The 2011 Academy Awards are being presented this weekend. This year I've actually seen several of the nominees for best picture, so I might even try to watch the show.
This has me thinking about all of the movies I consider to be great, but didn't win the Oscar or even get nominated. In other words, they aren't dramas. Here my top 5 without thinking about it too much.
Caddyshack. More memorable characters and one-liners than any movie in history.
Airplane! A movie way ahead of its time.
When Harry Met Sally. Maybe the best romantic-comedy ever. Meg Ryan deserved an Oscar just for her fake orgasm scene.
Bull Durham. Also maybe the best romantic-comedy ever. It even had the benefit of having a sports-related theme.
School Of Rock. Fantastic acting by Jack Black. Although he probably wasn't acting that much.
Plenty of animated movies come to mind as well. Many of the Pixar movies are great, including any of the Toy Story movies - although this last one actually was nominated for best movie!
Friday, February 25, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Failed Politics of Religion
Yesterday the following letter to the editor appeared in the Des Moines Register:
"Recently, I received a request for money from the Catholic Diocese of Des Moines. This annual appeal, signed by the bishop, arrived about the same time his lobbyist was testifying in the Iowa Legislature in favor of House Study Bill 50, the Religious Conscience Protection Act."
"This proposal would legislate broad discrimination aimed mostly at married gays. That this measure is cloaked in "religious conscience" seems hypocritical, and that my church actively supports it is for me appalling and embarrassing. Fortunately, at least for the moment, the bill is dead. Unfortunately, for me, the disappointment in my church lingers."
"Sorry, bishop, my conscience will no longer allow me to support the diocese."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Forget about how this bill is an incredibly stupid attempt to legislate morality in this state. Focus instead on this being one of many examples of the consequences of mixing religion with politics.
If my religion strongly opposes something I strongly believe in, how do I reconcile that with their requests for me to tithe, or otherwise fund their ability to continue that opposition? The only answer I can come up with is to show support by way of service and not by way of money.
I understand the fight for social justice must in some respects be played out in the legislature or the courts, and there is a financial cost to that. I get that. But that fight for compassion is a far cry from financially supporting a religious dogma that has little to do with faith.
So how to you keep religion from mixing with politics? Easy. Eliminate the tax-exemptions for churches and other organizations who actively lobby. Once these organizations experience the financial hurt of their actions, they might just be a little bit more keen to the emotional hurt they put on people who simply don't share their faith or political convictions.
"Recently, I received a request for money from the Catholic Diocese of Des Moines. This annual appeal, signed by the bishop, arrived about the same time his lobbyist was testifying in the Iowa Legislature in favor of House Study Bill 50, the Religious Conscience Protection Act."
"This proposal would legislate broad discrimination aimed mostly at married gays. That this measure is cloaked in "religious conscience" seems hypocritical, and that my church actively supports it is for me appalling and embarrassing. Fortunately, at least for the moment, the bill is dead. Unfortunately, for me, the disappointment in my church lingers."
"Sorry, bishop, my conscience will no longer allow me to support the diocese."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Forget about how this bill is an incredibly stupid attempt to legislate morality in this state. Focus instead on this being one of many examples of the consequences of mixing religion with politics.
If my religion strongly opposes something I strongly believe in, how do I reconcile that with their requests for me to tithe, or otherwise fund their ability to continue that opposition? The only answer I can come up with is to show support by way of service and not by way of money.
I understand the fight for social justice must in some respects be played out in the legislature or the courts, and there is a financial cost to that. I get that. But that fight for compassion is a far cry from financially supporting a religious dogma that has little to do with faith.
So how to you keep religion from mixing with politics? Easy. Eliminate the tax-exemptions for churches and other organizations who actively lobby. Once these organizations experience the financial hurt of their actions, they might just be a little bit more keen to the emotional hurt they put on people who simply don't share their faith or political convictions.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Keeping Score
Competitive sorts like myself are notorious for keeping score on just about anything. I'm talking about things beyond games here, things like how often I have to wait for people who aren't on time, or how many times my neighbor clears my sidewalk of snow compared to how often I clear theirs.
I don't keep score of these things to win them, I keep score to make sure I don't lose them, to at least stay even. That way I don't have to feel guily, or worry about looking like an ingrate.
I'd say most people don't keep score. I'd further say that most people would tell you that's a good thing. I disagree. Sure, sometimes that's a plus, because there are people out there who are simply generous. The score means nothing to generous people; everyone should be thankful for that.
But in the final analysis, I think most of the people who don't keep score are inconsiderate at best, mean-spirited at worst. These people never pay it forward, either, because they don't realize that others have done something for them. They take no ownership in their lack of consideration, and give no gratitude to those kind enough to forgive them for it.
I even see this in families. Certain family members may show tremendous support for their kin in times of success or failure, then largely ignore simliar times in another relative's life. I suppose in some families this might be intentional, but regardless, it ultimately ends in resentment.
If people want to start being more considerate, I suggest they start keeping score.
I don't keep score of these things to win them, I keep score to make sure I don't lose them, to at least stay even. That way I don't have to feel guily, or worry about looking like an ingrate.
I'd say most people don't keep score. I'd further say that most people would tell you that's a good thing. I disagree. Sure, sometimes that's a plus, because there are people out there who are simply generous. The score means nothing to generous people; everyone should be thankful for that.
But in the final analysis, I think most of the people who don't keep score are inconsiderate at best, mean-spirited at worst. These people never pay it forward, either, because they don't realize that others have done something for them. They take no ownership in their lack of consideration, and give no gratitude to those kind enough to forgive them for it.
I even see this in families. Certain family members may show tremendous support for their kin in times of success or failure, then largely ignore simliar times in another relative's life. I suppose in some families this might be intentional, but regardless, it ultimately ends in resentment.
If people want to start being more considerate, I suggest they start keeping score.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Whacked Out In The Head
In a couple of prior posts, I've gone over something called the Tyson Zone, popularized by writer Bill Simmons of ESPN. I've noted a couple of local politicians who ought to be in the that club, and over time I'm sure there will be more.
However, I've decided I need my own name. to enshrine those, especially politicians, who aren't all there. For now, I will give these people the moniker of Whacked Out In The Head.
Along with Bob Vander Plaats and Steve King, my inital inductees to WOITH are 3 new Iowa legislators who apparently don't care about anything but social conservative issues, along with a speaker at a open legislative forum on gay marriage.
Let's start with the 3 Fox TV wannabes. Their names are Glen Massie, Kim Pearson, and Kent Sorenson. Each of them happen to be a Tea Party favorite with (coincidentally?) extreme right-wing views. Although freshmen legislators, they are, among other things, taking the lead in supporting legislation to impeach the remaining Iowa supreme court justices who were a part of the court's unanimous ruling that legalized gay marriage. (You'll recall that removing those judges, purely for this single political reason, has become the life goal of Bob Vander Plaats.)
Anyone and everyone in Iowa knows this impeachment idea is a non-starter. No crimes were committed. It doesn't even have the support of the majority of their Republican party brethern. It's a total waste of taxpayer time and money. But that hasn't stopped these three WOITHers. In the meantime, dealing with the fiscal restraint issues on which they were supposedly elected (isn't that the Tea Party mandate?) will have to wait. They make me embarassed for Iowa, a la Steve King, that they could be elected to political office by a supposedly intelligent electorate.
Now to our anonymous speaker, who spoke this week at an open legislative forum regarding putting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot. (Note: This is actually the only sensible approach to this issue - let Iowans decide how they want to govern themselves. That's how many other states handle social issues; the representative approach doesn't work. Let people, not politics, decide.) This female speaker, whom I've chosen not to name, warned of unintended consequences of same-sex marriage by saying, "How do we fend off bigamy, polygamy? What about people who want to marry computer generated images?"
Regardless of our differences about gay marriage, can we not all agree that this lady, and anyone else who believes that, is Whacked In The Head? (Contrast that comment with another speaker, which has gone viral on the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
Please feel free to send your future nominees for the WOITH club to me. There is certainly no shortage of candidates.
However, I've decided I need my own name. to enshrine those, especially politicians, who aren't all there. For now, I will give these people the moniker of Whacked Out In The Head.
Along with Bob Vander Plaats and Steve King, my inital inductees to WOITH are 3 new Iowa legislators who apparently don't care about anything but social conservative issues, along with a speaker at a open legislative forum on gay marriage.
Let's start with the 3 Fox TV wannabes. Their names are Glen Massie, Kim Pearson, and Kent Sorenson. Each of them happen to be a Tea Party favorite with (coincidentally?) extreme right-wing views. Although freshmen legislators, they are, among other things, taking the lead in supporting legislation to impeach the remaining Iowa supreme court justices who were a part of the court's unanimous ruling that legalized gay marriage. (You'll recall that removing those judges, purely for this single political reason, has become the life goal of Bob Vander Plaats.)
Anyone and everyone in Iowa knows this impeachment idea is a non-starter. No crimes were committed. It doesn't even have the support of the majority of their Republican party brethern. It's a total waste of taxpayer time and money. But that hasn't stopped these three WOITHers. In the meantime, dealing with the fiscal restraint issues on which they were supposedly elected (isn't that the Tea Party mandate?) will have to wait. They make me embarassed for Iowa, a la Steve King, that they could be elected to political office by a supposedly intelligent electorate.
Now to our anonymous speaker, who spoke this week at an open legislative forum regarding putting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot. (Note: This is actually the only sensible approach to this issue - let Iowans decide how they want to govern themselves. That's how many other states handle social issues; the representative approach doesn't work. Let people, not politics, decide.) This female speaker, whom I've chosen not to name, warned of unintended consequences of same-sex marriage by saying, "How do we fend off bigamy, polygamy? What about people who want to marry computer generated images?"
Regardless of our differences about gay marriage, can we not all agree that this lady, and anyone else who believes that, is Whacked In The Head? (Contrast that comment with another speaker, which has gone viral on the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
Please feel free to send your future nominees for the WOITH club to me. There is certainly no shortage of candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)