It's been nearly a month since I last drank Earl Grey. I can say that, after a month, tasting that luscious, brown liquid drew me to a verdant field, a cool, soothing breeze on my face, clouds only partially spotting the crystal blue sky above, where I lay in the grass and recollect all my cherished and beloved memories all at once. It holds my hand in a warm grasp, guides me along an oft-traveled route of complexity and brilliance, where the galaxy shines in my eyes and the air tastes of love and care.
It's safe to say I like Earl Grey.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Love: It's All You Need!*
That's what we've heard, at least. We've also been told that we can accomplish anything as long as we put our minds to it, that we are all unique and special, that America is the greatest country in the world, that we should finish our food because starving kids in Africa don't have any, etc. etc. etc. I'm willing to bet that anyone living in most of the western hemisphere of the Earth has heard all these aphorisms over and over again to the point of them becoming ingrained into our solipsistic viewpoints on the world.
For most of our adolescence, these phrases hold a bit of water: we're the center of our parents' attention (mostly), the country in which we live is the greatest because we live in it, that we are so smart and wonderful because we're unique, that those starving kids in Africa don't really exist because they're so far away, and so on and so forth. It's an easy and narrow life, and some people really do have it that easy and narrow because they have the means by which they can procure all those ephemeral promises.
But then we grow and realize that, in fact, the world is so far away from centering on us that we might as well be any one of the millions of trans-Neptunian objects orbiting the sun. We aren't unique and special and wonderful and smart; in fact, most of us fall right on the mean of intelligence. That's fine, really, because we all have our own specialties and abilities, except a few million other people have those abilities too, probably. It's just probability: with 7 billion people in the world, 1 million is less than 1% of the population, even though that number is unconscionably large to us. Those starving kids in Africa? They exist where you live, too, and maybe they once had a life just like yours.
As for your country being the best in the world, whether it's America or not? Well, sorry to say, but in most western nations (Russia and India included), fewer than 10% of people control around 90% of all wealth. The number of millionaires, for example, living in London have nearly doubled from 10 years ago due to the rise of the banking sector, while middle-class wages have decidedly shrunk, and the poorer have gotten, as one would expect, poorer.
This is life, but not what many would focus on in their daily lives. Most people only care for their hellish bumper-to-bumper commute, their meetings, their plans for Friday night, getting a date, getting laid, getting a drink, getting a raise, getting a promotion, getting a big house, getting a new phone, getting a new car, getting a job, getting a sense of existence by way of self-indulgence. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, regardless of how it connotes in society; having things is nice. A computer is infinitely preferable to a typewriter (regardless of what some think; a typewriter won't correct your spelling mistkae), a fuel-efficient, functioning car is better than a lemon, more money is more comfortable than less. Especially in America, more money affords more opportunities, especially when it comes to education.
In many ways, however, it is bad, though that sense of 'bad' comes when we value the things rather than people, or turn people into 'things' themselves. Valuing the objects over a person or superimposing an object into a person is, as one might expect, sociopathic in the sense of non-empathy on the part of the one objectifying the other. The most common use of 'objectify' is, as one might expect from a million and a half television shows spouting the phrase at us, used in terms of sexuality, i.e. one person seeing another person as a bin of emotional and physical output rather than as a human being whose emotional and physical status holds repercussions for the first person. That's not what I'm talking about, however.
This is more an appeal for empathy, even from those who view others as adversaries or competitors in this grand scheme of existence. Nothing in this life is granted by birth except for the certainty of death. That is tautological to a point, but it then derives to a more basic question: how will one spend one's limited time?
Thinking that we're special and unique and that we can do anything if we just try is hokum. Think of the business and political world: it's not what you know that matters, but who you know. You can have achievements streaming out of your ears, but if someone has a better connection than you do for employment, there is a good chance that your achievements will continue streaming out your ears as you pound your head against a wall for not getting your desired position.
Why? Because connections will always be more important than strangers. It's difficult to tell a friend that you chose a stranger for a job over them because it almost seems like a breach of friendship, even if the stranger is strongly qualified.
At the same time, the stranger is strongly qualified. It isn't a personal statement about your dearth of abilities, it's a testament that you were even considered for such a position. Take it in stride and walk on, because the other person worked just as hard for that position, if not harder. Losing with grace is more important than winning, even if you think you are a special snowflake in the vast sea of a blizzard.
So, consider others. One of the most common platitudes is "put yourself in their shoes." It's good advice for all, considering that we all think we're unique and wonderful and living in the best country in the world. Maybe we don't know why some people overseas act the way they do, and so we think it's because they hate our way of life. Or, put yourself in their place, and think of how they see the world. Or, more simply, because we're all special and wonderful and living in our own minds sometimes, we neglect to consider how everyone else would act when we do. Taking yourself out of the center and gaining perspective is perhaps the best method by which we can understand why things happen.
So while there may be one million or so people like you, you still have the ability to be unique and wonderful and special just by caring. Go out and care. Go. Your life might just be improved for it.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
For most of our adolescence, these phrases hold a bit of water: we're the center of our parents' attention (mostly), the country in which we live is the greatest because we live in it, that we are so smart and wonderful because we're unique, that those starving kids in Africa don't really exist because they're so far away, and so on and so forth. It's an easy and narrow life, and some people really do have it that easy and narrow because they have the means by which they can procure all those ephemeral promises.
But then we grow and realize that, in fact, the world is so far away from centering on us that we might as well be any one of the millions of trans-Neptunian objects orbiting the sun. We aren't unique and special and wonderful and smart; in fact, most of us fall right on the mean of intelligence. That's fine, really, because we all have our own specialties and abilities, except a few million other people have those abilities too, probably. It's just probability: with 7 billion people in the world, 1 million is less than 1% of the population, even though that number is unconscionably large to us. Those starving kids in Africa? They exist where you live, too, and maybe they once had a life just like yours.
As for your country being the best in the world, whether it's America or not? Well, sorry to say, but in most western nations (Russia and India included), fewer than 10% of people control around 90% of all wealth. The number of millionaires, for example, living in London have nearly doubled from 10 years ago due to the rise of the banking sector, while middle-class wages have decidedly shrunk, and the poorer have gotten, as one would expect, poorer.
This is life, but not what many would focus on in their daily lives. Most people only care for their hellish bumper-to-bumper commute, their meetings, their plans for Friday night, getting a date, getting laid, getting a drink, getting a raise, getting a promotion, getting a big house, getting a new phone, getting a new car, getting a job, getting a sense of existence by way of self-indulgence. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, regardless of how it connotes in society; having things is nice. A computer is infinitely preferable to a typewriter (regardless of what some think; a typewriter won't correct your spelling mistkae), a fuel-efficient, functioning car is better than a lemon, more money is more comfortable than less. Especially in America, more money affords more opportunities, especially when it comes to education.
In many ways, however, it is bad, though that sense of 'bad' comes when we value the things rather than people, or turn people into 'things' themselves. Valuing the objects over a person or superimposing an object into a person is, as one might expect, sociopathic in the sense of non-empathy on the part of the one objectifying the other. The most common use of 'objectify' is, as one might expect from a million and a half television shows spouting the phrase at us, used in terms of sexuality, i.e. one person seeing another person as a bin of emotional and physical output rather than as a human being whose emotional and physical status holds repercussions for the first person. That's not what I'm talking about, however.
This is more an appeal for empathy, even from those who view others as adversaries or competitors in this grand scheme of existence. Nothing in this life is granted by birth except for the certainty of death. That is tautological to a point, but it then derives to a more basic question: how will one spend one's limited time?
Thinking that we're special and unique and that we can do anything if we just try is hokum. Think of the business and political world: it's not what you know that matters, but who you know. You can have achievements streaming out of your ears, but if someone has a better connection than you do for employment, there is a good chance that your achievements will continue streaming out your ears as you pound your head against a wall for not getting your desired position.
Why? Because connections will always be more important than strangers. It's difficult to tell a friend that you chose a stranger for a job over them because it almost seems like a breach of friendship, even if the stranger is strongly qualified.
At the same time, the stranger is strongly qualified. It isn't a personal statement about your dearth of abilities, it's a testament that you were even considered for such a position. Take it in stride and walk on, because the other person worked just as hard for that position, if not harder. Losing with grace is more important than winning, even if you think you are a special snowflake in the vast sea of a blizzard.
So, consider others. One of the most common platitudes is "put yourself in their shoes." It's good advice for all, considering that we all think we're unique and wonderful and living in the best country in the world. Maybe we don't know why some people overseas act the way they do, and so we think it's because they hate our way of life. Or, put yourself in their place, and think of how they see the world. Or, more simply, because we're all special and wonderful and living in our own minds sometimes, we neglect to consider how everyone else would act when we do. Taking yourself out of the center and gaining perspective is perhaps the best method by which we can understand why things happen.
So while there may be one million or so people like you, you still have the ability to be unique and wonderful and special just by caring. Go out and care. Go. Your life might just be improved for it.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Bit of an Oddity
I've been in the United States for two and a half weeks now, and I can't help but notice how different things are after my year in London. First, food tastes...different from what I remember. It's also massively larger. For example, all bread that I've eaten in America now has a distinctly sweet taste, whereas the bread I bought in London tasted like, well, bread. Sweet potatoes in America are at least 2 times as large as the ones I had in London, and they taste a bit like metallic plastic, if that makes any sense. Same goes with aubergines (eggplant): they're massive and taste a bit off.
In addition, food is extraordinarily more expensive in the US, at least where I've been doing my shopping: Stop & Shop. A tin of nuts at Stop & Shop goes for somewhere around $5, whereas the same amount of nuts at my local Tesco in London would have gone for anywhere from £0.80 to £2 (around $1.50 to $3.50). I've noticed this with just about every other food I've bought in Stop & Shop: Tesco wins out, even with the exchange rate.
I make it a habit to avoid the most common sweetener in just about every food in America, high fructose corn syrup, but even so, the strangely sweet taste is still there. It's disturbing, because it is a repulsive taste in bread, and I'm actually surprised that I was able to eat bread in America for so long without noticing the taste.
Is it psychosomatic? I admit that is a possibility, but at the same time, I still find the supposedly "fresh" vegetables I buy at S&S to be disgusting.
In addition, food is extraordinarily more expensive in the US, at least where I've been doing my shopping: Stop & Shop. A tin of nuts at Stop & Shop goes for somewhere around $5, whereas the same amount of nuts at my local Tesco in London would have gone for anywhere from £0.80 to £2 (around $1.50 to $3.50). I've noticed this with just about every other food I've bought in Stop & Shop: Tesco wins out, even with the exchange rate.
I make it a habit to avoid the most common sweetener in just about every food in America, high fructose corn syrup, but even so, the strangely sweet taste is still there. It's disturbing, because it is a repulsive taste in bread, and I'm actually surprised that I was able to eat bread in America for so long without noticing the taste.
Is it psychosomatic? I admit that is a possibility, but at the same time, I still find the supposedly "fresh" vegetables I buy at S&S to be disgusting.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
An Open Letter to David Cameron
His eyes likely won't see this, nor will his ears hear of this from his aides, but I'm going to write it because it matters to me.
Mr. Prime Minister,
I'm not going to address your subservience to US policy, as I would typically do. I'm not going to talk about the iniquitous decisions you've made regarding the public services in the UK. I'm not even going to mention your party's eschewing of the EU regardless of the benefits it confers to the UK. Instead, this is personal.
I'm an Anglophile. From a young age, I fed myself a steady diet of British culture, starting with Harry Potter and continuing with Monty Python to the works of Charles Dickens and the daily morning cup of Earl Grey. That wasn't the simplest thing to do, as my father is an immigrant of Argentina (and was once deported from the UK years ago, or so he says), but I was luckily a self-sufficient kid in the ways of the Internet. I imbibed it like the holy grail it was to me.
Understandably, I wanted to go to a university in the UK. I was accepted to several, though I ultimately ended up at the London School of Economics, an extremely prestigious institution, as you know. I was overjoyed, I can tell you that. I had high hopes of obtaining a job, work visa sponsorship, and in good time, UK/EU dual citizenship with the US. Hell, I've even mapped out my dream retirement options: getting a cottage in Cornwall where I could grow vegetables in the garden, or opening a small, friendly pub in London called the Drunken Ass (with a donkey on the sign) where I could serve patrons a tall one without the annoying music or overbearing noise of a match. It would just be a place for friends to congregate and enjoy each other's time, except on karaoke Thursdays. That's a special day.
What's wrong with that dream? Like any other cherished photograph, it has chipped away with experience. I had several interviews in London, very good ones, I might add, but when the conversation turned to my work availability and visa issues, a dark, foreboding silence befell the room each time before I was told that my prospective employers don't do visas.
Here I am, back in the desolate suburbia of New Jersey where I passed through my adolescence in relative ennui, and all I can think about is being back in London. It's unfair to allow someone to become so enamored with a city and then tell them that, because they aren't a native, they haven't a chance of staying there. I'm not unique in this respect: other Americans from my Master's program are trying to stay and are riding out the extent of their visas (until January), after which point they'd have no choice but to return to the United States. I had the misfortune of having to move out of my flat, and since I had no job, there was no point in paying for an ephemeral hope of a job that would sponsor my visa.
I believe that the old visa rules, since you so dutifully decided that immigrants were "bad," dictated that students who obtained a degree with a UK university could stay for two years past their graduation. Now, it's six months, which is a troublesome time limit because renting a room or a flat for six months is harder than one might think.
All we want to do is work to improve both our own lives and the lives of those around us. We want to pay taxes, support the social system that you are so ardently privatising, and enjoy the cultural gravitas of England. Instead, you and your xenophobic lot are making it harder for even EU immigrants to come to the UK.
You're not an empire. You're an island that is part of a greater federal entity that is the EU. Give up the illusions of your past delinquencies and accept that you no longer have influence without the EU. What's more, without an influx of skilled migrants, you only hurt your own economy. If someone with an advanced degree wishes to work within the UK, why shouldn't they have the chance to do so? To keep jobs "British?" What of those who want to become British? Should they not have the same chance to do so?
Mr. Cameron, you're not unreasonable. Your surprising adherence to the Syria vote in Parliament shows that. I only wish that you'd realise that the UK is no longer in a position to exclude people who want to become a part of your society. We are skilled and we want to bring our abilities to you, whether we're doctors, or lawyers, or entrepreneurs, or engineers, or political strategists, or the like.
Don't punish us simply because we're not native-born in the UK or the EU. Borders now mean very little. If a migrant such as myself, who paid my £750 a month in rent (not including utilities, mind you) and my £17,000 in student fees, wishes to stay and live in the UK, what reason is there for not allowing me to do so?
I'll pay the bloody Council tax. I'll gladly pay into every single social service that deducts from my paycheck through taxes because those social services are integral to the functioning of the state. I'll work a terrible entry-level job that hardly pays above the visa minimum salary. I only ask that you give us, the lot of us who want to stay, the chance to do it. We aren't a drain on your society, like so many conservatives would say; that's anodyne and illogical. Why would we drain something we so desire?
Mr. Prime Minister,
I'm not going to address your subservience to US policy, as I would typically do. I'm not going to talk about the iniquitous decisions you've made regarding the public services in the UK. I'm not even going to mention your party's eschewing of the EU regardless of the benefits it confers to the UK. Instead, this is personal.
I'm an Anglophile. From a young age, I fed myself a steady diet of British culture, starting with Harry Potter and continuing with Monty Python to the works of Charles Dickens and the daily morning cup of Earl Grey. That wasn't the simplest thing to do, as my father is an immigrant of Argentina (and was once deported from the UK years ago, or so he says), but I was luckily a self-sufficient kid in the ways of the Internet. I imbibed it like the holy grail it was to me.
Understandably, I wanted to go to a university in the UK. I was accepted to several, though I ultimately ended up at the London School of Economics, an extremely prestigious institution, as you know. I was overjoyed, I can tell you that. I had high hopes of obtaining a job, work visa sponsorship, and in good time, UK/EU dual citizenship with the US. Hell, I've even mapped out my dream retirement options: getting a cottage in Cornwall where I could grow vegetables in the garden, or opening a small, friendly pub in London called the Drunken Ass (with a donkey on the sign) where I could serve patrons a tall one without the annoying music or overbearing noise of a match. It would just be a place for friends to congregate and enjoy each other's time, except on karaoke Thursdays. That's a special day.
What's wrong with that dream? Like any other cherished photograph, it has chipped away with experience. I had several interviews in London, very good ones, I might add, but when the conversation turned to my work availability and visa issues, a dark, foreboding silence befell the room each time before I was told that my prospective employers don't do visas.
Here I am, back in the desolate suburbia of New Jersey where I passed through my adolescence in relative ennui, and all I can think about is being back in London. It's unfair to allow someone to become so enamored with a city and then tell them that, because they aren't a native, they haven't a chance of staying there. I'm not unique in this respect: other Americans from my Master's program are trying to stay and are riding out the extent of their visas (until January), after which point they'd have no choice but to return to the United States. I had the misfortune of having to move out of my flat, and since I had no job, there was no point in paying for an ephemeral hope of a job that would sponsor my visa.
I believe that the old visa rules, since you so dutifully decided that immigrants were "bad," dictated that students who obtained a degree with a UK university could stay for two years past their graduation. Now, it's six months, which is a troublesome time limit because renting a room or a flat for six months is harder than one might think.
All we want to do is work to improve both our own lives and the lives of those around us. We want to pay taxes, support the social system that you are so ardently privatising, and enjoy the cultural gravitas of England. Instead, you and your xenophobic lot are making it harder for even EU immigrants to come to the UK.
You're not an empire. You're an island that is part of a greater federal entity that is the EU. Give up the illusions of your past delinquencies and accept that you no longer have influence without the EU. What's more, without an influx of skilled migrants, you only hurt your own economy. If someone with an advanced degree wishes to work within the UK, why shouldn't they have the chance to do so? To keep jobs "British?" What of those who want to become British? Should they not have the same chance to do so?
Mr. Cameron, you're not unreasonable. Your surprising adherence to the Syria vote in Parliament shows that. I only wish that you'd realise that the UK is no longer in a position to exclude people who want to become a part of your society. We are skilled and we want to bring our abilities to you, whether we're doctors, or lawyers, or entrepreneurs, or engineers, or political strategists, or the like.
Don't punish us simply because we're not native-born in the UK or the EU. Borders now mean very little. If a migrant such as myself, who paid my £750 a month in rent (not including utilities, mind you) and my £17,000 in student fees, wishes to stay and live in the UK, what reason is there for not allowing me to do so?
I'll pay the bloody Council tax. I'll gladly pay into every single social service that deducts from my paycheck through taxes because those social services are integral to the functioning of the state. I'll work a terrible entry-level job that hardly pays above the visa minimum salary. I only ask that you give us, the lot of us who want to stay, the chance to do it. We aren't a drain on your society, like so many conservatives would say; that's anodyne and illogical. Why would we drain something we so desire?
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Electoral Monkey Business
A few days ago, while working my muscles with some intense lifting of weights, I got to thinking about American electoral reform. The damned blood in my body went to the wrong muscle.
Anyway, I started thinking about how campaign contributions have become such a hot issue, which is why they should be removed entirely. Yes, that's right, no more Super PACs or 501s or any tax-deductible contributions to politicians. Here are my thoughts in gist:
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Anyway, I started thinking about how campaign contributions have become such a hot issue, which is why they should be removed entirely. Yes, that's right, no more Super PACs or 501s or any tax-deductible contributions to politicians. Here are my thoughts in gist:
- Remove campaign contributions entirely. Instead, a candidate with a net worth higher than x (say, $1 million) funds his own campaign in addition to a set budget from the federal government that is inversely proportional to his/her net worth. So, for a candidate who has a lower net worth, they would receive more federal funding for campaigns.
- Proportional representation rather than winner-take-all in each state. Simple enough.
- Stipulations for re-election:
- had to sponsor a certain amount of legislation in D.C. with a certain percentage passed. Obviously can be used to oust members whom some may not like, but a minor point.
- had to demonstrate bi-partisanship (needs specifics, obviously)
- had to show a willingness to compromise with other (probably too much to ask, but might as well mention)
- Can't be ignorant of simple science, especially if they sit on a scientific committee
- Pecuniary penalty for citizens who don't vote. Nothing too steep (probably less than $100), but enough to encourage people to vote.
- After losing a house/senate seat, a former congressman cannot become lobbyists for 5 years. Hell, 10 years. Go be a teacher or some other productive member of society.
- Remove federal restrictions on third party funding. (Needing 5% of the electoral vote to qualify for funding)
- Ban on campaign commercials.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
A Trekkie's Review of Star Trek Into Darkness
I hated it.
What's more, I hate that I have to justify hating it, just because it fails on so many film-making levels that I'm surprised it's not more hated. Anyway, short list of things I liked (SPOILERS FOR THE FILM):
Kirk gets demoted because of his interference with an archaic culture and loses the Enterprise to lovable Admiral Pike. Pike gives him his character's theme for the entire movie in a speech, at which point I smacked myself in the forehead. Pike then got killed right after he had a nice father-son moment with Kirk. Cliche? Yes. That's two smacks on the forehead.
Kirk and company get sent to Qo'nos, home of the Klingons, by menacing Admiral Batmanvoice, where one Benedict Cumberwhatsit somehow teleported himself from Earth after killing a bunch of high ranking people. Instantaneous transportation across more than a dozen lightyears in more than a second? Who the crap needs ships? Just teleport- oh, right, plot device.
The Enterprise sits at the edge of Klingon space and somehow sends a message only to Cucumbersandwich that they'll launch torpedoes at him if he doesn't surrender. First, how do the Klingons not hear the transmission? Second, how do the Klingons not notice the Enterprise sitting so close to their homeworld? That's kind of, I don't know, aggressive? Maybe they were all out hunting targ or waiting eagerly for Worf's birth.
Admiral Baritone arrives in a giant ship after the Enterprise tells Starfleet that they've captured Crumblebumble, who reveals that he's the infamous Khan, except no one on board ever heard of him. Plot twist revealed: Admiral Smoothvoice put Khan's genetically-enhanced friends in those torpedoes, and when they were to land on Qo'nos, they would awaken and incite a war between the Federation and the Klingons. Why? Because "war is inevitable," says Admiral OldManSexyVoice.
But wait, that's not all: Admiral TonytheTiger found Khan in cryo-freeze on the derelict ship Botany Bay and unfroze him to help said Admiral build a new arsenal of weapons. Keep in mind that Khan was frozen for 300 years, so if the Admiral wanted to learn about bullets and maybe some nice compound bows, it would be most edifying.
Fuck it, I'm skipping ahead.
Admiral BoomBoom shoots the hell out of the Enterprise, which somehow doesn't explode even though there are large, gaping holes in what looks like engineering. Fine, containment fields, or whatever, but don't then tell me five minutes later that shields are down to 6%. WHAT SHIELDS? The first damned shot on the Enterprise made a section explode in a giant space fireball. There were no shields, J.J. Abrams. There were no shields.
They end up next to the moon, and somehow, the lunar colonies don't notice anything. Somehow, there are no other ships near Earth. Somehow, there are no space stations with sensors to see "hmm, what are those two ships doing there? Is that the Enterprise about the blow up?" Later on, the two ships start falling to Earth instead of the giant body next to the two ships, i.e. the giant white orb we on Earth see at night. Someone needs to learn about gravity.
And then there's the giant rip-off of Wrath of Khan, not to mention a deus ex machina ending so contrived that it gave me a concussion. I won't even bother mentioning it.
The whole film is character-driven, but really, they all have nothing to offer aside from Crumbcake's Khan, who is basically a stale, one-sided bad guy that, while he does have nice character moments, is underutilized and monotone.
I don't know who vets these scripts for internal logic and consistency, but dear god, hire some interns to put a red pen to every stupid plot device. Please.
And dear god, J.J. Abrams, stop with the lens flares. You're liable to induce a seizure with those damn things.
What's more, I hate that I have to justify hating it, just because it fails on so many film-making levels that I'm surprised it's not more hated. Anyway, short list of things I liked (SPOILERS FOR THE FILM):
- Simon Pegg as Scotty and Karl Urban as Bones. The two big Trek fans know their characters, and it shows.
- CGI ships look cool.
- Benedict Cumberbatch can deliver any line with bravado.
Kirk gets demoted because of his interference with an archaic culture and loses the Enterprise to lovable Admiral Pike. Pike gives him his character's theme for the entire movie in a speech, at which point I smacked myself in the forehead. Pike then got killed right after he had a nice father-son moment with Kirk. Cliche? Yes. That's two smacks on the forehead.
Kirk and company get sent to Qo'nos, home of the Klingons, by menacing Admiral Batmanvoice, where one Benedict Cumberwhatsit somehow teleported himself from Earth after killing a bunch of high ranking people. Instantaneous transportation across more than a dozen lightyears in more than a second? Who the crap needs ships? Just teleport- oh, right, plot device.
The Enterprise sits at the edge of Klingon space and somehow sends a message only to Cucumbersandwich that they'll launch torpedoes at him if he doesn't surrender. First, how do the Klingons not hear the transmission? Second, how do the Klingons not notice the Enterprise sitting so close to their homeworld? That's kind of, I don't know, aggressive? Maybe they were all out hunting targ or waiting eagerly for Worf's birth.
Admiral Baritone arrives in a giant ship after the Enterprise tells Starfleet that they've captured Crumblebumble, who reveals that he's the infamous Khan, except no one on board ever heard of him. Plot twist revealed: Admiral Smoothvoice put Khan's genetically-enhanced friends in those torpedoes, and when they were to land on Qo'nos, they would awaken and incite a war between the Federation and the Klingons. Why? Because "war is inevitable," says Admiral OldManSexyVoice.
But wait, that's not all: Admiral TonytheTiger found Khan in cryo-freeze on the derelict ship Botany Bay and unfroze him to help said Admiral build a new arsenal of weapons. Keep in mind that Khan was frozen for 300 years, so if the Admiral wanted to learn about bullets and maybe some nice compound bows, it would be most edifying.
Fuck it, I'm skipping ahead.
Admiral BoomBoom shoots the hell out of the Enterprise, which somehow doesn't explode even though there are large, gaping holes in what looks like engineering. Fine, containment fields, or whatever, but don't then tell me five minutes later that shields are down to 6%. WHAT SHIELDS? The first damned shot on the Enterprise made a section explode in a giant space fireball. There were no shields, J.J. Abrams. There were no shields.
They end up next to the moon, and somehow, the lunar colonies don't notice anything. Somehow, there are no other ships near Earth. Somehow, there are no space stations with sensors to see "hmm, what are those two ships doing there? Is that the Enterprise about the blow up?" Later on, the two ships start falling to Earth instead of the giant body next to the two ships, i.e. the giant white orb we on Earth see at night. Someone needs to learn about gravity.
And then there's the giant rip-off of Wrath of Khan, not to mention a deus ex machina ending so contrived that it gave me a concussion. I won't even bother mentioning it.
The whole film is character-driven, but really, they all have nothing to offer aside from Crumbcake's Khan, who is basically a stale, one-sided bad guy that, while he does have nice character moments, is underutilized and monotone.
I don't know who vets these scripts for internal logic and consistency, but dear god, hire some interns to put a red pen to every stupid plot device. Please.
And dear god, J.J. Abrams, stop with the lens flares. You're liable to induce a seizure with those damn things.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Big 'ol Narrative
I can officially say that I'm 4/5s of the way through my dissertation. I never thought I'd be able to write around 10,000 words about economics, but apparently I can surprise myself on occasion.
To finish it, however, that's a bit too much of a leap. When I'm done, I'm done with London. The companies I interviewed with weren't willing to sponsor me for a work visa. It's a bit ludicrous, this new conservative position on immigration that David Cameron has espoused. Reducing the amount of qualified immigrants (I think I fit under that term) is only detrimental to the country. Besides increasing genetic diversity (a funny point to make, but a valid one), larger influxes of qualified immigrants can help grow business sectors due to better qualifications and international experience (language, international business, etc.).
Besides that, I just want to live here. It's a nice country, never too hot nor too cold, the people are pleasant, etc. I've had a few interviews where I could have gotten the position except for the one looming elephant in the room: a work visa. It's not as if I'll be working illegally and not paying taxes: hell, I welcome taxes. It helps fund the NHS, social services, police, fire brigade, etc. So why shouldn't I get the chance to live and work here?
This is always one of the reasons why I can hardly ever get behind any conservative position, whether it's in the US or the UK: it's jingoistic. It's overly nationalistic to the point of narcissistic nihilism. Let the rest of the world be damned, we are the best! Let us pound our chests until we cave in our bones just to show how dedicated we are to our countries and our "own!"
The UK is part of the European Union. Without European Union membership, the UK would be worse off economically. Hell, the US depends on the EU so much that if the EU were to completely embargo the US, the world would shut down. Nationalism falls when you realize just how much you need the "others" in order to survive.
A fine flow of qualified immigrants is not a detriment in any sense of the notion. For those ardent Milton Friedman followers, allowing immigrants to live and work within a country should increase the competition of the native workforce and, if it stands to reason, the native workforce should increase its own quality to keep up.
I just wish we didn't let borders determine who is "us" and who is "them." It's a piss-poor way of defining a person.
To finish it, however, that's a bit too much of a leap. When I'm done, I'm done with London. The companies I interviewed with weren't willing to sponsor me for a work visa. It's a bit ludicrous, this new conservative position on immigration that David Cameron has espoused. Reducing the amount of qualified immigrants (I think I fit under that term) is only detrimental to the country. Besides increasing genetic diversity (a funny point to make, but a valid one), larger influxes of qualified immigrants can help grow business sectors due to better qualifications and international experience (language, international business, etc.).
Besides that, I just want to live here. It's a nice country, never too hot nor too cold, the people are pleasant, etc. I've had a few interviews where I could have gotten the position except for the one looming elephant in the room: a work visa. It's not as if I'll be working illegally and not paying taxes: hell, I welcome taxes. It helps fund the NHS, social services, police, fire brigade, etc. So why shouldn't I get the chance to live and work here?
This is always one of the reasons why I can hardly ever get behind any conservative position, whether it's in the US or the UK: it's jingoistic. It's overly nationalistic to the point of narcissistic nihilism. Let the rest of the world be damned, we are the best! Let us pound our chests until we cave in our bones just to show how dedicated we are to our countries and our "own!"
The UK is part of the European Union. Without European Union membership, the UK would be worse off economically. Hell, the US depends on the EU so much that if the EU were to completely embargo the US, the world would shut down. Nationalism falls when you realize just how much you need the "others" in order to survive.
A fine flow of qualified immigrants is not a detriment in any sense of the notion. For those ardent Milton Friedman followers, allowing immigrants to live and work within a country should increase the competition of the native workforce and, if it stands to reason, the native workforce should increase its own quality to keep up.
I just wish we didn't let borders determine who is "us" and who is "them." It's a piss-poor way of defining a person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)