Well that didn't last long. I've got too much movie ADD and not enough inspiration to maintain a blog about movies. Especially since I've reviewed two in the last month, and watched: about 15-20. I'll never catch up, and it's just the beginning.
So after a 20 months, almost to the day, the Angry Dome will be sputtering to a close, replaced by an emptiness that can't be filled... unless of course, you visit my OTHER blog. There my movie-rich heritage will continue, but in a different light - and one that will be updated more frequently, and with more of a point.
This place had a great run, and here, on post 121, I pay tribute to the fallen comrade, The Angry Dome. He blazed out on all saddles, waged an insurgency against stupidity and douches for 19 months, before falling victim to the fact he'd realized he'd ran out of things to hate (the maximum apparently being about 110 individual hatreds). There were good ones along the way - remember that one about slitting wrists, or stupid teens, or that time I schooled those emo lunatics? Yeah, good times. Oh! And where I made fun of New Orleans and everyone hated me for it? Classic.
Well, I guess this is where the blog hits the execution squad - but this squad is lazy - instead of burying the body, they'll leave it to fester, to rot, to see how many people still visit, and use it as a shameless plug to the NEW, ACTUALLY INTERESTING blog!
And so, we say goodnight. RIP The Angry Dome: You inspired me to hate more than ever before, and was ultimately replaced with a newer model.
-Mark
Friday, September 01, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
Solid as a Brick
Brick, first of all, was a really low budget film made in 2005, but didn't really get any exposure until this summer. And it's a damn shame, too.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock from the Sun) stars in the film as a highschool "detective". He's a face most people would recognize but not know his name, which I think works really well for the film. His solid acting helps keep the film together, although the supporting cast doesn't really slouch either.
The film details a murder of his ex-girlfriend, which inevitably leads him to the underground world of cocaine (ie: Brick) which is ran through it seems like people that are either seniors in highschool or just graduated. Although that part of the plot seems kind of ridiculous (that 18 year olds could run that), it's really one of the very few flaws of the film, and it still fits.
The dialogue of Brick is sharp, as the film is pushed on by the script rather than the camera. The action is more cued by character's conversations instead of their movements, which I'm not always a big fan of, but it still works here. The only gaff I found was that all the characters, especially Pin and Brendan, talk really quick, so if you're not paying attention or space out for a few minutes (like I did at one point), you'll miss a swath of information and find yourself confused for awhile. This quick-talking is of course a homage to the film-noirs in American cinema from the late 40's and early 50's, where everyone spoke a billion miles an hour. In many ways, Brick is a throwback to those classic films, specifically in dialogue and action cues. And it still works.
The highschool setting seems a bit off-putting for a film-noir, but again, the plot demands it and it still works. The adult supervision (which is usually lacking in most films about teen-adventure) is actually THERE, but the fragile balance is maintained so what the characters do doesn't seem ridiculous.
One character that I absolutely found to be the most believeable was Tugger. Not only did he surprise me, but as the hothead bodyguard, his actions and what he said was completely justified in the film. He didn't step outside of his character, which can be found frequently in teen-films (and frankly, sucks).
The shots of the film were also well put together, which once again was a nice surprise for a low budget flick. Director Rian Johnson did a standup job balancing artistic shots with the standard, so every now and then, the audience with a keen eye get a treat. A few specifically stick out in my mind, one of a close up of Brendan's face on the right side of the screen as a car rushes by, and another of Tugger, Pin, and Brendan in a basement looking up at the cieling listening to noises. Both of those definitely convey a message during the action, which jump in place to the character's words (these specific shots have no dialogue). It's there where the audience can just get into the heads of the characters, and there's many shots like that.
All in all, one could never guess this film was made on a budget of only 500K. It grossed only 2 million (US) and about 600K (UK), but that's still a smash success for such a little film.
If you ever see this film around and are a fan of mysteries, I highly recommend Brick... but just don't space out. You'll probably need to watch it twice.
-Mark
Next: Hard Candy
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock from the Sun) stars in the film as a highschool "detective". He's a face most people would recognize but not know his name, which I think works really well for the film. His solid acting helps keep the film together, although the supporting cast doesn't really slouch either.
The film details a murder of his ex-girlfriend, which inevitably leads him to the underground world of cocaine (ie: Brick) which is ran through it seems like people that are either seniors in highschool or just graduated. Although that part of the plot seems kind of ridiculous (that 18 year olds could run that), it's really one of the very few flaws of the film, and it still fits.
The dialogue of Brick is sharp, as the film is pushed on by the script rather than the camera. The action is more cued by character's conversations instead of their movements, which I'm not always a big fan of, but it still works here. The only gaff I found was that all the characters, especially Pin and Brendan, talk really quick, so if you're not paying attention or space out for a few minutes (like I did at one point), you'll miss a swath of information and find yourself confused for awhile. This quick-talking is of course a homage to the film-noirs in American cinema from the late 40's and early 50's, where everyone spoke a billion miles an hour. In many ways, Brick is a throwback to those classic films, specifically in dialogue and action cues. And it still works.
The highschool setting seems a bit off-putting for a film-noir, but again, the plot demands it and it still works. The adult supervision (which is usually lacking in most films about teen-adventure) is actually THERE, but the fragile balance is maintained so what the characters do doesn't seem ridiculous.
One character that I absolutely found to be the most believeable was Tugger. Not only did he surprise me, but as the hothead bodyguard, his actions and what he said was completely justified in the film. He didn't step outside of his character, which can be found frequently in teen-films (and frankly, sucks).
The shots of the film were also well put together, which once again was a nice surprise for a low budget flick. Director Rian Johnson did a standup job balancing artistic shots with the standard, so every now and then, the audience with a keen eye get a treat. A few specifically stick out in my mind, one of a close up of Brendan's face on the right side of the screen as a car rushes by, and another of Tugger, Pin, and Brendan in a basement looking up at the cieling listening to noises. Both of those definitely convey a message during the action, which jump in place to the character's words (these specific shots have no dialogue). It's there where the audience can just get into the heads of the characters, and there's many shots like that.
All in all, one could never guess this film was made on a budget of only 500K. It grossed only 2 million (US) and about 600K (UK), but that's still a smash success for such a little film.
If you ever see this film around and are a fan of mysteries, I highly recommend Brick... but just don't space out. You'll probably need to watch it twice.
-Mark
Next: Hard Candy
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Sequel
So it's been a little while since I dropped in with actual content for the "new" site, but of course, I've watched movies like no tomorrow between those empty weeks. My life's been a roller coaster of monotomy, so pretty much it's been going in a straight line. But enough about my hilariously depressing life - onto the movies!
So today, I'll be discussing Pirates of the Caribbean : Dead Man's Chest. [Spoilers ahoy.]
First of all, this movie was highly advertised, so it's not like people haven't heard of it. With the whole "blockbuster" sequel they tried to tout, it had some big shoes to fill after Curse of the Black Pearl. And let me tell you, it fails to get even close.
It's produced by Disney to start, which typically ensures a hammed-up moral point that's "positive". And as usual, there are clear cut good and bad characters, with nobody really floating in the middle, save Jack Sparrow (this being established in the first movie, so it fits). Will Turner is the protypical male superhero, that's made to identify with the audience while inexplicably having ridiculous on-the-spot talents that are just convienent to the plot, yet never previously explained (ie: the quickness of him figuring out the dice game, and consequently playing well without any learning curve, against the best player). Elizabeth is actually pretty forgotten within the whole film, probably only covering 20-30 minutes of actual "development". She's seen at the beginning - forgotten for nearly 45 minutes, thrown into a relatively unexplained scene, forgotten again, and then put in the film another 45 minutes later. She never takes a dominating role in the film, which is a huge drawback considering she's the main female protagonist, and the one the female audience is supposed to identify with. But when in scenes with either Jack or Will, she doesn't ever take a dominant role, instead the attention being shifted to the males. I'm not exactly surprised by this, considering this is typical Disney to push the female into a supporting role. I can only think of a few - actually, one movie that doesn't do this (Mulan, which is flawed in its own ways).
Jack is clever and smarmy in his own way, but I completely didn't feel his character the way I did in the Curse of the Black Pearl. In the first film, he was clever and smarmy, and funny in a not stupid way. In Dead Man's Chest, he seems overdone. The one-liners aren't particularly funny, nor are his supposedly amusing actions. Instead the pickles he gets into are more caused by stupidity, and result in an even more unbelievable result. The fearlessness he seems to have in the first movie (yes I know he runs a lot, but it's more like a tease in the first, not in the second) is forgotten until some ridiculous concept of his galant bravery is crammed literally into the last 20 seconds he's on screen, when he's stepping into the mouth of the beast. Given the way he acts throughout the movie, it'd seem more likely and plausable that he'd sacrafice everyone else to save himself, not the other way around.
While the CG is impressive, particularly with Davy Jones' crew and the sea-monster, it's basically all the film has to offer. I enjoy the work done on the ship as it dives, and as it falls apart from the monster. But the plot itself can't support anything, and the CG can't carry the movie. The most aggrevating thing about the plot that I found was that it danced around, never really explaining half of what was supposed to be going on. While time is supposed to pass in the film, I never really get the impression of how much, especially since everything seems to happen within about the course of a month, when in context of the film, one could roughly expect 1-2 years to pass. With such a large disparity in contuinity, I easily found myself frustrated at the assumed logic the film took. Will's supposed to be on this ship, so they're discussing it - and in the next scene, he's a crewmember of said rival ship? And how in the hell would he come up with such ridiculous plans so quickly? There's one thing for cunning, but Will is more of an all-action guy, with a knack for logic - he can fight and he can catch onto people's intentions quickly, but nowhere does it seem to indicate he's one ot make plans properly - especially since from the first movie, he wasn't even a seaman, so it's natural to assume he'd only have a fringe knowledge of vessels and the intricaces of running it, even after a year.
The editing bothered me as well, but this goes into the timeline. However, the shameless hamming of a triology also bothered me, espeically considering this film was weak overall and pretty nonsensical. I don't care what they're doing in the third film, although I'm sure that it'll be just as stupid and ridiculously contrived as this adventure.
And two more things - the fight scenes dragged on way too long, particularly the spinning wheel one. Amusing? Yes, but it didn't deserve the 15 minutes of screen time it got. Second: Norrington. Wow, how could anyone make a main antagonist so underdeveloped? I had no real idea why he was hating Jack. As far as I was concerned, he was some goon the Imperials hired to get the heart of Davy Jones (because they want it why?).
All in all, the film's grotesque budget of 225 million dollars was in my eyes, a failure. It turns out all that money was spent on stars and CG, instead writing a solid script and getting a believable plot.
-Mark
Reviewing Brick next.
So today, I'll be discussing Pirates of the Caribbean : Dead Man's Chest. [Spoilers ahoy.]
First of all, this movie was highly advertised, so it's not like people haven't heard of it. With the whole "blockbuster" sequel they tried to tout, it had some big shoes to fill after Curse of the Black Pearl. And let me tell you, it fails to get even close.
It's produced by Disney to start, which typically ensures a hammed-up moral point that's "positive". And as usual, there are clear cut good and bad characters, with nobody really floating in the middle, save Jack Sparrow (this being established in the first movie, so it fits). Will Turner is the protypical male superhero, that's made to identify with the audience while inexplicably having ridiculous on-the-spot talents that are just convienent to the plot, yet never previously explained (ie: the quickness of him figuring out the dice game, and consequently playing well without any learning curve, against the best player). Elizabeth is actually pretty forgotten within the whole film, probably only covering 20-30 minutes of actual "development". She's seen at the beginning - forgotten for nearly 45 minutes, thrown into a relatively unexplained scene, forgotten again, and then put in the film another 45 minutes later. She never takes a dominating role in the film, which is a huge drawback considering she's the main female protagonist, and the one the female audience is supposed to identify with. But when in scenes with either Jack or Will, she doesn't ever take a dominant role, instead the attention being shifted to the males. I'm not exactly surprised by this, considering this is typical Disney to push the female into a supporting role. I can only think of a few - actually, one movie that doesn't do this (Mulan, which is flawed in its own ways).
Jack is clever and smarmy in his own way, but I completely didn't feel his character the way I did in the Curse of the Black Pearl. In the first film, he was clever and smarmy, and funny in a not stupid way. In Dead Man's Chest, he seems overdone. The one-liners aren't particularly funny, nor are his supposedly amusing actions. Instead the pickles he gets into are more caused by stupidity, and result in an even more unbelievable result. The fearlessness he seems to have in the first movie (yes I know he runs a lot, but it's more like a tease in the first, not in the second) is forgotten until some ridiculous concept of his galant bravery is crammed literally into the last 20 seconds he's on screen, when he's stepping into the mouth of the beast. Given the way he acts throughout the movie, it'd seem more likely and plausable that he'd sacrafice everyone else to save himself, not the other way around.
While the CG is impressive, particularly with Davy Jones' crew and the sea-monster, it's basically all the film has to offer. I enjoy the work done on the ship as it dives, and as it falls apart from the monster. But the plot itself can't support anything, and the CG can't carry the movie. The most aggrevating thing about the plot that I found was that it danced around, never really explaining half of what was supposed to be going on. While time is supposed to pass in the film, I never really get the impression of how much, especially since everything seems to happen within about the course of a month, when in context of the film, one could roughly expect 1-2 years to pass. With such a large disparity in contuinity, I easily found myself frustrated at the assumed logic the film took. Will's supposed to be on this ship, so they're discussing it - and in the next scene, he's a crewmember of said rival ship? And how in the hell would he come up with such ridiculous plans so quickly? There's one thing for cunning, but Will is more of an all-action guy, with a knack for logic - he can fight and he can catch onto people's intentions quickly, but nowhere does it seem to indicate he's one ot make plans properly - especially since from the first movie, he wasn't even a seaman, so it's natural to assume he'd only have a fringe knowledge of vessels and the intricaces of running it, even after a year.
The editing bothered me as well, but this goes into the timeline. However, the shameless hamming of a triology also bothered me, espeically considering this film was weak overall and pretty nonsensical. I don't care what they're doing in the third film, although I'm sure that it'll be just as stupid and ridiculously contrived as this adventure.
And two more things - the fight scenes dragged on way too long, particularly the spinning wheel one. Amusing? Yes, but it didn't deserve the 15 minutes of screen time it got. Second: Norrington. Wow, how could anyone make a main antagonist so underdeveloped? I had no real idea why he was hating Jack. As far as I was concerned, he was some goon the Imperials hired to get the heart of Davy Jones (because they want it why?).
All in all, the film's grotesque budget of 225 million dollars was in my eyes, a failure. It turns out all that money was spent on stars and CG, instead writing a solid script and getting a believable plot.
-Mark
Reviewing Brick next.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The Angry Dome takes a step into the well-known
Clearly, I have no idea about the kind of focus this blog should have, although a consistent theme of anger has been throughout. I've ranted on everything from my idiotic generation to how much "higher" education is bullshit to politics... to well, everything that ever slightly caused me a few moments to fester a rant in my mind, mostly on my walk home from University/work/wherever the hell I happened to be. But alas, it never found the niche I wanted... my one and a half year experiment lead me to nowhere I really wanted to be, blog-tastic wise. I mean sure, there were some good rants here and there, but for anyone that actually read my blog religiously (see: nobody), there was 4-to-1 disappointment to internet justice ratio of satisfaction.
So after this.. er.. 14? 13? 15? month whoring of senseless society hate, I must alas bid adios to this blog...
and say hello to the new one that will be taking it's place.
Yes, I'm not deleting this blog, nor editing anything I said; rather, just pretending that it was never there and stumbling blindly to my new horizon of theme-related ramblings on one of basically two things I know a shit-ton about: Films (The other being baseball, which isn't worth blogging about since I don't overanalyze that).
Yes, Films.
Allow me to explain. I'm a film major - not the kind that makes films (well, not specifically), but the jackass that analyzes them until he hates them - and sadly, reads way more into films then the average person. And now, the only conceivable use I can find for the 25 grand I'm throwing away for this pointless degree is to pass on my analytical expertise, for free, obviously, cause it's not like anyone would pay for that. Unless you're Ebert. And you're not.
Luckily for you, I watch an absolute ton of movies. I'm way more of a man for contemporary (see: "recent", post-my birthdate) cinema, and my personal collection spans 400+ movies, most from the last 3 years. I'll do my best to offer my opinions on every film I see, which will be in totally unrandom order, some probably long-since released.
I'm a big fan of psychological thrillers, movies such as anything made by M. Night and Christopher Nolan. Course, I'll watch anything, including would-be crappy romantic comedies. I'll watch anything. Seriously. Except porn. No, even porn. For educational purposes.. yes...
Most importantly, I also watch a ton of small, low-budget flicks that most people probably haven't heard of (Such as Brick, Cube Zero, etc).
I haven't decided how I'll rant about these movies yet, although I'm sure anger will come into play a lot. And rest assured, the bigger the budget, the bigger my expectations will be.
You're in good hands now, people.
Now do my a favour and forget everything I've ever posted before this.
-Mark
Oh, before I forget: Yes, I'll probably have spoilers. But you'll be well informed.
So after this.. er.. 14? 13? 15? month whoring of senseless society hate, I must alas bid adios to this blog...
and say hello to the new one that will be taking it's place.
Yes, I'm not deleting this blog, nor editing anything I said; rather, just pretending that it was never there and stumbling blindly to my new horizon of theme-related ramblings on one of basically two things I know a shit-ton about: Films (The other being baseball, which isn't worth blogging about since I don't overanalyze that).
Yes, Films.
Allow me to explain. I'm a film major - not the kind that makes films (well, not specifically), but the jackass that analyzes them until he hates them - and sadly, reads way more into films then the average person. And now, the only conceivable use I can find for the 25 grand I'm throwing away for this pointless degree is to pass on my analytical expertise, for free, obviously, cause it's not like anyone would pay for that. Unless you're Ebert. And you're not.
Luckily for you, I watch an absolute ton of movies. I'm way more of a man for contemporary (see: "recent", post-my birthdate) cinema, and my personal collection spans 400+ movies, most from the last 3 years. I'll do my best to offer my opinions on every film I see, which will be in totally unrandom order, some probably long-since released.
I'm a big fan of psychological thrillers, movies such as anything made by M. Night and Christopher Nolan. Course, I'll watch anything, including would-be crappy romantic comedies. I'll watch anything. Seriously. Except porn. No, even porn. For educational purposes.. yes...
Most importantly, I also watch a ton of small, low-budget flicks that most people probably haven't heard of (Such as Brick, Cube Zero, etc).
I haven't decided how I'll rant about these movies yet, although I'm sure anger will come into play a lot. And rest assured, the bigger the budget, the bigger my expectations will be.
You're in good hands now, people.
Now do my a favour and forget everything I've ever posted before this.
-Mark
Oh, before I forget: Yes, I'll probably have spoilers. But you'll be well informed.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Invasion of the body-slashers
So I haven't blogged in a bit.. y'know, it's just been off the hook with the booze, sex, and lying about booze and sex that I've been doing. No really, I haven't done shit.
Except observe and judge people.
And I saw a few days ago, a triumph of a trainwreck. Riding the bus home from work, some too-fat-to-fuck chick gets on - the bus is naturally too crowded for her to sit her fatass down, but what do I see on her forearms? If you guessed a tattoo, you're an idiot.
Friggin razor cuts. The bitch was a cutter.
It's obviously not one of those "I'm going to commit suicide things", cause even if you suck at slitting your wrists, slitting your wrists is a pretty foolproof way to end it all... course, she had them on her forearms.
This bullshit was for attention. I recall not too long ago, finding all about this fucking cliche of douchebaggery on the internet of people cutting themselves and showing it to other douches on myspace, LJ, etc (any kind of retarded "look at how pointless my life is!" site) and wearing this declaration of low IQ as some kind of badge of honour. What the fuck? What the fuck is up with stupid, stupid people thinking that the only way they'll be accepted is to maim themselves? If you want attention, rob a variety store and get arrested - don't fucking cut yourself, you morons. It's not cool to show other idiots that you like suicide, especially since you're too much of a bitch to actually go through with it.
Honestly... how did slitting your forearms EVER become popular?
Fucking people.
-Mark
Except observe and judge people.
And I saw a few days ago, a triumph of a trainwreck. Riding the bus home from work, some too-fat-to-fuck chick gets on - the bus is naturally too crowded for her to sit her fatass down, but what do I see on her forearms? If you guessed a tattoo, you're an idiot.
Friggin razor cuts. The bitch was a cutter.
It's obviously not one of those "I'm going to commit suicide things", cause even if you suck at slitting your wrists, slitting your wrists is a pretty foolproof way to end it all... course, she had them on her forearms.
This bullshit was for attention. I recall not too long ago, finding all about this fucking cliche of douchebaggery on the internet of people cutting themselves and showing it to other douches on myspace, LJ, etc (any kind of retarded "look at how pointless my life is!" site) and wearing this declaration of low IQ as some kind of badge of honour. What the fuck? What the fuck is up with stupid, stupid people thinking that the only way they'll be accepted is to maim themselves? If you want attention, rob a variety store and get arrested - don't fucking cut yourself, you morons. It's not cool to show other idiots that you like suicide, especially since you're too much of a bitch to actually go through with it.
Honestly... how did slitting your forearms EVER become popular?
Fucking people.
-Mark
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
It's the most student-exploitativetime of the year
I'm registering for my courses. Nothing fits, not even the ones I HAVE to take to graduate my ass out of this shit-hole.
Fuck Education.
-Mark
Fuck Education.
-Mark
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Politics 101: treat the audience as a bigger douche than you
I'll get back to the End of My Generation soon, just lacking the creative hojules to get a complicated blend of hate and psychic powers to write about it right nows.
But what I have noticed is, along with probably anyone with a quarter of a brain, is how Politicans talk down about their own people they represent. Bush is a prime (and far too easy) example of this, as he wrongly defines words he uses in the speeches he didn't write. For anyone that can cut through the bullshit of politics, which frankly is difficult even for a skeptic as strong as myself, to get to the actual point, I tip my hat to you.
But when campaigning (which is always, apparently), it's easy for a major party member (example: Layton in Canada) to round up a bunch of idiot supporters and tell them everything they already know. If you're running for a socialist party, it's not like you're going to go in front of a mass of supporters and say they're going to give corporate tax-cuts. And yet, they seem to underline the point that they won't, which creates a big-ass "he's perfect, looking out for us!" bullshit mentality. Harper did it in Canada, basically saying that "vote for us cause we're not fuckups like the Liberals", and it worked. Nobody seemed to notice that since being in office, Harper's increased the military combatants heading to Afghanistan, to actually REPLACE the troops Bush threw in there.
Is it just me, or are Canadians becoming just as retarded as the average "Bush is the best president evar" American voter? I mean, it's pretty clear most of Canada/the world not including the UK do NOT support the war in Iraq, or how the administration handled Afghanistan - and the approval ratings reflect this in the states as well - but yet, here's the Canadian government, taking a page out of "my god, I think he's onto something, with all that disapproval!" and fucking up our country just as much (or at least heading us that way).
There's so much American politics seeping into Canadian politics. Attack ads are a given; although they all lack creativity and offhand I just remember how shameful they were rather than effective. Then there's the closed-door mentality, where everything big happens quickly and without people catching wind... but when they do, well it's already too late.
I'm a firm believer in open government - these people were elected by us, so why the fuck should they keep anything secret from us? They don't even have a right to do it, in my opinion. Sure, there's a shit-ton that most Canadians and Americans wouldn't give two shits about reading - but there's a minority, like myself and a few others, that would actually care about the little shit that goes on.
The open government creates more pressure for the government to do what's best for the country, not just their party or personal interests. And the fear of having rising tension between different groups would make sure that everyone is included, not just from your country, but to the world (example: If you're gonna bomb the shit out of a country, then one would have to declare so to your people - thus making wars only out of absolute necessary, not pointless escapades.
But in an age where Politicans advertise that "I'm just like you!", they're treating you as though you're a bigger douche than they are. Think about Bush - his whole campaign was "I'm just like you" and it worked. Do you think you could run a country, you asshat? Do you really give a flying fuck about balancing a budget, improving the state of the country, solving poverty and diseases, keeping the infasctructure strong, and most importantly, looking out for the population of an entire country? Of course not, your major dilemma is what the fuck you're going to eat tonight - home cooked or take out, or if you're younger, why that bitch of an ex-girlfriend slept with your friend while you were still together. But you voted for Bush cause he's just like you. And you're getting what you voted for - a trainwreck of a leader.
Canada's not innocent of this either - the only advantage we have is that it's a minority government and a different electorial process (vote in ridings for a specific person, not vote for one person in all the country). Harper can't just fuck off and do whatever he wants cause his opposition can shut him down.
But the states? Yeah, you're fucked.
-Mark
But what I have noticed is, along with probably anyone with a quarter of a brain, is how Politicans talk down about their own people they represent. Bush is a prime (and far too easy) example of this, as he wrongly defines words he uses in the speeches he didn't write. For anyone that can cut through the bullshit of politics, which frankly is difficult even for a skeptic as strong as myself, to get to the actual point, I tip my hat to you.
But when campaigning (which is always, apparently), it's easy for a major party member (example: Layton in Canada) to round up a bunch of idiot supporters and tell them everything they already know. If you're running for a socialist party, it's not like you're going to go in front of a mass of supporters and say they're going to give corporate tax-cuts. And yet, they seem to underline the point that they won't, which creates a big-ass "he's perfect, looking out for us!" bullshit mentality. Harper did it in Canada, basically saying that "vote for us cause we're not fuckups like the Liberals", and it worked. Nobody seemed to notice that since being in office, Harper's increased the military combatants heading to Afghanistan, to actually REPLACE the troops Bush threw in there.
Is it just me, or are Canadians becoming just as retarded as the average "Bush is the best president evar" American voter? I mean, it's pretty clear most of Canada/the world not including the UK do NOT support the war in Iraq, or how the administration handled Afghanistan - and the approval ratings reflect this in the states as well - but yet, here's the Canadian government, taking a page out of "my god, I think he's onto something, with all that disapproval!" and fucking up our country just as much (or at least heading us that way).
There's so much American politics seeping into Canadian politics. Attack ads are a given; although they all lack creativity and offhand I just remember how shameful they were rather than effective. Then there's the closed-door mentality, where everything big happens quickly and without people catching wind... but when they do, well it's already too late.
I'm a firm believer in open government - these people were elected by us, so why the fuck should they keep anything secret from us? They don't even have a right to do it, in my opinion. Sure, there's a shit-ton that most Canadians and Americans wouldn't give two shits about reading - but there's a minority, like myself and a few others, that would actually care about the little shit that goes on.
The open government creates more pressure for the government to do what's best for the country, not just their party or personal interests. And the fear of having rising tension between different groups would make sure that everyone is included, not just from your country, but to the world (example: If you're gonna bomb the shit out of a country, then one would have to declare so to your people - thus making wars only out of absolute necessary, not pointless escapades.
But in an age where Politicans advertise that "I'm just like you!", they're treating you as though you're a bigger douche than they are. Think about Bush - his whole campaign was "I'm just like you" and it worked. Do you think you could run a country, you asshat? Do you really give a flying fuck about balancing a budget, improving the state of the country, solving poverty and diseases, keeping the infasctructure strong, and most importantly, looking out for the population of an entire country? Of course not, your major dilemma is what the fuck you're going to eat tonight - home cooked or take out, or if you're younger, why that bitch of an ex-girlfriend slept with your friend while you were still together. But you voted for Bush cause he's just like you. And you're getting what you voted for - a trainwreck of a leader.
Canada's not innocent of this either - the only advantage we have is that it's a minority government and a different electorial process (vote in ridings for a specific person, not vote for one person in all the country). Harper can't just fuck off and do whatever he wants cause his opposition can shut him down.
But the states? Yeah, you're fucked.
-Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)