(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)
Chris - 2005-12-20 09:17:26
I second the third grader feel. I walked across the bridge this morning well before sunrie; The combination of the cold, the cameras, and 80 Santas handing out hot chocolate on the bridge all made for a merry time. I think I got one more week of it before I will want to punch one of the Santas, but until then its better than the blackout.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 09:24:11
Exactly, it's like all the slumber-party fun of a disaster, minus the bad stuff.
-------------------------------
chris - 2005-12-20 10:14:55
Nothing better than a nice brisk walk in the morning, especially after consuming a huge bloated movie the night before. I know its been praised by most, but King Kong is one big fat movie. To subject the audience to a relationship between a saintly self taught African American and a na�ve white boy only to give us the Cliff notes of �heart of darkness� is the height of arrogance. And I know its fantasy, but how many close misses can a group survive while running for what seems like 6 hours beneath the feet of stampeding Dinasours. I call it the Gazoo effect: Flinstones was believable up until the arrival of the Green Alien. That pushed the fantasy over the edge. Sorry for the King Kong rant. Had lots of time to think during my walk
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-20 10:54:40
The dialogue in "King Kong" between the black sailor and the nutty kid was so deliberately stilted and solemnly over the top that I think Jackson was telegraphing something to the audience about the rigorous new cliches that currently must be incorporated into films like "King Kong" (have you read Hoberman's predictably blistering review in the Village Voice? He actually indicated that without the dichotomy between the primitive black natives and the white woman, you "don't have a movie").
So the subways actually struck?? This is the first I've heard about it, since I haven't turned on any electronic media until this moment and I'm off today, so I receive this tidbit through Paula Carino rather than Paula Zahn (or whoever reads the news on those awful shows). I'm frankly dumbfounded, but I certainly don't blame them, that's for sure. Only people that are physically required to be there to get the job done can strike, otherwise their employers will just happily downsize their jobs overseas. Package deliverers like UPS and people deliverers like the MTA are more or less the only really big strikes I've heard about in recent years. And the way the media has carefully brainwashed the public against unions, it only makes me that much more surprised to see this.
-------------------------------
Chris - 2005-12-20 11:25:01
So much of King Kong was clich�d: regardless of if he did it intentionally or not the effect is the same. I have not read interviews with the director; perhaps he was expanding the movie 20 minutes longer than needed just to telegraph a message, but I more inclined to think he has gotten spielberged. The only parts that felt original also felt awkward (the skating on the ice in central park and her doing vaudeville for the ever more amused giant). The special effects were amazing, the final scene on the empire state building was wonderfully done, and the cinematography inspired. Beyond that there isn�t much. After watching the irony free Lord of the Rings and the paint by numbers King Kong I yearn for something with originality like Heavenly Creatures.
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-20 12:25:36
I skipped "Lord of the Rings" and I'm not familiar offhand with "Heavenly Creatures," but I really liked "King Kong" and found the whole film entertaining (except for that very jarring part you initially mentioned between the sailor and the kid, which I found so utterly different from everything else that it made me wonder). I might be wrong about Jackson intentially telegraphing a frustration with this fascistic PC environment, I may be giving him too much credit, I really don't know and kind of wish I did, but I never found the movie tedious or draggy and I never for a moment wanted to be anywhere else but right in the theatre. I enjoyed the long shipboard sequences since I liked the idea of spending a bit of extra time with those characters, I didn't think it was a transgressive waste of the audience's time at all.
I thought it was different to see Brody cast so very against type as a romantic lead, and I'm not saying the dialogue was at all brilliant, believe me (the special effects certainly were), but the movie felt like it captured the giddy spirit of the original very well, which was presumably its whole point.
Personally, I loved the juggling and skating sequences but apparently a lot of people don't (I found both sequences believable within the context of the movie). And the gorilla itself seemed so gorilla-like that I really cannot imagine how they might have improved on that aspect. The best part for me was seeing that amazing 1933 New York, though. I wish they could keep the sets and do a few more movies on that location.
-------------------------------
Bob - 2005-12-20 12:58:52
I share Chris's enthusiasm for Heavenly Creatures, but it didn't even occur to me to see King Kong, or even the Lord of the Rings movies, cuz computer generated Hollywood crap doesn't seem to be where Jackson's strengths lie. Something like his "Bad Taste" could only have been made the way it was made, and it was a perty funny Reagan-era-over-the-top rock-'em-sock-'em, with hilariously realistic (compared to computer generated), 'sub-shoestring' gore. (Braindead/Dead-Alive, though, which he made between that and Heavenly C's, sucked, on the other hand.) But while I wouldn't think any of his Hollywood movies suck, I just don't think he'll ever get to be Peter Jackson again... so I yearn for good new stuff from other emergers. (And for an opportunity to see it... you metropolitans should take advantage of such ops... even if you have to walk!)
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 13:43:03
Heavenly Creatures is a great movie, at one point it was on my Top Twenty of All Time (when I maintained such lists). And the LoTR trilogy, IMO, is one of the greatest cinematic achievements of our time, so I've got the Peter Jackson love comin' and goin'.
fascistic PC environment
Huh? Who lives in that environment?
-------------------------------
Chris - 2005-12-20 14:10:16
Paula
Don�t know if I agree with you on LOR. The first movie was on of the few I have ever walked out on (the scene with the cute elfin village was a tad to sincere for me). I tend to find the computer generated hollywood crap (bobs words)just that. Sitting here with very little else to do (that strike does make work slow) I tried to think of what big special effects laden action movie I actually liked. Then I realized that best I have seen in a long while is the Incredibles. It looked great, had unique well crafted characters, cool special effects, and an original story. The Pixar movies usually get short changed, although the exhibit at the MOMA hopefully will give them a tad more recognition.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 14:19:04
cute elfin village
I live for that stuff, but I was also pretty knocked out by the action sequences and the fact that there was a lot more crying than in most war-related movies. The good guys were fierce and vulnerable! They had faith and fear! They had awesome outfits and pointy ears and a Catholic subtext.
But I'm with you on The Incredibles.
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-20 14:24:23
"Huh? Who lives in that environment?"
Anyone who makes films, I think, or writes books or does practically anything creative. Rabid political correctness is the new hostility, in the media as well as in offices (see Hoberman's "King Kong" review in the Voice), and I don't think you could make a movie version of "King Kong" today without compensating for the earlier "King Kong" version's racial subtexts by having a character similar in some way to the sailor. (I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do, I actually think it's a good thing in this case, but I'm just pointing out that the choice not to do it does not currently exist.) I kept thinking as I watched the movie that Jackson took it to a preposterously over-the-top extreme to make a point that practically no one would see right away (or if not, Chris is absolutely and incontrovertibly right about those particular scenes: with no mitigating reason for them, they did seem dreadful).
Oddly, I believe this is the only Peter Jackson movie I've ever seen, but "Heavenly Creatures" does look interesting, especially to watch a 19-year-old Kate Winslet in a presumably heavy drama.
And happy birthday to 2fs; I think I've gone from dissertaty to pontificaty with this one.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 14:35:41
Rabid political correctness is the new hostility, in the media as well as in offices
Is this really a problem for you? Is this something that really hampers your freedom? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm trying to understand you better.
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-20 14:39:02
Or maybe Jackson just wanted to insert those lines from "Heart of Darkness" straight into his movie of "King Kong," regardless of anything else, which is an interesting thing to just come right out and do, and something that I'll have to think about the next time I watch the movie.
-------------------------------
Tom Ronca - 2005-12-20 14:44:04
I've already shared my opinion on 'Kong', regard 'Heavenly Creatures' as one of my favorite movies ever, and have enjoyed each and every one of Jackson's films, including 'The Frighteners' (which is fluff, but well-done fluff), 'Forgotten Silver', which is probably the best mockumentary outside of the ones Chris Guest has done. Must take issue w/ Bob on 'BrainDead'/'Dead-Alive' -- it's great fun, the best zombie-gore horror-comedy outside of Evil Dead II, and besides, I really can't bring myself to dislike a movie that's got a lower-intestine that begs for mercy in it.
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-20 14:57:35
Yes, it is a problem for me. It certainly does hamper my freedom. I don't enjoy the fact that you can't tell an innocuous joke (or make one) without running the risk of "offending" someone, and that the current policing from all quarters over what passes for propriety is so restrictive. The country seems to be in a more pervasively (if less overt) puritanical period in some ways than back in the '50s. Political correctness, which started as a well-meant corrective to abusiveness, has become a form of abuse in itself, and I think our whole culture suffers as a result. The more imaginative and humorous you are, the more strait-jacketed you feel. I recently mentioned Hunter Thompson's "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" here as a joke when you were talking about ten best books of the year ("year of suicide..."): could that book even be published for the first time today?
But I can certainly live with it, it could be worse....
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 15:10:17
I don't enjoy the fact that you can't tell an innocuous joke (or make one) without running the risk of "offending" someone
I understand what you're saying--genuinely--but I'm gonna guess that your discomfort is not matched by the discomfort of a black person having to watch a movie where black people are portrayed as savages...or a woman who has to endure unsolicited off-color remarks at work, or more likely, having to pretend to "be a goood sport about it."
Call me a "fascist" but I enjoy working in a polite, civilized atmosphere. I don't feel hampered by it, I feel supported by it.
And if you think Hunter S. Thompson's book really couldn't be published today--I dunno, I just don't buy that.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 15:13:45
Also, you are certainly free to tell any kind of joke you want, any time, almost anywhere. Wasn't The Aristocrats one of the biggest movies of this year? Isn't gangsta rap pretty much the most popular music in this country, aside from country? There are millions and millions of blogs online, where people are free to say whatever the hell they want. I just am not feelin' ya here on the "fascist environment."
-------------------------------
Tom Ronca - 2005-12-20 15:18:51
To defend what I believe Michael was trying to get at -- without taking issue w/ the entirely valid points that Paula made -- is that what makes the political climate right now scarier than back in the '50's is that tat that time you had a rigid far-right wing squaring off against a moderate group of centrists who were able to tolerate a variety of views -- as opposed to right now where the far-right and left seem equally unable to tolerate views outside their own. It makes me just want to run for cover; assuming I could posssibly find any, that is.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 15:25:36
as opposed to right now where the far-right and left seem equally unable to tolerate views outside their own
Right...and to me, "political correctness" is an honest attempt for many divergent groups trying to live together peaceably. So a little sucking up of some discomfort is in order. You do have to give up some freedoms to live in civilization, and calling all efforts to be polite "fascist" and "hostile"--that to me is intolerance in a nutshell.
-------------------------------
Tom Ronca - 2005-12-20 15:31:27
Well, I agree; I've come to see the virtues of civility in my dotage, but still there must be some way to speak of what we want to speak about -- in some cases what we need to speak about -- even when it is unpleasant or in some sense just plain disagreeable. Admitedly I don't really know what that way is, just hoping that it's still open as a possibility.
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-20 15:34:36
I enjoy working in a polite, civilized atmosphere myself. That's my point. It's when civility breaks down and political correctness is used as a truncheon that I have a problem: it often engenders a distinctly uncivilized and impolite environment masquerading as a "civilized" one. Your office, by the way, is in no way an example of this. (And I'm certainly not advocating making movies depicting blacks as savages or making unsolicited off-color remarks to women, which is something I don't believe I've ever done in my life.)
Read Thompson's book again. I think you'll find references that simply wouldn't pass muster in today's restrictive atmosphere (assuming they were written by a young reporter, as Thompson was in '70, rather than by Thompson during his later eminence). A book very like it could be published today, but not that one precisely in its original form. Some of the effervescence would have to be carefully drained out of it in order for it to fit into today's world.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 15:35:15
Tom, that's where I agree with all y'all--we should all be free to communicate our thoughts, needs, opinions, especially in art. I don't see that that freedom has been taken away, and thank god. If Hollywood movies don't float one's boat, there are always alternatives.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 15:38:30
It's when civility breaks down and political correctness is used as a truncheon that I have a problem
Truncheons certainly suck...unless they're catered...but I'm curious--and this is genuine curiosity, not me being a smart-ass--what you're taling about. Now I just wanna hear some juicy details!
-------------------------------
Bob - 2005-12-20 15:39:49
Tom, I have to admit I liked it somewhat better retroactively when I saw that its original title was "Braindead", but I still prefer seeing spectacles with brainwaves (no matter how goofy)... which is why I kind of equate "Dead-Alive" with "Desperate Living", which I thought was not at all one of Waters' early good ones. And Michael, not to be un-PC or anything, but, having seen HC, I'd say that it was interesting "to watch a 19-year-old Kate Winslett in"... her underwear. Though it's got a lot more going for it than just that... but that's "sumably" part of a not-artificially-heavy tone.
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-20 15:45:12
"Also, you are certainly free to tell any kind of joke you want, any time, almost anywhere."
No, Paula. That's not at all true in most corporate offices, not for men. It would be more or less true for you, but certainly not for me or Tom or even 2fs. A movie is one thing, but many environments are more restrictive than ever before.
-------------------------------
Tom Ronca - 2005-12-20 15:51:12
Yeah, 'Desperate Living' is Water's on an off day (Divine was supposed to play the role that Susan Lowe ended up playing, and I don't think Water's quite recovered from that during the making of the film). I would argue that 'BrainDead' is not brainless, however, as there some interesting issues are raised about mother-son relations in the film (see it again if you don't believe me); admittedly this is all sub-text, and even if they are raised largely for humorous effect, it still makes the film more ambitious than, let's say, any Uwe Boll schlock-fest, for example.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 15:58:44
That's not at all true in most corporate offices, not for men...A movie is one thing, but many environments are more restrictive than ever before.
That's why I said "almost anywhere." Anyway, OK, so you feel you can't tell a certain kind of joke at work, and that bums you out because you feel like you are more or less being controlled. Is that accurate?
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-20 16:00:30
"...still there must be some way to speak of what we want to speak about -- in some cases what we need to speak about -- even when it is unpleasant or in some sense just plain disagreeable..."
Tom just reached the real crux of what bothers me the most about political correctness in its current incarnation, that it's a form of actual mind control in which some matters are simply deemed off limits for conversation or even thought. (And don't ask me to elaborate, because they're off limits.) That had completely slipped my mind during this exchange. And Paula, for a pretty handy booklength treatment of some aspects of political correctness, I recommend Crichton's novel "Disclosure" (the book, not the movie, of course). This was from the pre-burglary Crichton.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 16:19:04
in which some matters are simply deemed off limits for conversation...
At work? Yeah...but work is a private environment, where the owners are your "hosts." and you kinda have to honor what your hosts want. But you can talk freely about anything you want in a bar, with your friends, online, etc....
....or even thought
Well, I'm lucky, cuz the only mind control I've experienced at my current job is people trying to get me to like Bloc Party.
I'm seriously not trying to bust yr chops, Michael. Like I said, I want to understand. I don't agree with you, but I do want to understand. And I do get that no one likes feeling controlled.
I guess where I'm coming from is that life is hard enough without looking for more reasons to feel bad. Not being able to tell any joke I want at work doesn't bother me personally. But that's me, and you're certainly entitled to your own thoughts and feelings about it.
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-20 16:27:42
No, it's easy to be dismissive and pretend that everything's peachy, but there are some topics of conversation that are now deemed so un-PC that you can only broach them with your closest, deepest friends, and this is a relatively recent development that is a direct result of political correctness. You perhaps especially couldn't discuss them in a bar, and god knows you'd better not talk about them online. I can vividly remember when this wasn't the case. I'm not talking only about not being able to tell a joke at work, as I guess you must know, that's only a minor symptom of a much greater and more pervasive cultural sickness. And yes, it is a form of mind control and no, it doesn't only apply to work environments. That's actually the most insidious part.
-------------------------------
Chris - 2005-12-20 16:52:14
Wow, a discussion of PC. No way I am getting involved in that one.
But moving back to the strike, I was just walking back over the bridge, the carefree spirit still seems to be there, though not sure that mood will last much longer. The irony lost on the strikers is that the people hurt most by all this is the working poor, just the people they claim they are fighting for. New york, even more than most places, money can buy you anything. None of the professionals in my office seemed the least concerned, it was the support staff that was taking it on the chin.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 17:02:50
The irony lost on the strikers is that the people hurt most by all this is the working poor, just the people they claim they are fighting for
I can only engage in a limited amount of controversial opinions in one day, but my old born-and-raised "always side with the union" side is being seriously challenged by this strike.
-------------------------------
Baby Party - 2005-12-20 17:29:35
Sorry, Pontificaty, but I think "political correctness" is a straw man, Disclosure was a stupid book, stuff more outrageous than (but not as good as) Fear and Loathing is published all the time. Ever seen The Man Show? Yes, it's off the air now, but not because there was any big uproar about it. There's guys at my office who have pictures of half-naked women in their cubes. No one's coming down on them (and frankly, I don't really care myself). I'd still like to hear some concrete examples from your own life - Disclosure is fiction, written by an entertaining hack whose last book suggested the global warming isn't real, right?
As for the strike, I'm pro-labor, and that doesn't change just because I'm personally inconvenienced. If it didn't inconvenience people, it wouldn't be effective. Maybe management or professionals could help support staff get to work, if they really require their presence, or give them the day off.
And now, having thoroughly pissed everyone off, I'm outta here! Goodnight, you've been a great audience!
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-20 17:35:50
Chris, you're a wiser man than I am when it comes to staying out of a discussion of PC. I just sort of idiotically stumbled into it before I knew what had hit me, like quicksand. I think literally everybody should agree to disagree on that one, it's so bottomless, and I doubt that any two thinking people see it the same way. I never imagined I'd find myself apparently diametrically opposite to Paula on any issue, especially something like this.
As for the strike, there's no real upside to it for the rest of us aside from the momentary incredulous novelty (I'm still gaping in shock). As you said, it's only those without much money who suffer (as usual: money is the great buffer), the others probably find it funny. I can understand why they did it, though. I just hope it doesn't last very long. There's no telling on that one, I don't suppose. It wouldn't be unprecedented for Bush to call in the army to run the trains (Truman threatened that during a miners' strike, if I'm not mistaken), except the army's tied up right now and Bush is doubtless one of those who finds this funny.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 17:45:55
Jesus, I have never commented on my own blog as much as I have today. Is anyone still reading this?
I never imagined I'd find myself apparently diametrically opposite to Paula on any issue
Strangely enough, I don't feel diametrically opposed. It's a complex issue, and I understand some of your angst, and am just offering another take on it.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 17:59:01
I'm pro-labor, and that doesn't change just because I'm personally inconvenienced
That's admirable, but I don't think that's what Chris was saying. Hourly wage-earners who can't get to work from Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx are not just going to be inconvenienced by this strike, they are going to lose their wages.
And what I was saying is that I used to be pro-labor no questions asked--but I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the TWU and my heart doesn't go out to them. Not because I'm being inconvenienced (dude I LOVE working at home!) but because...I'm just not feelin' the urgency of their demands. Too many shades of grey here for me to say "they are striking, and historically I am pro-labor, so they must be right!"
-------------------------------
Baby Party - 2005-12-20 18:03:21
But why not blame management, instead of the union, for hourly wage-earners losing money? That's all I'm saying. Antilabor forces and Fox News want us to blame the union. The labor movement has just lost so much ground in this country, is so much weaker than it was 20 ago, and the TWU is one of the few really powerful, old-style militant unions left, and I, for one, am glad for it. Because frankly, everywhere else, the battle is pretty much lost.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 18:19:33
Those are good points, BP, and I agree with you in spirit. I believe in unions, and I believe that when workers have serious demands, striking is a powerful tool for change. But in this case, I am not moved by their demands for a salary increase. And until teachers in this city are paid as much as transit workers, I'm gonna remain pretty much unmoved.
why not blame management, instead of the union, for hourly wage-earners losing money
Because it's the TWU who are striking.
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-20 18:20:50
Baby Party, it's good to hear from you again, under any circumstances. I don't consider Crichton a hack at all. As I mentioned, "Disclosure" was written before the break-in, which seems to have divided Crichton's life into two quite different halves; I haven't read his last one (the first post-break-in book), it's perhaps the only one I've skipped, but I think his sensibilities were radically changed that day, and not for the better. I'm sure everyone's going to throw rocks at me like no tomorrow for this, but I find Crichton to be an imaginative and influential writer (for better or worse, he's probably had as much impact on American popular culture as any recent writer) who writes action sequences as well as anybody since Edgar Rice Burroughs (I know, a "hack," but he could really handle action, which isn't easy for many writers, and is of some real value). (My own favorite of Crichton's books remains "Travels.") "Disclosure" would appear to be something transmitted from Mars when regarded from your very relaxed work environment (with the half-naked women pictures pinned up in the cubes), but it isn't, it isn't a stupid book (at least from the standpoint of the topic) and the reason I pointedly mentioned it was that the book probes almost every aspect of PC that Crichton could think of at the time. Regarding stories from my own life, like many people these days, I have plenty of good second-hand ones that happened to others, but I'll save those for a different circumstance.
As for PC being a straw man, the existence of "Man Show" and pictures of naked women don't seem to be primary PC targets in the larger sense I was referring to in my last post; it's more political in a deep sense, with some matters simply made unthinkably off limits.
Now, with that, I'm going to shut up about PC once and for all.
-------------------------------
Flasshe - 2005-12-20 19:01:28
Not to change the subject, but I couldn't let this comment from way earlier in the thread go by:
The Pixar movies usually get short changed, although the exhibit at the MOMA hopefully will give them a tad more recognition.
Huh? The Pixar movies get short-changed? Among who? Certainly not among the critics or the movie-going public. If anything, the Pixar people seem to be elevated to the status of Godhood these days and they can apparently do no wrong. Even if they weren't part of Disney (which is almost over?), they'd still be the New Disney. Yeah, Incredibles didn't do as well as expected, but it didn't do too bad either. Don't get me wrong, I love the Pixar stuff (though Monsters Inc didn't do anything for me), but I'm just getting a little bored with it.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-20 19:15:38
Flasshe:
Not to change the subject...
Oh god please change the subject!
I have to say that my favorite comment of all today was this:
I call it the Gazoo effect: Flinstones was believable up until the arrival of the Green Alien
-------------------------------
Chris - 2005-12-20 19:35:07
Quick defense: Pixar does get gobs of good reviews from the people magazine sorts but because its popular and because its primarly directed towards children serious film sorts dont give them much of a nod. I should of said "despite the hype pixar gets, they still are often only viewed as children movies" And your right, it was a stretch. But at least it kept me from writing a rant on the the transit strike.
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-20 19:36:48
I just talked to a railroad guy who claims that the strike has to go at least two days even if they settle it fast because of the mechanics of the thing, signing the papers and so on. Don't know if that could be true.
Speaking of "The Flintstones," I wonder how much "The Honeymooners" enhances the popularity of "The Flintstones" and how much watching "The Flintstones" cartoons as a kid makes you more receptive to "The Honeymooners" reruns later on. Oh well.
Anyway, happy birthday, 2fs.
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-20 19:39:57
And my favorite comment of all today was:
"Oh god please change the subject!"
-------------------------------
2fs - 2005-12-20 23:13:51
Damn! I'm late to the party. Anyway: first, thanks to Michael for the birthday wishes (do I know you, other than from here? or did you just glom the date from my blog?). As for the strike: I know absolutely nothing about it...but Paula, of course it's TWU who's on strike: management never, ever needs to strike, because they hold all the cards! That, in itself, doesn't make them right, of course...but offering that as a reason for being (to whatever degree) against them doesn't hold. About the PC thing: I would think, as a white guy working at a university in an English department, that I would be in the epicenter of PC if there was one. Yet, I don't sense it at all. People (including myself) can make calculatedly outrageous *comments* (so long as it's understood where they're coming from) and not catch any shit for it. What people can't do (and shouldn't be able to do, w/out trouble) is *act* in "un-PC" ways; i.e., when a TA in the department was sexually harassing a former student of mine (and his), the hammer came down on him...and it should have. He was a slime. But I simply (along w/Paula) do not feel this mythical PC powershield hitting us - and to the extent I might, to the extent I feel I should be sensitive to the way people who aren't me might take my remarks, I think that's a good thing. Finally: Tom said "right now where the far-right and left seem equally unable to tolerate views outside their own": I cannot accept any formulation of reality that imagines that the "far left" and the "far right" are even remotely equivalent in their ability (never mind desire) to police anyone else's thought. The far right has the government, industry, and most the mainstream media; the left (and how "far"?) has...what? A few English departments? Harper's magazine and The Nation and maybe part of a Hollywood studio (so long as it can still make $$$)? Sorry: yes, there are idiots on the far left...but all they can do is make a little noise and serve as negative examples for idiots on the far right, who can back up their idiocy with TV cameras, newsprint, judges' gavels, and truncheons. I mean, right now, everyone's falling all over Sarah Silverman...and someone's saying we live in a "PC" environment? Happy Holidays to everyone except Bill O'Reilly...whose house I hope is picketed by rabid Satanists burning goats.
-------------------------------
Flasshe - 2005-12-21 01:14:32
I think we should try to get this sucker up to 100 comments! Who's with me?
-------------------------------
Janet - 2005-12-21 07:11:50
47!
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-21 09:05:21
A university faculty environment is by definition as loose and free in terms of self-expression as any you'll find in America (that's kind of the very thing it's there for). And no, 2fs, I don't know you in any context other than this one (although I think maybe I did zip through Milwaukee once or twice and might have seen you on the sidewalk or something), but since your birthday is a rather prominent part of your self-description on your blog, I couldn't miss it.
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-21 09:27:50
2fs, if O'Reilley were picketed by rabid Satanists burning goats, wouldn't he eagerly invite them in?
Okay, I've done way more than my share (always my lot in life), who's going to get this up to 50? Might as well set a durable record, even though I'm not at all sure Guinness will be willing set up a category for most posts in a day on Paula's blog (the subway strike would probably disqualify this page anyway on a technicality).
-------------------------------
Paula Carino - 2005-12-21 10:18:52
2fs:
Paula, of course it's TWU who's on strike: management never, ever needs to strike, because they hold all the cards!
Um, duh, 2fs. I was responding to BP's suggestion that we should blame the MTA for people not being able to go to work today, as if somehow the TWU weren't responsible for their own actions--which I find a little insulting on behalf of the TWU--it's infantalizing: "It isn't our fault, they made us strike." It is a little too abstract a source of blame.
That, in itself, doesn't make them right, of course...but offering that as a reason for being (to whatever degree) against them doesn't hold.
This is seriously bumming me out. I'm trying to express a complex and honest observation about something, and people seem to want to reduce it to "for and "against."
I'm not "against" the TWU. I'm not even "against" the strike. I find the strike to be a very rich ground for controversy because there is no clear right or wrong.
And my original observation was that--despite a lifetime of being pro-labor--I find it challenging to support this strike. Challenging--not "those stupid strikers shouldn't be striking." OK?
-------------------------------
Chris - 2005-12-21 10:24:48
Paula. I have a much more anti-union take on this strike, although I dont think this is really the place to air it. Walking that brooklyn bridge in the morning is very refreshing though. I am already sick of the video teams. I want to hit one of them
-------------------------------
2fs - 2005-12-21 10:47:49
First, I wasn't trying to reduce things to "for" or "against"; I was merely using those words to express a tendency, or talk about moments, or something that didn't entail coming up with huge long phrases. I realize it doesn't mean you're *totally* against TWU. My point, though, is that a strike is always the last resort of a union that can do little else, given the power of management over its working conditions and wages. In a real sense, management is co-responsible for the strike: otherwise, *every* strike is the union's "fault" and management can never have responsibility for a strike. That said, I agree with the fact that this particular strike should be challenging to the strikers. When the Amalgamated Pickle-Packers Local 217 goes on strike, the only people whom their action hurts directly are those it's supposed to: the management of the pickle plants. The rest of us can go on and buy pickles that are already in stock, or we can do without pickles for a while: no big deal. But transit (like education, so I have a personal stake in this) is a field where striking affects not only the workers and the management but also innocent bystanders. I know if there were debate on calling a strike in our teachers union, I'd have to do a lot of difficult thinking about how to accommodate students' needs that would be affected.
-------------------------------
Jens Carstensen - 2005-12-21 10:59:19
Whoa, when did Amalgamated Pickle-Packers Local 217 go on strike ?! Christ, that explains the crummy cole slaw i got with my pastrami sandwich yesterday.
-------------------------------
Paula Carino - 2005-12-21 12:14:27
But transit (like education, so I have a personal stake in this) is a field where striking affects not only the workers and the management but also innocent bystanders
Yes indeedy. Thank you.
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-21 13:20:56
Cue the puppy!
-------------------------------
Dave - 2005-12-21 14:06:40
Well, I think the one thing we can thank the strike for is that everyone has time to write lots of comments on Paula's blog!
-------------------------------
Pontificaty - 2005-12-21 15:53:42
Someone should point that out to Bloomberg.
-------------------------------
add your comment:
back to the entry - Diaryland
