bill O’Reilly chimes in and says that the media killed Whitney Houston! According Bill O‘Reilly, she was dying in the public eye for years and “the media” didn’t do anything about it. So…Bill O’Reilly isn’t part of the media? A guy that writes a weekly column, is a contributing editor of PARADE magazine and USA Today, and has a “highly rated” nightly prime time television program isn’t part of “the media”? How does that make sense?
Poor “the media”, always getting the finger pointed at it by all sorts of ideological viewpoints. This towering monolith was at first decried as being too liberal, so everyone involved panicked and started reporting two sides of a story to establish parity. Now they don’t even report news or facts, because that would make them appear to have an opinion. Even though there’s typically only one side of a FACT or the TRUTH and they could just report that.
As an aside, Bill O’Reilly really needs to cool it with the “working class I’m just another blue collar guy at the bar…just sayin’” shtick that he’s been riding since joining the Fox News Channel or since ever, really. He has been a multimillionaire much longer than he was ever a blue collar common man. In fact, it’s doubtful he’s ever been blue collar, more blue collar adjacent. What with going to private schools and universities in his youth. But that’s besides the point. Bill O’Reilly is in the media, and even he said nothing of Whitney Houston’s decline…ever…at all. More importantly his article isn’t even really about Whitney Houston, it’s about shoehorning talking points into an article that’s framed in Whitney Houston’s death.
Bill O’Reilly likes to pride himself on the numerous home runs of his rhetoric, when in reality it’s mostly ground singles and doubles, and even then he’s tagged out trying to steal third. That’s the established “conservative” DNA of a Limbaugh, where hubris makes up for the lack of substance, facts or a salient way to make a point without coming across as self-absorbed or out of touch; here he can couch his “blue collar everyman”, and still spout off about being a multimillionaire public figure.
Bill O’Reilly goes after the media saying “[they] pride themselves on being non-judgmental unless you are against abortion.” This is nonsense and Bill O’Reilly knows it. On top of this, what part of “the media” is he really talking about? If “the media” is being portrayed in black/white, as a monolithic entity that espouses one viewpoint, as is the right-wing wont, then sure “the media” is judgmental. But there’s news based opinion and theirs news based fact. Problem is entities like Fox News Channel took the editorial and the news parts of a news programs and mixed them together.
It’s why, back in the olden days, an anchor would wait until the end of a news report type show to say their piece. It was “their” opinion editorial, couched on a news program. Like how the opinion column of a newspaper is clearly labeled, most of the time, as an opinion section and not surrounded by the daily news. But with news/opinion media being eroded in the cable news arena (CNN, MSNBC, FNC), somehow it’s being lumped in with traditional media, to create the best of “the media”. To top it off, the right-wing IS pretty much the media these days. They control most of talk radio, FOX News is an echo chamber that has proven influence on “the media” at large, their pundits dominate 24 hour news networks, and so on and so forth. Exactly how is the right-wing and conservatism getting the short end of the stick in terms of coverage and the spotlight?
This article is mostly just Bill O'Reilly reinforcing his persecuted minority stance as a right-wing ideologue, it has nothing to do with Whitney Houston or her demise. Classic Bill O'Reilly. He wedges in a dig on the media about anyone (Bill O'Reilly, right-wingers) who’s against abortion is called out as a religious zealot and anti-woman. But to Bill O'Reilly, the media has no problem ignoring addiction and irresponsible human behavior when it comes to drugs. It’s hamfisted, but at least it allows him to shoehorn in a current talking point.
Somehow the current societal movement, or ruse as Bill O’Reilly refers to it, of legalizing marijuana for medical usage gets wrangled up in to his article. This is Bill O’Reilly’s evidence of a society walking away from a responsible position. Because we all know that to get to Oxycontin and heroin, you have to have smoked weed before that. A classic Bill O’Reilly move also finds itself in his article. “Ask any drug rehab counselor and her or she will tell you that pot often leads a person to harder drug use and is mentally addictive itself.” His preponderance of evidence to this notion is that you can just ask lots of people about a topic, and that‘s just as good as facts, right? This is right-wing baloney at it‘s finest “some people say” is another way to phrase it. “Believe me, I know people who get stoned or drunk every day. They become incredibly desensitized to those around them.” I’m sorry your teenager hates your face Bill O‘Reilly, but they’re probably not drunk or stoned. Also note to Bill O‘Reilly, if you’re going to say “Believe me” before you saying anything, it’s probably a good sign of you’re lying. How often has utter bullshit followed the phrase “believe me”? So no, I don’t believe that Bill O’Reilly knows lots of people who are “stoned or drunk” on a daily basis. He may “know of” people, namely his interns, but he doesn’t personally know anyone who functions like that.
Finally, Bill O’Reilly does argue my point that Whitney Houston was an adult and didn’t do enough to help herself or have the stability necessary to get sober. But still, cautionary tale? Nah.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Who Killed Whitney Houston? Part I: The Public
Hey everybody, bad news. According to Kathleen Parker we, the American Public (possibly the world) killed Whitney Houston. You know how she knows this? By studying the game tape of the red carpet event Whitney Houston attended before her death. Supposedly Ms. Parker watched this video “over and over” and is now a certified body language expert. Among the myriad of questions I have about this article, the chief one is: “Why is Kathleen Parker a paid columnist?” She writes TWO columns per week, that’s over one-hundred vapid inert culture laden turds a year! The proverbial toilet HAS to be clogged by now, and it’s still being filled bi-weekly. I don’t understand it!
Kathleen Parker surmises that Whitney Houston was self-medicating because we as a public were suffocating her. This kind of smacks in the face of reality, wherein Whitney Houston hasn’t done anything of note musically for her career in over a decade. Now, her public life, that’s a whole other ball of wax. She’s been on countless interviews where she reaffirmed her faith, obtained sobriety…a few times, and somehow attempted to defend anything Bobby Brown does. Most of time however, she’s appeared and possibly was in fact, high…on something.
This kind of celebrity entertainment world business is supposedly in Kathleen Parker’s wheelhouse. Honestly, she’s mildly better at writing about it than 98% of her political musings; but her take on the whole Whitney Houston tragedy is, again, a bit at odds with reality. Which is pretty much in line with most of what Kathleen Parker writes about. For instance the opening sentence of the article:
“The heartbreak of Whitney Houston’s death does not seems to be primarily a story of drug or alcohol abuses, as it is currently unfolding.” At the time of publishing there wasn’t a concrete cause of death. In fact, I heard on the radio that it was supposedly “medical” in nature. It’s not much of stretch to assume that the cause of any celebrities death was drug related, there’s plenty of precedence, but I think Ms. Parker was ignorantly hedging her bets so that her article would at least have some legs. Granted, she does need to invent some wiggle room because her column may or may not be printed in the ensuing days of Whitney Houston’s demise, but the holes in this article are apparent if you take in to account that she probably wrote this mere moments after the news of Whitney Houston’s death, and not in the days after. To do so would, again, deflate her admonishment of the celebrity obsessed public.
“Houston looks uncomfortable, but plays her part, smiling into the abyss of the flashing light. […]It is painful to watch. You can see her struggling to cooperate[…]” This is someone who’s high in public, putting on their game face, Ms. Parker. Somehow she translates this as a metaphor for why Whitney Houston self-medicated: because she couldn’t handle the fame. Whitney Houston wasn’t some obscure newcomer to the business of show, who coudln’t handle the pressure of instant stardom and unprecedented lifestyle upheaval, she was a grizzled veteran of almost 30 years and she rode the ups and the downs, high as a kite on something for the most part. How can you honestly say you can interpret what she was thinking, based on videos from the night before her death, where she was probably high as shit? Obviously Ms. Parker has never been fucked up on a drug in public before, or she’d have some sort of understanding as to the alien nature of interacting with the world when you alter your mind with toxic substances.
Oddly enough towards the end of the article Ms. Parker rhetorically shoots herself in the foot with “The final verdict on Houston’s death is yet to come. Toxicology reports could take several weeks.” But she’s already made her point, so there! “[…]the real cause was a deeper one that first struck her soul.” Give me a fucking break. What’s funny is that Ms. Parker pretty much admits to much of what I’ve put forth in my admonishment of her. She relates that many celebrities cruise out of life on an overdose raft, that many self-medicate to deal with the utter isolation of stardom. Yet, she doesn’t blame the irresponsibility on the celebrity, she blames the fans. We didn’t cram cocaine in to their noses, or push the needle in to their arm. We didn’t force them to marry abusive spouses, or make horrid business decisions.
What this boils down to more is that this article is literal filler between “Hey guys seriously, Romney” pieces that she’s been churning out at a good clip as of late. She’s got to write two fresh takes on something a week dontchaknow? The fact that this sort of entertainment stuff is in her wheelhouse and she just whiffs horribly in the attempt at making a cogent argument is nothing new. But it does beg the question that you could probably hire two-to-three new writers with the salary she’s paid and get a much more nuanced take on the culture at large both political and entertainment wise. It also makes the idea that the winning of a Pulitzer prize probably isn’t really that hard at all if you’re floating over a hundred pieces of shit every year. Something’s got to stick eventually right? The need for fresh faces and new blood has never been more clear than now. Newspaper editors of the world, why not? It can’t honestly get much worse than this (and you can save lots of money!).
Kathleen Parker surmises that Whitney Houston was self-medicating because we as a public were suffocating her. This kind of smacks in the face of reality, wherein Whitney Houston hasn’t done anything of note musically for her career in over a decade. Now, her public life, that’s a whole other ball of wax. She’s been on countless interviews where she reaffirmed her faith, obtained sobriety…a few times, and somehow attempted to defend anything Bobby Brown does. Most of time however, she’s appeared and possibly was in fact, high…on something.
This kind of celebrity entertainment world business is supposedly in Kathleen Parker’s wheelhouse. Honestly, she’s mildly better at writing about it than 98% of her political musings; but her take on the whole Whitney Houston tragedy is, again, a bit at odds with reality. Which is pretty much in line with most of what Kathleen Parker writes about. For instance the opening sentence of the article:
“The heartbreak of Whitney Houston’s death does not seems to be primarily a story of drug or alcohol abuses, as it is currently unfolding.” At the time of publishing there wasn’t a concrete cause of death. In fact, I heard on the radio that it was supposedly “medical” in nature. It’s not much of stretch to assume that the cause of any celebrities death was drug related, there’s plenty of precedence, but I think Ms. Parker was ignorantly hedging her bets so that her article would at least have some legs. Granted, she does need to invent some wiggle room because her column may or may not be printed in the ensuing days of Whitney Houston’s demise, but the holes in this article are apparent if you take in to account that she probably wrote this mere moments after the news of Whitney Houston’s death, and not in the days after. To do so would, again, deflate her admonishment of the celebrity obsessed public.
“Houston looks uncomfortable, but plays her part, smiling into the abyss of the flashing light. […]It is painful to watch. You can see her struggling to cooperate[…]” This is someone who’s high in public, putting on their game face, Ms. Parker. Somehow she translates this as a metaphor for why Whitney Houston self-medicated: because she couldn’t handle the fame. Whitney Houston wasn’t some obscure newcomer to the business of show, who coudln’t handle the pressure of instant stardom and unprecedented lifestyle upheaval, she was a grizzled veteran of almost 30 years and she rode the ups and the downs, high as a kite on something for the most part. How can you honestly say you can interpret what she was thinking, based on videos from the night before her death, where she was probably high as shit? Obviously Ms. Parker has never been fucked up on a drug in public before, or she’d have some sort of understanding as to the alien nature of interacting with the world when you alter your mind with toxic substances.
Oddly enough towards the end of the article Ms. Parker rhetorically shoots herself in the foot with “The final verdict on Houston’s death is yet to come. Toxicology reports could take several weeks.” But she’s already made her point, so there! “[…]the real cause was a deeper one that first struck her soul.” Give me a fucking break. What’s funny is that Ms. Parker pretty much admits to much of what I’ve put forth in my admonishment of her. She relates that many celebrities cruise out of life on an overdose raft, that many self-medicate to deal with the utter isolation of stardom. Yet, she doesn’t blame the irresponsibility on the celebrity, she blames the fans. We didn’t cram cocaine in to their noses, or push the needle in to their arm. We didn’t force them to marry abusive spouses, or make horrid business decisions.
What this boils down to more is that this article is literal filler between “Hey guys seriously, Romney” pieces that she’s been churning out at a good clip as of late. She’s got to write two fresh takes on something a week dontchaknow? The fact that this sort of entertainment stuff is in her wheelhouse and she just whiffs horribly in the attempt at making a cogent argument is nothing new. But it does beg the question that you could probably hire two-to-three new writers with the salary she’s paid and get a much more nuanced take on the culture at large both political and entertainment wise. It also makes the idea that the winning of a Pulitzer prize probably isn’t really that hard at all if you’re floating over a hundred pieces of shit every year. Something’s got to stick eventually right? The need for fresh faces and new blood has never been more clear than now. Newspaper editors of the world, why not? It can’t honestly get much worse than this (and you can save lots of money!).
Friday, February 17, 2012
I imagine, carved in a cave somewhere was the first dating advice ever given. One caveman positing to another, older, wiser caveman how to score a date with that cave lady. It was boilerplate nonsense then, and it remains so to this day, eons later. It’s also the easiest column space to write for, and a lot of writers cut their teeth there. I mean seriously, how hard is it to tell someone how they should handle any given situation, especially in the absence of context and personal history. It becomes this bland, vanilla one size fits all generality that anyone can relate to. Like a horoscope or a fortune cookie.
I bring this topic to fore more out of sheer boredom with current events than any real bone to pick. I have my issues with the Dear Abby’s and Ask Amy’s of the world on face value, but they’re not openly harming society with their rhetoric. I wish they would have a more nuanced approach to relationship difficulties than “go to counseling” or “sit down with the other party”. I also suspect that a vast majority of the letters they receive are fake. I have never in my life read so many cogent, well written 12 years old authored letters than I have in these respective advice columns. Seriously, when I was that age, my letter would’ve been about one sentence long and would say:
“Dear Abby, I love boobs, why are boobs so cool and what’s the best material to make a bike ramp out of?”
Today’s Double-Dragon’s of Douchbaggery are the dating advice writers Damon Smith and Pamela E. Spencer (oooh the initial even!) for a publication called Ink. It’s a Kansas City based magazine that attempts to pass on this failed idea that a Midwestern city can A)be metropolitan and B)Compare remotely to a coastal city in terms of culture and relevance. The Midwest and it’s culture is a low bar that is easy to jump over. It’s where you can see touring shows of the biggest Broadway musicals (18-32 months later!), you can dazzle at overweight ballerinas, and so on and so forth. The cream definitely rises to the top when it comes to creative endeavors, and those who can go to New York, L.A. and to some degree Chicago, those that can’t stay in cities like Kansas City, St. Louis, Houston and part time barista at a coffee shop in their spare time. It’s where the notion of “Hey, you’re trying too hard” bears its fruit and look extra comedic amongst the plain, pudgy people of the Midwest.
Sorry for that little tangent, I haven’t seen the sun in about four weeks. Yay Midwest!
The dating advice these writers give is always awful. The column, appropriately titled “Kiss and Tell”, is written in the time honored he said/she said tradition. Which on one hand, it’s nice that there’s a guy trying to give romantic advice, but then it’s always coupled with a female perspective that’s not quite right either. So you get a double dose of boilerplate, useless “advice”.
Today’s questioner asks “How does a painfully shy person get a boyfriend or let alone a date?” The questioner is not given a moniker or even if it’s a male or female asking the question. This is where context is key! The nature of the advice is fluid, and depends on a few things. Mainly, if it’s a girl or a guy. These approaches aren’t interchangeable, just as the various scenarios that this could play out in. The man advice giver, Damon seems to think this is a lady and the setting is a bar.
He breaks advice man protocol by attempting to be relatable and saying that he too is shy about things, approaching girls is one of them. That’s great to know and all Mr. Damon, but that’s not the question. In fact, it would’ve been better had he not even attempted the answer at all since a few of his opening lines to share are “I like your blazer” and “You have a pretty smile”. How about some more general advice? Guys can’t say those things to girls! I’ve had friends use the “You have a pretty smile” line and guess what? It’s a tad creepy! And complementing something they’re wearing? Hey buddy, my eyes are up here! Mr. Damon does rally a bit before the end of his bit by saying that she needs to open up a bit and let things go where they go. This is pretty good advice considering how often girls just fortify up with their gaggle of friends, stare off in to space or set up some sort of impenetrable force field wherein oxygen is in short supply and the male cannot function in that climate for more than a few minutes. Seeing as all the blood has drawn from his brain and now resides in his penis, the chances of him just passing out and failing rise exponentially! Girls, more often than not are their own worst enemy when it comes to picking up a date. Now it’s Pamela’s turn to dispense some advice.
Ole throwing in that middle initial trying too hard Pamela E. Spencer personifies the lady Mr. Damon was trying to attempt the other lady from becoming with his advice. The lady with the “think-too-highly-of-herself-rigid-standards-probably-has-a-list-of-things-a-man-MUST-be/have/accomplished-tacked-up-on-her-bedroom-wall kind of mindset that perpetuates her isolation and shallow dating experience. Her answer: The Internet. Yes, where a six or seven can go and pretend that she’s a 9 and entitled to only the best of MANkind! Now, I don’t have a problem with Internet dating, per se, but after spending a goodly amount of time messing around with it for an article idea, I don’t think too highly of it or it’s meat market approach to mass human connection. You see, people should understand who they are and what they’re capable of. Everyone has limitations of some sort. But what Internet dating does is allow that delusional young lady believe that she doesn’t have to settle for what she can get or realistically, what she can pull in with her looks and individual statistical data.
Now, before you start poking me with the chauvinist pig stick, let me say that I believe ladies as a general rule get the short end of it when it comes to dating. But all men aren’t brainless fuckmachines either.
These online dating sites boil down everything in to a tidy menu of combo meals. You get the picture of the thing you desire, followed by a delicious description. You get to pick and choose everything on face value. You may even get match up via “compatibility tests” which gives the false sense that you two will have something in common from the get-go, instead of say, discovering that shit when you’re face to face. It’s where desperation and unrealistic standards meet and it’s any wonder that most people find someone to date online at all.
Pamela E. Spencer, hues closely to the stereotypical in her advice with the Internet dating. Keep your distance, exchange plenty of messages, meet in a public place (in case he’s a psycho…lol). You might as well add “Google Him!” to that list of things. Again, the lack of context is what’s missing with this advice, and online dating in general. All that statistical chicanery is merely window dressing to the fact that you have to be compatible/relatable in order for ANY connection to occur. This is even before the “can I date him?” then “will I marry him?” can ever be in the discussion. Pamela E. Spencer also goes for that ridiculous relatablitly by saying “I’m pretty shy around guys, plus I’m a little (OK a lot) neurotic, and if I can get a date online, anybody can.”
Kiss and Tell has to realize that this isn’t helpful at all, or of any use to anyone reading their column, let alone the questioner. The best advice could’ve been: “Shut Your Mouth (i.e., don‘t do anything to scare boys off, look pretty, etc), Accept the Drinks he buys you, Pretend to be Impressed with Things He says, Get His Number, but DO NOT go home with him (in case he’s a psycho…lol)” Call it day! If you’re going to lack context and retain a rigid bland advice structure the least you can do is be plainspoken. Also, online dating should be saved for picky, unrealistic, delusion ridden, mildly attractive late twenty/early thirty something’s and men with a mean case of the mid life crisis…and no one else.
I bring this topic to fore more out of sheer boredom with current events than any real bone to pick. I have my issues with the Dear Abby’s and Ask Amy’s of the world on face value, but they’re not openly harming society with their rhetoric. I wish they would have a more nuanced approach to relationship difficulties than “go to counseling” or “sit down with the other party”. I also suspect that a vast majority of the letters they receive are fake. I have never in my life read so many cogent, well written 12 years old authored letters than I have in these respective advice columns. Seriously, when I was that age, my letter would’ve been about one sentence long and would say:
“Dear Abby, I love boobs, why are boobs so cool and what’s the best material to make a bike ramp out of?”
Today’s Double-Dragon’s of Douchbaggery are the dating advice writers Damon Smith and Pamela E. Spencer (oooh the initial even!) for a publication called Ink. It’s a Kansas City based magazine that attempts to pass on this failed idea that a Midwestern city can A)be metropolitan and B)Compare remotely to a coastal city in terms of culture and relevance. The Midwest and it’s culture is a low bar that is easy to jump over. It’s where you can see touring shows of the biggest Broadway musicals (18-32 months later!), you can dazzle at overweight ballerinas, and so on and so forth. The cream definitely rises to the top when it comes to creative endeavors, and those who can go to New York, L.A. and to some degree Chicago, those that can’t stay in cities like Kansas City, St. Louis, Houston and part time barista at a coffee shop in their spare time. It’s where the notion of “Hey, you’re trying too hard” bears its fruit and look extra comedic amongst the plain, pudgy people of the Midwest.
Sorry for that little tangent, I haven’t seen the sun in about four weeks. Yay Midwest!
The dating advice these writers give is always awful. The column, appropriately titled “Kiss and Tell”, is written in the time honored he said/she said tradition. Which on one hand, it’s nice that there’s a guy trying to give romantic advice, but then it’s always coupled with a female perspective that’s not quite right either. So you get a double dose of boilerplate, useless “advice”.
Today’s questioner asks “How does a painfully shy person get a boyfriend or let alone a date?” The questioner is not given a moniker or even if it’s a male or female asking the question. This is where context is key! The nature of the advice is fluid, and depends on a few things. Mainly, if it’s a girl or a guy. These approaches aren’t interchangeable, just as the various scenarios that this could play out in. The man advice giver, Damon seems to think this is a lady and the setting is a bar.
He breaks advice man protocol by attempting to be relatable and saying that he too is shy about things, approaching girls is one of them. That’s great to know and all Mr. Damon, but that’s not the question. In fact, it would’ve been better had he not even attempted the answer at all since a few of his opening lines to share are “I like your blazer” and “You have a pretty smile”. How about some more general advice? Guys can’t say those things to girls! I’ve had friends use the “You have a pretty smile” line and guess what? It’s a tad creepy! And complementing something they’re wearing? Hey buddy, my eyes are up here! Mr. Damon does rally a bit before the end of his bit by saying that she needs to open up a bit and let things go where they go. This is pretty good advice considering how often girls just fortify up with their gaggle of friends, stare off in to space or set up some sort of impenetrable force field wherein oxygen is in short supply and the male cannot function in that climate for more than a few minutes. Seeing as all the blood has drawn from his brain and now resides in his penis, the chances of him just passing out and failing rise exponentially! Girls, more often than not are their own worst enemy when it comes to picking up a date. Now it’s Pamela’s turn to dispense some advice.
Ole throwing in that middle initial trying too hard Pamela E. Spencer personifies the lady Mr. Damon was trying to attempt the other lady from becoming with his advice. The lady with the “think-too-highly-of-herself-rigid-standards-probably-has-a-list-of-things-a-man-MUST-be/have/accomplished-tacked-up-on-her-bedroom-wall kind of mindset that perpetuates her isolation and shallow dating experience. Her answer: The Internet. Yes, where a six or seven can go and pretend that she’s a 9 and entitled to only the best of MANkind! Now, I don’t have a problem with Internet dating, per se, but after spending a goodly amount of time messing around with it for an article idea, I don’t think too highly of it or it’s meat market approach to mass human connection. You see, people should understand who they are and what they’re capable of. Everyone has limitations of some sort. But what Internet dating does is allow that delusional young lady believe that she doesn’t have to settle for what she can get or realistically, what she can pull in with her looks and individual statistical data.
Now, before you start poking me with the chauvinist pig stick, let me say that I believe ladies as a general rule get the short end of it when it comes to dating. But all men aren’t brainless fuckmachines either.
These online dating sites boil down everything in to a tidy menu of combo meals. You get the picture of the thing you desire, followed by a delicious description. You get to pick and choose everything on face value. You may even get match up via “compatibility tests” which gives the false sense that you two will have something in common from the get-go, instead of say, discovering that shit when you’re face to face. It’s where desperation and unrealistic standards meet and it’s any wonder that most people find someone to date online at all.
Pamela E. Spencer, hues closely to the stereotypical in her advice with the Internet dating. Keep your distance, exchange plenty of messages, meet in a public place (in case he’s a psycho…lol). You might as well add “Google Him!” to that list of things. Again, the lack of context is what’s missing with this advice, and online dating in general. All that statistical chicanery is merely window dressing to the fact that you have to be compatible/relatable in order for ANY connection to occur. This is even before the “can I date him?” then “will I marry him?” can ever be in the discussion. Pamela E. Spencer also goes for that ridiculous relatablitly by saying “I’m pretty shy around guys, plus I’m a little (OK a lot) neurotic, and if I can get a date online, anybody can.”
Kiss and Tell has to realize that this isn’t helpful at all, or of any use to anyone reading their column, let alone the questioner. The best advice could’ve been: “Shut Your Mouth (i.e., don‘t do anything to scare boys off, look pretty, etc), Accept the Drinks he buys you, Pretend to be Impressed with Things He says, Get His Number, but DO NOT go home with him (in case he’s a psycho…lol)” Call it day! If you’re going to lack context and retain a rigid bland advice structure the least you can do is be plainspoken. Also, online dating should be saved for picky, unrealistic, delusion ridden, mildly attractive late twenty/early thirty something’s and men with a mean case of the mid life crisis…and no one else.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
“[…] the nerdy, disciplined numbers-cruncher who has turned failing businesses around for a living might have a great palliative effect on the nation’s ills than someone who, by virtue of his own transgressions, feels others’ pain.” This is how Kathleen Parker personifies Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich to the world outside Washington D.C. (or the confines of her home office, if we‘re keeping count). When I read this towards the end of yet another of her “Hey guys, seriously Romney” tinged articles, I about tore the newspaper in to fine pieces, and set them ablaze as a glorious sacrifice to the gods of deficient common sense and severely ironic tone deafness. Almost mind blowing enough for me to join the tinfoil hat wearing right-wingers who are still of the belief that Romney is ceaselessly being foisted on them. Almost. And while I will still deny them their conspiracy theory, I will use this piece of Mitt Romney propaganda as a Mr. Mayor’s Exhibit A™ that the D.C. Beltway pundit class is simply out of touch with reality.
This says nothing of the rest of her article, which surmises that Americans are against Romney because he’s just too damn perfect. Her article absolutely flies in the face of any facts, any current shared notions amongst the republicans participating in the primaries and…common sense! If Kathleen Parker had written this MONTHS ago, maybe it would be remotely cogent. But after the last few weeks of the republican presidential primary season which saw Romney lose half of the primaries/caucuses out of the starting gate, the release of his taxes that reveal (unsurprisingly) that he pays less than 15%, his general stiff demeanor, out of touch aloofness and not even counting the years of flip pity floppity goodness and his Joe Biden levels of verbal gaffe-itude…the notion that he’s just too damn easy to relate to because he’s Mr. Perfect is laughably insane.
If what I read is also true, humans are just too damn emotional and not rational enough to relate to Romney. According to Kathleen Parker, it’s not Romney’s fault he can’t connect with republicans. It’s their fault they fail to connect with him, and why it’s so much easier to connect with Gingrich, against all odds. You see, republicans empathize with Gingrich because he’s supposedly human. He’s been professionally disgraced, thrice married, full of ridiculous grandiosity and that’s what endears him so much to Americans, right? He’s what we see when we look in the mirror.
Perhaps she recently repainted her office and is high on paint fumes, but Kathleen Parker just doesn’t connect the dots in order to fool anyone who’s following this GOP Presidential Primary circus. Republican voters are against Romney for a myriad of reasons, and not one of them have to do with Romney being too perfect. You have the evangelicals who think Mormonism is a cult. You have TEA Party patriots who believe he’s the worst kind of republican: a moderate…which might as well be a socialist liberal Muslim in their eyes. You have the establishment, who’s just holding their nose and going with it, buoyed by a more severe hatred of Gingrich than a tacit support of Romney. Independents and moderates see a politician willing to do or say anything for a vote, who at the end of the day isn’t too far removed from the guy we currently have in the Oval Office, so why change horses mid-race? The 99% crowd see’s the guy that comes around on a Friday, to tell you that you have no job to come to on Monday (which is doubtful since the kind of guy Romney is doesn't fire people face to face anyways). Romney is full embodiment of “The Man” to a LOT of people. What no one sees, outside of the D.C. Beltway crowd, is that nerdy, disciplined numbers-cruncher. I think Kathleen Parker may in fact be the only one.
This sort of tone deafness is all over D.C., the GOP and the right-wing support structure. Look at the republican response to the state of the union. Did they even watch/read the presidents speech? From what I gather, it hit them in the face like a soft breeze and they just coughed a little, and turned the echo chamber back on to “Full Power”. Their answer, hidden deep in that rebuttal? “Yea, we got nothing. But here’s what we’ve been saying for the past couple of years.” The idea being that if they keep repeating it, it will come true?
But I think the gap between the political tone deafness is beginning to grow in to a gaping maw with the pundit class that writes and talks about it. The pundit class can’t really get behind the political states inability to do anything meaningful with their time. They have to talk about policy and politics nearly every single day! Then they have a weekly column wherein they have to fall on some sort of opinion, married with talking points and their own convoluted rhetorical consistency, which they largely do not maintain. No one in the media dares call them on their roaring inconsistency, because they need the pundit class to fill up the 24 hour news machine and they might be denied access to the party of politics. Which is insane right? Aren’t the pundits supposed to be “journalists” of sorts, or has the line purposely been blurred to mask convenient rhetorical malfeasance?
I would give props to Kathleen Parker had she couched her article in the idea that maybe there’s some class envy to be had in the sound rejection of Romney. It kind of goes against the GOP mantra that we are a nation of have’s and soon-to-have’s, but it miles better than Romney being too perfect. Only a bonehead pundit, out of touch with current (modern) discourse amongst the public, would fly that bad idea flag all day. Kathleen Parker knows that this article will just float by like the rest of her rhetorically inert turds and she won’t have to answer to anyone. Honestly, she’s only got to really nail one or two strong articles, collect her Pulitzer, and call it another good year for her journalistic bona fides. And so it goes for most of the pundit class.
There’s no disgrace in being wrong, shortsighted, or being a flat out liar. It’s far easier to remember things if your honest and consistent with your writings, but there’s no money or access in it. There’s boatloads of cash in keeping the status quo going, telling everyone to mind their business and move along...nothing to see here. There’s even more treasure for those who actively participate in the echo chamber and blithe fully ignore what’s really happening on the streets and in our society. Point fingers and provide distractions for the troublemakers. Occupy Wall Street tore the veneer just a little, exposing the narrative being peddled by the beltway Pundit Class to everyone as “the way it is”. Come spring time, when it’s warmer, the whole curtain will be torn asunder. And it won’t be because the masses hold Romney’s perfection against him.
This says nothing of the rest of her article, which surmises that Americans are against Romney because he’s just too damn perfect. Her article absolutely flies in the face of any facts, any current shared notions amongst the republicans participating in the primaries and…common sense! If Kathleen Parker had written this MONTHS ago, maybe it would be remotely cogent. But after the last few weeks of the republican presidential primary season which saw Romney lose half of the primaries/caucuses out of the starting gate, the release of his taxes that reveal (unsurprisingly) that he pays less than 15%, his general stiff demeanor, out of touch aloofness and not even counting the years of flip pity floppity goodness and his Joe Biden levels of verbal gaffe-itude…the notion that he’s just too damn easy to relate to because he’s Mr. Perfect is laughably insane.
If what I read is also true, humans are just too damn emotional and not rational enough to relate to Romney. According to Kathleen Parker, it’s not Romney’s fault he can’t connect with republicans. It’s their fault they fail to connect with him, and why it’s so much easier to connect with Gingrich, against all odds. You see, republicans empathize with Gingrich because he’s supposedly human. He’s been professionally disgraced, thrice married, full of ridiculous grandiosity and that’s what endears him so much to Americans, right? He’s what we see when we look in the mirror.
Perhaps she recently repainted her office and is high on paint fumes, but Kathleen Parker just doesn’t connect the dots in order to fool anyone who’s following this GOP Presidential Primary circus. Republican voters are against Romney for a myriad of reasons, and not one of them have to do with Romney being too perfect. You have the evangelicals who think Mormonism is a cult. You have TEA Party patriots who believe he’s the worst kind of republican: a moderate…which might as well be a socialist liberal Muslim in their eyes. You have the establishment, who’s just holding their nose and going with it, buoyed by a more severe hatred of Gingrich than a tacit support of Romney. Independents and moderates see a politician willing to do or say anything for a vote, who at the end of the day isn’t too far removed from the guy we currently have in the Oval Office, so why change horses mid-race? The 99% crowd see’s the guy that comes around on a Friday, to tell you that you have no job to come to on Monday (which is doubtful since the kind of guy Romney is doesn't fire people face to face anyways). Romney is full embodiment of “The Man” to a LOT of people. What no one sees, outside of the D.C. Beltway crowd, is that nerdy, disciplined numbers-cruncher. I think Kathleen Parker may in fact be the only one.
This sort of tone deafness is all over D.C., the GOP and the right-wing support structure. Look at the republican response to the state of the union. Did they even watch/read the presidents speech? From what I gather, it hit them in the face like a soft breeze and they just coughed a little, and turned the echo chamber back on to “Full Power”. Their answer, hidden deep in that rebuttal? “Yea, we got nothing. But here’s what we’ve been saying for the past couple of years.” The idea being that if they keep repeating it, it will come true?
But I think the gap between the political tone deafness is beginning to grow in to a gaping maw with the pundit class that writes and talks about it. The pundit class can’t really get behind the political states inability to do anything meaningful with their time. They have to talk about policy and politics nearly every single day! Then they have a weekly column wherein they have to fall on some sort of opinion, married with talking points and their own convoluted rhetorical consistency, which they largely do not maintain. No one in the media dares call them on their roaring inconsistency, because they need the pundit class to fill up the 24 hour news machine and they might be denied access to the party of politics. Which is insane right? Aren’t the pundits supposed to be “journalists” of sorts, or has the line purposely been blurred to mask convenient rhetorical malfeasance?
I would give props to Kathleen Parker had she couched her article in the idea that maybe there’s some class envy to be had in the sound rejection of Romney. It kind of goes against the GOP mantra that we are a nation of have’s and soon-to-have’s, but it miles better than Romney being too perfect. Only a bonehead pundit, out of touch with current (modern) discourse amongst the public, would fly that bad idea flag all day. Kathleen Parker knows that this article will just float by like the rest of her rhetorically inert turds and she won’t have to answer to anyone. Honestly, she’s only got to really nail one or two strong articles, collect her Pulitzer, and call it another good year for her journalistic bona fides. And so it goes for most of the pundit class.
There’s no disgrace in being wrong, shortsighted, or being a flat out liar. It’s far easier to remember things if your honest and consistent with your writings, but there’s no money or access in it. There’s boatloads of cash in keeping the status quo going, telling everyone to mind their business and move along...nothing to see here. There’s even more treasure for those who actively participate in the echo chamber and blithe fully ignore what’s really happening on the streets and in our society. Point fingers and provide distractions for the troublemakers. Occupy Wall Street tore the veneer just a little, exposing the narrative being peddled by the beltway Pundit Class to everyone as “the way it is”. Come spring time, when it’s warmer, the whole curtain will be torn asunder. And it won’t be because the masses hold Romney’s perfection against him.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Why Steve Bodga Should Be the Blueprint on "How to Not Write About Video Games"
A video game journalist or sportswriter has never found a hyperbolic statement they didn’t like. It’s become such a pandemic, that even up and coming, wannabe journalists have slipped in their vernacular. Eschewing years of proper writing, just so not to stick out of a very large herd of bad writers. You wouldn’t even have to throw a rock to hit some of the laziest written articles to every grace the eyes of mankind and they‘re either about sportsball or video games.
That being said, to couple this with the notion of arguing whether one thing is greater than the other. “I will tell you why something you love is flawed, and you will spend the next moments telling me I’m wrong“. So it’s not really an argument because no one’s going to walk away more informed or enlightened…just angry. This is the very reason I rarely ever harp on poorly written articles associated with video games. It’s one thing to mock an established editorial writer for the occasional poorly constructed argument, but it’s beyond Sisyphean to take a fan boy to task about their flaming troll ramblings. That aside, I will hold my nose for this farce and try.
Steve Bogda, “Editor-N-Chief” (his words not mine) of The DamnLag.com’s recent article “Why Final Fantasy IX Should Be Square-Enix’s Blueprint” is less informative to someone at Square-Enix to use a template and more to what it really is: flame bait for fans of Final Fantasy XIII. You’d think an article attempting to show how Square-Enix could use an older title in their vaunted Final Fantasy series would acknowledge a growing number of modern trends that shape the Japanese game development landscape. Nope, Mr. Bogda just starts flogging Final Fantasy XIII as some of the only evidence that Square-Enix has lost it’s artistic edge and forgotten how to make good games.
Mr. Bogda could’ve saved everyone the trouble of reading this poor thesis of an article by just saying “Hey, I didn’t like Final Fantasy XIII…but I do love Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy VI!” and call it a day. Instead of focusing on one game company’s loss of artistry, perhaps shed light on the notion that most of the Japanese video game developers are having a helluva time serving two masters: the Japanese and Western Markets. Instead of equating length of development to overall game quality/awesomeness, Mr. Bogda could’ve mentioned that the original director of Final Fantasy XIII had a mental breakdown and had to quit, throwing the project in to limbo and adding more time to development. Nah. Final Fantasy XIII is a horrible game, that ate children and wore puppies as shoes.
Japan’s video game developers are having a hard time trying to pinpoint what American gamers want. For a time, in the 80’s and 90’s they were pretty much the taste-makers for game development. They set the trends and the tone for what gamers wanted. Recently though, Western developed games have come in to their own, a new generation of gamers has begun rising up to play games and Japan has found themselves on the short end of the stick they help propel after the West drove video games into ground. They see that American gamers love them some fast paced, explosive, linear game play. They see the bulk of their video game output being relegated to niche fan bases and the vast majority of handhelds, where they once ruled the living room television with an iron fist. In the case of Final Fantasy XIII Square-Enix could only look to what Final Fantasy XII was having held against it as the litmus for what the next title should be. Perhaps they could finally crack the code and regain the throne.
When reading the reviews for Final Fantasy XII and then looking at what Final Fantasy XIII brings to the table, you can see where Square-Enix took those notes to heart. About Final Fantasy XII people complained of an expansive over world, with little direction. They complained of a lofty narrative with too many characters (aside from the main cast) and sociopolitical minutia. Wait, you mean the main characters actions and buffoonery aren’t the entire focus of the whole story? Nonsense! They complained of a plodding battle system with too many metrics and things bogging down the flow of the game. Indeed many of the complaints are valid, and what company who makes iterative franchises wouldn’t want to fix “problems”?
I bring up the hyperbole crutch because Mr. Bogda wastes no time whipping it out to make his point. If you look up “How to be an Internet Troll” this article would be the most recent entry. In fact, I hadn’t even realized the inflammatory nature of his OPENING SENTENCE until I read the comments. Wherein a commenter said they failed to read anything else after that sentence, as it didn’t matter, his point had been rendered moot. So much for this blueprint idea, huh Mr. Bogda? If it was indeed the point of the article to say to SE that they should repressively adhere to an outdated game and it’s mechanics. Who’s going to read anything you write if 2/3 or your article are essentially why you didn’t like Final Fantasy XIII?
Final Fantasy IX is a decent Final Fantasy game, it’s by no means the best thing ever produced by SE. SE made it’s bones by being a progressive, dynamic RPG factory. Especially in the Final Fantasy franchise, with each one only having very little to do with the previous titles in the series. As with any creative output some people are going to love some titles more than others. Like Mr. Bogda, I adore Final Fantasy VI, but do I want them to try and recreate something close to it for a future FF title? Hell no! That’s not what FF does. You could ostensibly change the titles of every FF and no one would ever notice the connective tissues that bind the titles. Each FF game has a different story, villains and battle system, and is what sets it apart from the dozens of other RPG’s that saturate the market in its wake. While SE isn’t the vaunted taste maker it was a decade ago, it’s still taking risks and attempting to still be an original developer of genre. That’s something you can’t say about many Western game developers.
Yes, I am a defender of Final Fantasy XIII, but that doesn’t mean that I’m sooo in love with it. The game has problems, as most do. Especially with the time commitments these types of games demand. You can boil down any game ever released in to a derivative argument if you wanted.
For me, Final Fantasy XIII got rid of a LOT of the things I hated about Japanese Role Playing Game’s. I don’t need towns populated with tens of non-player characters that I MUST talk to or I’ll miss out on story developments or side quests. The supposed linearity didn’t bother me because a lot of Final Fantasy’s are linear in their structure. Sure, there’s an “open world” to explore in past FF‘s, but it’s there for grinding, and is more filler to pad out the narrative than anything substantive to the overall game. It’s “omission” from the game until the final hours bothered me very little.
The one thing I can’t really defend (ever) is the characters in Final Fantasy XIII. Mr. Bogda does have a point that they’re “annoying, terribly written” characters. From what previous reviews and criticisms were laid at FFXII, I’m not really surprised they went back to the overwrought, heavy-handed Anime approach that has inhabited the series since Tetsuya Nomura took over after Final Fantasy VII. Mind you, SE did glean some successes with this sort of garbage with their Kingdom Hearts series. A LOT of that game series is disconnected, derivative, emo-kid bullshit with Disney and Final Fantasy characters mucking about. So you can see where SE would recognize dollars with this MO and move to put it in to their flagship role-playing series. But that didn’t matter to me because I loved the battle system of Final Fantasy XIII, and that’s what the good Final Fantasy’s boil down to.
The battle system in Final Fantasy XIII could be as simple or complex as you wanted to make it. You could mash the “auto attack” button and not really have to do anything. The problem with that was you had to do it for about two-thirds of the game. Final Fantasy XIII was a little precious about it’s ATB System overhaul and was a tad (like 25 hours of game time) hand holdy. Which isn’t to say it was the worst thing of all time, but not even having the ability to skip large swathes of it, was annoying. After the 25 hour tutorial you’re eventually loosed out onto an open area to explore, but more importantly, grind. But even grinding was unnecessary as Final Fantasy XIII wasn’t really that hard in terms of Japanese Role Playing Game’s of yore, which is also not particularly a bad thing. The frustration of Final Fantasy XIII and it’s battles was the uneven difficulty. I’m not one to grind out levels in Final Fantasy’s, but I did a fair bit in Final Fantasy XIII so it was astonishing to breeze through three different forms of a boss battle, then moments later get my ass handed to me by a lowly group of minions. Some just had my number it seems.
Mr. Bogda’s article is systemic of what is wrong in video game writing. Wherein the thesis and the article fail to line up, and there is a failure to deliver up a salient point. Aside from the flaming troll nature of his intent, it’s poorly written and lacks clear focus of why his affinity for Final Fantasy IX is what made Square-Enix artistic merits remain intact, yet Final Fantasy XIII is the worst thing ever because he didn’t cotton to it.
I would rather Square-Enix continue to do what its ALWAYS done with the Final Fantasy series and take risks and experiment. Not every game in the series has been a smash hit, and a lot of them just don’t hold up anymore. Like anything with a fan base, however, there will be fans that adore one over the other, or find one severely lacking. But gamers need to keep in mind that there’s always going to be a new generation of gamers that do not have that knee-jerk reaction to nostalgia, and want to be entertained. We cannot squash their demands because we fill encroached upon, and we cannot demand that developers cater only to the older generations of gamers.
Mr. Bogda also forgets to mention that Square-Enix has unashamedly re-released every Final Fantasy title on a regular basis for the past decade. If he could just hold out, I’m sure SE would release an High Definition remake of his favortist game, Final Fantasy IX. Finally, if Mr. Bogda demand that SE look to the past to make all future Final Fantasy’s play the same, he needn’t have to: SE has a game series like that named Dragon Quest, perhaps he’d be more fond of those?
Steven Bogda’s mentality to video games is the whitewash viewpoint that lots of developers see when it comes to making games. That video game players demand cookie cutter iterative franchises, dipped in nostalgia. Mr. Bogda’s lack of enjoyment in Final Fantasy XIII is not even a remotely cogent argument as to why SE has lost it’s way…commercially or artistically. Final Fantasy XIII sold just fine, and mostly on it’s name alone. The great thing about the Final Fantasy series is that each title in the franchise is so unique and different from what’s on the market. Final Fantasy XIII was an experiment in to the modern tastes of what a Japanese Role-playing Games should or could be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)