As I was sitting in the dining hall after my American Capitalism class for "missed meal" about ten minutes ago, I came across something very disturbing to me. I was sitting down reading an article on how religion has failed in its duty to bring about justice to our country, and it goes on to explain the different ideas on why this decline in religious faith has come about. I was taking their big words and smart-sounding skepticism seriously, until I heard a girl at the table behind me say loudly, "You became a minister online!?"...Hold up...Excuse me?
Needless to say, I stopped reading that bull shit article (sorry Dr. Reed), and fully engaged my eavesdropping abilities on the conversation going on behind me. Basically, these girls were talking about how one of them had just gotten her license (I guess it's a license) to be a minister. All she needed was her credit card number...Now, I know that this wasn't an exaggeration because I have a really strange friend from back home who, also, became a minister on line in "a few simple steps". At the time I really paid no attention to what she was telling me, but now that I am hearing about this for a second time, I am in sort of a disbelief. It would be one thing if her duties were limited, or if it was something like a "starter minister certificate" or something like that (I don't really know how this stuff works); but it wasn't, she is now a full, and certified minister. She can 1. marry people, 2. (if that's not bad enough) she can oversee funerals, and 3. WAIT FOR IT!!!.....she can PREACH to "religious" people in which ever church will allow her to do so.
Now, I'm not too sure as to why...But this girl is so damn excited about this. I just don't get it. Who would find her to be a credible minister? I mean really...I guess to each is own, but I've never been to church a day in my life, and even I can tell you that this is messed up. Needless to say, I'm sure she will never actually marry two people or preach in a church, but just the fact that she CAN do this...Is insane (in my opinion). But then again...Anyone can read the bible, I did it last semester in Core for the first time, the only difference here is that it's being done on stage.
I refused to turn around to see who the girls were talking about this because I knew that if I saw them and happened to know who they were, I would never be able to take them seriously again in my life. So I stayed clear of finding out the identity of this new "minister" (also just in case one of you happens to be attending the church she is soon to be preaching at). WHOOPS!
So if the girl who was talking about this in the cafeteria today happens to be reading this...I'm sorry for offending you, but come on now...I'm praying that you did this as a joke. Now that I think about it, it would be pretty cool to be able to walk around town knowing that you have the capacity to wed two individuals....Hmmm
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Social Network Movie Review
The Social Network: movie review
"The Social Network," about Mark Zuckerberg and the knockabout beginnings of his creation, Facebook, is a prime example of an op-ed movie – a film so topical it transcends mere movieness.
Does this also mean it's great? Well, no, although you wouldn't know it from all the advance critical hoopla. Most movies are unconcerned with the real, roiling world of commerce and communication. "The Social Network," by contrast, depicts the Facebook enterprise as, like it or not, a cosmic cultural shift.
Director David Fincher and his screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (creator of "The West Wing"), loosely adapting Ben Mezrich's nonfiction book "The Accidental Billionaires," are not uncynical about the ways in which this enterprise and its instigator racked up the betrayals on the road to glory. More often than not, Mark comes across as a soulless savant. (A more accurate title for this film might be "The Revenge of the Nerds.")
These jaundiced filmmakers are nevertheless awed by the system that made Facebook possible. "The Social Network" is a warts-and-all celebration of visionary capitalism and of the moxie required to realize the vision. Mark is both the unlikeliest and likeliest of heroes – or, more precisely, antiheroes – for our time. He's a wolf in geek's clothing.
The problem is, the geek in question, at least as Jesse Eisenberg plays him, doesn't have the emotional expansiveness to fill out a movie. Perhaps sensing this, the filmmakers play out the story line from multiple points of view and crowd the stage with a pageant of voluble supporting characters. At times, Mark seems like a bit actor in his own fantasia, and although this dramatic ploy is no doubt intentional, it makes for a rather unwieldy (and overlong) odyssey.
It begins in the fall of 2003, when Mark, having just been dumped by his girlfriend and licking his wounds, retreats to his Harvard dormitory and hacks into the university's computers to create the site Facemash – a database of all the women on campus. Photos are lined up two at a time and users are asked to choose who is "hotter." The site is instantly so popular that Harvard's entire system crashes.
From these unseemly beginnings is born what eventually becomes Facebook, which quickly spreads beyond Harvard to become a global phenomenon. Along the way, Mark, who drops out of college after his sophomore year to run the business from Palo Alto, Calif., inevitably runs a gantlet of accusations and recriminations.
He alienates his closest friend and Facebook's cofounder, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), who sues him, and is likewise sued by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, identical twin Harvard BMOCs who, with a whiff of WASP-ish disdain, claim Mark stole their idea. (In an amazing feat of filmic prestidigitation, Armie Hammer, with the assistance of Josh Pence as a body double, plays both brothers.) He also attracts the attentions of Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), who functions for Mark as a cross between Svengali andEddie Haskell.
Fincher periodically intercuts his straightforward chronology with deposition scenes involving Mark and both Eduardo and the Winklevosses. In flashback, he presents "Rashomon"-style versions of what really happened and leaves it up to us to sort out the truth, or truthiness, of the claims.
From a legal standpoint, this is probably the only way that the filmmakers could have told this story without getting sued by everybody under the sun, but it also conveniently absolves them from taking a stand on the Facebook hoo-ha one way or the other. Since Mark is presented as a human cipher anyway, the deliberate ambiguity of the flashbacks registers as just one more blur in a fuzzy landscape.
The filmmakers trumpet the irony that an essentially friendless dweeb – the "Mark Zuckerberg" they created for this movie – founded the world's preeminent aggregator of friends (or, to be more exact, "friends"). But why is this such a surprise? If Mark had a raft of real friends he probably would not have felt the need (or had the time) to create a social-network engine. The virtuality of his life gave rise to the reality of Facebook.
Despite the whiz-bang topicality, the headlong intelligence, and the many sharp collegiate scenes – a testy meeting between the Winklevoss twins and Harvard president Lawrence Summers (Douglas Urbanski) is a classic – this new-style movie hews pretty closely to an old-style playbook. The filmmakers have talked it up as a classic story of friendship, loyalty, betrayal, and jealousy, but, with the exception of Eduardo, the cast of characters – beginning with Mark – are all aggressively one-dimensional. I scrutinized their scrimmages rather than becoming emotionally invested in them.
The filmmakers were probably thinking of Orson Welles's Charles Foster Kane when they created their own soulless mogul. They even provide Mark with his own version of "Rosebud," the key that supposedly unlocks his psyche. Mark, it seems, created Facebook to get back at a girl he still pines for in the end. This faux Freudian soppiness is a disservice to Mark's rapacity, but still it gave me pause: How many other jilted geniuses are out there poised to unleash their newfangled networking whammies on us? Grade: B+ (Rated PG-13 for sexual content, drug and alcohol use, and language.)
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger Catfish
~~~~~~~~
By Peter Rainer, Film critic
Rainer, Peter. "The Social Network: movie review." Christian Science Monitor Oct. 2010: N.PAG. MAS Ultra - School Edition. EBSCO. Web. 21 Jan. 2011.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Heritage or Hate?
The Confederate Flag has always been a symbol in our country that has brought about constant controversy over what message the flag is really conveying. Like most controversial issues, you are going to get a different answer from each person you ask. If you were to ask the men who own those trucks what the flag stood for, they would most likely respond by saying, "tradition, heritage, the southern way of life, respect to confederate soldiers, or states rights". If you were to ask someone else, you may hear them say that it stands for "hate, racism, or states rights...to own slaves".
To me, the Confederate Flag stands for hate and racism. When people fly it they are arguing the exact same thing that the south was arguing before and during the war; that the slaves should not be freed and the South should be left alone. Regardless of what other issues people claim the Civil War was fought over, it was mainly centered around slavery. The Confederate Flag itself may stand for the way of life in the South at the time, but that way of life was slavery. It is no different than people who proudly display the Swastika, sure, you can argue that it stands for national pride and an attempt to better an economy without the use of either capitalism or communism, but regardless of how people defend it, it still stands for the hatred and torture of humans. The Image that most all Americans get when they see the Confederate Flag is pure, ignorant hatred.
My First "Entry"
This morning, I set a new rule for myself; I am only allowed to check Facebook three times a day, which though that number seems like a lot, it is an extreme cutback for me. As of right now, I think that this goal is about 99% impossible, but I'm going to try. I no longer can spend more hours a day on Facebook than doing homework. I wont even get started on the physical side effects of Facebook withdraw, but I can guarantee to you that they do in face exist. If there is a God, please help me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)