1. BP CEO saying that the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill is relatively tiny compared to the size of the ocean. By that logic, someone could argue that the over a million people killed in a war built on a false pretext is tiny compared to the 6 billion people in the world.  Oh, wait…
2. SB 1070 – more popularly known as the “Arizona Immigration bill”
3. Arizona banning ethnic studies
4. Texas conservatives working to revise history along Biblical/American exceptionalist/racist lines in textbooks
5. Corporations authorized to buy U.S. elections after the Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission case
6. The surge of people “tweeting” and “microblogging” about nonsense while remaining dormant on things that matter
7. People wasting their time talking about Jay-Z is a devil-worshiping Freemason.  Even if he is, who cares? There are bigger things to worry about.
8. Republicans and Democrats both screwing the public through bankrupt policy, while continuing to trick people into thinking there’s any substantive difference between them.
9. The fact that legally, BP may only be obligated to pay no more than $75 million in damages, which doesn’t even begin to cover it, and that they’re fighting even that.  You want to know what’s “tiny”?  $75 million compared to the hundreds of billions^PDF that BP makes every year
10. Open racism coming back in style
11. The mainstream media continuing to report on sensationalist bullshit, rather than covering the stuff that really matters – the corporate version of #6
12. Omar al-Bashir “winning” the election in Sudan, in spite of being convicted of war crimes and genocide by the U.N.
13. People chasing conspiracy theories, while doing nothing about evil acts being committed every day out in the open
14. How perfectly the “divide and conquer” social strategy is continuing to work
15. All this talk of Iran having nuclear weapons, while no one says anything to Israel
16. The betrayed promise of “change” from President Obama
17. How the people around me don’t know and don’t seem to care about what’s going on in the world
18. Facebook’s new privacy policy violations
19. Obama authorizing the targeted killing of a U.S. Citizen, setting a dangerous precedent
20. How people are pawns of their respective political parties, rather than thinking critically as individuals

So now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go play some Torchlight, as an alternative to shooting myself in the head…

In a New York Times Op-Ed, Ishmael Reed discusses the movie Precious, and how it was offensive to the African-American audiences to whom he spoke, while being more widely accepted by white audiences.

He writes:

Among black men and women, there is widespread revulsion and anger over the Oscar-nominated film about an illiterate, obese black teenager who has two children by her father. The author Jill Nelson wrote: “I don’t eat at the table of self-hatred, inferiority or victimization. I haven’t bought into notions of rampant black pathology or embraced the overwrought, dishonest and black-people-hating pseudo-analysis too often passing as post-racial cold hard truths.” One black radio broadcaster said that he felt under psychological assault for two hours. So did I.¹

It seems to be Reed’s contention that the heart-wrenching portrayal of an African-American woman living in a terrible situation is palatable to white Americans because they already think very little of how African-Americans live.  On the other hand, African-Americans whose lives do not in any way resemble that of Precious should be offended for how that story misrepresents them.

And here is where Mr. Reed and – everyone else who feels this way – makes a critical mistake.  Like so many others, he treats the example of one individual who happens to be African-American necessarily as a representation of all African-Americans.  This kind of presumption is one that bubbles up from the cracks of institutionalized racism.  It is an irony and a travesty where African-Americans themselves – like Mr. Reed – are instilled with racist presumptions by way of this institution.

One of the many dimensions of racism is that people of color are seen first for their race and second – if at all – for their individual merits.  Along with this also comes the idea that the actions or experiences of one African-American somehow represents all African-Americans.  For example, the more salacious behavior of some African-American celebrities – like rappers or athletes – are taken as evidence of some moral depravity inherent to their race.

It is this way of thinking that gives rise to stereotypes.  Every stereotype has some basis in reality.  But where the actions, thoughts, or experiences of an individual or even a small group of people are taken to represent the larger group to which they belong, it becomes racism.

Where an African-American watches Precious and feels some personal shame or awkwardness, especially where they are in the company of white people, it suggests that they have internalized this idea that every African-American by default represents their entire race.  Where a white person watches Precious and somehow feels more “informed” about the black experience or feels some remorse for African-Americans as a whole, only shows just how ill-informed they are for assuming that all African-American experiences are the same.

I cannot pretend as though I am unaffected by this experience.  When watching Tyler Perry’s latest movie I Do Bad All By Myself, I was acutely aware of the fact that there were white people in the audience.  Part of my anxiety stemmed from the thought that while African-American audiences were laughing “along with” the movie, white audiences were laughing at the movie, in a finger-pointing sort of way.  Somewhere in my mind I assumed that white people would walk away from this movie with the idea that they obtained some glimpse into African-American life.   And found it hilarious. Which of course, in turn, must mean that they are laughing at me. The pathology of the black experience and institutionalized racism are deeply rooted.

Tyler Perry doesn’t claim to represent all African-Americans in his films.  Rather he is crafting stories that represent particular experiences that otherwise would not be shown in predominantly white Hollywood.  Because I have had this discussion about representation and institutionalized racism – both internally and with others – I am able to assuage any feelings of anxiety after the fact. But it would seem that this conversation is not taking place nearly enough.

No one watches a movie like 8-Mile and presumes that it represents all young white men, or even all young white men who grew up in Detroit.  No one presumes that American History X reveals the typical everyday experience of white people.  No one listens to a news story about a white mother murdering her child and assumes that such a thing is commonplace amongst white families.  So why should anyone take Precious to be a representation of African-Americans in general, simply because the main character and most of the cast happen to be African-American?

Precious is only one story – an extreme case, yet a case that undoubtedly reflects or touches on the real experiences of particular individuals in this country.  At no point did Sapphire – author of the original book, or Lee Daniels – director of the film (both of whom are African-American) – state that Precious was a “black story” or representative of the African-American experience in general.

Looking at the bigger picture, the existence of this paradigm of one-represents-all suggests something even more critical.  That “blackness” – in how it purports to categorize and define a large number of diverse people – and “individuality” are mutually exclusive. It highlights the shame inherent to the black experience, instilled by the history and present reality of racism, such that one feels an automatic need to distinguish themselves and their experiences from other African-Americans who are quite unlike them.

It suggests that we – as a nation – are past due for a revolution in our way of thinking, that is one that lies outside of race, yet not without serious consideration for how race has affected and continues to influence our social dynamics.

The purpose was not to antagonize or slander Malkin herself – although she is deserving of every attack leveled at her – but to gain some insight into how run-of-the-mill conservatives think, and the kinds of conversations they have amongst themselves.

In a rather hilarious twist, “Michelle” posted a status message about how quickly people will jump on one bandwagon or another, if only someone uses the right buzz words. In no time at all, the facebook followers rallied behind “her”, blissfully unaware that “she” was talking about them.

Time will tell how many of the followers will recognize that they’ve been deceived.  For now, the experiment continues…

If you haven’t heard of District 9 or weren’t interested, find out or get interested. If you were debating about whether or not to see it, then see it. If you were planning to see it, then see it NOW. Great movie.

And I can state this as fact rather than opinion – why?  Because where a certain friend and I – who almost always disagree on movies – both love a movie, it must be great!

That said, I’m going to start my review of District 9 with a criticism of another review, one written by Armond White of the New York Press.  Mr. White, throughout his review, describes the film as “a ludicrous allegory for segregation”, “high-concept inanity”, and some of the “sloppiest and dopiest pop cinema” – all points which I will debate. He also criticizes D-9 for not being “ominously beautiful like the civilization-in-peril tableau that caps Roy Andersson’s You, the Living (critic John Demetry described that climax as a “revelation out of [Morrissey’s] ‘Everyday Is Like Sunday’”).”

What?  Does anyone other than John Demetry, Mr. White himself, or other film students even understand that reference?  Which brings me to a second point – that film critics are a ludicrous sort, people whose entire body of work relies upon the perceived success or failure of others’ work – that is, having no independent merit at all.

After reading about Mr. White’s status as a “controversial” critic, it seems to me that he rallies against the status quo just to be heard, just to be different.  While everyone else was complaining about Transformers 2 (although I’ll admit it was overblown), he was praising it, and now that everyone is praising D-9, he’s slamming it.  He, like the rest of the mainstream media, will say or do whatever it takes for people to pay attention to their particular spin.  It’s not enough to report on something; they have to somehow make it about themselves or make it work to their benefit.

The review itself is pretentious hogwash – the above bit about John Demetry providing case in point.  It’s so overstated, in fact, that it becomes hard to follow.  White tries to discuss all the points where the film fails as an Apartheid analogy, using a bunch of big words that only amount to “it failed because I said it did”, instead of actually offering an example of how it failed, or how it could’ve been better.

He says:

District 9’s South Africa–set story makes trash of that country’s Apartheid history by constructing a ludicrous allegory for segregation that involves human beings (South Africa’s white government, scientific and media authorities plus still-disadvantaged blacks) openly ostracizing extraterrestrials in shanty-town encampments that resemble South Africa’s bantustans.

But never elaborates on how exactly the allegory is ludicrous.

He says:

District 9 represents the sloppiest and dopiest pop cinema—the kind that comes from a second-rate film culture. No surprise, this South African fantasia from director Neill Blomkamp was produced by the intellectually juvenile New Zealander Peter Jackson.

Yet he never elaborates on how exactly D-9 represents pop cinema, what he means by “second rate film culture”, or how exactly Peter Jackson is “intellectually juvenile” – this coming from a man with no disability to pontificate, having spent paragraphs explaining how Michael Bay is a “visionary”.

Mr. White criticizes the film for not representing specific events from the Soweto riots, as if any allegory has ever required a point for point alignment with historical events.  It’s an allegory, Mr. White, which means it requires some brain work on the part of the audience.  And honestly, I think a lot of people are thankful that Jackson didn’t resort to his usual long-winded tactics and make the movie three and a half hours, as would’ve been required to meet Mr. White’s standards.

The allegory was obvious – as one speaking on racism – although perhaps not so obviously about Apartheid in particular, especially to Western audiences.  That is to say that I, with relatively little knowledge about Apartheid, did not know exactly what events the film was invoking.  The film could’ve  just as easily been – and was for me – speaking on segregation in the Jim Crow era of the U.S.  I think Mr. White, knowing the intended allegory, judged the film on how precisely it delivered on that allegory rather than enjoying the film for its own sake.

Mr. White attacks D-9 with obscure references that only other film critics would know – perhaps an attempt to gain traction amongst his professional brethren who probably regard him as a hack, again emphasizing the film critic’s pathetic lot – to forever claw and scratch for recognition by other film critics, since no one else – namely those other film students who went on to actually make films – gives a damn.

That all said, let me get into why Mr. White – and the other critics – are wrong about District 9.  I’ll spare you any specific plot details so as not to spoil the film, and avoid any discussion of the lighting, cinematography, or set pieces, since I don’t know anything about those things.

Perhaps because District 9 was made by an independent writer/director and a virtually unknown cast, it had to make certain concessions for Hollywood, to make it more widely marketable.  Those concessions probably came by the order of Peter Jackson, who – in spite of Mr. White’s claims that he has a child’s brain – knows exactly what is required to make a blockbuster.

What stood out most to me about District 9 was that in spite of these concessions – mostly in the form of comic violence, metamorphosis, explosions, and an all out mech battle – it managed to avoid the majority of Hollywood clichés.  That is quite an achievement.  D-9 is so outside the norm that it ran into resistance from my years-long Hollywood sci-fi conditioning.  By the film’s end I found myself feeling that something was missing, and I even started to argue what it could’ve done better – before I realized that I was making a case for those exact clichés!

It is what is missing from District 9 that makes it a great movie.  The main character is not one with which you’ll want to sympathize – you might even hate him.  There is no E.T.-style alien-human bonding in the face of adversity; instead D-9 depicts humans – through main character Wikus – as almost irredeemably anchored to their nature.  There is no saccharine moment of revelation that we (humans) are wrong – we just continue to be wrong, until literally left with no choice.

There is no cheesy romantic side plot, and what little relationship story it does have is relegated to a few phone conversations – more another nod to human failings than any attempt at redemption.  And finally, there is no happy ending, no ten minute wrap-up that resolves the impossibly massive conflict, which would’ve been forced, and rang painfully disingenuous.

In fact, if there was anywhere the movie did capture reality in its allegory, it was in how the problem was not fully resolved, because black South Africans today still suffer disadvantages in the aftermath of Apartheid.  A saccharine ending would’ve undermined the subtle dimensions to the conflict for the sake of satisfying audiences lacking the stomach to accept a more harsh reality – not unlike many apologists today who incorrectly saw the official end of Apartheid as an end to the much longer and more widespread legacy of racism.

Since this has been more a review of District 9’s critics than the film itself, let me go on record again as giving it my highest recommendation.  It has something for everyone – action fans, sci-fi enthusiasts, indie film snobs – everyone except those too conditioned by Hollywood fluff to appreciate something different.  It even has something for the film critics who claim to hate it  – another opportunity to co-opt the success of others to gain personal recognition.

That all said, there is one thing about Kucinich that has confused me.  And it is probably less about Kucinich and more about Fox News.  The thing is that Fox News, which is so unapologetically right-aligned that it covered former President Bush’s return to Texas while every other network was covering Barack Obama’s inauguration, has had no reservations about hosting interviews with Mr. Kucinich, who is about as far-left a politician as exists anywhere in the U.S. government.  When I say “no reservations”, I mean that Kucinich regularly appears on Fox News – at least several times every month.

He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor a few times – where because host Bill O’Reilly is a loud egomaniac who needs to remind viewers that the show carries his name – constantly interrupted him and steered the conversation only in directions he wanted to go.  Yet Bill O’Reilly seems to be the exception to the rule when it comes to how Fox News commentators handle Kucinich, with the majority of them giving Kucinich due respect and letting  him speak.  So while I’d understand the argument that Fox News is doing it just for spin, when applied to O’Reilly, who does it right in front of you, I don’t see any obvious agenda for other commentators.

What’s interesting, too, is that Fox News is virtually the only network that ever gives Kucinich any air time.  Even during the Democratic debates in New Hampshire, CNN intentionally seated both Kucinich and Mike Gravel to either corner of the stage, and they were hardly ever called upon to answer questions.  It was really a debate between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, with a few sound bytes from Biden, and perhaps some symbolic acknowledgment of Kucinich and Gravel.

So if CNN, which is considered at least “left-leaning”, both literally and figuratively marginalized Kucinich during the debates, and has offered him zero interviews since then, why would the notoriously right-leaning and propaganda-oriented Fox News give him a lion’s share of air time?  Do they do it to be able to support the ridiculous claim of being “fair and balanced”?  To boost anti-liberal bias amongst their viewership?  Or is there another endgame?