Why bother with a match report? As expected, the Gunners were thoroughly outplayed in the first leg match of the UCL with Bayern and lost 3-1. Bad defending contributed to all three goals. Podolski put them back in it in a better second half but then Bayern added a third and it was over. Vermaelen was terrible again, implicated in all three goals. Mertesacker played below par as did Koscielny. Giroud missed another chance. The lack of a real defensive midfielder hurt us and Sczcesny had another night to forget. This is a team going in the wrong direction and another year of Wenger might just be the end of Arsenal for the forseeable future. Enough is enough!
I have been making this argument for some time but it is time to again take on the naysayers who say Wenger is still the man. Eight years now without a trophy. Sure we get to the Champions League every year, though this year is certainly in doubt, but then we lose in the first round of the knock out stage. He plays second string teams in the cups and has lowered expectations so much that we are out of the title race well before Christmas. He lets our best players go and replaces them with average, inferior alternatives. He refuses to bring in the necessary reinforcements and consistently tells us that the team is good enough. And then he is proven wrong.
More than anything else, a coach is responsible for the team he puts on the field and for motivating that team to win. Instead we see a team that simply isn't good enough and players who are either lackadaisical or nervous in key matches. Terrible defending lets us down game after game. And beyond this, a manager needs to deploy tactics that can win games. But Wenger simply plays the same way most of the time and hopes for the best. His team has played terrible first halves far too often this year and again suffered for this in the game. And there is not really the excuse of injuries at the moment. It is that our defensive players are just not good enough. Vermaelen is having his worst season ever and Koscielny might be even worse. Mertesacker has been good at times, but has dropped in form of late and seems off the pace a little too often. Sagna seems to be reclaiming his form but wants to leave at the end of the season. And Gibbs is simply injuried far too often. In front of that back four, we have no natural defensive mid and that has hurt us consistently. Wenger knew this was a need but failed to solve it in two successive windows, after the bizarre sale of Song.
A coach is generally measured by success. Not success in the distant past, but success today. And for eight years, Wenger has failed when it mattered. He has succeeded only in improving the bottom line and helping the team move to a stadium where we are feared by no one. The team has some young stars on the rise, but is Wenger even good at cultivating young talent anymore? He has succeeded with Wilshire and Walcott, finally, but look at the backwards turn in Ox's play. Look at Jenkinson. And what of the youngsters who are getting no playing time like Eisfeld, who I would like to see a little more of. Maybe the board has finally woken up now and realizes change is necessary. Is there better out there? I don't know, but I would take Roberto Martinez or David Moyes over the shambles the team has become. We need fresh blood to reinstill belief in a team that clearly has none before all our remaining best players depart and we become a midtable also ran, happy with the occasional victory over the new top four or a good Europa League run.
Looking at the squad going forward, where are the biggest needs. We clearly need one or maybe two new centre-halfs, a new right back if Sagna leaves, a defensive midfielder, a striker and maybe another winger. Then we can build the team around Walcott, Wilshire, Cazorla and Podolski. Without these changes, we are bound for mediocrity from here to eternity. Wenger seems to have caught the French flu, surrendering without even fighting.
And just to complete the critique of Wenger ... what about tonight? Was he culpable? I would say yes on a number of fronts. First, why not start Giroud, who is better defensively and makes more sense against a physical back Bayern Munich line. He had a late miss that was costly after being subbed on, but Walcott offered little throughout the match. When Arsenal got back into it, and Podolski was playing well, Wenger subbed him out -- as if he wasn't even watching the game (and this has happened far too often in recent years). He brought in Rosicky, who did perform admirably and moved Cazorla out wide, where he gave up the ball that led to the third Bayern goal. And all this comes on the back of his bizarre decision to play a second-rate team against Blackburn that piled the pressure on for the young Gunners in this one. I feel bad for Wenger, as every decision he makes seems to backfire these days, but too many are poor ones (Gervinho as central striker, anyone?) to begin with. This team has potential to improve dramatically, but only with the infusion of talent, experience and leadership (particularly defensively) and motivation.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Thank You For Smoking!
In the satirical film Thank You for Smoking (2005), a marketing exec for the smoking industry goes out to Hollywood to meet with a big time producer, who agrees to provide two top bill actors in a futuristic movie who will smoke on camera. The film was a brilliant send up of corporate influence, DC cynicism and corruption and the marketing/advertising industry in particular. But low and behold, a few years later the cable station SyFy took that idea and included it in a new series Caprica (2010). The show was a prequel to Battlestar Gallactica, set 58 years in the past. I found it to be a great show and was thus not surprised when it was cancelled near the end of the first season. What did surprise me as I watched it was the amount of smoking that the characters engaged in. It was beyond a few cigs to show moments of stress or character development, the main adult characters were smoking all the time. And then it occurred to me that the tobacco industry must be paying them to do this -- as why would they have characters in the future making such poor health decision, particularly when the show seemed to be aimed not only at the stereotypical older, balding single male but also teenagers.
But Caprica was not alone. Two shows on AMC and a third on Netflix also had characters smoking at an alarming rate. Mad Men is, of course, set in the early 60s when people were still smoking with reckless abandon. And while the show did touch on the new advertising strategies being used to retain and lure new smokers even as new evidence was emerging of their dangers, it also included a hell of a lot of smoking by a bunch of really attractive actors and actresses. The producers of the show could argue that it was merely television verite, but can we really believe that? And what of the show The Killing, set in a gritty Seattle? Sure, the cops probably smoke there but did they need to do it so much on screen? Finally is the new straight-to-Internet series House of Cards, where characters seem to go out of their way to smoke on camera -- with many episodes beginning and ending with the two main characters, Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey) and his wife Claire (Robin Wright) at the window sill of their beautiful Georgetown townhouse smoking away.
All four of the shows, in my estimation, are great television. But being cable shows, even the award-winning Mad Men appears starved for money, particularly given AMC's infamous parsimony. So are they being paid by tobacco companies? It's hard to know. Though I've done some light research, there is no clear answer. But having sexy young actors and actresses smoking, or even older ones, certainly plays a part in making smoking cool again. In fact, if one looks at many indie films, there still seems to be a cache to smoking that goes all the way back to the 50s. If the shows are being paid, legally or under the table, it is something the FCC should look into, given that tobacco ads have been illegal on TV for some time now. Of course, one could argue that it simply serves our fantasy relationship to TV and movies and we don't actually have to light up to enjoy watching others do so. Even if that is the case, which I doubt, it certainly does perk up that desire to spark up the second the show ends.
But Caprica was not alone. Two shows on AMC and a third on Netflix also had characters smoking at an alarming rate. Mad Men is, of course, set in the early 60s when people were still smoking with reckless abandon. And while the show did touch on the new advertising strategies being used to retain and lure new smokers even as new evidence was emerging of their dangers, it also included a hell of a lot of smoking by a bunch of really attractive actors and actresses. The producers of the show could argue that it was merely television verite, but can we really believe that? And what of the show The Killing, set in a gritty Seattle? Sure, the cops probably smoke there but did they need to do it so much on screen? Finally is the new straight-to-Internet series House of Cards, where characters seem to go out of their way to smoke on camera -- with many episodes beginning and ending with the two main characters, Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey) and his wife Claire (Robin Wright) at the window sill of their beautiful Georgetown townhouse smoking away.
All four of the shows, in my estimation, are great television. But being cable shows, even the award-winning Mad Men appears starved for money, particularly given AMC's infamous parsimony. So are they being paid by tobacco companies? It's hard to know. Though I've done some light research, there is no clear answer. But having sexy young actors and actresses smoking, or even older ones, certainly plays a part in making smoking cool again. In fact, if one looks at many indie films, there still seems to be a cache to smoking that goes all the way back to the 50s. If the shows are being paid, legally or under the table, it is something the FCC should look into, given that tobacco ads have been illegal on TV for some time now. Of course, one could argue that it simply serves our fantasy relationship to TV and movies and we don't actually have to light up to enjoy watching others do so. Even if that is the case, which I doubt, it certainly does perk up that desire to spark up the second the show ends.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Arsenal Crash Out of FA Cup 0-1
After a decent start to the season, if one allows for four dropped points as the new squad learned to play together in the first two scoreless draws, things started to slowly unravel after the 2-1 loss to Chelsea at home. The Gunners were up and down after that with a number of troubling results including ceding a 2-0 lead against Fulham, a nil-nil draw with Aston Villa, blowing a one-goal lead against Everton and then, after a decent run of games, the startling losses to Bradford in the League Cup and then terrible start after the New Year. One thing that has been clear throughout much of the season is that the squad does not play as well at Emirates as Arsenal fans are used to. They appear, at times, nervous and unless they are blowing teams away, as they've done a few times like against Southampton and Spurs, they are clearly vulnerable to error on both sides of the pitch. So going into a game that was really a must win for a manager who could be canned, Wenger was sure to pick a strong team, right?
Of course not. Wenger has become increasingly defiant and stubborn in recent years, as if he is trying to prove the pundits, the fans and maybe his own ex-players wrong by doing it "his way." For one, he refuses to spend money that appears to be at his disposal to sign players, even when he himself highlights the need (like he has the last two windows). If a player shows any sign of disrespect for him, they are gone (no one has really talked about the fact RVP might have been willing to stay after the three signings that preceded his departure -- and what of the inexplicable Song sale). He lets his best players go after adamantly telling us they won't and then claims he has found able replacements who are of equal quality (when this just isn't the case). He rarely changes tactics, or prepares for his opponents like most other coaches do -- believing that his team and tactics are good enough without variation. And he has been understaffing his team in the FA and Carling/League Cup for many years now. So even though the Gunners are approaching eight years without a trophy, he still feels the need to prove his strategy works.
And for the third time this season in a big game, it didn't. It started with a final group stage match against Olympiakos when Arsenal still had a chance to win the group (and thus avoid the almost sure loss they will suffer to Bayern; at least until a later round). Then came the calamitous loss at Bradford to boot us out of the League Cup, when we were but three victories from getting off the snide. In that game, he started a relatively strong team, but inexplicably started with Gervinho at Center Forward again, a strategy that had only worked a few times early in the season.
And so a home game against a relegated Blackburn team that we beat 6-1 at home last season resulted in the worst FA Cup loss in Wenger's long reign. He had never lost to a team from a lower division until this season. Now he's done it twice, costing us two chances at silverware. The reality is we still should have won with the subs Wenger chose. We dominated possession, had an astounding 26 shots, with 12 on target, 16 corners to 2 and 54 percent of possession officially (though some have it at closer to 70 percent). We had a number of clear opportunities including another flub by Gervinho right before halftime one on one with Blackburn goalie Jake Kean. Chances abound offered but not taken until Wenger had seen enough and brought on the three stars who sat on the bench -- Walcott, Cazorla and Wilshire. Instead of having an immediate impact in a positive way, Walcott was liable along with Vermaelen, Sczcesny and Sagna in allowing Blackburn to forge forward on one of their few foray's of the afternoon and, with a lucky scuffed shot, take the lead they would hold until the end of the game). At the whistle, the Gunners looked stunned and Wenger like a man who knows his time at the helm might finally be coming to an end.
Some Arsenal fans will again relieve Wenger of blame for this loss, but who else should we put it on? The board is the most obvious answer, but that rings hollow to me. Arsenal are one of the richest teams in football and do seem to be siphoning profits out for the owners at the expense of the team, but it appears Wenger has money he just refuses to spend. It is Wenger that has been unable to sign some of his top targets (including Mata, who was a few million pounds away from coming, Hazard, Vertonghen, Mirallas, et al). It is Wenger that has signed a number of duds over the past several years that are finally coming off the payroll (or out on loan). It's Wenger who has overseen the loss of his top players, partially because of his absurdly socialist payroll system -- as well as the trophy drought. It's Wenger who has made one misstep after another in important games the past few seasons, including what I believe was the final straw to RVP -- pulling Ox out for the little Russian who can't in a crucial game versus hated Man United. It was Wenger who helped give the title to first City and now United the past two seasons. And it is Wenger who refuses to listen to anyone, continuing to defy critics as the team's performance becomes increasingly laughable.
So I can understand resting many of your starters in the game to prepare for Bayern's visit Tuesday. But why the top four offensive players on the team? Not only did Walcott, Cazorla and Wilshere sit, but a resurrgent Ramsey and dangerous Podolski as well. So you have two players just back from injury -- in Diaby and Rosicky (who has had no time on the pitch) -- the young Coquelin, Gervinho back after a busy ACN and the underperforming Ox. And so Arsenal dominated possession without creating that many chances and blowing those they had. Yes Blackburn goalie King had a great game, with a number of important saves, but Arsenal looked flat and nervous at home yet again. And what is a coaches' job if not to motivate his players and ensure they are confident going into big games. I get the sense the opposite is the case at Arsenal. Wenger has created an environment of losing at the club where the players forced effort to win important games actually backfires as they play nervous and without the free flowing style they show when less is on the line. We saw it in the final of the Carling Cup two years ago around this time, in the second leg of the Barcelona tie that same year, in the run in the past several years when key mistakes early or late cost them points, in the away first leg against AC Milan last season and in both the Capital One and now FA Cup this season. With the exception of the Man City draw early in the season, this team has not played well in the key matchups, showing their defensive frailties and ineptitude at putting the ball in the net against Chelsea, Man United, Man City in the return last month and even lowly Liverpool.
When the chips are down, it appears this team tends to fold. Yes there was the stunning fightback against Reading in the Carling Cup, but there has been fewer late game heroics this season than in any I can remember. We just don't have the striker or forward who can come off the bench late and score important goals. And so we draw games 0-0 or 1-1, lose games 1-0 or 2-1 and then rue the chances we missed and the mistakes that cost us. And that was the case yesterday as well. The hope is this time the club will wake up and realize it is time for Wenger to go. He has simply lost the script after years of success and can't seem to find the magic touch to make anything truly positive happen (except the bottom line for the owners). Rumors have David Moyes lining up as a possible successor -- a guy hungry for silverware after 10 barren but impressive years at the pecuniary Everton. But even if the board is willing to give Wenger one more year, shouldn't he have the decency to step aside? I hope so. I have always loved the Frenchman not only for winning trophies but making Arsenal play among the most stylish football in the world. But that just isn't the case any longer and is not enough for a team of Arsenal's historical standing.
Of course not. Wenger has become increasingly defiant and stubborn in recent years, as if he is trying to prove the pundits, the fans and maybe his own ex-players wrong by doing it "his way." For one, he refuses to spend money that appears to be at his disposal to sign players, even when he himself highlights the need (like he has the last two windows). If a player shows any sign of disrespect for him, they are gone (no one has really talked about the fact RVP might have been willing to stay after the three signings that preceded his departure -- and what of the inexplicable Song sale). He lets his best players go after adamantly telling us they won't and then claims he has found able replacements who are of equal quality (when this just isn't the case). He rarely changes tactics, or prepares for his opponents like most other coaches do -- believing that his team and tactics are good enough without variation. And he has been understaffing his team in the FA and Carling/League Cup for many years now. So even though the Gunners are approaching eight years without a trophy, he still feels the need to prove his strategy works.
And for the third time this season in a big game, it didn't. It started with a final group stage match against Olympiakos when Arsenal still had a chance to win the group (and thus avoid the almost sure loss they will suffer to Bayern; at least until a later round). Then came the calamitous loss at Bradford to boot us out of the League Cup, when we were but three victories from getting off the snide. In that game, he started a relatively strong team, but inexplicably started with Gervinho at Center Forward again, a strategy that had only worked a few times early in the season.
And so a home game against a relegated Blackburn team that we beat 6-1 at home last season resulted in the worst FA Cup loss in Wenger's long reign. He had never lost to a team from a lower division until this season. Now he's done it twice, costing us two chances at silverware. The reality is we still should have won with the subs Wenger chose. We dominated possession, had an astounding 26 shots, with 12 on target, 16 corners to 2 and 54 percent of possession officially (though some have it at closer to 70 percent). We had a number of clear opportunities including another flub by Gervinho right before halftime one on one with Blackburn goalie Jake Kean. Chances abound offered but not taken until Wenger had seen enough and brought on the three stars who sat on the bench -- Walcott, Cazorla and Wilshire. Instead of having an immediate impact in a positive way, Walcott was liable along with Vermaelen, Sczcesny and Sagna in allowing Blackburn to forge forward on one of their few foray's of the afternoon and, with a lucky scuffed shot, take the lead they would hold until the end of the game). At the whistle, the Gunners looked stunned and Wenger like a man who knows his time at the helm might finally be coming to an end.
Some Arsenal fans will again relieve Wenger of blame for this loss, but who else should we put it on? The board is the most obvious answer, but that rings hollow to me. Arsenal are one of the richest teams in football and do seem to be siphoning profits out for the owners at the expense of the team, but it appears Wenger has money he just refuses to spend. It is Wenger that has been unable to sign some of his top targets (including Mata, who was a few million pounds away from coming, Hazard, Vertonghen, Mirallas, et al). It is Wenger that has signed a number of duds over the past several years that are finally coming off the payroll (or out on loan). It's Wenger who has overseen the loss of his top players, partially because of his absurdly socialist payroll system -- as well as the trophy drought. It's Wenger who has made one misstep after another in important games the past few seasons, including what I believe was the final straw to RVP -- pulling Ox out for the little Russian who can't in a crucial game versus hated Man United. It was Wenger who helped give the title to first City and now United the past two seasons. And it is Wenger who refuses to listen to anyone, continuing to defy critics as the team's performance becomes increasingly laughable.
So I can understand resting many of your starters in the game to prepare for Bayern's visit Tuesday. But why the top four offensive players on the team? Not only did Walcott, Cazorla and Wilshere sit, but a resurrgent Ramsey and dangerous Podolski as well. So you have two players just back from injury -- in Diaby and Rosicky (who has had no time on the pitch) -- the young Coquelin, Gervinho back after a busy ACN and the underperforming Ox. And so Arsenal dominated possession without creating that many chances and blowing those they had. Yes Blackburn goalie King had a great game, with a number of important saves, but Arsenal looked flat and nervous at home yet again. And what is a coaches' job if not to motivate his players and ensure they are confident going into big games. I get the sense the opposite is the case at Arsenal. Wenger has created an environment of losing at the club where the players forced effort to win important games actually backfires as they play nervous and without the free flowing style they show when less is on the line. We saw it in the final of the Carling Cup two years ago around this time, in the second leg of the Barcelona tie that same year, in the run in the past several years when key mistakes early or late cost them points, in the away first leg against AC Milan last season and in both the Capital One and now FA Cup this season. With the exception of the Man City draw early in the season, this team has not played well in the key matchups, showing their defensive frailties and ineptitude at putting the ball in the net against Chelsea, Man United, Man City in the return last month and even lowly Liverpool.
When the chips are down, it appears this team tends to fold. Yes there was the stunning fightback against Reading in the Carling Cup, but there has been fewer late game heroics this season than in any I can remember. We just don't have the striker or forward who can come off the bench late and score important goals. And so we draw games 0-0 or 1-1, lose games 1-0 or 2-1 and then rue the chances we missed and the mistakes that cost us. And that was the case yesterday as well. The hope is this time the club will wake up and realize it is time for Wenger to go. He has simply lost the script after years of success and can't seem to find the magic touch to make anything truly positive happen (except the bottom line for the owners). Rumors have David Moyes lining up as a possible successor -- a guy hungry for silverware after 10 barren but impressive years at the pecuniary Everton. But even if the board is willing to give Wenger one more year, shouldn't he have the decency to step aside? I hope so. I have always loved the Frenchman not only for winning trophies but making Arsenal play among the most stylish football in the world. But that just isn't the case any longer and is not enough for a team of Arsenal's historical standing.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Obama's Promises
The State of the Union speech on Tuesday night was, in many ways, a typical version of the annual ritual, with much bluster and little concrete action to come. But Obama did lay out a series of proposals from universal preschool, tax reform, immigration reform, a minimum wage
increase, a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions and infrastructure
investments to new housing incentives, manufacturing incentives, energy
plans, a program for scoring college education by affordability, gun control and paycheck equity. The speech did lay out a direct challenge to Republicans to stop blocking everything he is trying to do. It started with this call to restore the vitality of the middle class and establish more equity across the economy:
"It is our generation’s task, then, to reignite the true engine of
America’s economic growth – a rising, thriving middle class.It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country – the idea that if you work hard and meet your
responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what
you look like, or who you love.It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on
behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free
enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation." (From Full Transcript Available Here: NYT
Then he moved on to soften the position by referencing our preternatural distrust of too much government (or "big government" as conservatives have labelled it, to both tie it to "big business" and its negative connotations and undermine critiques of the latter). This is a good move, in my estimation, as it allows him to argue for the importance of government in some cases, a point he made in his first inaugural speech, and to attack Republicans for their "policy blockade" strategy. It is not because of Congress and the President that trust in government is so low, it is because of the Republican unwillingness to compromise on most things and their tendency to block anything that actually helps the people over the elites, or hurts big business. Here is the excerpt:
"The American people don’t expect government to solve every problem. They
don’t expect those of us in this chamber to agree on every issue. But
they do expect us to put the nation’s interests before party. They do
expect us to forge reasonable compromise where we can. For they know
that America moves forward only when we do so together; and that the
responsibility of improving this union remains the task of us all.Our work must begin
by making some basic decisions about our budget – decisions that will
have a huge impact on the strength of our recovery."
He then spends a reasonable amount of time providing a strong argument for his plan to avoid the sequester and make sensible changes to the budget that don't hurt education, the economy or our "military readiness." While dramatic cuts to the last item are certainly dangerous in the world we live in today, it is troubling that there is no serious questions being raised about reasonable reductions. Military spending is still an absurdly large part of discretionary spending and one that seems to have less relevance to our lives as no realistic war stands around the corner (the blubbering about Iran has appeared to quiet). But many in the GOP want to make draconian cuts to social programs and actually keep the military budget at the same level. This is just the latest example of a party that has become so mired in an inflexible ideological model and Realpolitik discourse for so long, they can't seem to think straight or act on anything. A modest proposal for the Republicans today would simply be to be modest and stop listening to the right wing loons blustering on the TV and radio waves.
In any case, I think Obama finally laid out an argument for the key role one party in this country is playing in undermining the will and interests of the majority of Americans. It is an essential argument to make to the American public, who are sometimes too often easily bamboozled into believing that Obama is the problem and somehow Mitt Romney or the GOP in general would save the economy. In fact, the GOP could be suffering through the first wave of a disease that could lead to their ultimate demise. Just as the Democrats weren't paying enough attention as Goldwater, Buckley and their ilk set the foundations for the conservative revolution in the 50s and 60s, so today it appears conservatives fail to recognize the demographic and ideological shift that has swept the country along a potentially more progressive path. Of course, they did realize that Latinos played a huge role in the last election cycle, and might support some sort of Dream Act. But one assumes this will do little to win over those votes in the short run, given that Obama and Democrats have been arguing for the reform for years. Ultimately, a party that serves the elite can only win if democracy is undermined directly or through the power of hegemony. Large factions of the GOP continue to work in this vein. But can they suppress the will of an increasing majority who are seeing their quality of life decline year by year? I guess we'll have to wait and see ...
TV Review: Girls (2012-2013)
The HBO show Girls, now in its second season, has probably been written about more than any TV show in recent memory. Led by creator and writer Lena Dunham, previously known for her small but renowned indie film Tiny Furniture, it revolves around the lives of several young New Yorkers struggling through their early to mid 20s. Hannah Horvath (Dunham) is the lead character, an overweight, neurotic graduate of Oberlin who is cut off by her parents in the first episode (last season). Throughout the first season and a third, she and her friends engage in often unsatisfying sex, get into relationships, fall out of relationships, teeter on the edge of economic ruin by losing jobs and find moments of contentment and joy amidst the general Millenial angst. Hannah is what the Internet set call a "concern troll," a girl that ices her sneer with dignified worry. She meanders from one relationship to the next, never finding what she is looking for. Last season she had a fucky-buddy relationship with a strangely sociopathic artist named Adam Sackler (Adam Driver). As the relationship matures, we learn that there is more to Adam than we thought. But just as the relationship settles into domesticated bliss (or as close as the young faux-bohemian trust funders can allow), Hannah loses interest and dumps Adam after he is hit by a car.
This occurs at the wedding of her flaky cousin Jessa (Jemima Kirke) who ties the knot with what turns out to be an unredeemable and innately bitter Yuppie named Thomas-John. Last episode the two had a brutal fight that ended with the dissolution of the marriage after a mere few weeks (though Jessa gets some money for their torturous time together). Jessa is the flighty type who has sex in bar bathrooms, leads on a married man until he reciprocates and seems to have no life plan but to float from one experience to the next (a sort of female Beat for the 21st century). She is accompanied in the show by Hannah's other two friends -- Marnie (Allison Williams), the beautiful girl whose life unravels before our eyes as she loses her cushy job at an art gallery, breaks up with her boyfriend, gets him back, breaks up with him again and then entices him into a kiss before telling him she is seeing a famous artist (who she engaged in absurdly bad sex with a few episodes back -- after even worse almost sex with Hannah's ex, who is gay and dating an older man who he uses to pay the bills) and Shoshana Shapiro, the newly ex-virgin Jap, who is dating Ray, a 30-something loser that works at coffee shop and does little else. Thus the show is filled with young adults struggling with life in the city, trying unsuccessfully to pursue their art and/or establish some financial footing.
What interest me about the show is the fact that the four main characters are not terribly likable and yet the show draws you in. I mentioned this to my students last week, focusing on the self-possesion of Hannah and her tendency to cloak her selfishness within the actions of other characters who are only measured by their relationship to her. My students responded that self-possesion was about right for their generation and she actually was a decent representative. Shoshana fits only loosely into the surrounding narrative, and is probably the most likable character, but Marney also seems selfish and self-possessed and Jessa's attractive flightiness starts to feel more cruel as one delves deeper into her character. Many have thus criticized the show for treating the lives of the young and privileged as deep Greek tragedies, forgoing the reality that most have a back-up plan if things really go wrong. Others have been drawn into discomfort by the fact that the show deals so explicitly with sex and that Hannah is not the typical girl you see naked on television or in movies.
The first critique does hold some water, but why should we ignore the plight of the young, privileged who are also feeling the effects of the financial downturn and collapse of the American dream? In some ways, maybe their story resonates even more, as we recognize that them struggling is part of a grander narrative of the general decline of quality of life in America and signifies more trouble to come. Maybe the show captures the nature of life for the Millenials, who grew up fully immersed in the spectacle society of Debord and thus only have recourse to affection and exaggerated psychological responses to the daily machinations of their lives. The second critique seems to cloak a firmly anti-feminist meme that has long existed among male critics to books, plays and movies that explore older iterations of Hannah Horvath and her friends. There is a certain perversity in criticizing a show for actually taking on the absurd ideals that are fed to young girls and women by advertisers and media execs today. There is a certain braveness to capturing the lives of these young women without sugar-coating them or ensuring that the characters are all likable -- a television verite approach (well maybe I exaggerate). While I am often troubled by the underlying message of the show and the craven, materialistic, self-involved nature of the characters, isn't that what youth is for? Rather than simply conforming to the vanilla dream of hard work, early success and comfortable consumerism, the characters are trying to forge an identity outside the normative (though one could argue their form of "bohemianism" only reinforces the notion that it is gone). They take a further step than Sex and the City ever did, capturing the women at an earlier stage of their New York City angst -- and allowing a more honest rendering of the hopes and disappointment that so often materialize in the space between expectation and fulfillment (making the case for a Lacanian rendering of lack and desire). In any case, it is a show that certainly pushes the boundaries of what kinds of women we see on television and the limits of the acceptable. And that is always good for art, even if art on television might still be an oxymoron.
This occurs at the wedding of her flaky cousin Jessa (Jemima Kirke) who ties the knot with what turns out to be an unredeemable and innately bitter Yuppie named Thomas-John. Last episode the two had a brutal fight that ended with the dissolution of the marriage after a mere few weeks (though Jessa gets some money for their torturous time together). Jessa is the flighty type who has sex in bar bathrooms, leads on a married man until he reciprocates and seems to have no life plan but to float from one experience to the next (a sort of female Beat for the 21st century). She is accompanied in the show by Hannah's other two friends -- Marnie (Allison Williams), the beautiful girl whose life unravels before our eyes as she loses her cushy job at an art gallery, breaks up with her boyfriend, gets him back, breaks up with him again and then entices him into a kiss before telling him she is seeing a famous artist (who she engaged in absurdly bad sex with a few episodes back -- after even worse almost sex with Hannah's ex, who is gay and dating an older man who he uses to pay the bills) and Shoshana Shapiro, the newly ex-virgin Jap, who is dating Ray, a 30-something loser that works at coffee shop and does little else. Thus the show is filled with young adults struggling with life in the city, trying unsuccessfully to pursue their art and/or establish some financial footing.
What interest me about the show is the fact that the four main characters are not terribly likable and yet the show draws you in. I mentioned this to my students last week, focusing on the self-possesion of Hannah and her tendency to cloak her selfishness within the actions of other characters who are only measured by their relationship to her. My students responded that self-possesion was about right for their generation and she actually was a decent representative. Shoshana fits only loosely into the surrounding narrative, and is probably the most likable character, but Marney also seems selfish and self-possessed and Jessa's attractive flightiness starts to feel more cruel as one delves deeper into her character. Many have thus criticized the show for treating the lives of the young and privileged as deep Greek tragedies, forgoing the reality that most have a back-up plan if things really go wrong. Others have been drawn into discomfort by the fact that the show deals so explicitly with sex and that Hannah is not the typical girl you see naked on television or in movies.
The first critique does hold some water, but why should we ignore the plight of the young, privileged who are also feeling the effects of the financial downturn and collapse of the American dream? In some ways, maybe their story resonates even more, as we recognize that them struggling is part of a grander narrative of the general decline of quality of life in America and signifies more trouble to come. Maybe the show captures the nature of life for the Millenials, who grew up fully immersed in the spectacle society of Debord and thus only have recourse to affection and exaggerated psychological responses to the daily machinations of their lives. The second critique seems to cloak a firmly anti-feminist meme that has long existed among male critics to books, plays and movies that explore older iterations of Hannah Horvath and her friends. There is a certain perversity in criticizing a show for actually taking on the absurd ideals that are fed to young girls and women by advertisers and media execs today. There is a certain braveness to capturing the lives of these young women without sugar-coating them or ensuring that the characters are all likable -- a television verite approach (well maybe I exaggerate). While I am often troubled by the underlying message of the show and the craven, materialistic, self-involved nature of the characters, isn't that what youth is for? Rather than simply conforming to the vanilla dream of hard work, early success and comfortable consumerism, the characters are trying to forge an identity outside the normative (though one could argue their form of "bohemianism" only reinforces the notion that it is gone). They take a further step than Sex and the City ever did, capturing the women at an earlier stage of their New York City angst -- and allowing a more honest rendering of the hopes and disappointment that so often materialize in the space between expectation and fulfillment (making the case for a Lacanian rendering of lack and desire). In any case, it is a show that certainly pushes the boundaries of what kinds of women we see on television and the limits of the acceptable. And that is always good for art, even if art on television might still be an oxymoron.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
No Stoner Left Unturned
One of my greatest pleasures is bucking the exercise craze and all that healthy living drivel and eating cold pizza and diet coke for breakfast. But that guilty pleasure won't be guilty much longer -- Salon. Apparently those healthnuts that drink seven or eight Mountain Dew's a day are just tired of a cup of joe or tea to start the day and want a pick me up that had more sugar and less nutritional value. Luckily the soda industry has never worried about the effects of their products on kids or adults. The latest entry into the empty calorie cornucopia is Kickstart, a morning drink with 5 mouth watering percent of "real fruit juice" and 92 milligrams of caffeine -- just what our kids crave. And don't worry about the child obesity problem; sales are up, consumers are happy and low rider school buses seem like an exciting fad for the future, don't they?
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Dick on Defense
Remember Dick Cheney, that Frankenstein monster who just seems to keep coming back even if we unplug him from his evil machine? Well, in one of the most absurdly ironic political moments in, well, the last week or so, Cheney claims that Obama has chosen second-rate people to lead our national defense. And he should know, of course, given that he was the man behind a third- or should we just say x-rated group of buffoons (aka Chicken Hawks) that got us mired in Iraq, didn't capture Osama bin Laden, trampled all over the constitution and contributed greatly to our current debt troubles. And lest us forget, this is the de facto leader of an administration that ignored threats of an impending attack in September 2001, instead arguing for a reduction in counter-terrorism spending. It's the same gang that focused the majority of our war on terror on taking out a leader who had nothing to do with terrorism and won a miracle second term for one of the worst Presidents in our history by trampling the war record of a real hero (as opposed to the guy who didn't even show up for his cushy duty during Vietnam). Of course, if people are listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, then Cheney actually sounds almost rational, and maybe even a little human. Well, let's not go that far ...
Saturday, February 09, 2013
Arsenal Win 1-0
Arsenal rarely make anything easy this year, and what should have been a comfortable win became a nail-biter, particularly after Carl Jenkinson, a late starter after Koscielny pulled up lame in warmups, elicited a second yellow in the 70th minute, forcing the Gunners to protect a one goal lead for 24 long minutes. But in a game that might just propel the team forward for the remainder of the season, they remained resilient and saw the win out. Among the heroes was goalkeeper Szczesny, who made impressive save after impressive save -- outshining an impressive first half from Sunderland goalee Mignolet, including a number of outstanding saves of efforts from Ramsey (who really should have put the game away free six yards out in front of goal) and Walcott. Sagna, called to play as a centre-back, also had an outstanding game, maybe silencing some of those critics (including me), who have noticed a real drop in form this year. Giroud, whose near misses are starting to add up this season, made a number of defensive plays in the closing minutes and has really improved his ability to hold the ball up or distribute it to the other attacking players. And Mertesacker had another strong game, including a number of saving headers and blocks when Sunderland looked sure to equalize.
Cazorla scored the only goal of the game in the 35th minute, after another scintillating run by Wilshire was fed to Walcott who laid the ball off for a solid low finish. It was the only breakthrough for a Gunner squad that dominated possession and chances throughout the first 45 minutes, but lacked the finishing touch that has often deserted them this season. Mignolet was a big part of that pattern however, saving two Walcott chances early, a lovely shot to the far post by Ramsey and the aforementioned shot right in front of goal close to the half time whistle. Things changed in the second 45 however, as Wilshire pulled up and out with an aggravation of a thigh injury, which will have Arsenal fans sweating out the news, in the 50th minute. Diaby came in and while he didn't have a bad game, there were fewer chances for the Gunners in the second 45. Theo was subbed out in the 83rd as the Gunners hung on for dear life, and Miquel helped stave off the equalizer until the final whistle.
It was the second gritty performance from the Gunners in a row and reminds of the now crucial dropped points to the same opponents in the opening two games of the camapaign. But there is much to be hopeful of in the performance. Wilshire has quickly grown into one of the most exciting attacking midfielders in the EPL and the interplay between he, Walcott and Cazorla was sometimes breathtaking to see. The defense has now registered two clean sheets in a row and the improvement by Szczesny in this game should increase his confidence going into key fixtures against Tottenham and Everton after a stop at the Emirates to take on lowly Aston Villa. Considering player grades ...
Wojciech Szczesny: 9.5
The Pole showed why he is Arsenal's undisputed starting goalkeeper and one of the best in the Premier League with several outstanding reflex saves near the end of the game. Steven Fletcher will be thinking about the magnificent save that somehow kept him from equalizing the Peter Schmeichel-esque save he made earlier with his body spread out. Just minutes before the end of normal time, Szczesny scooped another shot away from the goal line and subsequently deftly dealt with the corner kicks and crosses Sunderland hurled at him.
Carl Jenkinson: 4
With Laurent Koscielny scrapped from the starting XI at the last minute due to a recurrence of his calf problem, Jenkinson found himself chucked into the lineup in the Frenchman's place. While Jenkinson was impressive marshallning for Sagna during his injury earlier in the season, today he looked like a player who didin't plan on making an appearance (and one can't fully blame him for this). But the idea that he should replace Sagna, now has to be seriously questioned, as he seemed nervous on the ball, was constantly beaten by Stephane Sessegnon and picked up a deserved second yellow for a silly tackle.
Bacary Sagna: 10
Playing out of position at center-back, Bacary Sagna had one of those games that reminded me of Alex Song last year filling in in the same position. He cleared away danger all afternoon including a key toe poke away from a charging Sunderland player who would have surely scored.
Per Mertesacker: 7.5
Sagna did most of the work in central defense, but Mertesacker had to be extremely vigilant to stem the continuous waves of Sunderland attacks that descended upon the Arsenal defense after Carl Jenkinson got sent off. He was as solid as usual and deserves to keep his place in central defense.
Nacho Monreal: 6.5
Monreal turned in another solid display though not exemplary performance that further solidified my belief that he was a smart signing. Though he still seems to need to settle to the physicality of the English game and watch the angle he takes on wingers, he was rarely beaten and put in a couple of lovely crosses that unfortunately didn't lead to goals. Rumour has it that Santos is on his way out (to Brazil on loan) and one hopes they are true.
Mikel Arteta: 6.5
While Arteta was not involved in the goal and lacked some of the pinpoint passing we are used to, he was the key fulcrum in the back starting attacks and keeping possession. His presence in the lineup clearly stabilizes the team and while he clearly isn't a typical defensive midfielder, he seems to add a level of calm from the back to front of the pitch.
Jack Wilshere: 7.5
Before his injury in the 50th minute, Wilshere provided a number of driving runs through the heart of midfield, trying harder and with more success than anyone else to break the resolve of Sunderland's stolid defense. Eventually, he did, through Walcott and Cazorla. My major fear regarding Wilshire is that his recklessness in tackling and bouncing his body all over the field will lead to another injury, but he is certainly one of the brightest lights in a team that suddenly seems much better than the one of a few weeks ago.
Aaron Ramsey:6
Ever since Ramsey decided to simplify his game, he has become a much better player. He continued that solidity against Sunderland, with a no-frills performance that illustrated his role as midfield pivot. While he missed a gilded chance to put the game out of reach, he was unlucky not to score on a lovely shot from the edge of the box. Ramsey did give the ball away on a few occasions though, and one almost led to a Sunderland goal. But his general form is certainly a comfort to those of us who thought he had lost his way completely.
Santi Cazorla:9
Cazorla is sometimes beautiful to watch on the pitch. His vision, ability to keep the ball in tight corners, sideways runs to create space and shooting ability from both feet makes him one of the signings of the season in the EPL. He scored the only goal of the game, and though he had two chances to make it a brace, his steadiness and creativity helped drive the Gunners in the first half and restore some calm in the waning minutes. His flexibility should also be noted, as he played today on the left wing where Podolski is usually found (not sure why he didn't play).ould have sealed the game for Arsenal on a couple of occasions, but couldn't hit the target.
Theo Walcott: 7
Walcott could have scored twice within the first five minutes and continuously got involved on the right flank. Unfortunately, his finishing was less than exemplary, but after a number of selfish shots in recent games, his perfect lay off to Cazorla provided his eighth assist of the season and the winner. Walcott still has to work on his decision-making at times, but his improved dribbling has made him a headache for left backs throughout the league and he might be our best hope of pulling off an upset against Bayern.
Olivier Giroud: 7
Giroud cannot be faulted for his desire or effort, but one must rue the number of clear chances he blows. Great striker convert one in two or one in three chances. Given the number Giroud has been offered this year (including at least two today), his conversion rate is quite low and he has cost us points since the first game of the season. On the other hand, he really contributed on defense in the late going and one hopes he starts making more of his chances on a regular basis, as he does have the skills to become a top scorer. Given that we didn't sign another striker, which still disturbs me, we will rely on him contributing more as we struggle to catch up with Chelsea and Tottenham, who both won.
Diaby: 6
Diaby came on in the 50th minute for Wilshire and was solid if unimpressive. He had a real chance to put the game away when he found himself free 10 yards from goal with a clear angle in, but sent it right at the keeper. He also gave up the ball a couple of times and seems worried about another injury, keeping him from going any for too many tackles. But it is good to see him in a run of games without another injury. Let's hope it stays that way.
Miquel: n/a
The Spanish center-half came on late for Walcott and wasn't involved enough to warrant a grade, though one hopes we can keep him as a viable fourth choice and finally say goodbye to the useless Squillaci this summer.
So Arsenal still sit four points from the coveted fourth place spot, but still have games against Tottenham and Everton, which will probably play a large part in deciding their fate this year. We are also still in the FA Cup and with a winnable fixture coming up, let's hope a nice run culminates in the trophy us Gooners have been hungry for since that 2005 FA Cup penalty winning victory over Man U.
Cazorla scored the only goal of the game in the 35th minute, after another scintillating run by Wilshire was fed to Walcott who laid the ball off for a solid low finish. It was the only breakthrough for a Gunner squad that dominated possession and chances throughout the first 45 minutes, but lacked the finishing touch that has often deserted them this season. Mignolet was a big part of that pattern however, saving two Walcott chances early, a lovely shot to the far post by Ramsey and the aforementioned shot right in front of goal close to the half time whistle. Things changed in the second 45 however, as Wilshire pulled up and out with an aggravation of a thigh injury, which will have Arsenal fans sweating out the news, in the 50th minute. Diaby came in and while he didn't have a bad game, there were fewer chances for the Gunners in the second 45. Theo was subbed out in the 83rd as the Gunners hung on for dear life, and Miquel helped stave off the equalizer until the final whistle.
It was the second gritty performance from the Gunners in a row and reminds of the now crucial dropped points to the same opponents in the opening two games of the camapaign. But there is much to be hopeful of in the performance. Wilshire has quickly grown into one of the most exciting attacking midfielders in the EPL and the interplay between he, Walcott and Cazorla was sometimes breathtaking to see. The defense has now registered two clean sheets in a row and the improvement by Szczesny in this game should increase his confidence going into key fixtures against Tottenham and Everton after a stop at the Emirates to take on lowly Aston Villa. Considering player grades ...
Wojciech Szczesny: 9.5
The Pole showed why he is Arsenal's undisputed starting goalkeeper and one of the best in the Premier League with several outstanding reflex saves near the end of the game. Steven Fletcher will be thinking about the magnificent save that somehow kept him from equalizing the Peter Schmeichel-esque save he made earlier with his body spread out. Just minutes before the end of normal time, Szczesny scooped another shot away from the goal line and subsequently deftly dealt with the corner kicks and crosses Sunderland hurled at him.
Carl Jenkinson: 4
With Laurent Koscielny scrapped from the starting XI at the last minute due to a recurrence of his calf problem, Jenkinson found himself chucked into the lineup in the Frenchman's place. While Jenkinson was impressive marshallning for Sagna during his injury earlier in the season, today he looked like a player who didin't plan on making an appearance (and one can't fully blame him for this). But the idea that he should replace Sagna, now has to be seriously questioned, as he seemed nervous on the ball, was constantly beaten by Stephane Sessegnon and picked up a deserved second yellow for a silly tackle.
Bacary Sagna: 10
Playing out of position at center-back, Bacary Sagna had one of those games that reminded me of Alex Song last year filling in in the same position. He cleared away danger all afternoon including a key toe poke away from a charging Sunderland player who would have surely scored.
Per Mertesacker: 7.5
Sagna did most of the work in central defense, but Mertesacker had to be extremely vigilant to stem the continuous waves of Sunderland attacks that descended upon the Arsenal defense after Carl Jenkinson got sent off. He was as solid as usual and deserves to keep his place in central defense.
Nacho Monreal: 6.5
Monreal turned in another solid display though not exemplary performance that further solidified my belief that he was a smart signing. Though he still seems to need to settle to the physicality of the English game and watch the angle he takes on wingers, he was rarely beaten and put in a couple of lovely crosses that unfortunately didn't lead to goals. Rumour has it that Santos is on his way out (to Brazil on loan) and one hopes they are true.
Mikel Arteta: 6.5
While Arteta was not involved in the goal and lacked some of the pinpoint passing we are used to, he was the key fulcrum in the back starting attacks and keeping possession. His presence in the lineup clearly stabilizes the team and while he clearly isn't a typical defensive midfielder, he seems to add a level of calm from the back to front of the pitch.
Jack Wilshere: 7.5
Before his injury in the 50th minute, Wilshere provided a number of driving runs through the heart of midfield, trying harder and with more success than anyone else to break the resolve of Sunderland's stolid defense. Eventually, he did, through Walcott and Cazorla. My major fear regarding Wilshire is that his recklessness in tackling and bouncing his body all over the field will lead to another injury, but he is certainly one of the brightest lights in a team that suddenly seems much better than the one of a few weeks ago.
Aaron Ramsey:6
Ever since Ramsey decided to simplify his game, he has become a much better player. He continued that solidity against Sunderland, with a no-frills performance that illustrated his role as midfield pivot. While he missed a gilded chance to put the game out of reach, he was unlucky not to score on a lovely shot from the edge of the box. Ramsey did give the ball away on a few occasions though, and one almost led to a Sunderland goal. But his general form is certainly a comfort to those of us who thought he had lost his way completely.
Santi Cazorla:9
Cazorla is sometimes beautiful to watch on the pitch. His vision, ability to keep the ball in tight corners, sideways runs to create space and shooting ability from both feet makes him one of the signings of the season in the EPL. He scored the only goal of the game, and though he had two chances to make it a brace, his steadiness and creativity helped drive the Gunners in the first half and restore some calm in the waning minutes. His flexibility should also be noted, as he played today on the left wing where Podolski is usually found (not sure why he didn't play).ould have sealed the game for Arsenal on a couple of occasions, but couldn't hit the target.
Theo Walcott: 7
Walcott could have scored twice within the first five minutes and continuously got involved on the right flank. Unfortunately, his finishing was less than exemplary, but after a number of selfish shots in recent games, his perfect lay off to Cazorla provided his eighth assist of the season and the winner. Walcott still has to work on his decision-making at times, but his improved dribbling has made him a headache for left backs throughout the league and he might be our best hope of pulling off an upset against Bayern.
Olivier Giroud: 7
Giroud cannot be faulted for his desire or effort, but one must rue the number of clear chances he blows. Great striker convert one in two or one in three chances. Given the number Giroud has been offered this year (including at least two today), his conversion rate is quite low and he has cost us points since the first game of the season. On the other hand, he really contributed on defense in the late going and one hopes he starts making more of his chances on a regular basis, as he does have the skills to become a top scorer. Given that we didn't sign another striker, which still disturbs me, we will rely on him contributing more as we struggle to catch up with Chelsea and Tottenham, who both won.
Diaby: 6
Diaby came on in the 50th minute for Wilshire and was solid if unimpressive. He had a real chance to put the game away when he found himself free 10 yards from goal with a clear angle in, but sent it right at the keeper. He also gave up the ball a couple of times and seems worried about another injury, keeping him from going any for too many tackles. But it is good to see him in a run of games without another injury. Let's hope it stays that way.
Miquel: n/a
The Spanish center-half came on late for Walcott and wasn't involved enough to warrant a grade, though one hopes we can keep him as a viable fourth choice and finally say goodbye to the useless Squillaci this summer.
So Arsenal still sit four points from the coveted fourth place spot, but still have games against Tottenham and Everton, which will probably play a large part in deciding their fate this year. We are also still in the FA Cup and with a winnable fixture coming up, let's hope a nice run culminates in the trophy us Gooners have been hungry for since that 2005 FA Cup penalty winning victory over Man U.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
I'll Show Them ...
Damn the lazy poor kids that want health insurance. If they cared that much, they would go out and work for a living. Five years old and suffering from hunger, you say? Let them eat cockroaches. Well, I exaggerate. But I'm just so excited by the stand Pennsylvania Republican Governor Tom Corbett is taking -- by not taking the Medicaid expansion President Obama offered in his health care reform bill. Corbett is the 11th GOP Governor to make this grand political sacrifice to show the world he means business when it comes to his ideological positions (HuffPo). And the cost to the people of Pennsylvania? Minimal, really. It only costs coverage to the 542,000 poor people in the state who would otherwise receive the help they probably don't need anyway. Isn't there an overpopulation problem, anyway?
Obviously it will cost them too much money, right? Hmm, wrong again. The federal government will pay 100% of the cost between 2014 and 2016 and still cover 90% by 2022. Overall, about 3 million of the potentially 17 million who could benefit from the program as poverty increases will lose out based on this position. But in a world of flip-floppers and liberals, it's good to see the GOP take a stand. Screw the poor; we have business and Wall Street interests to represent. I mean, they are the ones paying for us to be in office, aren't they. Poverty is a moral failing, right?
Obviously it will cost them too much money, right? Hmm, wrong again. The federal government will pay 100% of the cost between 2014 and 2016 and still cover 90% by 2022. Overall, about 3 million of the potentially 17 million who could benefit from the program as poverty increases will lose out based on this position. But in a world of flip-floppers and liberals, it's good to see the GOP take a stand. Screw the poor; we have business and Wall Street interests to represent. I mean, they are the ones paying for us to be in office, aren't they. Poverty is a moral failing, right?
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Mamet's Middling Madness
David Mamet is best known for a series of plays and movies over the years that comb the dark underbelly of American culture. While they are rightfully called out for their misogyny and troubling ethics at times, they fit nicely into the contemporary theatrical canon. Over the past several years, his work has suffered under age or maybe the move to Los Angeles, the place where bad writers thrive and good writers come to die. Beyond his work, Mamet has also taken a troubling turn to the right that includes fervent support for Sarah Palin, the Iraq War and the War on Terror in general. The once pronounced liberal, though I always had my doubts, has become another crazed spokesperson for the right -- like the 50s Jewish Trotskyists turned Neocons and, more recently, the late Christopher Hitchens.
Now Mamet has turned his attention to the gun debate and written a screed against the gun rights crowd. Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion, but as if often the case with right wing wingnuts, his theories and argument just don't seem to mesh with the facts. Salon has done a good job of critiquing the piece in minute detail here (Article), but I thought I would include the highlights:
1) “On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms" --> this is an oft quoted prevarication by the NRA and their acolytes based on a 90s study, but when a Harvard professor dug into the numbers he found flaw after flaw.
2) He then uses an insane bit of logic to undermine the very real statistic that having a firearm in your house increases the likelihood of homicide by 3 and suicide by 5: “The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves?” This is the sort of tautological argument that is so absurd it makes sense to the average Family Guy watcher without a second thought.
3) A third point he makes is based on completely inaccurate information: "“Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot. Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime.” Again, this is not supported by the statistics and shows someone too lazy to hit the books and make sure they are right.
There are a few other ridiculous facts and arguments in the article and one wonders why Time would even publish this tripe. But then again, this is the nature of public discourse in America today and every celebrity has the right to both an opinion and for others to listen to it. I wonder what Kim Kardashian has to say on the matter -- I'm sure it's just as riveting as Mamet.
11
Now Mamet has turned his attention to the gun debate and written a screed against the gun rights crowd. Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion, but as if often the case with right wing wingnuts, his theories and argument just don't seem to mesh with the facts. Salon has done a good job of critiquing the piece in minute detail here (Article), but I thought I would include the highlights:
1) “On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms" --> this is an oft quoted prevarication by the NRA and their acolytes based on a 90s study, but when a Harvard professor dug into the numbers he found flaw after flaw.
2) He then uses an insane bit of logic to undermine the very real statistic that having a firearm in your house increases the likelihood of homicide by 3 and suicide by 5: “The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves?” This is the sort of tautological argument that is so absurd it makes sense to the average Family Guy watcher without a second thought.
3) A third point he makes is based on completely inaccurate information: "“Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot. Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime.” Again, this is not supported by the statistics and shows someone too lazy to hit the books and make sure they are right.
There are a few other ridiculous facts and arguments in the article and one wonders why Time would even publish this tripe. But then again, this is the nature of public discourse in America today and every celebrity has the right to both an opinion and for others to listen to it. I wonder what Kim Kardashian has to say on the matter -- I'm sure it's just as riveting as Mamet.
11
Public School Inc.
The expansion of trademarks, patents and copyrights over the past few decades has been both humorous and alarming in its absurdity. Can someone really own the right to common sayings like "silence is golden," "threepeat," or "let's get ready to rumble?" The answer, of course, is yes. David Hester from A&E's reality show Storage Wars (wow, that sounds exciting) patented "Yuuup!" and is now in a battle with rapper Trey Songz, who claims to have used it since 2009. Hmm, I think I used it in late 2008; maybe I should get involved. Then there's Jane's Addiction frontman Perry Farrell, who has a
trademark on the word "lollapalooza" despite the fact that it had
existed for about 100 years before his alternative rock festival of the
same name started out in the '90s (and about 105 years before it stopped
being relevant). Farrell, however, is cool with letting others use the
word as long as they're not actually trying to rip him off, because it
simply cost him too much money on lawyers to sue everyone who put "-palooza" at the end of every word. Funny how something that started as a somewhat radical event to push alt-bands became a $20 water and trademark extravaganza. And as for that football game you might have watched yesterday, yes, the NFL has trademarked "Super Bowl" and doesn't want anyone using it without their permission, or fair market value. One wonders how long it will be before writers have to pay for "the" and "and." I'm sure Disney can argue they coined them in the 20s.
Should Wal*Mart be able to trademark the smiley face, Snooki from Jersey Shore her name or the New England Patriots "19-0" (right before they lost the Superbowl that year)? Luckily in the latter cases the answer was no (Business Insider). But patents were issued for the thong diaper, pierced glasses (never lose them again), a kissing shield, nicotine-infused coffee and edible business cards (now that's eating up the competition!) On a more serious note, should corporations have the power, or right, to patent human genomes, diseases, genes and even the very blue prints of life itself? Whether we like it or not, they already are (The Corporation Clip).
The next battlefield, apparently, is our public schools: "A proposal by the Prince George’s County Board of Education to copyright work created by staff and students for school could mean that a picture drawn by a first-grader, a lesson plan developed by a teacher or an app created by a teen would belong to the school system, not the individual." (Washington Post). Of course, this makes perfect sense. The school system is doing a terrible job of educating our children and ensuring both the individual's and nation's economic prosperity for the future, but if they happen to do something profitable, should the school be able to cash in? The real reason for consideration of the plan is the lucrative side business of sellling lesson plans online. And we know that teachers are way overpaid for the meaningless work they do, right? Intellectual property agreements are now de rigeur on college campuses, where professors work and time is obviously subsidized by university pay, facilities and the general intellectual milieu. But can the same be said of our public schools? In fact, I think one could argue the opposite -- and many of our schools today are doing their best to quash innovation and creativity in the name of standardized tests and creating a future generation of robots. But I digress .... hmm, I wonder who owns that one.
Should Wal*Mart be able to trademark the smiley face, Snooki from Jersey Shore her name or the New England Patriots "19-0" (right before they lost the Superbowl that year)? Luckily in the latter cases the answer was no (Business Insider). But patents were issued for the thong diaper, pierced glasses (never lose them again), a kissing shield, nicotine-infused coffee and edible business cards (now that's eating up the competition!) On a more serious note, should corporations have the power, or right, to patent human genomes, diseases, genes and even the very blue prints of life itself? Whether we like it or not, they already are (The Corporation Clip).
The next battlefield, apparently, is our public schools: "A proposal by the Prince George’s County Board of Education to copyright work created by staff and students for school could mean that a picture drawn by a first-grader, a lesson plan developed by a teacher or an app created by a teen would belong to the school system, not the individual." (Washington Post). Of course, this makes perfect sense. The school system is doing a terrible job of educating our children and ensuring both the individual's and nation's economic prosperity for the future, but if they happen to do something profitable, should the school be able to cash in? The real reason for consideration of the plan is the lucrative side business of sellling lesson plans online. And we know that teachers are way overpaid for the meaningless work they do, right? Intellectual property agreements are now de rigeur on college campuses, where professors work and time is obviously subsidized by university pay, facilities and the general intellectual milieu. But can the same be said of our public schools? In fact, I think one could argue the opposite -- and many of our schools today are doing their best to quash innovation and creativity in the name of standardized tests and creating a future generation of robots. But I digress .... hmm, I wonder who owns that one.
Sunday, February 03, 2013
Arsenal Win Ugly 1-0
Arsenal came into their game against Stoke City with a dire need for three points. And after toiling away for over 70 minutes with no return, that's exactly what they got. It was a tough 1-0 victory at the Emirates that pushed them closer to Everton and Chelsea and kept them four points behind Tottenham (who won 1-0 at West Brom). Podolski was the hero, with his 78th minute deflected free kick the difference. He and Cazorla came off the bench in the 68th minute and ignited the spark that led to the goal. While Arsenal dominated the action for most of the game, they were having trouble getting it past Begovic, who made a number of fine saves including two against Ox in the first half.
Stoke didn't push forward often and rarely created a real chance, but it was a decent defensive performance for the much maligned back four, particularly Nacho Monreal, who stood up to the most physical team in the EPL with relative aplomb. While I have loved the play of Gibbs this year, Monreal looks a more solid player from front to back and may be able to put in more dangerous crosses to help Giroud's confidence, and goal count, continue to rise. And Walcott had another fine game that only missed a goal, though he did have a couple of half chances he couldn't quite pull off against a team that played at least 9 back most of the game. It was a key win for the Gunners that might restore a little confidence at home, where they have clearly lacked it this year (with a
Stoke didn't push forward often and rarely created a real chance, but it was a decent defensive performance for the much maligned back four, particularly Nacho Monreal, who stood up to the most physical team in the EPL with relative aplomb. While I have loved the play of Gibbs this year, Monreal looks a more solid player from front to back and may be able to put in more dangerous crosses to help Giroud's confidence, and goal count, continue to rise. And Walcott had another fine game that only missed a goal, though he did have a couple of half chances he couldn't quite pull off against a team that played at least 9 back most of the game. It was a key win for the Gunners that might restore a little confidence at home, where they have clearly lacked it this year (with a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
