But the end is not nigh just yet, methinks.
Well, my Oscar predictions were way off. I got only three, and one of those was for makeup. I'm not floating this as an excuse for my poor performance, but I didn't see any of the films nominated (except "Cars").
Looking through the list, I will probably eventually hunt down only four: The Queen, Children of Men, Dreamgirls, and The Departed. And to be honest, I will begin all of those with a heavy heart, because none of them are what you'd call uplifting.
Before the broadcast one of the talking heads said that only 9% of Americans polled had seen all 5 top picture nominees, and that only 30% had seen ANY of them. I can see why. They're a pretty drab bunch. I've heard even Happy Feet, the winner for animated feature, gets scary and downbeat.
As we lay in bed last night, I opined to my lovely wife that what's happened with the Oscars resembles a trend I saw in rock and roll. For years rock critics lambasted the stuff that was popular and on the radio. When the govt. allowed monopolies to form in radio, and the music industry became controlled by 4 megalithic corporations, the input loop from the public was severed, and we got nothing but Britney-esque bubble gun, gansta rap, and the latest critical faves, like Lucinda Williams. Pardon me whilst I stifle a yawn. For yeas, critics have said "how come the Oscars® only reward the commercial films and not the good ones?" Well, Mr. Howard the Duck, here's the world you wanted. Enjoy.
I guess I should've known it was gonna be grim when I spotted George Takei (Sulu) in a floor-length wool skirt (read "not a kilt"). Dear God. I really think silk would've been more appropriate.
Cintra Wilson's annual report is here. My favorite quote; "Hollywood successfully Photoshopped Al Gore's foot into George W.'s ass."
Let's leave this topic with two of my wife's best bon mots:
"How many muppets had to be sacrificed for Penélope Cruz's skirt?"
"What's the theme of having Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio as presenters? 'Ships that shouldn't have sunk'?"
I think I've finally heard the best approach to the whole gay marriage thing (and polygamy, etc.), finally, proffered by a man I've been a quiet fan of for a long time now, Dave Trowbridge. In his words:
It would be best, IMO, if the state had nothing to do with defining marriage, and confined itself to the enforcement of whatever contract the consenting parties entered into. That would leave faith communities entirely free to define marriage in accordance with their beliefs.
Me, being thick as usual asked, "But what about secular marriage?"
Dave again:
In one sense, given my proposal, all marriages would be secular, but only some would be recognized by a religious body. Quakers would recognize more than Roman Catholics, for instance.
And yes, the state would have to allow any kind of marriage between consenting adults--that's the point of treating it as a contract. A plus here for people worried about extreme weirdness is that since one cannot enter into a contract with an animal or a child, those forms of marriage would be ruled out ipso facto.
I do not agree that "as a society we can disagree with some forms of marriage..." No, as individuals. Don't confuse society and the state: they're not the same thing, and when we confuse them we cause endless trouble.
James Cameron says he's gonna reveal what he says are the coffins of Jesus, his wife, and their child.
See, the crypts found 27 years ago in Jerusalem were marked "Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua" - all common names from the time.
So of course, it has to be THAT Jesus. They even did DNA tests.
Ooo, and what do those DNA tests prove? That the folks buried as a family together were - get this - related to one another! Shock! Shock! Horror Horror! Shock! Shock! Horror!
I find it interesting that some folks are so intent on trying to "disprove" Christianity. I actually welcome challenges to it, because if it's BS, I want to know. But they need to be legitimate challenges, not smoke and mirrors.
Still, if you want to have the hell scared out of you, read this.
4 comments:
Oof. I'd say Rumsfeld has done more damage to the Christian religion than anything James Cameron is likely to expose us to.
Trowbridge is probably right, and his suggestion has come up often before. I gather France has been doing something like this for some time; unlike the U.S., the presiding over a marriage ceremony by a religious minister has no legal implications. Commonweal magazine (leftie Catholic) ran an article with such a suggestion, making the point that the Church already doesn't recognize a goodly percentage of U.S. 'marriages' as valid, so why go to the wall fighting to keep a tiny percentage of invalid 'marriages' out? It would also deal with the point that bothers me: the historically close alignment of the legal meaning of "marriage" with the mainline American Protestant meaning.
While I'm living in my world where I'm Philosopher King, these secular "marriage" contracts would have easy opt-out provisions, and not many state benefits, until (a) five years elapsed, or (b) children become part of the household (by birth, adoption, whatever), whichever happens first. At which point the contract would start to be like a REAL contract, with a high burden of proof for opting out and very punitive damages for breach.
Whisky: This whole administration has been a curse that way. Anymore, when I have to dialogue with fundie atheists, they now've added that to their playlist.
Opinionated H: Yes, I'm thinking that the easy-outs would cure the other side of things that give me the fantods, the divorce rate that would occur for a while as people discovered being married to a herd sucked. It would be nice to leave lawyers out of that societal quake.
C. S. Lewis suggested in the 1950's that religious marriage and legal marriage should be completely separate things.
Post a Comment