Arnold Schwarzenegger has been the Governator of California since 2003, but that was not when he launched his political career. There was a movie released a decade before he was elected that predicted his rise into government, even up to being President. That move is Demolition Man and it has been one of my favorite cult films of the 90's since around the late nineties. I was pretty amused when Schwarzenegger ran for governor, and won, as he began following in the footsteps of the "prophecy" set out for him.
Before I go any further let me summarize the premise of the movie. Silvester Stallone was an amazing cop in the 20th century, The Demolition Man. He has an enemy, Simon Phoenix, played by Wesley Snipes, Phoenix is the self proclaimed drug lord of neo-apocalypic south LA (this is what the director thought LA was like in the 90s...). Stallone apprehends Snipes, they get cyrogenically frozen as their prison sentence, but something goes wrong. In the year 2032, both of them are unfrozen and duke it out in a future world, reminiscent of Mr. Rodger's house. In the future Stallone is reinstated as a cop to apprehend Phoenix again, which is how he meets another cop, played by Sandra Bullock. Now, I will give you the scene this post regards, as you have the proper context to make sense of it without seeing the movie.
In this scene, Bullock is trying to catch Stallone's character up to date on all the happenings since he was frozen. To quote the scene in Demolition Man:
Stallone: "Hold it! The Schwarzenegger Library?"
Bullock: "Yes, the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor in your time?"
Stallone: "Stop! He was President?"
Bullock: "Yes. Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the passing of the 61st Amendment…"
Remember, this movie was released in 1993, which means it was probably filmed mostly in 1992. That means a full decade before Schwarzenegger ran for office. I am left with a few theories: Theory 1, Schwarzenegger has known for YEARS that he wants to be involved in government, and this was a tongue in teach reference to it. Theory 2, they were taking a complete stab in the dark, and make a funny joke about someone Stallone probably knew from making other action movies. Theory 3, the film makers had no idea Schwarzenegger wanted to run for office, but inadvertently set a prophecy in motion, which will only end when Schwarzenegger is President.
Who knows, either way I am greatly amused.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Your Privacy Rights At Risk
President Obama has met with other world leaders recent about many important issues. The global economic crisis has overshadowed most of the other talks going on, but in the background, a very important legal battle is being ignored. I am referring to the government attempt to give border police the right to search and seize your computer, for no reason other than they "suspect there is pirated material on it. This is a gross abuse of personal privacy, and also a VERY inefficient way to combat Internet piracy. To be frank, there is no way to combat Internet piracy, because the Internet has no nation and thus should not be subjected to the laws of any one nation. The only way I could think of would be if an international UN tribunal, or something to that effect, was established to regulate the Internet. The video I linked mentions that China, Russia, and Brazil abstaining from the treaty. Russia and China are two of the main countries that many piracy websites operate out of, precisely because the Russian and Chinese government don't want to regulate it. Ironically, China has one of the most invasive government policies with the internet with regards to the spread of information, going so far as to ban wikipedia.
I look at what the Chinese government has done with their webspace and I worry that American legislators will try to do the same thing. I think the best response to Internet piracy is to embrace it, if people want media as direct digital downloads, give it to them. If people want cheaper music, because $1 a song is ridiculous, give it to them. It's a very profitable business model for a new band to get started online, self promoting and distributing music. By cutting out the record label a band can cut out the main tax on their revenue. One of my favorite bands of recent years is The Legion of Doom. They're a couple of DJ's that make mash up songs, and they are some of the most talented remixers I have ever listened to. Their debut album was first released as an internet download, that they encouraged people to share via peer to peer software. After a couple years the band made a limited issue CD, and it sold out almost instantaneously. I bought a copy even though I already legally had all the music on the CD, I wanted to support a band I loved. I feel this business model could be emulated by many bands, if they were smart enough to try it.
I look at what the Chinese government has done with their webspace and I worry that American legislators will try to do the same thing. I think the best response to Internet piracy is to embrace it, if people want media as direct digital downloads, give it to them. If people want cheaper music, because $1 a song is ridiculous, give it to them. It's a very profitable business model for a new band to get started online, self promoting and distributing music. By cutting out the record label a band can cut out the main tax on their revenue. One of my favorite bands of recent years is The Legion of Doom. They're a couple of DJ's that make mash up songs, and they are some of the most talented remixers I have ever listened to. Their debut album was first released as an internet download, that they encouraged people to share via peer to peer software. After a couple years the band made a limited issue CD, and it sold out almost instantaneously. I bought a copy even though I already legally had all the music on the CD, I wanted to support a band I loved. I feel this business model could be emulated by many bands, if they were smart enough to try it.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Capitalism?
A couple weeks ago I went to the War in Iraq 6th year anniversary protest, in San Francisco. I was there strictly as a photographer this time, with no intent to join the protest. I got some amazing shots, I saw a man that looked like a hippie Jesus, I saw another claiming Obama was a Marxist. I was particularly fond of the man dressed as a wall street banker, throwing blood-soaked money at police. My favorite thing all day was probably the giant Obama effigy, dressed as Uncle Sam and asking for "you" to die for him in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I was at the protest I saw something that was somewhat depressing for the radical in me, something I can only describe as "the end of Capitalism."
I was amused by the juxtaposition of the person selling peace beads surrounded by people calling for the heads of wall street bankers. At the same time though, we're in America, we're capitalists here. So what's to stop the anti-war hippie from selling their peace beads? Beads which were undoubtedly made by Chinese sweat shop labor, for a fraction of the cost they are being sold at. Simply put, there is nothing to stop that hippie, they have the right to rip off their compatriots, though I feel it's somewhat counter productive.
Counter productivity seems to be the ever increasing norm of capitalism today. I look at the wall street banks that engaged in risky lending, of questionably legality. I have to wonder, did they think that would help their long term business? In the short term they have record profits, but at the cost of alienating some of their clients in the long term, and overall hurting their business. As a country, we could invest in new technologies that would make things easier and cheaper, like cellulosic ethanol. Instead, we are suckered into fallacies like clean coal. Americans are greenwashed into following whatever they are told is for the best. Very few people truly question the nature of facts anymore, I'm saddened by the demise of the Socractic method.
I highly recommend that everyone watches the Southpark episode Bailout!, a.k.a. Margaritaville, in the current season. Thanks to contractual obligations, it won't be online again until April 25th, but on the 25th it will be available again legally and for free here. I feel this episode of Southpark aptly demonstrates the kind of ridiculous monetary practices have been going on, and how confusing the legality of it has became. This episode not only takes on banks, it also addresses the issue of how easy it is for someone to get a credit card these days. Kyle, one of the four main characters of Southpark, all children in elementary school, obtains a platinum credit card without a limit. This is pretty unrealistic, but at the same time based in truth. The credit card companies are trying to get them young these days, like the tobacco industry. I saw an ad on Myspace, the other day, for a Myspace Visa card, and I almost choked. My step-niece is in the 8th grade and has had a Myspace page for about four years, which means she probably got it when she was around 8 or 9. I personally have a problem with kids a decade too young to even own a credit card being exposed to the corrupting influence of credit cards. The proliferation of credit cards has lead directly to the proliferation of debt in this country, and I have a problem with that. Especially when responsible taxpayers, like my mom and myself, will have to pay for these debts in the end. I still do not own a single credit card in my name, only one my mother gave me to pay for school expenses, and emergencies.
My main opposition to credit cards is because of the shocking example of my father. My dad has a half dozen credit cards and thousands of dollars in debt, I think that is ridiculous. There is no reason for someone to have that many cards, and to be allowed to get that deep in the hole. It's really his own fault, there is no denying that. Debt starts when someone is forced to live outside their means, either by spending frivolously or by not being paid a livable wage. My father's case is a combination of the two, he is 73 and on social security, but he still works. Despite this it is not enough for him to live, so he ends up charging a lot of his expenses to his credit cards.
In contrast to people like my father, we have people in this country that feel they have enough money to spend $20 on a plastic bottle of water. The very premise of H2O Bling is disgusting, like all bottled water. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of mineral water, like San Pellegrino. Morally, I think the idea of selling someone normal water for outrageous prices is repugnant. It's a matter of extremes, selling a bottle of water for 50 cents or a dollar might be reasonable, but there is no way to say $20 for a bottle of water is reasonable.
I was amused by the juxtaposition of the person selling peace beads surrounded by people calling for the heads of wall street bankers. At the same time though, we're in America, we're capitalists here. So what's to stop the anti-war hippie from selling their peace beads? Beads which were undoubtedly made by Chinese sweat shop labor, for a fraction of the cost they are being sold at. Simply put, there is nothing to stop that hippie, they have the right to rip off their compatriots, though I feel it's somewhat counter productive.
Counter productivity seems to be the ever increasing norm of capitalism today. I look at the wall street banks that engaged in risky lending, of questionably legality. I have to wonder, did they think that would help their long term business? In the short term they have record profits, but at the cost of alienating some of their clients in the long term, and overall hurting their business. As a country, we could invest in new technologies that would make things easier and cheaper, like cellulosic ethanol. Instead, we are suckered into fallacies like clean coal. Americans are greenwashed into following whatever they are told is for the best. Very few people truly question the nature of facts anymore, I'm saddened by the demise of the Socractic method.
I highly recommend that everyone watches the Southpark episode Bailout!, a.k.a. Margaritaville, in the current season. Thanks to contractual obligations, it won't be online again until April 25th, but on the 25th it will be available again legally and for free here. I feel this episode of Southpark aptly demonstrates the kind of ridiculous monetary practices have been going on, and how confusing the legality of it has became. This episode not only takes on banks, it also addresses the issue of how easy it is for someone to get a credit card these days. Kyle, one of the four main characters of Southpark, all children in elementary school, obtains a platinum credit card without a limit. This is pretty unrealistic, but at the same time based in truth. The credit card companies are trying to get them young these days, like the tobacco industry. I saw an ad on Myspace, the other day, for a Myspace Visa card, and I almost choked. My step-niece is in the 8th grade and has had a Myspace page for about four years, which means she probably got it when she was around 8 or 9. I personally have a problem with kids a decade too young to even own a credit card being exposed to the corrupting influence of credit cards. The proliferation of credit cards has lead directly to the proliferation of debt in this country, and I have a problem with that. Especially when responsible taxpayers, like my mom and myself, will have to pay for these debts in the end. I still do not own a single credit card in my name, only one my mother gave me to pay for school expenses, and emergencies.
My main opposition to credit cards is because of the shocking example of my father. My dad has a half dozen credit cards and thousands of dollars in debt, I think that is ridiculous. There is no reason for someone to have that many cards, and to be allowed to get that deep in the hole. It's really his own fault, there is no denying that. Debt starts when someone is forced to live outside their means, either by spending frivolously or by not being paid a livable wage. My father's case is a combination of the two, he is 73 and on social security, but he still works. Despite this it is not enough for him to live, so he ends up charging a lot of his expenses to his credit cards.
In contrast to people like my father, we have people in this country that feel they have enough money to spend $20 on a plastic bottle of water. The very premise of H2O Bling is disgusting, like all bottled water. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of mineral water, like San Pellegrino. Morally, I think the idea of selling someone normal water for outrageous prices is repugnant. It's a matter of extremes, selling a bottle of water for 50 cents or a dollar might be reasonable, but there is no way to say $20 for a bottle of water is reasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)