Reality TV kind of makes me sad for the future of humanity. It's fascinating, enlightening and a just little depressing observing cultural degradation. Watching bits and pieces of “So You Think You Can Dance?” last night (bits and pieces of reality TV already strain my brain's limits) spurred me to contemplate the depths of our Romanesque debauchery. …Anyone remember "Elimidate?"
Reality programming frequently features certain broad commonalities across different show concepts. Like a lion staring down a sickly antelope, producers often lock onto the weakest participant. Let’s just say, “Least Likely to Succeed” if there were a vote.
This is, of course, not to say that watching someone try and fail is not thoroughly entertaining television. My life would be a ratings juggernaut!
What is depressing is the inappropriately overconfident individual is usually blindingly unaware of his woeful lack of talent, ability and good sense. Shameless in his ignorance, the indignation after being told by the judges he “doesn't have what it takes” is amazing. At some point someone should have grasped him by the shoulders and shaken him vigorously, telling him, “Stop! You are not good at this! Learn a trade!”
Instead he will likely return for the next audition not having practiced, studied, or worked to improve in any appreciable manner, expecting to be ushered into an exclusive world of awards shows and all the free gift bags he can carry.
Meanwhile, out in the real world rogue nations are plotting the destruction of their neighbors and devastating disasters are occurring daily. Imagine for a moment that Iran made good on its threats to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Chaos would ensue, not to mention a likely US versus The World apocalyptic cage match of World War Three proportions. The real show is just outside your living room window.
Which brings me back to our current fascination with reality television. The allure and the illusion is that fame and fortune are available to anyone – not just the lucky, gorgeous and/or talented. The "stars" could be you or your neighbor. With a modicum of effort, a strong stomach and an astronomical embarrassment threshold anyone can achieve Hollywood Nirvana.
There was a time when people understood lazy entitlement and hedonistic obsessions are counterproductive to a prosperous and safe civil society. Have we too allowed ourselves to become so preoccupied with pleasure at the expense of our own safety, or even our own existence? The indomitable Roman Empire seemed invincible – until it was conquered by barbarians. So much for “The Eternal City.”
Can we survive? And if we do, what will we watch after dinner?
I'm thinking about pitching the networks a new show. I'm going to call it, "So You Think You Can Survive the Apocalypse?"
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Remember...
It's important on this Memorial Day to remember not only the men and women who died to protect our Freedom and Liberty but also for what they sacrificed their futures, lives and sacred honor. They died for an Idea, a grand experiment in freedom and diversity, openness and opportunity and a civil society based on the novel approach of Self Government.
In breaking the millenia-long tradition of imperial rule by kings and monarchs in which a class of privileged few ruled largely uneducated masses of subjects destined for meager existences in poverty and obscurity, the Founders
of the United States of America introduced the concept of individual rights and citizen service, or government of the people, by the people and for the people. The idea that man can govern himself and in doing so achieve a wealth of freedoms and successes beyond the wildest dreams of mere serfs, slaves, servants and subjects. In the United States of America, the people are Citizens. In the process individuals are freed to go their own way and fulfill their own destinies.
As a result of the sacrifices of the men and women of all races, countries and origins who won our freedom from tyranny to lay the Foundation of this Nation, to the soldiers serving presently in Iraq and Afghanistan to help bring freedom to others, we are at liberty to worship freely, speak freely, travel freely, and dream freely.
Remember them, and remember US.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Oh noes!
Okay, I am totally freaking out. Just freaking out, all over the place. Which is weird, because being of German Lutheran descent, stoicism is in my genes. But LOST
will be finished in less than two weeks and my brain is about to implode like the hatch.I just need a moment to catch my breath.
We began with a simple story about a plane crash on an island. A very mysterious island. Really, regarding the plot, it's not that complicated:
Some strangers crash on an island and try to survive the strange things that happen to them. They run around a lot. Some leave, then they come back. Pretty basic stuff.
The pleasure in watching LOST lies deeper than simply following the relatively simple storyline. Like a good mystery (or an onion), peeling back the layers reveals more of the story and sometimes makes you cry.
LOST is a story about more than just an island and the people who crashed on it. The most interesting and engaging element of the series, by far, is the deep characterizations of the survivors. Most of the characters are incredibly flawed or severely damaged in some way. Early in the series we were introduced to a major theme that has recurred throughout the series. Everyone gets a new beginning on this island. Using the flashback to marvelous effect, LOST has explored the depth of these characters, their motivations, their neuroses, their flaws and foibles, their successes and more often their mistakes to animate and illuminate each character for the viewer. Consequently we get a vibrant character study that enriches and often informs the individual episodic plot and the greater storyline in the process. This is what makes LOST so intriguing. Each new answer leads to even more questions.
Naturally, so near to the end many of our long-standing and much hypothesized questions and theories are being answered or at least alluded to, and I have consigned myself to the realization that we likely won't be given all the answers. All will not be revealed, and I'm okay with that. Much of the enjoyment in watching interesting television and movies or reading good books is arriving at your own conclusions. For example, just what is it that makes the Island so special? The most recent episode and the second to last prior to the finale gave us some hints, moreso vaguely and cryptically than anything decisive. But as a viewer I don't really want to be led by the hand, as though the finale would include a scene with one of the characters finding some special book of "LOST Island Secrets" hidden away in a cave and spending the last moments of the show reading them in list form to finally satiate the very uninquisitive and unimaginative.
No, imagination is another important element in the success of LOST. How many television shows can you think of that have sparked such imagination in the minds of viewers? How many television programs have ignited the minds of millions of viewers to dream up their own theories and ideas about the island and its mysteries? A simple Google search will find nearly 3 million hits. Such a basic premise has blossomed into nothing short of an historic television sensation.
Having watched since the beginning, in fact having been ensnared by the mysteries of the island and enthralled by the characters I have come to know and love despite their numerous flaws and shortcomings, I will be sad to see LOST go on to that great mysterious electromagnetic island in the sky. But it's been quite a ride.
LOST is a story about more than just an island and the people who crashed on it. The most interesting and engaging element of the series, by far, is the deep characterizations of the survivors. Most of the characters are incredibly flawed or severely damaged in some way. Early in the series we were introduced to a major theme that has recurred throughout the series. Everyone gets a new beginning on this island. Using the flashback to marvelous effect, LOST has explored the depth of these characters, their motivations, their neuroses, their flaws and foibles, their successes and more often their mistakes to animate and illuminate each character for the viewer. Consequently we get a vibrant character study that enriches and often informs the individual episodic plot and the greater storyline in the process. This is what makes LOST so intriguing. Each new answer leads to even more questions.
Naturally, so near to the end many of our long-standing and much hypothesized questions and theories are being answered or at least alluded to, and I have consigned myself to the realization that we likely won't be given all the answers. All will not be revealed, and I'm okay with that. Much of the enjoyment in watching interesting television and movies or reading good books is arriving at your own conclusions. For example, just what is it that makes the Island so special? The most recent episode and the second to last prior to the finale gave us some hints, moreso vaguely and cryptically than anything decisive. But as a viewer I don't really want to be led by the hand, as though the finale would include a scene with one of the characters finding some special book of "LOST Island Secrets" hidden away in a cave and spending the last moments of the show reading them in list form to finally satiate the very uninquisitive and unimaginative.
No, imagination is another important element in the success of LOST. How many television shows can you think of that have sparked such imagination in the minds of viewers? How many television programs have ignited the minds of millions of viewers to dream up their own theories and ideas about the island and its mysteries? A simple Google search will find nearly 3 million hits. Such a basic premise has blossomed into nothing short of an historic television sensation.
Having watched since the beginning, in fact having been ensnared by the mysteries of the island and enthralled by the characters I have come to know and love despite their numerous flaws and shortcomings, I will be sad to see LOST go on to that great mysterious electromagnetic island in the sky. But it's been quite a ride.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Stand up for the underdog!
And now for something completely different...
Join Vimeo and vote for the "Dobbs" video! This is an entry for a short film contest called The Story Beyond the Still presented by Canon and Vimeo.
The competition is tough. Help my friend, a non-pro, beat the pros!
Dobbs from John Behrens on Vimeo.
Join Vimeo and vote for the "Dobbs" video! This is an entry for a short film contest called The Story Beyond the Still presented by Canon and Vimeo.
The competition is tough. Help my friend, a non-pro, beat the pros!
Dobbs from John Behrens on Vimeo.
Monday, March 22, 2010
How about an individual firearm mandate?
There's much debate over the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate in the recently passed health care legislation. There shouldn't be, but there is. I believe the majority of Americans understand that the individual mandate, forcing every man, woman and child to purchase a government-prescribed health insurance policy essentially as a condition of their birth, violates the Constitution. In fact, the Declaration of Independence is quite clear: we are all "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness." The individual mandate automatically places constraints upon every citizen. There is no liberty in force. The federal government that was bound by the people has turned those shackles upon the governed.
One obvious argument posited by those favoring the mandate is that universal coverage only works when everyone is covered. It is therefore viewed as a benignly pragmatic solution to a general problem in regard to the general welfare clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to enact certain laws to provide for and promote, you guessed it, the general welfare of the people. In other words, the argument is that it works to the general well being of every citizen to mandate insurance coverage or levy fines. But this is a flawed argument based on too broad a premise, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. (Apologies to Mr. Spock) The history of this country celebrates the power and ingenuity of the individual, not the disordered weight of the collective. Individual decisions made freely unleash and unbind the individual from the impediments of an unwieldy, ponderous collective. Think of it this way -- a small knife does a much better job of opening the box your new 50 inch plasma TV came in than a chainsaw. Okay, not the best illustration, but it speaks to a better point. The individual, small as he or she may be, making individual decisions, is the basis for the monumental success of the American experiment, not some enormous, lumbering mass of a collective.
So if the insurance mandate is so vital to the general interest, it should follow that there are also some other instances in which a mandate would serve the general well being of the American people.
For example, perhaps it would serve the general interest to mandate that every American must buy a gun. It's a dangerous world out there. North Korea is ruled by a crazy man with nuclear weapons. Iran is ruled by some crazy clerics who want nuclear weapons. China is undoubtedly getting anxious to at some point get a return on their $7 trillion dollar loan to us. Is it that unreasonable to assume that, given the attacks of Pearl Harbor or September 11, there is not at least someone, somewhere in the world who has an axe to grind? Therefore, if every American citizen were armed, perhaps another terrorist attack could be thwarted and America would be safer. And what about domestic crime? Again, it’s a dangerous world. Perhaps if every American were mandated to own a gun to defend themselves, crime would be diminished. Perhaps if every American were required by law to own a gun it would provide for and promote the general welfare of the American people.
It's like those algebra problems that used to give me fits. If X equals Y, and Y equals Z, they X equals Z. If the federal government can mandate one thing, naturally it follows that they can mandate another, and then another, and then another. In the end, X equals American citizens as slaves to their government and a formerly representative republic now resembling a feudal fiefdom.
I kind of like the gun mandate idea. Good luck getting the Left to sign off on that one...
One obvious argument posited by those favoring the mandate is that universal coverage only works when everyone is covered. It is therefore viewed as a benignly pragmatic solution to a general problem in regard to the general welfare clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to enact certain laws to provide for and promote, you guessed it, the general welfare of the people. In other words, the argument is that it works to the general well being of every citizen to mandate insurance coverage or levy fines. But this is a flawed argument based on too broad a premise, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. (Apologies to Mr. Spock) The history of this country celebrates the power and ingenuity of the individual, not the disordered weight of the collective. Individual decisions made freely unleash and unbind the individual from the impediments of an unwieldy, ponderous collective. Think of it this way -- a small knife does a much better job of opening the box your new 50 inch plasma TV came in than a chainsaw. Okay, not the best illustration, but it speaks to a better point. The individual, small as he or she may be, making individual decisions, is the basis for the monumental success of the American experiment, not some enormous, lumbering mass of a collective.
So if the insurance mandate is so vital to the general interest, it should follow that there are also some other instances in which a mandate would serve the general well being of the American people.
For example, perhaps it would serve the general interest to mandate that every American must buy a gun. It's a dangerous world out there. North Korea is ruled by a crazy man with nuclear weapons. Iran is ruled by some crazy clerics who want nuclear weapons. China is undoubtedly getting anxious to at some point get a return on their $7 trillion dollar loan to us. Is it that unreasonable to assume that, given the attacks of Pearl Harbor or September 11, there is not at least someone, somewhere in the world who has an axe to grind? Therefore, if every American citizen were armed, perhaps another terrorist attack could be thwarted and America would be safer. And what about domestic crime? Again, it’s a dangerous world. Perhaps if every American were mandated to own a gun to defend themselves, crime would be diminished. Perhaps if every American were required by law to own a gun it would provide for and promote the general welfare of the American people.
It's like those algebra problems that used to give me fits. If X equals Y, and Y equals Z, they X equals Z. If the federal government can mandate one thing, naturally it follows that they can mandate another, and then another, and then another. In the end, X equals American citizens as slaves to their government and a formerly representative republic now resembling a feudal fiefdom.
I kind of like the gun mandate idea. Good luck getting the Left to sign off on that one...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
