tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45436698420946525252024-03-13T09:32:23.482-05:00In the T.C.life and ideasPacifist Vikinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630996018868040440noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-13081308097204755252009-12-24T12:32:00.000-06:002009-12-24T12:33:27.223-06:00I blog here now<a href="http://seenandeaten.blogspot.com/">Bourgeois Hippie</a><br /><br />Sorry. I'm a flake.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-28997058552235488472009-12-07T09:33:00.001-06:002009-12-07T09:35:59.727-06:00Gratuitous LinkI always come back to Dostoevsky, usually to Notes from the Underground. In "Liberals Are Useless" in <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07">Common Dreams</a>, Chris Hedges does too:<div><br /></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"I save my anger for our bankrupt liberal intelligentsia of which, sadly, I guess I am a member. Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky’s “Notes From Underground.” They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence. They, like Dostoevsky’s depraved character, have come to believe that the “conscious inertia” of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground. This choice does not satisfy the Mouse Man, as it does not satisfy our liberal class, but neither has the strength to change. The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses."</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-14983638349052773082009-11-26T20:29:00.000-06:002009-11-26T20:30:37.742-06:00Thanksgiving Conversation<span style="font-style: italic;">(cross-posted at </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://pacifistviking.blogspot.com/2009/11/thanksgiving-conversation.html">Pacifist Viking</a><span style="font-style: italic;">)</span><br /><br />No, the most depressing conversation I had on Thanksgiving wasn't my grandmother noticing my balding spot and telling me, "Joe, put your head down. I just noticed that. Did somebody hit you? Do you have a scar? It's so thin there," then proceeding to tell me what shampoo she uses to get thicker hair. The most depressing conversation I had on Thanksgiving was the following:<br /><br />Aunt: Does anybody know, when is the last time the Vikings WON a Super Bowl?<br /><br />(I stare blankly)<br /><br />Aunt: I tried to look it up, but I couldn't find it.<br /><br />Me: It will probably take you a while.<br /><br />Aunt: I could only find the info back to like '67.<br /><br />Me: That's around when they started having Super Bowls. But the Vikings have never won one.<br /><br />Aunt: So what did they do before the Super Bowl? Just have nothing?<br /><br />Me: They called it the NFL Championship.<br /><br />Aunt: Oh. So when is the last time the Vikings won that?<br /><br />(I blankly stare)<br /><br />Me: They never won that either. Actually, they won it in '69, but then lost the Super Bowl.<br /><br />Aunt: Oh. But they were in, like, three Super Bowls.<br /><br />Me: Four, actually.<br /><br />Aunt: Well, what team has gone the longest without winning a Super Bowl?<br /><br />Me: Um, the Vikings are pretty close.<br /><br />Aunt: So they're like the Chicago Cubs of football.<br /><br />Me: Yes.<br /><br />Aunt: Well, then it could be worse: it could be another 60 years of waiting.<br /><br />Me: Did you walk out of my nightmares and into my waking life?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-51350773327684529462009-11-25T23:35:00.003-06:002009-11-25T23:46:40.044-06:00Eating foodsA triple play of vegetarians from <span style="font-style: italic;">Slate</span>: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2236436/">Juliet Lapidos</a> on fake turkey, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2236559/">Lapidos again</a> on green beans (I still cut fresh green beans for my spinach salad, out of season be damned), and <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2190872/">Taylor Clark</a> on the social reaction to vegetarians (Clark's column really speaks to me).<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/23/091123fa_fact_lahiri">The New Yorker</a>, Jhumpa Lahiri writes about her father cooking rice.<br /><br />From <span style="font-style: italic;">PETA</span>, Miami Dolphin running back Ricky Williams <a href="http://www.goveg.com/f-Williams.asp">is a vegetarian</a> and now <a href="http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/11/ricky_williams.php">he has a restaurant</a>. When I find out an athlete is a vegetarian, I start rooting for him or her.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-7473090543725753632009-11-25T14:05:00.004-06:002009-11-25T14:08:15.066-06:00The easiest freaking salad in the worldFor Thanksgiving, my wife volunteered to bring a salad, and I volunteered to plan and prepare it (this is the sort of thing vegetarians can do to ensure getting quality food for the meal).<br /><br />Bam: spinach, walnuts, craisins, some sort of vinaigrette. I'll be tossing in some fresh cut green beans just because I think they're good. Simple, healthy, delicious, vegan.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-19656286665416136472009-11-22T00:03:00.001-06:002009-11-22T00:04:29.674-06:00Gratuitous LinkGary Steiner's "Animal, Vegetable, Miserable" in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22steiner.html?ref=opinion">the New York Times</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-7175296095983103892009-11-20T13:12:00.007-06:002009-11-20T13:50:42.074-06:00Vegetarians and Priorities<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Advocates of animal rights or animal welfare often have their priorities questioned. Aren't there many human problems? Why should we focus so much attention on the suffering and death of animals when there is so much suffering and death of humans?</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In the </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/books/20book.html?ref=books"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">New York Times</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Michiko</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Kakutani</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> says as much in her review of Jonathan </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Safron</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Foer's</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Eating Animals</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">:</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"It’s arguments like this that undermine the many more valid observations in this book, and make readers wonder how the author can expend so much energy and caring on the fate of pigs and chickens, when, say, malaria kills nearly a million people a year (most of them children), and conflict and disease in Congo since the mid-1990s have left an estimated five million dead and hundreds of thousands of women and girls raped and have driven more than a million people from their homes."</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The problem is that this sort of logic--that we shouldn't "expend [...] energy and caring" on animals when there are still human problems--is that this logic can rightly be applied to most human activities and </span><span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">endeavours</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> in the developed world. Why is Kakutani devoting any energy at all to reviewing the fiction </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/books/10book.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">of Nabokov</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/books/27irving.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">or Irving</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/books/23book.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">or Ishiguro and Roth</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, when she could be devoting her energy to solving the world's human problems? What is reading literature doing to stop malaria or war or oppression of women? Why does she care about novels, when human beings are suffering?</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Vegetarians are expected to get their priorities straight, and worry about the problems of human beings first. That all sorts of people are devoting all sorts of time, energy, and resources to all sorts of things that do nothing to assuage human suffering around the world is left aside.</span></span></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-85261240733630624262009-11-19T21:27:00.001-06:002009-11-19T21:44:04.795-06:00Rereading "The French Lieutenant's Woman"I just finished re-reading John Fowles' <span style="font-style: italic;">The French Lieutenant's Woman </span>for the fourth or fifth time over the last eight to nine years. In grad school, I also read most of the published academic criticism of the book. I feel thoroughly familiar with the book. So why, after all this time and study, do I find myself at points unable to put the book down? How, when I know all that will happen, do I read some passages with piqued energy, racing with anticipation? Why do I still feel challenged by its themes, enraptured by its style? How does Fowles succeed so completely at pulling me into the world of his novel? <br /><br />That's what I want when I read a novel: to be pulled emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually into its fictional world. I want it to engulf me, so that while reading I am virtually experiencing its world, and when I am not reading it, that world lingers with me wherever I go. Fowles succeeds.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-77271334414179863502009-11-18T22:35:00.003-06:002009-11-18T22:43:31.168-06:00Literature as Personal ChallengeFrom John Fowles' <span style="font-style: italic;">The French Lieutenant's Woman</span>:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"You know your choice. You stay in prison, what your time calls duty, honor, self-respect, and you are comfortably safe. Or you are free and crucified. Your only companions the stones, the thorns, the turning backs; the silence of cities, and their hate."</span><br /><br />Overdramatic, even adolescent? Perhaps. But what is real in the novel is Charles' choice. He chooses humiliation, the scorn of society, the ridicule of his age, to "escape" to his freedom. He seeks his authentic self and authentic love, and to do so requires a clear break from his social world and from respectability. And that's the choice he makes.<br /><br />I can't help but take Charles' choice as a personal challenge. It is not only Victorians that can avoid authentic actions, that can hide from their own freedom, for the sake of convention to remain "comfortably safe."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-22033786325513441722009-11-17T23:24:00.003-06:002009-11-17T23:28:17.268-06:00Gratiutous Link<a href="http://inthetwincities.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-being-pacifist-sports-fan.html">Last week</a>, I tried to articulate my reaction to displays of military virtue during sports broadcasts. Relevant to that discussion, at <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2235469">Slate</a> Michael Oriard discusses the November 8th FOX NFL pregame show from Afghanistan:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"The festivities were high on patriotism but low on militarism, leaving out any hint of blood or fighting. For the U.S. military, the Fox broadcast was an opportunity to tell a story about its humanitarian mission in Afghanistan, to sell the war at home at a time when anything like a clear-cut military victory appears unattainable."</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-5545356423526497842009-11-17T08:57:00.002-06:002009-11-17T09:01:24.659-06:00On ParenthoodModern technology offers a wonderful gift to today's parents: DVR. Children require major alterations to your schedule, and they make frequent demands that must be met immediately. Yet DVR means you don't have to miss your favorite TV shows: you watch them on your own time, when the kids are in bed. Watching sports on television is easy too. When the kids require full attention, you just pause the game, and come back to it when you are able. I don't mean pausing for hours and watching later: I mean pausing for 1-5 minutes at a time to care for whatever needs or wants the kids have.<br /><br />DVR means you can be a good parent while still devoting your full attention to a football game, or even a sitcom.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-38646150344744384932009-11-17T08:51:00.001-06:002009-11-17T15:52:20.148-06:00Gratuitous ClaimRereading John Fowles' <span style="font-style: italic;">The French Lieutenant's Woman</span>, I'm reaching a startling conclusion: this is my favorite novel. Ever.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-29973928453763564332009-11-10T13:30:00.004-06:002009-11-10T13:59:00.600-06:00On being a pacifist sports fanThis past weekend, several networks showing NFL games used the broadcast as an opportunity to pay tribute to U.S. soldiers currently occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. I've been struggling to articulate why I find these tributes unsettling, and I realized, why even have a little-read blog if not to explore one's own thoughts through writing?<br /><br />Consider this, then, one pacifist's attempt to explain to himself why these tributes to the troops disturb him.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The "Thank You" contains implicit support of the current wars</span><br />Many of the statements of thanks to the soldiers are couched in conventional language: thanks for keeping us safe, thanks for protecting our freedoms, etc. But to thank soldiers currently occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for keeping us safe/protecting our freedoms implicitly assumes that their current mission is necessary to keep us safe/protect our freedoms, and is therefore "good." Such statements of thanks, then, become more commercials for waging these wars.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Perpetual tributes for a state of perpetual warfare</span><br />Tributes to serving soldiers have been going on during NFL broadcasts at least since Thanksgiving 2001, shortly after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. That means that for eight years, NFL broadcasts during special occasions (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Veterans Day, etc.) have been used to pay tribute to soldiers currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've understood a need to pay regular tribute because we've accepted that U.S. soldiers will be occupying foreign countries for a long time.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The normalization of militarism in culture</span><br />Like toy soldiers, military video games, and wearing camouflage for style and fashion, the fusion of military tributes with our sports entertainment just further makes militarism and military values a normal, everyday part of our culture. We accept shows of military virtue as something that is ensconced in all parts of our lives--and thus we perpetuate a culture that supports military violence.<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Relevant reading</span><br />Last March, Nathan Schneider at <a href="http://www.therowboat.com/2009/03/militarism-and-heroism/">The Row Boat</a> suggested that<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"There must be a way to honor such sacrifices as war brings out in people while abhorring the pointless insanity that occasioned it, abhorring it so completely that it can never possibly happen again."</span><br /><br />I shared my doubts, which I think are relevant to the issue I'm exploring here:<br /><p style="font-style: italic;">I’m not sure. I’ve been increasingly influenced by the work of John Howard Yoder and other Christian pacifists, and I feel no need to “honor” militarism. I am compelled to abhor violence; I don’t know if I can abhor the large-scale war while honoring those carrying out the war (at any level). It seems an inconsistent position: to commit to a life of peace, yet to “honor” those who participate in the violence of war. “Honor” comes too close to glorification (whether or not that is true in the realm of ideas, it is too often true in actual practice). I think it possible that continuing to honor the people who participate in war is a significant part of perpetuating a militaristic culture, and thus goes against the desire to abhor war “so completely that it can never possibly happen again.” Stopping the honor of militarism might be a significant step toward stopping war.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">So not “honor.” But sadness, sympathy, empathy, and love. Perhaps another word entirely. For those who sacrifice much, for those who lose much without ever having the choice.</p>And at <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/10/brooks/index.html">Salon</a>, Glenn Greenwald exposes in David Brooks a common disconnect: cheerleading in support of war while calling others who commit violence "evil."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-65500251203543701542009-11-04T19:49:00.000-06:002009-11-04T19:50:40.019-06:00Gratuitous LinkAt <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/09/091109crbo_books_kolbert">The New Yorker</a>, Elizabeth Kolbert reviews the book I now want to read, Jonathan Safran Foer's <span style="font-style: italic;">Eating Animals</span>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-55245136466303888642009-10-30T00:03:00.004-05:002009-10-30T00:06:44.276-05:00How we talk about war.David Brooks sure uses a lot of words to say "He's a prissy intellectual; he's not man enough to fight a war" (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion">New York Times</a>).<br /><br />Truth-in-satire once again from <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_continues_quagmire_building">The Onion</a>: "U.S. Continues Quagmire-Building Effort in Afghanistan."<br /><br />I'm not at all surprised to find that <span style="font-style: italic;">The Onion</span> offers keener, more incisive insight than David Brooks.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-82162273924282247982009-10-27T17:53:00.003-05:002009-10-27T17:54:38.233-05:00Costanza and Me (2)In one episode of <span style="font-style: italic;">Seinfeld</span>, George is on the verge of career success, which fills him with anxiety and dread. He frets to his therapist, “God would never let me be successful. He’ll kill me first. He’ll never let me be happy.” “I thought you didn’t believe in God,” the therapist says. “I do for the bad things!” George replies.<br /><br />I feel personally connected to the Minnesota Vikings. Their shortcomings are my shortcomings. When they fail, I feel I have failed, that I have opened myself up personally to the ridicule of the masses. When they win, I feel euphoric joy, but I don’t feel pride, exactly. I don’t think their strengths are my strengths, that their successes are my successes.<br /><br />When people insult the Vikings, I feel they are insulting me personally. But that doesn’t mean that I consider praise for the Vikings praise for me. George Costanza believes in God only for the bad things. The Vikings are me, but only when they lose.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-13519850185655216062009-10-26T22:20:00.003-05:002009-10-27T17:49:50.943-05:00The most fun you can have in an hour:<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1327801/">Glee</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-27211156549751280452009-10-20T21:56:00.004-05:002009-10-20T22:02:09.255-05:00On AdulthoodI'm an adult. If I finish off the bag of candy corn, I can just go buy another one. It costs like two dollars. If I want another bag of candy corn, I can get it.<br /><br />But that candy corn is loaded with sugar and calories. I really shouldn't finish it off: I don't need all the sugar or calories. I think about my health--because I'm an adult.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-42020786633707057442009-10-17T19:59:00.001-05:002009-10-17T20:00:48.044-05:00My Watermelon PolicyI'm willing to work hard for my food. I'm willing to devote time and energy to preparing a meal. I'm willing to work hard to earn each bite (as one must with, say, a grapefruit). But once a bite of food goes into my mouth, I should be done working for it. Once it is in my mouth, that is the time to just take pleasure.<br /><br />So I avoid watermelon, because I don't like having to work out the seeds while the watermelon is in my mouth.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-85885688505044850752009-10-02T21:54:00.001-05:002009-10-02T21:56:03.923-05:00My Cantaloupe Policy1. Always buy a cantaloupe when it costs less than a dollar.<br /><br />2. Never buy cantaloupe on the "buy one, get one free" deal; no matter how much fruit you eat, it's hard to eat two cantaloupe in one week.<br /><br />3. Always cut the cantaloupe within two days of getting it home.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-32227752052687451982009-09-30T22:51:00.004-05:002009-09-30T23:26:26.597-05:00Dexter<span style="font-style: italic;">a contrapuntal essay</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">(in this case it just means rambling, and I'm saving my focus for things other than reorganizing a blog entry).</span><br /><br />Sometimes I think <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0773262/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Dexter</span></a> is a sick parody of a the conventional "cop who plays by his own rules to get the bad guys" show. There are a lot of fictional police officers who are willing to violate rights, break the law, or use violence to get the bad guys (usually with the support of the audience). The first two seasons of <span style="font-style: italic;">Dexter</span> even feature James <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Doaks</span>, an aggressive, angry, occasionally violent police officer willing to skirt the law for justice. But Dexter Morgan makes sure you're never confused: while he has a "code," he's not interested in justice. He's a psychopath that doesn't feel things and is compelled to kill.<br /><br />And sometimes I think <span style="font-style: italic;">Dexter</span> is a sick parody of "just war" thinking, of the thinking that seeks military solutions to problems. At the end of season one, Dexter speculates how horrified everybody around him would be if they knew he is a serial killer. But then he fantasizes: maybe they wouldn't be horrified. Dexter uses violence to punish bad people; maybe if people knew what he did, they'd thank him. In his fantasy, he walks past cheering onlookers, thanking him for keeping them safe, as red, white, and blue confetti falls around him.<br /><br />I don't really see <span style="font-style: italic;">Dexter</span> as a parody. The show does, however, connect the righteous violence that audiences find appealing with a horrifying, psychopathic violence that should repulse an audience.<br /><br />In season three, <span style="font-style: italic;">Dexter</span> becomes a sick parody of tranquil domesticity. Dexter protects his girlfriend Rita's daughter from a threatening man: he goes to the man's home and kills him. On his way, Rita had called to tell him they were out of milk. As Dexter drags the man's corpse into the man's kitchen, Dexter remembers Rita's call: he checks the man's fridge, and takes that milk to Rita. In the next episode, he can't quite get a marriage proposal right; he finally succeeds when he borrows the words of a deranged killer. <br /><br />At least since <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sopranos</span>, television is capable of making an audience "root" for a morally disgusting protagonist. <span style="font-style: italic;">Dexter</span>, I think, plays with what it knows the audience must feel: we're compelled to side with a narrator protagonist no matter how awful he may be. When Rita becomes pregnant, Dexter is anxious: he's afraid to commit to fatherhood, since he's afraid the child will be like him, and afraid he'll be a terrible father. Dexter's sister calls him a fool: he'll be a great father, she says. Rita obviously wants Dexter to commit to fatherhood. And we the audience, familiar with such television situations, may generally think Dexter should commit. He's ambivalent, hesitating, not sure. And you know what? <span style="font-style: italic;">He's right</span>. He's the voice of reason. He's a psychopath incapable of most human emotion that is compelled to kill people. He is probably going to hurt Rita's whole family, and he should run away from committing to them. Eventually, of course, he does end up committing to the family. In general, I think <span style="font-style: italic;">Dexter</span> plays with the conventions of the television protagonist and the audience's sympathies. We're asked to feel emotions for Rita and her children, to see some warmth in Dexter's relationship with them. But surely we must know that Rita and the children would be utterly horrified, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">devastated</span>, permanently damaged, if they knew the truth about Dexter's murderous activities. The whole relationship is something of a facade that, but Dexter is the only one that knows it's a sham, a phony, a farce. We watch (and perhaps care for) a family, we become aware of their emotional lives, and yet we know who Dexter really is, and know the family doesn't know that, and know that they would be crushed beyond words if they did know the truth.<br /><br />It goes further. "All in the Family," the season three episode when Dexter proposes to Rita, features the theme of role playing. From beginning to the end, Dexter's narration explores the ways he and others act out an expected role. This episode resonates with season one, when Dexter recounts Harry's lessons for "passing" as normal. He's supposed to fake it. He doesn't know real emotions, he can't actually connect with other human beings, so he's supposed to fake it. He's got to play a role. And in the final scene, when Dexter proposes and talks about how sometimes you end up playing "the role of a lifetime," I can't help but wondering if he's expressing a larger ambivalence about domestic life (an ambivalence not limited to psychopaths). Some people may feel like Dexter: that domestic life requires roles, that family expectations demand certain performed behavior, and sometimes that behavior is not authentic. It feels phony, fake. The domestic role is performed.<br /><br />The show works at all sorts of levels.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-14349783602493500962009-09-23T22:08:00.003-05:002009-10-27T17:56:24.131-05:00Fall TV! Fall TV!There are two shows that I am utterly thrilled with this fall. <span style="font-style: italic;">Thrilled</span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439629/">Community</a>. If you had told me that Joel McHale, Chevy Chase, and John Oliver were starring in a sitcom about college, you would have to say nothing more: I'd be in. Nothing this fall has made me laugh out loud more than the pilot of <span style="font-style: italic;">Community</span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1327801/">Glee</a>. The show is just pure fun. It's light, amusing, and people often break into song and dance!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-67077671633591978762009-09-12T23:41:00.003-05:002009-09-12T23:47:34.430-05:00The Golden Gophers' Home Opener<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6PnCiqrAnnY/Sqx5D3_o_0I/AAAAAAAAAE8/aqD4xdpzKCU/s1600-h/one.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6PnCiqrAnnY/Sqx5D3_o_0I/AAAAAAAAAE8/aqD4xdpzKCU/s400/one.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5380808762278346562" border="0" /></a><br />Oh, to be a 21 year old U of M student today: it's a day long party in the whole neighborhood around TCF Stadium.<br /><br />My dad and I went to the Golden Gophers' first game in their new on-campus stadium. We at at Stub and Herb's beforehand, then got to enjoy a beautiful stadium with an energized crowd. Bud Grant was even there (he got a loud cheer: is there a more revered figure in Minnesota sports?). When night settled in, and we were watching a college football game outdoors under the lights, life was good.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6PnCiqrAnnY/Sqx5DEWAZjI/AAAAAAAAAE0/jlM-qnFp3A0/s1600-h/two.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6PnCiqrAnnY/Sqx5DEWAZjI/AAAAAAAAAE0/jlM-qnFp3A0/s400/two.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5380808748413511218" border="0" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-30928948546081247982009-09-11T10:45:00.002-05:002009-09-11T10:45:58.095-05:00Gratuitous LinkJustin Goodman's "Animal Dissection: Cutting Kids' Heartstrings" in <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/10-4">Common Dreams</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4543669842094652525.post-75185832255434669152009-09-06T22:38:00.001-05:002009-09-06T22:39:32.052-05:00I'm going to say what needs to be said:The '80s version of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Twilight Zone</span> was better than the original series. I said it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0