Something Almost Intelligent About Gender and Sexuality, Or, Thanks a Million Andrew Sullivan

Let me start this by saying that I love me some Shakira. I got turned onto her probably in high school Spanish (before her first English album). I generally prefer her material when she isn't trying to be Top 40 or get her videos on MTV (I understand that's the nature of the beast, but I have a kind of snobby streak when it comes to music), but her music is kind of like pizza - even if it's not the best thing in the world, it's still pretty good and I'll probably take the opportunity to have another slice. Which is to say that I will get a copy of her upcoming album She Wolf when it comes out next month.

The eponymous lead single falls squarely into chart hopeful territory, which I don't mean in any derogatory sense - in my book, Shakira + disco strings = WIN. And if you like the ladies, the video is pretty awesome (I can't embed it, so you'll have to click the link). Does such a display cheapen the artist and enforce stereotypes that female artists have to be sexy and revealing?

So I was just over at The Daily Dish where Andrew Sullivan had posted a fan made remake of the video called "He Wolf." Behold! (But seriously, you should watch the original first.)



Now click on the video and go to it on YouTube. Notice something that wasn't there on the original video's page? Hint: it's the tag that says "This video may not be suitable for minors." Is it a double standard for gender roles? Does the fact that it's a man writhing within a cage in next to nothing automatically create a homoerotic subtext?

So thanks a million, Andrew Sullivan. Not only did you almost ruin the song for me, but you made my head hurt.

Wait, What?

I ran across this at Balloon Juice and did a double-take.

A Colorado law recently signed by Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter not only requires motorists to give riders at least a 3-foot-wide berth, it also makes it illegal to throw things at riders, says Dan Grunig, executive director of Bicycle Colorado. Previously, he says, police could only cite a motorist if they actually hit the rider.

The main thrust of the article is good news - yay for commuting on bikes and safety, etc. - but it left me with a big damn question.

Does this mean it's legal to throw things at people in Colorado as long as you don't hit them, provided they aren't on bicycles? (I ask, because why would it have been legal to wing stuff at 'em if and only if they're on a bike? I mean, this is Colorado we're talking about, but seriously?) I'm not sure how I'd feel about that, but I need to find out before I get myself in trouble at Tatooine Regionals/Colorado States weekend this month.

I lost my girl and I lost my fun,
Regis

Going Ape

Ah, the joy of having a DVR: the Fox Movie Channel ran all five of the original Planet of the Apes movies over Thanksgiving weekend (sorry, Tim Burton remake from 2001) and I was smart enough to record them all. I hadn't yet seen the first sequel and it had been a long time since I'd seen the others (probably not since high school), so I figured it would be a good time to watch them all in a relatively short span.

Planet of the Apes is easily one of the best science fiction films of all time, taking us to another world (well, sort of, everyone knows the big reveal at the end) to tell us about ourselves here in the present. It also has the most badass opening I've seen in some time: Charlton Heston's Colonel Taylor smoking a cigar on a spaceship nearing the speed of light, saying good riddance to the 20th Century. Beyond the obvious point about mankind's greed and destructive tendencies, the film raises questions about just what makes us human, the balance of faith and science, what our place in the universe is, and how we construct our own realities. Top all this off with some sweet simian makeup effects, Linda Harrison in animal skins as Nova, and the revelation that Taylor is not on a planet in the constellation of Orion but on Earth all along, and you've got a Classic with a capital C.

The first sequel, Beneath the Planet of the Apes, is something else entirely. To call this one dark is an understatement. Another spaceship from 1972 on a mission to find Taylor (who disappears in the Forbidden Zone) crashes on Earth (even if it estimates the year differently than Taylor's ship did), and the only survivor is Brent. He finds the ape city and overhears the gorilla General Ursus delivering a speech on the need to expand ape territory, exterminate the human race ("The only good human is a dead human!"), and conquer the Forbidden Zone. Turns out the Forbidden Zone is home to a society of mutant telepathic humans that worship a Doomsday Bomb - I found it pretty disturbing, but it still made me think. In the end, Brent and Nova find Taylor, the apes shoot just about everybody, and Dr. Zaius' refusal to help a wounded Taylor drives the astronaut to detonate the bomb and destroy the world for once and all. Some of the commentary was kind of heavy-handed, but then this wasn't really a subtle setting. Turns out that Dr. Zaius was right when he delivered his final words to the wounded Taylor: "You ask me to help you? Man is evil, capabale of nothing but destruction!" but this could be more of a self-fulfilling prophesy than lucid insight. The final voiceover, so matter-of-fact and unsympathetic, hit me like a kick in the teeth.

In one of the countless billions of galaxies in the universe lies a medium-sized star, and one of its satellites, a green and insignificant planet, is now dead.

Way to go, humanity. This was almost as brutal of an ending as the conclusion of Fail-Safe.

Of course, this leaves the question of how there can be another sequel if the world is a cinder and everybody is dead. Don't worry, where there's a will, there's a way.

Beware the beast, Man, for he is the Devil's pawn,
Regis

Mailbag Day!

So I checked the ol' mailbox when I got home after work today and to my surprise it contained a letter from the Cynthia Lummis for Congress campaign.

It was a pretty standard "I'm asking for your vote" affair, but a couple of things jumped out at me:

Apparently the "Wyoming Way" is to fix a problem when we see it. I can only assume that, being the proud Republican she is, Ms. Lummis voted repeatedly for such other notable Republicans as George W. Bush and Barbara Cubin, in apparent contradiction to her claimed valuing of reducing government spending and showing up to work every day. How is voting to continue the problem solving the problem?

There's also a pledge to uphold the values (not rights, but values) in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is kind of redundant what with the Bill of Rights being a part of the Constitution and all. (And hey, why doesn't she care about Amendments 11 and up? I guess women's suffrage isn't that important of a value?) Since we're talking values, what about cruel and unusual punishment, speedy trials, and habeus corpus in the face of the looming specter of terror? Or do those values only apply to people that don't read the Koran?

But the most striking element of the letter was this paragraph:

For the record (because I still haven't had this clarified), just what are these "Wyoming values" you keep talking about? Are they so unique that they are instilled only in those born within the borders of this great state? That must be the case, since you've claimed again and again that your opponent Gary Trauner - who may not have been born in Wyoming, but chose to make his home here - can't possibly share them. 

The message here is clear: I'm just like you, and my opponent is an outsider that can't possibly understand you. If this sounds familiar, there's a reason. It's just that this is Lummis being "more mindful" of it.

So in answer to your request for my vote, Ms. Lummis, I'm sorry but you aren't getting it. It is my judgement that your Democratic opponent shares my values more than you do.

Lying through my teeth is not one of my Wyoming values,

Regis

What We Need More Of...

... is science. And, by extension, Chris Rothfuss. 

I finally got to meet Dr. Rothfuss tonight at a candidate forum for state- and national-level legislative races at Sheridan College, and I was pretty jazzed (it may not have showed so much, as I had just gotten back from concrete testing outside Rock Springs, my day started at five this morning). The guy is clearly smart - he earned a BS in international studies and then a master's in chemical engineering at the University of Wyoming, and then a doctorate and another master's from the University of Washington, and more (just read his bio) - but he can relate to people. He's also got a good sense of humor and a grasp of nuance that involves more than tap-dancing and legalizing around the issue at hand. This is definitely a guy that can get the ball rolling on energy issues.

Even better, he's got the mindset that the people of Wyoming - and the country as a whole - need in the Senate. Dr. Rothfuss isn't interested in a political career, or party interests at the expense of success, he wants consensus. Not just a narrow majority, but 70+ vote consensus that serves the interests of all involved. Neither Democrats nor Republicans (nor Libertarians, or Greens, or Constitutionalists, or whatever) have a monopoly on good ideas, and being able to see and admit that is huge to me.

It's worth pointing out that Senator Enzi - the incumbent that Dr. Rothfuss is challenging in this election - was absent from the event (as was Senator Barasso); he sent a letter that didn't really say much of anything in his place. Interestingly enough, his campaigning vehicle was spotted outside Republican Party Headquarters in downtown Sheridan this afternoon/early evening, which leaves me with one question: if he was in town earlier today, why couldn't he make an appearance? I can't even find a campaign website for him, so we know two things: (1) he doesn't have a public campaign schedule I can check and (2) he doesn't seem to be taking this election too seriously. Which is a damn shame, because if he wins it'll be because his name has an "R" after it and too many people in this state will go off that and that alone. Which isn't to say that he's done a bad job, but color me underwhelmed.

I can also move Nick Carter (he's running against Barasso) into the growing list of candidates I'm actually voting for, instead of against their opponent. He's got a position on (or rather, against) blind party loyalty much like Rothfuss and Gary Trauner, who was also in attendance.

Which brings me to the big surprise of the evening - Cynthia Lummis showed up! Of course, it's just as underwhelming to see her talk in person as it is to hear her on the radio or read about her in the paper. When she was spoke, it felt like I was being talked down to by that aunt that everybody has and doesn't really like; when she didn't, she just sat there with either a valium housewife sort of smile or a regal look at her assembled subjects, I'm not quite sure which. She didn't seem to make any effort to listen to Trauner - who was in fine form tonight and had a couple great jabs that I'll get to later - or W. David Herbert (the Libertarian in the race) when they spoke, and she disappeared as soon as the forum was over. Maybe she had another fundraiser to attend?

Oh, and if you missed it and you're in Sheridan, the forum will be broadcast several times on Channel 14 in the near future, so try to catch it.

End ramble,

Regis

Just a Reminder

The single Vice Presidential Debate is tonight. The only big question left for me is, will Sarah Palin answer more questions than she tapdances around? I'm not holding my breath. If she gets really desperate, maybe she'll even pull out a flute.

Pew pew pew,
Regis

Oh, the Brutality

I went running last night and kind of almost sorta maybe did most of the 28-minute run for Week 8. It wasn't really a continuous process, and I wound up doing four or five blocks at a solid run at the end (I was listening to "Fashion Zombies" by the Aquabats, and decided to keep tempo). It would have been a nice evening, but I somehow managed to chafe the living hell out of my nipples.

Frak me, does this suck. I dont' know that I've ever chafed 'em before. I've run in the same shirt before. I guess I should look into something a bit more high tech? But that's not even the big question right now.

My larger query is why I even have nipples in the first damn place? This is seriously making me rethink my stance on intelligent design.

There is no explanation - these children are just victims,
Regis