Remakes I’d Love to See
Posted: January 28, 2013 Filed under: Culture | Tags: culture, entertainment, Hollywood, movies, pop culture 1 CommentSo I’ve noticed a trend in Hollywierd lately of remaking all the things from my childhood, usually making it worse rather than better (Dukes of Hazard, I’m looking at you), although the occasional Michael Bay Giant Robot SmashFest Round IV manages to put a small smile on my face.
I was originally planning to bring to the attention of you, my loyal readers, some of the best movies you’ve probably never seen, when it occurred to me I could do so much more: I’ll let all the world know how these movies could be revived, remade, and (hopefully) not allowed to suck too much in the process.
Flash Gordon (1980) – Let me start by saying the following: this movie was made in 1980, it’s based off a 1930s era sci-fi comic strip and it has a soundtrack by Queen. I’m not really sure if there is any way it could be made better. Then again, in the movie Flash is the quarterback for the New York Jets, so I don’t know that it could be worse. There’s a certain way of looking at it that says “you just can’t do this without being campy”, but apparently as of a few years ago they were looking at doing just that (way down at the bottom of the interview).
For myself, I’d like to see some of the same camp, but with a little more balance toward hard sci fi. Something like what Cabin in the Woods did with horror; it had a bit of humor and campiness to it, but only as much as it needed. Considering there are plenty of real world companies pushing to get into space, there’s lots of room there for “Flash” Gordon to be a pilot with a private company pushing the boundaries, and Dale Arden can go from being a helpless maiden (in whatever guise to a lesser or greater degree) to a bit more useful partner, perhaps even as a copilot. Besides, wouldn’t it make it that much for fun for Ming the Merciless to try to enslave her (the guy is a psychopath, after all). With a soundtrack by The Killers, Fun., The Airborne Toxic Event, or possibly all of the above and more, it would be everything the 1980 movie was and better.
Pump Up the Volume (1990) – If you haven’t seen this one, I highly recommend it. It sits somewhere between comedy and drama as most teen movies from the 80s into the early 90s do, but this one went a slightly darker route (which is not surprising considering just a couple years earlier Christian Slater had been doing the dark comedy Heathers). It covers teenage angst and rebellion through the lens of pirate radio and public school, and considering the political climate of youth rebellion and schools today this one seems a perfect fit for a modern take. The existence of internet radio, satellite radio, and all the other easy to access entertainment options today almost makes pirate radio seem more interesting, sort of a “guerrilla entertainment” that would be very appealing to those looking to rebel against the corporate masters. Change it up a little bit to make it a podcast or some other form of hacking and suddenly SOPA and PIPA become an issue. BAM! Instant social relevance.
In addition to being a great vehicle for small, unknown bands, it would also be a perfect opportunity to bring back some classics. I’d love to see the Pixie’s “Wave of Mutilation” show up on the soundtrack again, and it just wouldn’t be Pump Up the Volume without Leonard Cohen’s “Everybody Knows”. For a delightful Easter egg I’d love to see Christian Slater and Samantha Mathis as the parents of our new troubled teen, and if they wanted to make it a direct sequel we could even see them reprising their original roles (and can you imagine the scene where our protagonist finds out her parents are the legendary Happy Harry Hard-on and The Eat Me Beat Me Lady? Do as I say, not as I did!) For an extra twist, don’t make it a public school, make it a charter or private school the kid is rebelling against. Can they actually do what they are doing? It may be wrong, but is it legal?
Finally I’d like to suggest Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985). For those of you who think this movie is nothing but a cheap action/adventure/comedy from the mid-80s, you are so very, very wrong. Not only was it nominated for an Oscar (Best Makeup, Carl Fullerton), but the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films nominated it for a Saturn Award for both Best Fantasy Film and Best Supporting Actor (Joel Grey). Before you sneer at that one, let me note that Mr. Grey also got another nomination for Best Supporting Actor that year – a Golden Globe nomination (and he deserved it).
The fact is, this movie had a lot more style, story, and general “cool” factor going for it than the special effects of the time (makeup notwithstanding) could keep up with. It was also clearly the first in what was meant to be a series (note the subtitle), and there was a lot of room to grow. Either a complete remake or “many years later” sequel would be awesome (I would pay large sums of money either way to see Joel Grey reprise his role as Chiun). This seems like just the sort of vehicle that would work well for some of the current martial arts action stars, such as Jet Li or Jackie Chan, or perhaps another as-yet unknown to American audiences star, to serve as a serious villain (rather than the slightly silly and pathetic one we had in the original). Jason Statham could fill in as a suitable Remo Williams.
Hollywood, please, take these ideas. Make them. The only thing I ask in return is to be there for the big premiere. That’s not so much, is it? (Oh, and if you can get Christian Slater to sign my copy of Pump Up the Volume that would be awesome.)
The Social Consequence of Gay Marriage
Posted: January 25, 2013 Filed under: Culture, Politics | Tags: culture, gay marriage, law, politics, society, Supreme Court 5 CommentsThis post is a long overdue promise to The Frazzled Slacker outlining my views on gay marriage. All opinions are my own. No legal advice is intended or implied. Not taking my advice is a good idea in any case.
So at long last the Supreme Court is addressing the issue of gay marriage. I for one am thrilled, since it’s about time we get some clarity and put this issue to rest once and for all, as we have with other contention issues before.
All joking aside, I do think it’s time the high court stepped in. We have a plurality of answers on this question in different jurisdictions, and it is a matter that has implications both nationally and across state lines, which is a proper role for the Supreme Court. More so, it is a civil rights question, in that the heart of the matter is to what extent the State can and should regulate the institution of marriage.
And that right there is the first point I believe needs to be made in this debate, and one that seems to be lost in much of the heated rhetoric. Before anyone makes demands about what should and should not happen, we need to draw the lines very clearly: this is, and should remain, strictly about the role of the State in the institution of marriage. No person or group’s personal beliefs should impact, or be impacted by, these cases. If a particular religious organization wants to refuse to marry a gay couple, they should maintain the right to do so; it is theirs to decide, in the same way they can decide not to marry a straight couple on any grounds (IMNSHO).
With that out of the way, we are led to the question of “what exactly is the role of the State in the institution of marriage?” As I understand it, the State has traditionally had a handful of roles, and in recent history (the last hundred years or so) has taken on a few additional roles as well. Once we define those roles, it should be relatively easy to tease out the question as to whether or not (a) homosexuals share those rights with heterosexuals, (b) whether heterosexuals would suffer any significant harm in sharing those rights with homosexuals, and (c) whether society writ large would suffer any harm from allowing homosexuals to exercise those rights.
The traditional roles, as I understand them, are to encourage child rearing, social stability, and guide the process of inheritance. End of line. The additional roles that the government has taken on have been to grant certain rights such as tax benefits, Social Security benefits, and various and sundry other spousal benefits such as visitation rights, next of kin in medical matters, etc. to married couples.
To the first question: do homosexuals even have these rights? According to the state of Kansas, a lesbian can be a single parent, so by logical extension, a homosexual can have parental rights. While Kansas has in this case proven they prefer not to encourage child rearing, one would think it would be desirable to support couples that prefer to rear children together rather than attempt to sue someone in an iffy court case, and that’s of course assuming there was no proper waiver and doctor present to even allow a lawsuit to move forward.
As for social stability, setting aside the obvious counter-argument that rhymes with “fifty percent bivorce rate” there is the simpler counter-argument: given a choice between encouraging couples to be monogamous and stay together rather than NOT encouraging them to do so, when your purported goal is a more stable society, why wouldn’t you?
Finally, the question of inheritance is, again, simple on the face of it. Any individual has the right to assign their estate as they see fit in a will; simply assuming that next of kin would be the logical beneficiaries in the absence of such is a grace and mercy to a bereaved family, as well as relieving an overburdened court system. Insisting that one segment of the population does not have that right and must go through an onerous process by virtue of who they love is demeaning and unbefitting of a civilized society.
Most spousal benefits are in the same category as inheritance; they can, with time, money and effort be resolved through other legal means (power of attorney, etc.). It is simply demeaning to insist that one segment of the population is required to climb an extra hurdle because they have a consensual relationship between two adults that others do not approve of (c.f. miscegenation). The only exceptions are such things as Social Security and tax benefits, so I shall address them as such: are homosexuals exempt from paying Social Security and other taxes in ways I am not aware of, or do they receive other special benefits to compensate them for their inability to access these benefits?
Moving on to the question of whether heterosexuals would be significantly harmed by sharing these rights with heterosexuals. That’s a bit of a tricky one, because there are two important words there: significant and harm. Would I be “harmed” if someone else were paying lower taxes? Arguably, yes. Would it be significant? If they did so in large enough numbers, maybe. Does that mean I should be able to deny them their rights? I do not see how. True harm is if I were to lose something I were otherwise entitled to, and I am not entitled to having first claim on someone else’s life, their labor, or their choices, so long as those choices do not interfere directly with my ability to make choices. And seriously, I don’t see how homosexuals choosing to marry impacts any heterosexual’s choices, unless they have secrets they aren’t sharing (in which case the statement is still valid).
Would society suffer any significant harm in allowing homosexuals to exercise their rights? Again, it depends on how you define society and how you define harm. Considering the potential good outlined above, and the societal purposes that marriage serves in the first place, I see no evidence that expanding the civil tradition of marriage could bring. There will be those who will not be able to accept this gracefully, and they may even commit violent acts in response. This would not be a direct result of allowing homosexuals to exercise their rights; this would be a result of people who are unable to accept change attempting to use violence and fear to coerce others when all else fails. There is a word for that: terrorism. It should be dealt with as such.
In the final analysis, there is no good reason to continue to deny a significant portion of our population the same rights that the majority have enjoyed for so long. The Supreme Court should step in and, as it has a few times in its long history, strike down the laws of oppression and let liberty carry the day.
The Fiscal Fix
Posted: January 23, 2013 Filed under: MNSHW, Politics | Tags: budget, government, politics 1 CommentOnce again, a brief interlude from My Not So Humble Wife.
After weeks of foreboding speculation about the impending fiscal cliff, the New Year came and went with no evidence of the sky actually falling. This might be due to the fact that our decisive and ever diligent Congress and Senate solved the fiscal crisis on New Year’s Eve by kicking the deadline out until March. A brilliant piece of legislative procrastination.
Now we’re in for more endless argument over what combination of 1) spending cuts and 2) tax increases should be enacted to reduce our roughly $16 trillion federal deficit. But there is a third option that I’ve never heard mentioned. Do you know how the government handles budgets? If not, this will astound you.
Throughout all government agencies, the military, and governmental run programs each department is generally given an annual budget amount to play with for the year. Here’s the problem: at the end of the year if the department didn’t spend all their money, they won’t be able to get a budget increase in the next fiscal year.
Let me say that again, if they don’t spend all the money they asked for last year they won’t get more money in their budget for the next year.
This means there is no incentive whatsoever for any government funded agency to save money. In fact, starting around October, government agencies that have a budget surplus rush out to ditch any remaining cash. Under our current budgeting system, they pretty much have to or they risk being underfunded in the next fiscal year. Excess spending of this nature may be relatively small potatoes for any one agency or department but all together it’s a significant amount.
What to Do With Extra Budget Money at the End of the Fiscal Year?
Photo Credit: USBacklash.org at http://usbacklash.org
I’ll admit with no hesitation that I’m not an expert on finance or government spending. However, I think that a different budget process that incentivized saving over spending might reasonably be developed. One idea would be to place more emphasis on accurate estimations. Suppose there are two possible budget proposal review processes, one for those groups whose spent close to what they were budgeted for the prior year and one for those groups whose budget wasn’t accurate for actual spending.
For example, the newly proposed budget for groups whose spending was within say, 5% of their budget from the prior year could be on a fast-tracked approval process. Those groups whose spending differed (either over or under) by more than 5% would face a review that required additional justification. To avoid having departments just spend money until they were within the 5% range, you could allow money to be designated as savings without any penalty and which would then just be applied to the next year’s budget. This would provide incentive for departments not to overspend and would remove the current undesirable incentive of spending additional funds wastefully.
This one example could make the difference between funding or not funding a critical program and there are probably other systemic issues that could be addressed as well. So I hope that as we continue to debate how to balance the national checkbook we look for savings within the systems as well as at cut and tax remedies.
I Will Choose a Path That’s Clear
Posted: January 18, 2013 Filed under: Culture, Musings, Politics | Tags: America, culture, philosophy, politics, society, tyranny Leave a commentRecently on Facebook I’ve been having a spirited (but civil!) debate with a friend of mine regarding gun control. Unsurprisingly at some point relatively early in the discussion my argument incorporated the issue of defense against tyranny, which is an argument that I stand by. He actually pivoted from there to a surprisingly apt and unusual comparison, one that I have not before seen, invoking the specter of 1984 before I could, but then he made the point that “Brave New World illustrates that humanity can be lulled into submission into serving the interest of a minority by luxuries and promoting self interest.”
It was a different tack, and one that at least took our discussion in a new direction, but it also got me thinking. One of my great loves is dystopian literature (although the sub-genre of cyberpunk is my favorite), and obviously I have given more than a little thought about what shape society takes both now and as we move into the future. So as we continue forward, which is the move likely totalitarian prospect: the iron hand or the velvet glove?
Historically I would say it’s both. Consider one of the most successful (if you can use the word without being offensive) totalitarian regimes in history, the Nazi regime. By combining a rule based on fear and oppression with strong economic growth that gave the “approved” majority of the populace not only the necessities they had been denied but the luxuries they craved, the Nazis turned Germany from a failed state into a powerhouse virtually overnight. I’d have to do a lot more research than I’m ready to right now to call this a thesis, but it does provide some (disturbing) food for thought, if anyone has a strong enough stomach for it.
The iron hand is easy to fear, and just as easy to dismiss. We always assume we’ll see it coming; after all, why would we allow someone or some government to drag people out of their homes in the middle of the night, lock them up for no reason, torture them, or execute them without good reason? We’re good people, we live in a good society, we’re better than that. But then, all it takes is one bad day; one evil act. Then the world changes.
On the other hand, the velvet glove seems far more likely. Stories of people giving in to addiction, vice, and other temptations are as old as… well, stories, and the idea of the guy who controls your hunger controlling you has a great deal of appeal. But consider the recent Occupy movement. Here is a case of rebellion against a system that tried to control the populace by controlling luxury, Big Business in cahoots with Big Government (and the system fought back). Keep in mind plenty of Occupy supporters were not the homeless, the starving, or folks who struggled their whole lives to make it day to day; they were college graduates, middle class and above, theoretically bought and paid for.
So what do they both have in common, and how is it that tyranny in any form finally does manage to take hold? If the neither the iron hand nor the velvet glove is sufficient unto itself, how do they succeed together? Is it simply that “one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away” is enough to confuse people? I wonder. Perhaps it’s more complex, or perhaps it is simpler than that.
According to the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. It’s an interesting philosophy, but what if it goes further than that? Can it be posited that nobody can truly be governed without their consent? After all, you can put a gun to my head but that won’t make my body move; you will simply be putting me under duress. If it is sufficient duress, I will take action, but it is still my action, not yours. Your action was coercing me in the fist place. Coerce enough people and you have a tyrannical government, but it is by the consent of the governed, even if that consent is given under duress.
Viewed in that way, we are always standing between Scylla and Charybdis, between totalitarian oppression and totalitarian luxury. The only thing that prevents it is our exercise of free will, a refusal to allow ourselves to be ruled by others. So long as we view certain things as right and others as wrong, and we hold to those principles in the face of opposition (even unto death), we can and will stand against tyranny. That is the cost of freedom. The cost of society, of civilization, is learning to live with each other, to find the reasonable compromises between my ideals and principles and yours, such that we can live together without my bowing to your tyranny or you bowing to mine.
As soon as I get that one figured out, I’ll let you know.
On A Road to Nowhere
Posted: January 16, 2013 Filed under: Politics | Tags: politics, traffic, Virginia Leave a commentFor as long as I can remember living in Virginia (so basically since I was 16), traffic congestion has been an ongoing issue. In particular, the debate has raged about whether and how to pay for road maintenance, road expansion, public transportation, the works. The most common answer has been raising the gas tax, but both Virginia and Washington state are discovering that this is becoming less viable as vehicles become more fuel efficient, particularly as people switch over to alternative fuel vehicles (darn those perverse incentives!).
Naturally, I wouldn’t broach the issue if I didn’t have a suggestion to offer, and naturally it’s one that would never fly in the world of real politik, but I’m going to throw it out there anyway. It seems to me what we have here is an issue of putting the cost in the wrong place (as usual), and even the attempts to switch the cost are being driven by (at best) political expediency and (at worst) political ideology. I suggest we get back to the original issue, determine where the costs are being created, and find a way to apply those costs to the people creating them in the first place in the most direct way possible.
The first step is this: consider the actual cost we are facing. The issue at hand is not one of too few roads, or too many cars, or too few people taking public transit. The issue at hand is choice in transportation. That choice is influenced, at least on the margin, by cost (convenience and accessibility obviously play a factor as well, but those are ultimately a factor of cost as well). The issue is not a matter of whether people are or are not purchasing gasoline, nor the purpose to which they put it. After all, I use gasoline to run my lawn mower, but that has no impact on the quality of the roads in Virginia or anywhere else; however if my neighbor down the street owns an electric car he uses no gasoline as he adds stress and traffic to the highways and byways. The same applies for buses, rail, or any other form of transit. Let the cost fall where it should, and let the revenue generated be applied to support the source that generated it.
How would we do it? One example that easily presents itself is the new toll lanes on 495. All that is required to use these express lanes is an E-ZPass, which can also be used on any road that accepts E-ZPass in VA or thirteen other states. Right off the bat you can start charging people for the roads they use, not the gas they burn, and you can even track where the funds are being generated so that you know which roads should get the funding for either repair or expansion. Taking this idea one step further, you could even set varying levels of tolls depending on the level of anticipated traffic demand in the area, charging more for high-traffic times and less for lower traffic times (somewhat like Metro does with their Peak and Off-Peak fares).
And hey, speaking of Metro, how about we stop subsidizing public transportation and actually charge people what it costs? I’m sure once we stop subsidizing the roads people will see the real value of public transit, since the real cost of public roads is significant but most people never see them, what with it being paid for out of taxes. Shift that burden onto drivers, and suddenly folks will actually be able to make a real apples-to-apples comparison: is it really worth the cost of driving to work considering the tolls, gas, cost of a car, parking, etc., or would you rather have the inconvenience of taking Metro? Speaking as a driver myself… I have no idea. I’ve never paid the real cost, up front, of driving on a road anywhere, so I can’t make a serious informed decision. I can only make a decision based on the reality in front of me, which is that roads are free, my car is convenient, and Metro is neither.
And of course that’s why it would never fly. Any time you try to shift the actual cost of a thing or service to the people who actually benefit from it there are howls of outrage. “It’s unfair!” “It’s regressive!” “Let the rich pay their fair share!” (That last one is my favorite.) Setting aside any argument about whether the rich actually benefit more from the existence of public roads (I didn’t realize they enjoy driving more than I do), let’s tackle the other two.
As for being unfair, I’ll speak as a driver once more when I say it’s unfair for someone else to shoulder the burden of paying for the roads I drive on. Every day I drive to work, someone else is paying for every mile I drive. That’s pretty much the definition of “unfair”. As far as being “regressive”, my understanding of that argument (and I could well be wrong here) is that it hurts people more the less they make. While there could be a kernel of truth to it, I would like to point out that the less money you have, the less driving you are likely to do. Ergo, the less likely you are to be hit by a toll. This plan is no more regressive than the gas tax or any tax on vehicles, and in many ways is less so, in that it only charges you for distance spent driving on public roads; any other use of gasoline (including time spent idling in traffic) doesn’t count against you. In many ways that would seem to me to at least be less regressive.
Is this a perfect plan? Far from it. But it at least starts to shift the costs where they belong, aligning incentives so that people will have a reason to consider the choices they make, and if nothing else it will more honestly generate revenue in line with the source of the costs. That’s a far better thing than simply waving a hand and declaring a fiat fix based on political whims.
Who’s Your Daddy?
Posted: January 14, 2013 Filed under: Politics | Tags: Kansas, law, politics, sperm donor 3 CommentsIn case you haven’t heard, there’s another guy trying to dodge child support payments, and the state of Kansas is going after him with everything they’ve got. Of course, this one’s a little different. Turns out there’s three parents involved, and according to him, he’s not one of them. Unfortunately for him and the other two parents, Kansas doesn’t recognize gay marriage, so the government has decided he’s on the hook.
Here’s the story: a lesbian couple advertised for a sperm donor, a man answered the ad, and nine months later a baby was born (I’ll assume you can fill in the details). There was a contract between the three of them stipulating he had no parental rights or responsibilities. However, there was also no doctor involved. Later the couple in question split up, and the custodial parent (according to Kansas, the only parent) applied for state benefits. In accordance with state law, the state of Kansas went after the non-custodial parent for child support, including back payments. But wait, were you paying attention earlier? Kansas doesn’t recognize same-sex unions in any way, so there is no non-custodial parent, right?
Wrong.
According to Kansas law, because there was no doctor involved, the sperm donor wasn’t legally a sperm donor, he was the daddy. Never mind he had a contract stating otherwise that all three were a party to.
To add to the fun of all this, the government of Kansas is sending mixed messages. According to an interview on NPR, “[i]n 2007, we had a case involved where a guy who had been a sperm donor donated sperm for a woman to become pregnant and then decided afterwards that he wanted to be considered the father, wanted to have parental rights and responsibilities. That case went clear to the Kansas Supreme Court and they said that he doesn’t get the parental rights and responsibilities.” What’s the difference? Well, there’s one I know for sure, and one I can guess. The one I know for sure is there was a doctor involved in the 2007 case. I’m also guessing the woman wasn’t in a lesbian relationship.
So what we have is the State of Kansas making two different arguments: you don’t get to be the father of a child unless we say you are the father of the child, and the only time we will say you are the father of the child is when it benefits us to say you are. Clearly that would be when there’s money on the line, but there’s also an insidious whiff of anti-homosexual backdoor lawmaking going on here. After all, if we can scare enough people into not helping homosexuals have children, we can make sure no homosexuals have children, right?
There’s three problems I see here. The first is that this is a clear case of violation of private contract. This isn’t one party to the contract saying the contract is unfair or invalid, nor is it a case of the state having a serious vested interest in stepping in to prevent one person from being taken advantage of. Three adults entered into a mutual, legal contract, and the state simply didn’t like the contract they entered. The fact there is a third adult party willing to play the role of non-custodial parent if she were legally allowed to only strengthens that point.
The second issue is that this is clearly a case of inconsistent law enforcement. If the state does not want sperm donors to have parental rights once they have signed a contract as such, then they need to enforce that consistently. The presence of a doctor does not change anything (although if they wanted to require a lawyer, notary, or other witness that is consistent with legal proceeding that might be different). Either the case in 2007 was wrong, or this one is. While I have my preference as to which is the correct answer, at least a consistent ruling makes for sound governance. Doing otherwise is simply making up the rules as they go along, picking and choosing whatever is most convenient at the moment, and the word for that is “dictatorship”.
Finally, I have no idea who they think they’re helping. This doesn’t make either of the mothers better off; the sperm donor is certainly no better off; the child in this case is no better off; and the people of the state of Kansas are made to look like backward fools because of their politicians. At this point the best possible outcome would be an outright dismissal of the case with a strong admonishment from the bench for the foolish notion that the state can simply pick which contracts it will or will not enforce based on its own twisted ideas of what’s right or, worse, its own convenience.
Dirty, Dirty Men
Posted: January 11, 2013 Filed under: Humor, MNSHW | Tags: cleaning, men, women 5 CommentsBy special request (and to maintain tranquility in my home), I bring you this rebuttal post from My Not So Humble Wife.
After extensive observation I have finally answered a question that has plagued women world-wide for centuries. Why in God’s name do men never clean?!
Let me establish my man observing credentials. For over five years I have lived with my Not So Humble Husband and two dirty male roommates who, for the sake of anonymity, I will refer to as Monkey Boy and Grouchy Gus.
I have tried every method imaginable to get them to clean. Chore schedules, bribery, begging, threats, and the silent treatment had minimal success. Eventually I resorted to “fine then, if you won’t clean then neither will I, and you jerks can just wallow in your own disgusting filth” tactic. If I didn’t do any cleaning, eventually they would HAVE to break down and pick up a damn broom. Right? Right?!
I waited for two weeks twitching when the garbage can overfilled, furious as the carpet developed a layer of filth, and at last surrendered when my Not So Humble Husband proudly completed a three foot high tower of empty Coke cans in the basement. But my defeat was not totally in vain.
I had inadvertently discovered that the vast majority of men have a significantly higher “filth tolerance” than women do. Filth tolerance can be best defined as the messiest point at which you look around your home and decide it’s too gross for human habitation and must be cleaned.
On a filth tolerance scale from 1 to 10, a 1 is equal to “slight dishevelment”, 5 is “day after a wild party”, and 10 is “crack house”. As you can see illustrated in the graph below, I feel that I MUST clean around 3.5 when the floor is dirty, stuff strewn about, something smells, and everything is dusty. Whereas the disgusting men I live with range from 6.5 to 9.5 and will barely register old food containers growing mold, dust thick enough to plant shrubbery, and unknown substances dripping down the wall into a pool on the floor.
But, you may be wondering, WHY is the male filth tolerance SO much higher? I’m glad you asked. It’s my hypothesis that men have developed “filth filtering vision”. It’s well established than men are more single-minded than woman. When they enter a room their filth filter vision kicks in and unable to distinguish any detail that is not relevant to their current objective.
For example, a woman might go into the kitchen for a snack and see a very dirty kitchen (Fig. 1). Meanwhile men with low filth filtering will just see a kitchen (Fig. 2) and men with high filth filters may only be able to perceive those items significant to achieving their goal of finding food (Fig. 3).
Fig 1. Women Vision
Picture image credit: Cleaning Angels (http://www.cleaning-angels.co.uk/)
Fig 2. Man Vision (Low Filth Filter)
Picture Credit: Crafty Culinarian (http://craftyculinarian.wordpress.com)
Fig 3. Man Vision (High Filth Filter)
Picture Credit: How to Survive Alien Invasion Novels (http://howtosurvivealieninvasionnovels.blogspot.com/)
I can only hope that by sharing my discovery, humanity can unite to find a cure to the epidemic of male filth filtering (MFF) which takes a heavy toll on women worldwide and contributes to over seventy five percent of the annual incidents of heavy sighs, evil glares, nagging in shrill tones, and restricted bedroom privileges.
Pray for a cure.
Free Spoiler Zone
Posted: January 9, 2013 Filed under: Culture, Internet | Tags: culture, etiquette, internet, pop culture, popular culture, society, spoilers 3 CommentsI am the internet’s worst nightmare.
The other night I was listening to Marketplace on NPR (I love Kai Ryssdal, I may have mentioned this before) and I heard a fantastic commentary on the issue of spoilers. Beth Teitell made an excellent case about how we’re all setting ourselves up for spoiler disappointment while at the same time becoming more sensitive to spoilers.
I am the worst of the lot.
Just the other week I finally watched Jekyll (2007) from the BBC on Netflix. Note the year on that one. If someone had told me any of the salient plot points before I watched it, I would have been beyond infuriated, but really, it’s been around for over five years. How could they know? More importantly, why should they care?
This is typical for me. I watch movies months after they leave the theater (with rare exceptions), and I’m usually several weeks behind in my TV show watching. I’ve been known to run away from conversations I’m not even party to with my hands over my ears screaming “NO SPOILERS!” like a lunatic, and that’s just in real life. On the internet I’m far worse.
But the truth is we can’t avoid spoilers, nor can we reasonably expect to. Part of the fun of pop culture is that it’s popular (hence the “pop”), and we want to talk about it. Denying people that just so we can enjoy things on our own schedule is selfish. At the same time, expecting everyone to be able to invest their entire lives in keeping up with everything worthwhile all the time is just silly, too. It’s not like we’re still in the age of single-screen movie theaters, three TV channels, and nobody to talk to but the people in our small towns.
Therefore, I am declaring a Free Spoiler Zone.
It works like this: there is a statute of limitations on the right to declare “NO SPOILERS!” Once the statute of limitations has passed, it is incumbent on each individual to either be in the know or to guard themselves; prior to that proper decorum requires the asking of “Have you seen…” or a similar inquiry before discussing anything, as well as a reasonable warning to anyone joining the conversation. This should help alleviate the distress being caused by our over-saturated, media hyped world, and allow us all some peace.
The rules I suggest are as follows:
1. An absolute moratorium on any communications within 24 hours of an event. Don’t even talk about it; you don’t know who is in earshot. I don’t even want to hear “OMFG THAT WAS SO GOOD!” or “Meh, this week’s episode was okay.” Let me find out for myself, especially if I’m in a different time zone.
2. Barring sporting events, reality TV, or other “real time” entertainment, any electronic communication for the first week must be preceded by the phrase “SPOILER ALERT”. If it’s real time entertainment, after 24 hours you take your chances, but please, don’t be a jerk; if you know someone TiVo’d it, don’t ruin the big game.
3. For all other TV shows, every in-person conversation must include “Have you seen…” or some other socially acceptable form of spoiler alert for one month. After that, you need to either clear out your DVR or climb out from under the rock.
4. For movies you get one month of nobody says nothing. Then all bets are off.
5. Actual news events are exempt from these rules. News should be shared.
6. Feel free to share political shows, commentary, debates, et al to your heart’s content. You deserve what you get.
While I am willing to negotiate on the length of time involved in each rule, I truly believe that following these rules will improve our lives. Everyone will have a free and fair chance to enjoy their quality entertainment without fear of having it ruined, while at the same time encouraging and enhancing the sort of interpersonal relationships we’re losing for fear of not being able to share our love of the great and diverse culture we all enjoy.
However, I am declaring one category of entertainment completely off-limits to spoilers (by special request from My Not So Humble Wife): books. I actually have to agree with her on this one, for a lot of reasons. People read at different speeds, borrow books from each other, and most of all we want to encourage more literacy, not less. Besides, I haven’t finished the Illiad yet, and I can’t wait to find out how it ends.
. And be sure to leave a review with your not so humble opinion!
My Not So Humble Opinion 