A Quick Note on Oscar Articles

           So the Oscar ceremony has not even started, but the Internet was already buzzing with the headlines like, "ridiculously beautiful couples," "worst dressed celebrities", "embarrassing moments at Oscars" etc. Because the reporters did not have anything to say about this year's event - it has not started yet - they dug into the previous years' news. And you know what? Not a single article seemed to say anything nice about anybody. Even seemingly flattering articles were full of "undercover" poison: the winner's speech was bad, or the actress' dress was sheer... 

            Why is it the reporters sound so... bitter? Do they think that, if they actually say something nice about the actors, or do some real research into their career, we, the audience, will not read them? Do they seriously believe that we are going to pay attention only to gossip? or is it an illustration of a famous saying, "Every time a friend succeeds, I die a little"? Is it envy?

Critical Thinking Class

Last week I started a class at Hancock College - English 103, Critical Thinking. Pretty intense - in terms of schedule, assignments, and pace. Critical thinking wise - not sure yet. First topic for the paper - pornography: should it be censored? Two opinions on the topic: yes/no. "Yes" states that pornography is dirty and disgusting and portrays women unfavorably (only women? what about gay porn? in my mind, "Brokeback Mountain" was waay close to gay porn - and it was in the movie theaters and aired on TV and is now on DVD).... For all these reasons, it should be censored or at least put out of sight. "No" - pornography is protected by the Freedom of Speech Amendment and therefore should not be censored. There. The end.
I appreciate the passion the two authors have for the subject, I just do not share it. My life does not revolve around pornography, I do not see it on a regular basis, and to me it is neither "offensive" nor "diminishing." In my world, these two terms are reserved for commercials. It drives me off the wall when some desperate organization/company/person gets in my line of vision - either on TV, Internet or in person - and tries to convince me that I need something that I do not, sell me something I wish to spend no money on, and generally wastes my time. "Cheerful" commercials about childhood, "comfortable" ones about feminine hygiene, "tragic" - about children abroad that apparently will die of starvation, thirst or lack of education if I do not get involved. Annoying phrase at a local VONS proclaims "Support Breast Cancer" (in a hurry they forgot to add the word "research", so it actually sounds like I am asked to support the disease). All this virtual poking, prodding and bugging makes me feel like a piece of meat on the market. Often I look at my TV and ask myself, " How dare they? Do they really think I am SO gullible that I would consider donating to the cause of sending video games to Third World countries? Or spend money on hygiene napkins for girls in Africa?" This attitude of the companies towards me, the viewer, as if I were a mindless vessel to be filled with junk, bothered me. But what to do? The answer came quickly: get rid of cable.
So, we have been cable-free for over a year now. No video persuasions, and no bill to pay for it every month. I like that. But if someone brings over a porn movie - I might watch it. As long as no one tries to persuade me that I need to buy something.

Californication

For the past two nights I have been watching "Californication." I have heard a lot of nasty stuff about it - "Lolita" story based out of Los Angeles, a crazed sex addict running around sleeping with everything, etc. So, when I sat down to watch the pilot, I was expecting very little - but, I was pleasantly surprised. Hank Moody - the main character - is a writer who moved from New York and is trying to "find himself," for the lack of a better term, in Los Angeles. He is dealing with personal situations, financial problems, moral dilemmas, and he looks honestly lost in the sea of all the events. Yet, when compared him to other "well - adjusted" characters in the show, he seems... less fucked up, if that's the phrase. He has not lost his sense of right and wrong; his "indulgence" in sex comes from the need to fulfill something he has lost - a sense and feeling of love, of a true connection. Once he finds that again, or, rather, once he knows what he wants, he gets away from his "sexual exploits" and reflects. That's one thing about him I like - he is capable of thinking and is searching for an intellectual connection, not just for a cheap thrill. And the Lolita character who the whole buzz was about - (oh, no, he slept with underage girl) - in the story is nothing by a thief and a sociopath. Of course, on the surface she is a "perfectly well adjusted young lady," while Hank is a crazy "sex bulldog." But, it's an insane world the characters of "Californication" live in.
I forgot to go to sleep that night, watching one episode after another. Can't wait for the new season!