Anyone who doubted the destructive power of belligerent townsfolk or Corona beer need only look to the riots at the Vets Hall over the weekend to realize that neither is a force to be trifled with. For those that missed it, veteran Spanish-language rock group El Tri missed a Watsonville gig Sunday night after being caught in a blizzard on Donner Pass between Reno and Sacramento. In true rock promoter fashion, organizers did not tell some 700 attendees that there might be a problem until the place was packed and all of the openers had played, which caused an indeterminate number of rockers to, as they say, bust the place up. Amps were trashed, windows were smashed, bricks were heaved and, in a display of impotent rage that gives me the giggles even now, a group of guys tried but failed to turn over a parked truck, then tried but failed to set it on fire. (Note to self: If you're planning on sticking it to The Man, don't skip workouts.)
This might sound stupid to some of you in the over-40 set, but let me say this: Altamont. And for the younger readers: Woodstock 1999. Both of those shows led to death, destruction and rape based on the same principles that sent the El Tri show off the rails: A beer-guzzling meathead is a beer-guzzling meathead in any language. I know from personal experience on both sides of the security line that there are always guys at rock shows who are there to get loaded and hurt people, not to have fun. They're trouble as soon as they come through the door and letting them stand around drinking for three hours before telling them they bought $60 tickets for no reason is a bad move. I've hated these romper-stomper types since I started going to shows in high school and would love to see every single one of them put on trial, but you've got to wonder about a security team that was this ludicrously unprepared for an issue that has emerged, in one form or another, at nearly every concert since "Porgy and Bess" was touring.
If you're both a fan of El Tri and a frequent reader of this column (and I'm sure the crossover there is just enormous), I regret to inform you that you're having a lousy week: March 8 will be my last day with the Register-Pajaronian. Over the past decade or so, newspapering, as Herb Caen would have called it, has become a business where a young reporter must always strive to go where the action is rather than wait for the action to appear in his own coverage area, and so I'll be moving on after almost two years at the R-P. I've been assured by a variety of journalists I respect that I'm making a smart career move. But damn, am I ever going to miss the beach.
I'm still negotiating with the powers that be about the fate of Forced Perspective. I'd love to keep writing as long as somebody's reading, but there's a reasonable doubt that leaving the area might make me irrelevant to the average Watsonvillian. If you'd like to see the column continue, or if you'd like to remind me that you never thought I was funny anyway and are glad to see the back of me, by all means shoot me an e-mail. Better yet, hit up my boss, Jon Chown, at 761-7327 or jchown@register-pajaronian.com. It looks like this might come down to a popularity contest, so whatever you decide, vote early and often.
•••
With my big black boots and an old suitcase, I do believe I'll find mfarley@register-pajaronian.com a new place. I don't want to be the bad guy. I don't want to do your sleepwalk dance anymore. I just want to see some palm trees. Go and try and shake away this disease. We can live beside the ocean and leave the fire behind. Swim out past the breakers and watch the world die.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
UC Santa Cruz grad up for major independent film award
(From the Register-Pajaronian)
Over the last half-decade, University of California, Santa Cruz, graduates Aaron Platt and Cam Archer have worked together on just about everything. Platt, a movie photographer, and Archer, a writer/director, were each pursuing their own avenues to Hollywood when they met at school and began working together. The filmmakers, both 24, have produced a variety of short films and music videos since 2003, several of which have been shown at the Sundance Film Festival.
Though the films garnered some good reviews after the Sundance screenings, fame was hardly beating down the door, Platt said. Still, the men were more interested in doing work they enjoyed than striking it rich, so they began work on the decidedly odd “Wild Tigers I Have Known.”
The surreal “Tigers” follows 13-year-old Logan, a shy middle-schooler who realizes he has a crush on Rodeo Walker — the coolest kid in class. To win Rodeo’s attentions, Logan develops a new persona, named Leah, who manages to seduce Rodeo into a secret rendezvous. But when the time comes for them to meet, Logan has to deal with his problems and desires as himself.
Platt said he was as surprised as anyone when he found out a few weeks ago that his work on “Tigers” had been nominated for a Film Independent Spirit Award, one of the top honors in independent cinema. “Tigers” joins such films as “Half Nelson” and “Little Miss Sunshine” in the competition, and Platt will face off against the artists behind “Four Eyed Monsters” and “Pan’s Labyrinth.” The awards ceremony will be held Saturday.
•••
Register-Pajaronian: Is “Tigers” your best work so far?
Aaron Platt: I think the film is definitely one of the strongest visual pieces of work I have done since I started shooting movies. What I respond to with Cam’s movies is how much freedom he lets the camera have with the subject. We starting working together a couple years before, and one of the best things about our collaborations is how we try to really push the visuals to tell the stories. Cam’s dialogue is also very poetic and subtle, but we really use the camera in a creative way that I enjoy. I think it keeps the audience guessing where things are going — waiting to see what’s around the next corner.
R-P: Can you tell me a little about your relationship with Cam Archer? Do you guys have a process that you always follow when you work together, or is it different every time? How does UCSC figure in?
AP: UCSC works into the story because that’s how Cam and I met. We met in a photography class briefly at first, and I think we sort of had this unspoken artistic attitude and drive toward things around us. It was like an anxious anticipation to create something new in a very liberal and relaxed environment. We eventually found ourselves, by chance, in a film class together and it was like, “Oh, you do movies too?” We were shortly shooting our first film together a few weeks later for a class project. It all stemmed out of a mutual drive to create art — and not wait for someone to show us how to do it, either. I think we both knew that if we worked together, we would be stronger as a team than to move through film school as only individuals. I kind of came from the technical visual side of things, and Cam came from a writing background that clearly stood out when I saw (the) first film he shot himself.
R-P: You’re in some pretty distinguished company with the Spirit Award nomination. Were you surprised to be nominated, or was it something you knew you were building up to?
AP: Getting nominated came to me like winning the lottery without even buying a ticket. I got a phone call from (Cam) the morning the nominations were announced. I don’t know how he managed to find out so quick, but I can tell you I was still sleeping when the phone rang and it took a good while before it registered. I have never been recognized for “best cinematography” in any festival and have been shooting movies for years, so to get recognized at what many would consider one of the highest honors (in the business) was a real nice compliment and felt like a lot of hard work was paying off. I think my chances are a little slim, though, to be honest. I am very proud of the film “Wild Tigers,” but we are talking about movies shot for $20 million. Let’s face it, money can have an influence on the ways movies are photographed.
R-P: You seem to use a lot of shots of girls with old cameras, people in masks and “Graduate” -esque underwater angles. What does it all mean? I guess I’m asking: Do the recurring themes carry specific messages, or are they simply powerful images you like to use?
AP: I don’t how to really describe the shots that I get in the movies I shoot. They definitely have a “dreamlike” quality to them I’d say. I’m trying to make an image that says something poetic and captures a feeling that means something to the audience. Isn’t that why we all take pictures? To capture a moment that means something to the viewer?
R-P: The video for Mainstay’s song “This Could Be” screams California. Was it shot around Santa Cruz? What are some of the best and worst places you’ve worked, and can horrible conditions wind up yielding good shots?
AP: That music video was shot actually on the outskirts of Los Angeles. It’s very difficult to get different looks out of L.A., and when a project calls for a non-urban environment, you can either go west to the beach, north to the fields and hills, east to the desert, or occasionally find these small pockets that feel neutral and non-specific. It is a very California look, with the sunshine and golden fields in that video. I’d say the worst locations are the small ones with white walls. When you are supposed to create dramatic moods and interesting compositions in a 10- by 10-foot, white-walled apartment, it can be very difficult. I feel there is sometimes an expectation when you’re shooting for new directors to create great shots with just a camera and a room, and sometimes people don’t realize that a great photo comes from a great location, art decor, costume and interesting subject. It’s easy to forget that so much goes into getting good images.
R-P: Your horror movie “The Lodge” looks really interesting. A lot of your stuff seems to have a similar creepiness to it, but you’ve also got pretty upbeat stuff like the music videos you did for Waking Ashland. Do you prefer one mood to the other?
AP: I’m sort of at this point of discovery where I am trying to get experience working with all genres and forms of cinematography. “The Lodge” was my first horror feature and so it drew me in just by the nature of having a sense of darkness to it, probably the same thing that drew me into Cam’s writing style. I’m definitely more intrigued by the stories that are true to life. Not to say “The Lodge” is a real story based on actual experiences or anything. I just don’t think people live these fantasies with the upper-class couple falling in love in a coffee shop and getting married to be “happy ever after.” I’m more interested in seeing what happens with that couple when things are at their low point, and the real challenges of human nature begin to manifest.
•••
The Film Independent 2007 Spirit Awards ceremony will air live at 2 p.m. Saturday on the Independent Film Channel. It will also show on American Movie Channel at 10 p.m. For more information on Aaron Platt and to view his work, visit www.aaronplatt.com.
Over the last half-decade, University of California, Santa Cruz, graduates Aaron Platt and Cam Archer have worked together on just about everything. Platt, a movie photographer, and Archer, a writer/director, were each pursuing their own avenues to Hollywood when they met at school and began working together. The filmmakers, both 24, have produced a variety of short films and music videos since 2003, several of which have been shown at the Sundance Film Festival.
Though the films garnered some good reviews after the Sundance screenings, fame was hardly beating down the door, Platt said. Still, the men were more interested in doing work they enjoyed than striking it rich, so they began work on the decidedly odd “Wild Tigers I Have Known.”
The surreal “Tigers” follows 13-year-old Logan, a shy middle-schooler who realizes he has a crush on Rodeo Walker — the coolest kid in class. To win Rodeo’s attentions, Logan develops a new persona, named Leah, who manages to seduce Rodeo into a secret rendezvous. But when the time comes for them to meet, Logan has to deal with his problems and desires as himself.
Platt said he was as surprised as anyone when he found out a few weeks ago that his work on “Tigers” had been nominated for a Film Independent Spirit Award, one of the top honors in independent cinema. “Tigers” joins such films as “Half Nelson” and “Little Miss Sunshine” in the competition, and Platt will face off against the artists behind “Four Eyed Monsters” and “Pan’s Labyrinth.” The awards ceremony will be held Saturday.
•••
Register-Pajaronian: Is “Tigers” your best work so far?
Aaron Platt: I think the film is definitely one of the strongest visual pieces of work I have done since I started shooting movies. What I respond to with Cam’s movies is how much freedom he lets the camera have with the subject. We starting working together a couple years before, and one of the best things about our collaborations is how we try to really push the visuals to tell the stories. Cam’s dialogue is also very poetic and subtle, but we really use the camera in a creative way that I enjoy. I think it keeps the audience guessing where things are going — waiting to see what’s around the next corner.
R-P: Can you tell me a little about your relationship with Cam Archer? Do you guys have a process that you always follow when you work together, or is it different every time? How does UCSC figure in?
AP: UCSC works into the story because that’s how Cam and I met. We met in a photography class briefly at first, and I think we sort of had this unspoken artistic attitude and drive toward things around us. It was like an anxious anticipation to create something new in a very liberal and relaxed environment. We eventually found ourselves, by chance, in a film class together and it was like, “Oh, you do movies too?” We were shortly shooting our first film together a few weeks later for a class project. It all stemmed out of a mutual drive to create art — and not wait for someone to show us how to do it, either. I think we both knew that if we worked together, we would be stronger as a team than to move through film school as only individuals. I kind of came from the technical visual side of things, and Cam came from a writing background that clearly stood out when I saw (the) first film he shot himself.
R-P: You’re in some pretty distinguished company with the Spirit Award nomination. Were you surprised to be nominated, or was it something you knew you were building up to?
AP: Getting nominated came to me like winning the lottery without even buying a ticket. I got a phone call from (Cam) the morning the nominations were announced. I don’t know how he managed to find out so quick, but I can tell you I was still sleeping when the phone rang and it took a good while before it registered. I have never been recognized for “best cinematography” in any festival and have been shooting movies for years, so to get recognized at what many would consider one of the highest honors (in the business) was a real nice compliment and felt like a lot of hard work was paying off. I think my chances are a little slim, though, to be honest. I am very proud of the film “Wild Tigers,” but we are talking about movies shot for $20 million. Let’s face it, money can have an influence on the ways movies are photographed.
R-P: You seem to use a lot of shots of girls with old cameras, people in masks and “Graduate” -esque underwater angles. What does it all mean? I guess I’m asking: Do the recurring themes carry specific messages, or are they simply powerful images you like to use?
AP: I don’t how to really describe the shots that I get in the movies I shoot. They definitely have a “dreamlike” quality to them I’d say. I’m trying to make an image that says something poetic and captures a feeling that means something to the audience. Isn’t that why we all take pictures? To capture a moment that means something to the viewer?
R-P: The video for Mainstay’s song “This Could Be” screams California. Was it shot around Santa Cruz? What are some of the best and worst places you’ve worked, and can horrible conditions wind up yielding good shots?
AP: That music video was shot actually on the outskirts of Los Angeles. It’s very difficult to get different looks out of L.A., and when a project calls for a non-urban environment, you can either go west to the beach, north to the fields and hills, east to the desert, or occasionally find these small pockets that feel neutral and non-specific. It is a very California look, with the sunshine and golden fields in that video. I’d say the worst locations are the small ones with white walls. When you are supposed to create dramatic moods and interesting compositions in a 10- by 10-foot, white-walled apartment, it can be very difficult. I feel there is sometimes an expectation when you’re shooting for new directors to create great shots with just a camera and a room, and sometimes people don’t realize that a great photo comes from a great location, art decor, costume and interesting subject. It’s easy to forget that so much goes into getting good images.
R-P: Your horror movie “The Lodge” looks really interesting. A lot of your stuff seems to have a similar creepiness to it, but you’ve also got pretty upbeat stuff like the music videos you did for Waking Ashland. Do you prefer one mood to the other?
AP: I’m sort of at this point of discovery where I am trying to get experience working with all genres and forms of cinematography. “The Lodge” was my first horror feature and so it drew me in just by the nature of having a sense of darkness to it, probably the same thing that drew me into Cam’s writing style. I’m definitely more intrigued by the stories that are true to life. Not to say “The Lodge” is a real story based on actual experiences or anything. I just don’t think people live these fantasies with the upper-class couple falling in love in a coffee shop and getting married to be “happy ever after.” I’m more interested in seeing what happens with that couple when things are at their low point, and the real challenges of human nature begin to manifest.
•••
The Film Independent 2007 Spirit Awards ceremony will air live at 2 p.m. Saturday on the Independent Film Channel. It will also show on American Movie Channel at 10 p.m. For more information on Aaron Platt and to view his work, visit www.aaronplatt.com.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
We'll always have Paris to blame
Prominent entertainment figures including 50 Cent, Paris Hilton and Ariel the mermaid were implicated Monday in a decades-long conspiracy to erode the sexual health of the nation's women, according to a report released by the American Psychological Association.
The study, conducted by the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (which, contrary to what it might sound like, is not a fraternity club), contends that media and society often present unrealistic, unhealthy images of women. While you're wrapping your mind around that bombshell, be sure to power down all your electronic devices and gather your daughters around a nice, gender-neutral newspaper column.
Led by UCSC associate professor Eileen Zurbriggen, the report says a lot that has been said before, but was probably worth repeating. Using everything from rap lyrics to parent influence, the task force argues that culture at large bombards females with sexual messages that often lead to reduced self-esteem, poor physical health and overall lower quality of life. What's new in the report is that the APA contends that the beauty blitzkrieg begins not in adolescence, but pretty much at birth.
As a guy, it's tough to even discuss studies like this without sounding like a total jerk. I like where the study (available at www.apa.org) is coming from. Certainly, there are many sectors of society where being female is a disadvantage, and you'll never hear me say that young women in America don't have a windy path to walk — one that detours through a surprising number of shoe stores, but still.
I have a problem, though, with the way the report's authors see nefarious macho intentions around every turn, even in female-oriented media. I'm usually the first one in line to bash magazines such as Cosmopolitan and Vogue, which are responsible for more pointless male-female drama than Meg Ryan and Hugh Grant combined, but do they exist solely "to remake the reader as an object of male desire," as Zurbriggen and company say? I wish. Most of the articles I've read were more about impressing other women.
Elsewhere, the study cites characters in the children's films "Shrek 2," "Ella Enchanted," "Pocahontas" and "The Little Mermaid" as "hav(ing) more cleavage, fewer clothes and (being) depicted as 'sexier' than those of yesteryear." Now, not that I was looking, but didn't the male lead in "Pocahontas" spend a good portion of the film shirtless and waist-deep in cold mountain streams? And wasn't the prince in "The Little Mermaid" a big, handsome serial dater with his own castle?
What do you women think these vicious stereotypes of male perfection do to my emotional development? When I see Justin Timberlake dance, it makes me insecure about my own dancing. When I hear about Donald Trump making millions of dollars in a day when I made less than a hundred, I start to compare myself to him, which makes me worry that I might not be rich enough. The only difference between me and Zurbriggen's subjects is that societal pressures won't allow me to binge on ice cream when I'm upset. I have to go drink and get into fights.
I am sick of this covert discrimination against the male gender. I'm a person, too, dammit, and I deserve a redundant sociology study of my own! Where are the reports lambasting the exploitive corporations who would have me spend all day buying nice clothes and eating tasteless food and doing sit-ups and otherwise improving the hand God dealt me? Someone's got to be held responsible for my imperfections, and it sure as hell isn't going to be me.
No matter how you explain it or which implications you attach to it, the truth is that it is better to be pretty than not. Beauty is not a reflection of inner worth, but it has recognized advantages, especially if you are female, and people have been chasing those advantages for a long time. Do jackass guys play a major role in the problems women face? Probably. But it does everybody a disservice to pretend that Jackass Road runs only one way.
•••
She takes a bus over to the north side of the city. She goes to work stripping for the rich white men. All the words mfarley@register-pajaronian.com gives her make her feel so soft and pretty. She wears them but they never really seem to fit.
The study, conducted by the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (which, contrary to what it might sound like, is not a fraternity club), contends that media and society often present unrealistic, unhealthy images of women. While you're wrapping your mind around that bombshell, be sure to power down all your electronic devices and gather your daughters around a nice, gender-neutral newspaper column.
Led by UCSC associate professor Eileen Zurbriggen, the report says a lot that has been said before, but was probably worth repeating. Using everything from rap lyrics to parent influence, the task force argues that culture at large bombards females with sexual messages that often lead to reduced self-esteem, poor physical health and overall lower quality of life. What's new in the report is that the APA contends that the beauty blitzkrieg begins not in adolescence, but pretty much at birth.
As a guy, it's tough to even discuss studies like this without sounding like a total jerk. I like where the study (available at www.apa.org) is coming from. Certainly, there are many sectors of society where being female is a disadvantage, and you'll never hear me say that young women in America don't have a windy path to walk — one that detours through a surprising number of shoe stores, but still.
I have a problem, though, with the way the report's authors see nefarious macho intentions around every turn, even in female-oriented media. I'm usually the first one in line to bash magazines such as Cosmopolitan and Vogue, which are responsible for more pointless male-female drama than Meg Ryan and Hugh Grant combined, but do they exist solely "to remake the reader as an object of male desire," as Zurbriggen and company say? I wish. Most of the articles I've read were more about impressing other women.
Elsewhere, the study cites characters in the children's films "Shrek 2," "Ella Enchanted," "Pocahontas" and "The Little Mermaid" as "hav(ing) more cleavage, fewer clothes and (being) depicted as 'sexier' than those of yesteryear." Now, not that I was looking, but didn't the male lead in "Pocahontas" spend a good portion of the film shirtless and waist-deep in cold mountain streams? And wasn't the prince in "The Little Mermaid" a big, handsome serial dater with his own castle?
What do you women think these vicious stereotypes of male perfection do to my emotional development? When I see Justin Timberlake dance, it makes me insecure about my own dancing. When I hear about Donald Trump making millions of dollars in a day when I made less than a hundred, I start to compare myself to him, which makes me worry that I might not be rich enough. The only difference between me and Zurbriggen's subjects is that societal pressures won't allow me to binge on ice cream when I'm upset. I have to go drink and get into fights.
I am sick of this covert discrimination against the male gender. I'm a person, too, dammit, and I deserve a redundant sociology study of my own! Where are the reports lambasting the exploitive corporations who would have me spend all day buying nice clothes and eating tasteless food and doing sit-ups and otherwise improving the hand God dealt me? Someone's got to be held responsible for my imperfections, and it sure as hell isn't going to be me.
No matter how you explain it or which implications you attach to it, the truth is that it is better to be pretty than not. Beauty is not a reflection of inner worth, but it has recognized advantages, especially if you are female, and people have been chasing those advantages for a long time. Do jackass guys play a major role in the problems women face? Probably. But it does everybody a disservice to pretend that Jackass Road runs only one way.
•••
She takes a bus over to the north side of the city. She goes to work stripping for the rich white men. All the words mfarley@register-pajaronian.com gives her make her feel so soft and pretty. She wears them but they never really seem to fit.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Live! For one night only
Some of my co-workers took this to mean that I was either a) quitting or b) depressed. No worries, I'm fine and sticking around for now. It was just one of those weeks.
The main motivation in most people's lives is leaving. They want to leave town, leave their job for a better one, or leave their circumstances. Sometimes they're afraid someone will make them leave something they're not ready to. We refer to this as firing, dumping or eviction. Those are all big time motivators.
Sometimes people leave. Actually, that's not entirely accurate. Someone is always leaving, and everyone leaves sometime, and you pretty much just hope like hell that the people you like best leave after you do, except when they're not supposed to. The hard part is figuring out when that's the case. Working out and accepting the fact someone probably ought to leave is a big part of life.
Often people know that time has run out for them in a given endeavor, whether that endeavor is college, politics, marriage, or breathing. There's a demeanor that accompanies the realization, and it can be awful to see someone develop it — people are naturally freaked out to see things end because they start wondering what (or who) might be next.
Leaving usually sucks at first. Sometimes it sucks forever. Given a choice, most folks won't leave anything until it's too late. It's so easy get greedy and cling to what you have. That's why people have entire careers in fields they hate, why kids hang out with "friends" they no longer like, why couples forgive each other beyond all reason and try to resurrect feelings that belong six feet deep. Most people I know can name specific situations where they would have saved themselves a world of hurt if they'd known when to eject rather than ride a flaming wreck straight into the ground. Some of us may be smelling smoke even as we speak. It doesn't matter; anything seems better than sailing out into space and finding nothing there.
Still, there's a big difference between reaching the natural end of something and simply packing it in when things get rough. There's not much honor in giving up, but you can respect a self-aware person who has the guts to say, "Well, we gave it a shot, but this thing just isn't working out." Scary as it can be, leaving is often a positive thing, because in order to leave, you have to go somewhere else. And who knows, it might be nice there.
For most people, the struggle is between wanting everything to change and wanting everything to stay the same. I'm willing to bet that even the most adventurous, confident folks on the planet occasionally consider hunkering down and playing it safe for a while, because, hey, things are actually pretty nice today, and who wants to screw it up? Then they realize that standing still only means the gods know exactly where to find you when it's time to hand out some pain. But no matter how hard they try to keep moving, nobody is a true emotional nomad. We're not made that way.
Everyone's the ringmaster of their own circus. But while you have a frightening amount of control over how long the fire-eater's act runs or how high the trapeze swings, the curtain can fall on any or all of your performers with no notice. The clowns might get sick and the crowd may riot. The bicycle-riding bear may escape from his cage and ruin the whole second act and you may never for the rest of your life figure out how the hell it happened. The details don't matter. The important thing is that you put on the best show you can, muster all your courage to take a bow at the appropriate time and always leave them wanting more.
•••
Here's the thing. Relationships are like people, I guess. They begin, they have adventures, they grow old and they die. Me and Mo both made it to old age, but we let our friendship die way too young. And that was really stupid of us. Mo thought I was good at saying deep things. But I'm not. Mfarley@register-pajaronian.com, say somethin' deep.
The main motivation in most people's lives is leaving. They want to leave town, leave their job for a better one, or leave their circumstances. Sometimes they're afraid someone will make them leave something they're not ready to. We refer to this as firing, dumping or eviction. Those are all big time motivators.
Sometimes people leave. Actually, that's not entirely accurate. Someone is always leaving, and everyone leaves sometime, and you pretty much just hope like hell that the people you like best leave after you do, except when they're not supposed to. The hard part is figuring out when that's the case. Working out and accepting the fact someone probably ought to leave is a big part of life.
Often people know that time has run out for them in a given endeavor, whether that endeavor is college, politics, marriage, or breathing. There's a demeanor that accompanies the realization, and it can be awful to see someone develop it — people are naturally freaked out to see things end because they start wondering what (or who) might be next.
Leaving usually sucks at first. Sometimes it sucks forever. Given a choice, most folks won't leave anything until it's too late. It's so easy get greedy and cling to what you have. That's why people have entire careers in fields they hate, why kids hang out with "friends" they no longer like, why couples forgive each other beyond all reason and try to resurrect feelings that belong six feet deep. Most people I know can name specific situations where they would have saved themselves a world of hurt if they'd known when to eject rather than ride a flaming wreck straight into the ground. Some of us may be smelling smoke even as we speak. It doesn't matter; anything seems better than sailing out into space and finding nothing there.
Still, there's a big difference between reaching the natural end of something and simply packing it in when things get rough. There's not much honor in giving up, but you can respect a self-aware person who has the guts to say, "Well, we gave it a shot, but this thing just isn't working out." Scary as it can be, leaving is often a positive thing, because in order to leave, you have to go somewhere else. And who knows, it might be nice there.
For most people, the struggle is between wanting everything to change and wanting everything to stay the same. I'm willing to bet that even the most adventurous, confident folks on the planet occasionally consider hunkering down and playing it safe for a while, because, hey, things are actually pretty nice today, and who wants to screw it up? Then they realize that standing still only means the gods know exactly where to find you when it's time to hand out some pain. But no matter how hard they try to keep moving, nobody is a true emotional nomad. We're not made that way.
Everyone's the ringmaster of their own circus. But while you have a frightening amount of control over how long the fire-eater's act runs or how high the trapeze swings, the curtain can fall on any or all of your performers with no notice. The clowns might get sick and the crowd may riot. The bicycle-riding bear may escape from his cage and ruin the whole second act and you may never for the rest of your life figure out how the hell it happened. The details don't matter. The important thing is that you put on the best show you can, muster all your courage to take a bow at the appropriate time and always leave them wanting more.
•••
Here's the thing. Relationships are like people, I guess. They begin, they have adventures, they grow old and they die. Me and Mo both made it to old age, but we let our friendship die way too young. And that was really stupid of us. Mo thought I was good at saying deep things. But I'm not. Mfarley@register-pajaronian.com, say somethin' deep.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Jail is for poor people
As a card-carrying member of the vast left-wing media conspiracy, I like to think that my discrimination sensors are pretty finely tuned. I don't much care for The Man in any of his various forms, and when he presses his already sizable advantage by knocking around people who can't resist him, it makes me unreasonably angry. Which is actually kind of funny, when you consider the fact that I'm a white American who hasn't missed a meal in his life.
So in the face of recent events, I can't help but raise my voice. I'm referring, of course, to the Dec. 30 accident on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles which a woman died after her Toyota was struck by a speeding Acura.
According to TMZ.com, the crash occurred after a woman traveling 65 mph in a 2007 Land Rover failed to notice that traffic was slowing down in front of her. (One would think that a responsible driver would expect traffic on the 405 at 10:30 a.m., but whatever.) She hit the victim's car, a 2005 Toyota, which skidded into a 1989 Toyota. The 2005 Toyota then slid sideways and hit the center divider. Then, as the 2005 Toyota came to a halt, it was struck by a 1988 Acura. The Toyota driver, 38-year-old Los Angeles resident Awatef Aboudihaj, suffered major injuries and died on New Year's Eve. She was married with one child. The California Highway Patrol has since recommended that the driver of the Land Rover be charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, and the victim's family has filed a wrongful death suit.
When the facts are laid out like a police report, it seems pretty clear what happened. Someone committed a serious act of negligence and caused the death of one person and the destruction of several vehicles. Even the CHP, which generally tries not to involve itself in media circuses, felt the mistake was bad enough to warrant a public statement. Sounds like the jackass is about to have a rough week.
Oh, but wait. The jackass happens to be former R&B star Brandy, who happens to be pretty, talented and a minority — a defense lawyer's dream. Civil rights groups and left-leaning media folks fell all over each other in a race to play the discrimination card first.
A group called Project Islamic HOPE crossed the finish line first, declaring that the CHP "is unfairly targeting (Brandy) for prosecution because of her celebrity," aol.com reported. On its Web site, Rolling Stone magazine (which, for comparison, once called Justin Timberlake "an edgy performer") wrote, "According to Wikipedia (which, as we all know, would never lie), 1.2 million people are killed worldwide in car accidents every year. Fatal car accidents are tragic but not uncommon, and few result in multi-million dollar civil suits against the culpable party. Is Brandy being victimized because she's wealthy and famous?"
Here's my problem with all of this: I think we can all agree that some people get a raw deal from American corrections systems. Further, I think we can agree that there is a certain amount of racism and classism inherent in those systems. But Brandy? Everyone is expressing their outrage at the status quo by saving Brandy from being punished for something that she actually did? Does that even count as activism?
There are tons of useful ways to stick it to The Man, such as helping poor immigrants get health care or facing down a large corporation in court. But tossing around thinly veiled accusations of racism to protect a wealthy celebrity from the consequences of her own actions is not one of them. The manslaughter charge, which may not even be filed, carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a paltry $1,000 fine. Even if she's convicted, there is no way Brandy will ever see the inside of a cell. Her legal team will plead her down to probation and she'll be back behind the wheel in time to drive to her next video shoot.
Meanwhile, the family of Awatef Aboudihaj is still ruined. Discrimination, hell. This is wide-open cowardice. The city of Los Angeles needs to stop worrying about what people will think and just enforce the law. If prosecutors are trying to keep people from accusing them of selective enforcement, letting Brandy walk is the wrong way to do it.
•••
Some people say that I'm not the same girl. They say that I think I'm in my own world. What makes them think that I have changed? A little dough cannot erase my problems. Me, like mfarley@register-pajaronian.com, I have to try and solve them. Yes, everything is quite the same.
So in the face of recent events, I can't help but raise my voice. I'm referring, of course, to the Dec. 30 accident on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles which a woman died after her Toyota was struck by a speeding Acura.
According to TMZ.com, the crash occurred after a woman traveling 65 mph in a 2007 Land Rover failed to notice that traffic was slowing down in front of her. (One would think that a responsible driver would expect traffic on the 405 at 10:30 a.m., but whatever.) She hit the victim's car, a 2005 Toyota, which skidded into a 1989 Toyota. The 2005 Toyota then slid sideways and hit the center divider. Then, as the 2005 Toyota came to a halt, it was struck by a 1988 Acura. The Toyota driver, 38-year-old Los Angeles resident Awatef Aboudihaj, suffered major injuries and died on New Year's Eve. She was married with one child. The California Highway Patrol has since recommended that the driver of the Land Rover be charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, and the victim's family has filed a wrongful death suit.
When the facts are laid out like a police report, it seems pretty clear what happened. Someone committed a serious act of negligence and caused the death of one person and the destruction of several vehicles. Even the CHP, which generally tries not to involve itself in media circuses, felt the mistake was bad enough to warrant a public statement. Sounds like the jackass is about to have a rough week.
Oh, but wait. The jackass happens to be former R&B star Brandy, who happens to be pretty, talented and a minority — a defense lawyer's dream. Civil rights groups and left-leaning media folks fell all over each other in a race to play the discrimination card first.
A group called Project Islamic HOPE crossed the finish line first, declaring that the CHP "is unfairly targeting (Brandy) for prosecution because of her celebrity," aol.com reported. On its Web site, Rolling Stone magazine (which, for comparison, once called Justin Timberlake "an edgy performer") wrote, "According to Wikipedia (which, as we all know, would never lie), 1.2 million people are killed worldwide in car accidents every year. Fatal car accidents are tragic but not uncommon, and few result in multi-million dollar civil suits against the culpable party. Is Brandy being victimized because she's wealthy and famous?"
Here's my problem with all of this: I think we can all agree that some people get a raw deal from American corrections systems. Further, I think we can agree that there is a certain amount of racism and classism inherent in those systems. But Brandy? Everyone is expressing their outrage at the status quo by saving Brandy from being punished for something that she actually did? Does that even count as activism?
There are tons of useful ways to stick it to The Man, such as helping poor immigrants get health care or facing down a large corporation in court. But tossing around thinly veiled accusations of racism to protect a wealthy celebrity from the consequences of her own actions is not one of them. The manslaughter charge, which may not even be filed, carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a paltry $1,000 fine. Even if she's convicted, there is no way Brandy will ever see the inside of a cell. Her legal team will plead her down to probation and she'll be back behind the wheel in time to drive to her next video shoot.
Meanwhile, the family of Awatef Aboudihaj is still ruined. Discrimination, hell. This is wide-open cowardice. The city of Los Angeles needs to stop worrying about what people will think and just enforce the law. If prosecutors are trying to keep people from accusing them of selective enforcement, letting Brandy walk is the wrong way to do it.
•••
Some people say that I'm not the same girl. They say that I think I'm in my own world. What makes them think that I have changed? A little dough cannot erase my problems. Me, like mfarley@register-pajaronian.com, I have to try and solve them. Yes, everything is quite the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
