|
What You've Missed:
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 February
2004 January
Recommended Sites:
Old Blog
The Washington Post
Roger Ebert
The Onion
Dilbert
Unamerican Activities
Dear readers: Thank you very much for your support of Fluorescent Sunshine. Knowing that I have an interested audience keeps me motivated. Please leave your thoughts on the articles by clicking the link at the end of each post. Your comments let me know that my work is not in vain! Thanks, BJK
|
| Re: Gay Marriage |
| 02.19.04 (6:53 am) |
[image]bkriner_690431275.jpg[/image]
From: James P. Moran, Congress of the United States, 8th District of Virginia
To: Brandon J. Kriner
[i]Dear Mr. Kriner
Thank you for contacting my office and sharing your thoughts with me regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is always a pleasure to hear from my constituents.
As you know, this measure seeks to amend the United States Constitution so that state law will be preempted and marriage will be legally defined as a union between a man and a woman. I am concerned that this will have a chilling effect on a state's right to establish laws within its own borders as eight states have already seen fit to enact domestic partnership laws that would be preempted by this amendment. Historically, constitutional amendments are adopted in order to expand the rights of U.S. citizens. The Marriage Amendment would actually write discrimination into the Constitution for the first time and would ban any protections for gay and lesbian couples, such as allowing visits to a partner who is in the hospital.
You will be pleased to discover that I am strongly opposed to this mis-guided and harmful piece of legislation. Rest assured that I will be closely monitoring the progress of this measure and will keep your thoughts in mind should it come to the floor of the House for debate.
Again, I appreciate hearing from you and trust youw ill continue to contact me on other matters of mutual concern. Please feel free to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/moran which contains information on topics that may be of interest to you.
Yours truly,
James P. Moran[/i]
This is a letter I received in response to my February 5th letter to my state and local representatives, also posted on this site. I was really glad to hear the Congressman's points of view, and I couldn't agree with him more: the Constitution is a document that establishes, expands, and protects the rights of Americans. It is a terrifying sign of the arch-conservative times in which we live that this current Congress and President would use the bedrock of our freedom to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
What are opponents of gay marriage so afraid of? So far, all I've heard is that it "threatens the institution of marriage and families." How so? I can think of hundreds of things that threaten the institution of marriage: drugs, alcohol, gambling, adultery, emotional and financial bankruptcy. What does allowing two men or two women to marry have anything to do with your family, my family, or anyone's family? This rationale is despicable, bigoted, and familiar. We are threatened by that which is different from us. In a nation of franchises, we crave the soothing heartbeat of sameness: that which is not like us must be against us. It's the small thinking of the insecure and afraid.
We laugh and laugh at [i]Will and Grace [/i] and [i]Queer Eye for the Straight Guy[/i]. Gays are good enough to entertain us, but not good enough to live among us as we do. This unspoken attitude makes these television programs nothing more than minstrel shows. It is unjust to marginalize a portion of society, only accepting characteristics which are deemed "safe."
I am proud of the City of San Francisco for performing gay marriages in defiance of California state law. This is a prime example of what civil disobedience is all about: when the law opresses civil rights, it must be flaunted at every opportunity. Each one of us can protest loudly, and shake our tiny fists. Together, our fists can become a hammer, driving home justice and truth.
p.s. Click [url=http://www.moran.house.gov/is...]here[/url] to read Congressman Moran's statement on President Bush's support of an amendment banning gay marriage.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Requiem for a Dwarf |
| 02.17.04 (1:23 pm) |
[image]bkriner_1274482659 .jpg[/image]
Reality dating television is a giant, blinking neon sign of our troubled times. In lieu of producing creative, coherent entertainment, the major networks are now producing expensive sociology experiements. The once innovative formula is now cliche: a control group of women competes for the hand of one man. The man systematically eliminates them until he finds the one with whom he'd most like to appear on the cover of [i]People[/i] magazine. After several rounds of [i]The Bachelor, The Bachelorette,[/i] and [i]Joe Millionaire[/i], the Darwinistic dating show idea seemed out of possibilities for expansion. However, Fox has provided a shockingly tasteless entry to the Reality Moron-athon in the diminutive form of [i]The Littlest Groom[/i], a show that plays like a funeral for American culture.
[i]The Littlest Groom[/i] features a handsome, 23 year old dwarf named Glen, who must select a companion from a group of twelve dwarf women, much in the style of [i]The Bachelor[/i]. According to the Fox web site: [i]"THE LITTLEST GROOM will venture where no other show has gone by helping a young man who is 4’5” tall to find true love. Initially believing he will choose among women of similar stature to his own, he later discovers, in a surprising twist, that some average-sized women will enter the picture. Will his ideal mate be a little person, or will she be of average height?"[/i] I could not believe my eyes when I came across this program. I laughed, but not because I was entertained. I laughed involuntarily, the way one kicks when struck in the knee by the doctor's rubber mallet.
Fox's pretense that [i]TLG[/i] is about a man's quest for love is insulting. The purpose of the show is to exploit the human tendency to stare at unusual sights; in this case, the sight of thirteen dwarves on a reality dating show. The program is not offensive because it features dwarves, but because dwarfdom is used as a plot device to determine the show's outcome. For years, dwarves have been used to generate revenue for circus freak shows and, in the post Mini-Me era, violent slapstick comedy. Fox is shamelessly exploiting these stereotypes to get a quick ratings boost during February sweeps.
The fact that [i]The Littlest Groom [/i]is batting cleanup in Fox's Monday Night lineup is an indication of a fundamental shift in the nature of entertainment. In the past, entertainers were people who amused and engaged audiences through their extraordinary talents. As evidence of the Dumbing Down of America, today's entertainment consumers have eschewed artistic talent in favor of a series of geek shows. A geek was a 19th century circus performer whose show consisted of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken. Even though the geek show was violent and offensive, circusgoers couldn't resist indulging in a strange spectacle. Fox is cashing in on the geek principle: time and money need not be spent developing creative art when consumers would rather see a series of visual train wrecks.
The trends illustrated by [i]The Littlest Groom[/i] are more alarming than the show's content. We live in a time where television networks are bending over backwards to limbo under the ever-lowering bar of socially redeeming content. Here we are only six weeks into 2004 and we have already been presented with Janet Jackson's breast and little people on parade. What will ABC and NBC do to stake out their 15 minutes of notoriety? There is an increasing sense that no subject is too crass, to lame, or too short to exploit for a few more ratings points.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Sequels, Part 1 |
| 02.12.04 (1:53 pm) |
[image]bkriner_678245643.jpg[/image][image]bkriner _1292914540.jpg[/image] [image]bkriner_1320599521 .jpg[/image] [image]bkriner_1159562275 .jpg[/image]
Seeing upcoming movie trailers used to be the highlight of a good night at the movies. These days, it's cause for an unpleasant sense of deja vu. The multiplexes keep getting bigger, but it seems that the universe of themes, plots, and characters keeps shrinking. I'm referring, of course, to the tidal wave of sequels, spinoffs, and remakes that seems to emanate from Hollywood these days. No old sitcom or comic book character is too passe for resurrection, and no box office flavor of the month too forgettable to have another go at the Friday night crowd. As an avid movie fan and an observer of popular culture, I find myself wondering if our society is running out of stories to tell.
Let me clarify. Many of the most popular stories in today's culture have their roots in ancient archetypes. Nearly every movie, book, and television program can trace its roots back to the basic universal sagas in human lore: the Bible, Greek Mythology, African Folktales, and countless myths and legends that are so deeply woven into through the human tradition. So common are these threads that they are easily distilled: everyone remembers learning about the three basic conflicts in Literature class (Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Himself). Joseph Campbell further outlined the commonalities of human legends in his [u]Hero of a Thousand Faces[/u]. People have been telling the same stories since the beginning of civilization, each culture adding its own relevancies to create palpable situations and unforgettable characters.
Today, we are still telling the same stories. Over, and over again, usually three times per story. The difference is that we are not drawing upon different themes and characters, but parading the same, hackneyed antagonists and protagonists across the screen. Twenty years ago, only the most memorable characters were worthy of seeing more than once: Indiana Jones, the Star Wars crew, Freddy Krueger, Jason, and so on. Some of these movies were better than others, but there was no doubting the enduring nature of the characters. The essences of Indiana Jones, Darth Vader, and Marty McFly were too big to be contained in just one movie.
In the modern era, franchising rules the day. Characters and situations don't have to be clever or interesting as long as they are familiar, kitschy, or possess a latent, faint nostalgic pulse. How else to explain the mindlessness of the [i]Charlie's Angels[/i], [i]Scooby-Doo[/i], and [i]Brady Bunch[/i] films? The rationale of the studio seems to be: if they were featured on a lunch box or a pair of UnderRoos, they can be inserted in a clear plastic plot that only serves as an excuse to reintroduce them to the mainstream. Ditto for "modern" franchises like the [i]Barbershop[/i] series. You'd think that one movie about guys in a barbershop would be enough, but no, there will be three in distribution by the end of the year.
I see two explanations for the sequel tsunami. The first is the size of movie theaters. When I was a kid, the big theater in town had twelve screens. Now the local movie house boasts twenty-two screens in a two-story building with an in-house Ruby Tuesdays. The multiplex was a place to see a movie after dinner; the megaplex is a self-contained destination. The best way to put more people in front of more screens is more movies, and the studios know it. It's easier and less financially risky to make a sequel; the self-contained movie universe already exists. Many follow-ups are in production before the first installment even hits the screens.
The second determinant of sequels is franchising. Just as it is less risky for studios to make sequels, it's easier for audiences to invest their ticket dollars in a familiar product. Sequels thrive on the same mojo that propelled McDonald's and Holiday Inn to prominence: people enjoy a familiar, comfortable consumer experience where they don't have to risk disappointment. If you liked the first [i]Scary Movie[/i], then [i]Scary Movie 3 [/i]is surely a safer bet than stumbling unprepared into [i]Mystic River[/i]. The same tactic works in reverse: if you missed the first one, seeing a follow-up will probably cause you to rent it for home viewing. There's no way around it: sequels are a gold mine for the studios, and mental Big Macs for the audiences.
A third factor in sequel proliferation is the DVD. DVDs are merchandised in a decidedly different fashion than their VHS predecessors. They are physically compact and inexpensive to produce, making them perfect to be "value priced" in boxed sets. Their low price tag and bonus features adds to their consumer appeal. Since a boxed set has a higher profit margin than selling a single DVD, there is great incentive for the studios to produce a second and third film to round out the series. I give you [i]Jurassic Park 3[/i] as the consummate boxed-set movie, appallingly poor in comparison to the first two, and created only as a cash cow for the studio. So rampant is the production of boxed sets that sometimes it is difficult to purchase only one installment of a series.
With mixed emotions, I resign myself to a moviegoing future in which even more sequels, remakes, and updates adorn the megaplex screens. With good fortune, I will live long enough to see the box office and television hits of my childhood repackaged for my children's generation. I do not begrudge all sequels, only the ones whose characters do not deserve our further dollars and adoration. However, there are wonderful, original films being made all the time, and it is unfortunate that they do not receive the attention and funding of their installment-based bretheren. If you go to the movies in my neighborhood, you will probably find me in the crowd of the next summer sequel sensation. But more often, you'll find me down the hall in a sparesely populated theater, enjoying a respite from the throng attending [i]Alien vs. Predator[/i].
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Gay Marriage |
| 02.05.04 (10:26 am) |
To: Senator John Allen, Senator John Warner, Rep. Jim Moran, Delgate Marian VanLandingham, Senator Patricia Ticer
From: Brandon J. Kriner
Re: Homosexual marriage
I am writing to express my concern regarding recent and possible legislation designed to supress the civil rights of homosexual citizens of the United States. Religious groups, politicians, and even the President of the United states stand opposed to what I feel should be a basic right for all Americans: to enter into a legal, lifelong covenant of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. The current level of opposition to this basic right is alarming, and is tantamount to the discrimination faced by African Americans during the Civil Rights strife of the 1960s. This generation of legislators seems poised to deny these rights to homosexuals, and like their forbearers, will bear the immutable stigma of bigotry and discrimination for the rest of history. As a leader of Virginia and our nation, please have the forsight to stand up for the rights of all Americans. Please do not let hate and fear guide your conscience or your vote.
Respectfully yours,
Brandon J. Kriner,
Alexandria
|
|
7 Comments
|
| |
| Super Bold |
| 02.02.04 (10:10 am) |
[image]bkriner_1194970723 .jpg[/image]
If you blinked, you missed it. I didn't, and I didn't. During a Super-Bowl halftime show "duet" between Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, the former N'Sync star tore off part of Jackson's body-armor-style outfit, and out popped what appeared to be her right breast.
I couldn't believe my eyes...did I just see...yes, dear reader, it turns out that I did. Wow...you don't see that every year! It seems that there is now a controversy afoot over whether or not the exposure was intentional. There is evidence that it was: MTV (producers of the extravaganza) promised "some shocking moments."
Indeed, at the moment of exposure, millions of innocent American eyes were spared a [i]complete[/i] look at Jackson's breast by a strange, sun-shaped...well, there is no other word for it...nipple cover.
Questions abound: why wear a nipple cover unless you plan to expose your breast? Did she have a nipple cover on the other breast? Was that moon-shaped? Why wear body armor with detachable breast panels unless you plan to detach said panel? Timberlake, in a press statement, described the incident as a "wardrobe malfunction." A what? For me, a wardrobe malfunction is wearing a brown belt with black shoes. I guess when you're a star, anything can happen. Someone must get to the bosom, er, bottom of this!
Did MTV, CBS, Jackson, and Timberlake mean for this incident to take place? Maybe. The FCC, CBS, and MTV immediately released press statements with the usual blather about the regrettable, unintentional nature of the incident. But something tells me, intentional or not, these stakeholders won't be regretting it for long. Now that the token statements are out, they can all get to work figuring out how to make a buck off the notoriety.
We saw most of Janet Jackson's breast. Big deal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating nudity on prime-time network TV, but I wish that the broadcasters would at least be consistent. Many of the commercials that were aired during the game were of the usual, shame-on-you content, featuring oblique sexual and scatological references pitched at the level of the kid in the back of homeroom. CBS saw no problems with a chimpanzee soliciting a young woman for sex, but the network is outraged by the halftime incident. Apparently 2.9 million dollars buys you a license to push the envelope. It's okay to suggest sex as long as you don't show it.
This mixed-message broadcasting is hypocrisy at it's finest. FCC Chairman Michael Powell said, in a statement: "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better." I imagine many of these same viewers who were outraged at seeing Janet's breast were laughing heartily at the chimpanzee commercial. I guess bestiality is cuter than the breast of a beautiful woman.
I'm no prude; sex and below the belt humor can often be amusing. But shame on the FCC and network executives who issue obligatory, pious statements of outrage while plying lowest-common-demoninator advertisements to the highest bidder. If it's a spectacle the public wants, a spectacle is what we will get, but we can't have it both ways. The Super Bowl should either be a clean, family-oriented event, or a late-night PG-13 shocktastic extravaganza. In the meantime, the networks will be looking for a fig leaf big enough to cover Janet's breast and their own asses at the same time.
|
|
4 Comments
|
| |
|
|