No Country for Old Men

Joel and Ethan Coen stand as two of my favorite filmmakers. Indisputable geniuses as directors, producers, editors and writers, their films hold special rank amongst the best of our generation. The Big Lebowski is in my opinion the smartest comedy ever written. O Brother, Where Art Thou? broke new ground in both the possibilities of adaptation (relocating Homer’s The Odyssey to the depression-era south) and color editing (they developed a new technique to attain the golden hue). Fargo and Blood Simple are near perfect crime thrillers.

With that preface I now say this: No Country for Old Men is the best they’ve ever done. Hell, it’s the best anyone could ever hope to do.

Adapted from Cormac McCarthy’s 2005 novel of the same name, No Country for Old Men takes us on the trail of Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), an opportunistic hunter who happens upon $2 million left over from a drug deal gone bad, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), the psychotic hit man hired to get it back, and Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), the lawman chasing them both.

All three actors are pitch-perfect. Brolin plays the part of the every-man cowboy with a sincerity that gives the part the human touch it needs. He’s no super hero, but never slips into the self pity that afflicts so many films with a main character in dire circumstances (I call it Elijah Wood as Frodo syndrome).

Bardem is the scariest villain I’ve seen since Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. His scene with an old clerk in a convenience store will chill you to the bone, and Chigurh’s logic behind making the poor old sap call a coin flip for his life almost seems rational in its psychosis.

Tommy Lee Jones is a weary, wizened hard-ass; his gravely voice and worry lines give the sheriff an indescribable depth, his brief lines hinting at the iceberg hidden in the ocean. Jones’ wit and assurance as an actor make it possible for him to dispense old man anecdotal wisdom without sounding senile, or preachy.

Truly, all three deserve academy awards (but it’s tough to say who’s lead and who’s supporting).

I don’t want to go too much into the plot (I hate spoilers and I’d prefer to have each of you enjoy the film fresh), but let me tell you why I think No Country for Old Men is so damn good.

Like most Coen films, this one is unexpectedly funny (black comedy at its finest), but that’s not what sets No Country for Old Men apart (and I certainly wouldn’t call the film a comedy).

For most of their filmmaking careers, the knock on the Coens and their films has been that they have no soul. As masters of witty irreverence, adept storytelling and filmmaking technique, the brothers have few peers. They are able to maintain their unique, quirky style and create memorably offbeat characters while working within the Hollywood system (an admirable feat).

But I’ve heard them accused of being glib, their films described as having no cohesive purpose (which I always found odd because filmmakers are storytellers, not theologians or philosophers). They exist, they spin an entertaining yarn, but in the end they make no comment on society or culture.

No critic will be able to say this about Old Country for Old Men, and I would slap him if he tried. If you’re looking for a film dealing with the nature of humanity, No Country for Old Men offers an embarrassment of riches. It raises issues of ethics – Moss’s hands aren’t clean as he stole $2 million. Should he have kept the cash (would you)? Ultimately, does this make him culpable for the consequences?

It discusses the deterioration of morality. Thank God it’s never actually said, but the good sheriff realizes, after witnessing the tidal wave of violence, that this truly is no country for old men. He muses: “It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing ‘sir’ and ‘ma’am,’ the end is pretty much in sight.”

My favorite theme is that of inevitability vs. chance, fate vs. choice. Never in a film (at least that I have seen) have these ideas been so thoughtfully presented (the Coens themselves seem to land firmly on one side). Sorry to disappoint, but I’m not going to tell you what I mean. It would be giving away too much. Seek and you will find. I urge you all to go see the film, experience it for yourselves, and spend some time ruminating.

I’ll leave you with a fair warning: the ending is not what you might expect. But spend some time thinking about the questions the end of the film raises, and I promise you’ll find it a rewarding experience.

Thanks for reading.

Zizzle-Zot, etc.: What’s Next?

Well folks, my time at Boston Scientific has come to its inevitable conclusion. We all knew I couldn’t make it in the competitive (or is it anal?) medical device industry for long, and I’m just as surprised as anyone that my career lasted as long as it did. Soon I will be moving on to an illustrious (and probably equally short-lived) position in the field of photoelectric sensors.

I can hardly contain my excitement.

Fortunately, I have no regrets about my time at BoSci. I spent the hours of my day…well, liberally, doing minimal work for maximum credit (thus realizing the American dream). The time I allotted to reading online newspapers allowed me gain a formidable grasp on world affairs. My time perusing The Onion and listening to This American Life gave me hours of amusement. Time devoted to managing my fantasy football team meant clinching a spot in the playoffs.

And my time working on Zizzle-Zot, etc., connecting daily with all of you fine people, has been a joy.

Now the question we’re all asking ourselves (or rather, you all are asking me) is: Zot, what comes next? I must invite you, dear readers, to embrace the unknown; for that is the path upon which we now embark. “Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves like locked doors” (Rainer Maria Rilke).

At Boston Scientific I found myself in the perfect storm of corporate ineptitude and indifference. I had a number of bosses who never communicated. None of my team members sat in the same area. Everyone assumed my responsibilities were quite complex and time consuming, when in reality they could have trained a monkey to do the same thing. I realize it sounds like an ideal situation, and you all are wondering why I’m leaving. I repeat: they could have trained a monkey to do my job.

I unfortunately have no idea what kind of free time my new job will afford me, though I’m doubtful that I will be able to continue maintaining Zizzle-Zot, etc. during office hours. In addition, I’ve had an itch lately to write the Great American Novel (or at least a novel snarky enough to live up to the Zizzle-Zot name).

So what does all this mean for Zizzle-Zot, etc.?

To start, I think I’ll have to reduce posting frequency to once a week (at least for the time being). Try not to think of it as a reduction in quantity, but as an amplification of quality (to apply some corporate jargon to the matter). Look for new posts every Wednesday, and don’t be surprised if others pop up sporadically. I’ll keep everyone updated on any changes.

The plan is to get a rough draft of the novel down in the next month (ambition is the key to success). I’ll then work through a revision and post a semi-finalized version, in its entirety, in a series on Zizzle-Zot, etc. That’s right, ladies and gents, you all will get the first look at a novel that may (or may not) change the world as we know it.

I know this is probably coming as a shock to the many (several) loyal readers. I promise you all that Zizzle-Zot is not going anywhere, and will not soon give up his reign of terror over the blogosphere. Think of this down-time as a metamorphosis. Zizzle-Zot goes into self-imposed exile to come back stronger (and more beautiful) than ever. Like the Phoenix, Zizzle-Zot, etc. will rise from the ashes.

Thanks for reading.

Zizzle-Zot Takes a Break

There won't be new posts on Thursday or Friday. Sorry folks. Take the opportunity to comment on the most recent debates, or peruse old posts.

The Debate on Affirmative Action Part 2: Where it Falls Short

Yesterday we took a look at the reason that Affirmative Action is necessary. Now let’s talk about why it doesn’t work.

The Civil Rights Movement ended legalized racism in the ‘60s, but racism as a paradigm persisted. Criminalizing prejudice did little to change anyone’s world view. Minority groups to this day are oppressed by cultural pressures. Following the Civil Rights Movement minorities were allowed to sit in the front of the bus or at the lunch counter, but this didn’t drastically change anyone’s life. These people had been outcast and marginalized since birth. Institutionalized poverty forced them to live in slums and work for nothing, and meant many of them lacked the education or skills necessary to lift themselves out of negative circumstances.

In 1962 Lyndon B. Johnson and James Farmer (founder of the Congress of Racial Equality) proposed a plan called Compensatory Preferential Treatment (renamed Affirmative Action in 1965) to promote equality. In a speech at Howard University, Johnson said “You do not take a person who, for many years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” So they came up with a program to offer a historically oppressed group of people a fighting chance by encouraging employers to hire minorities and providing them with the opportunities and means to seek an education. Johnson and Farmer hoped to provide minorities with the tools to succeed.

But they failed to realize that success is largely environmental. The people to whom they were now extending a helping hand had already become ensnared by a culture of prejudice and suspicion. A child raised in a household that places little value on education will never learn to value education. The opportunities were not being utilized, and the cycle continued.

Through the ’70s and ‘80s a drug and crime epidemic swept through urban areas. Gangs formed and established power, initially as a means of community protection. Eventually they switched to the business of drug distribution as the only available method of supporting themselves.

The urban communities being affected were largely populated by minorities, who for the aforementioned reasons were unable to escape the slums. Young men, lacking the means to support children, the education to rise out of poverty, and living dangerous lifestyles, started abandoning their families. As a result, children were being born to unwed mothers in a culture where gang life and drug dealing were necessary to survival. The arrival of gangster rap further served to glorify this life of crime, engraining in the minds of youngsters the idea of respect and success earned through violence.

Imagine such a childhood. You’ve never met your father. Your older brothers are gang-bangers, drug dealers. If you succeed in school your friends accuse you of “selling out” or acting too “white” (I worked with kids for years. My parents and sister are teachers. This is the reality). What is the motivation to seek an education?

This is where Affirmative Action fails. The government thinks the solution is to throw more money at the problem (what else is new?) when what is really needed is a cultural paradigm shift. Programs need to be put into place to educate parents about the values of education. Influential African Americans (think Jay-Z, Kanye West) need to speak out about the negativity of violence and gang life, and teach youngsters to aspire to greater things. Imagine the positive impact if Jay-Z were to go back to school and get his college degree.

Even more so, imagine the positive impact of a President Barack Obama.

Racism isn’t tangible. It exists in the minds of people. As long as this is true, equality will never be found. Part of the problem with Affirmative Action is that, while making an effort to lift historically oppressed people out of poverty, the system as it exists inevitably draws a line between black and white, creating resentment on both sides and actually promoting inequality.

If we are truly to be one people, one culture, one country (though I still advocate maintaining our diversity), we need to see ourselves as such. On issues of social welfare, there can’t be a line between black and white.

Late Night, your thoughts are appreciated, and largely I agree with you (particularly about the Christian responsibility to care for the poor). You stated, the “poor” and the “minority” in this country seem to go hand in hand. But this is an unfortunate truth, not an inherent fact. The poor and the minority go hand in hand because of circumstances. By making Affirmative Action an issue of “minority” and “non-minority,” the idea of “us” and “them” is further entrenched in people’s minds. It gives the racists ground to stand on when they can say “these people need our hand-outs,” and it creates resentment amongst minorities when they can say “these people assume we need their hand-outs.”

What do I propose? I believe that Affirmative Action should be based on poverty lines, not racial lines. It’s poverty that people can’t escape, not their ethnicity (and the assumption that race is the oppressor, not poverty, is a muted expression of racism). The question on applications and tests should not be “what is your ethnicity?” but rather “what is your parents’ income level?” “what is your parents’ education level?” “where did you grow up?”

I look forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts.

Thanks for reading.

Note: Prominent figures like Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby have already done a tremendous amount to shift the thinking of the culture (Cosby, along with Alvin F. Poussaint, recently came out with a book called Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. It’s on my reading list, but so are a lot of books. I have a feeling it would help a great deal in gaining an understanding of the issues).

A Foregone Conclusion: The Debate on Affirmative Action Part 1

I tried to run, avoid, hide, deny. I tried to pretend that I had no opinion, lacked the prerequisite familiarity with the topic (which in many ways I do), didn’t have the time to get into a lengthy debate. But it was inevitable. The discussion started by a seemingly innocuous statement: “If there were two candidates who had the same stances on the issues, and were of equal ability, yet one was a white male and the other was female or a minority race, I would vote for the woman or the minority,” has fermented beyond Zizzle-Zot, etc.’s ability to contain.

Now let me tell you why I think Affirmative Action is absolutely necessary in theory (Part 1), and a colossal failure in reality (Part 2).

Before we start, I’m hoping we can make a pact together. I think we’ll all acknowledge that racism is still very much alive in this country. It’s embedded in societal structure and the paradigms of older generations. Police are more likely to pull over minority drivers, aspiring business people need to work much harder to win the respect of employers if they aren’t white males, and young minorities still deal with suspicious glares wherever they go. Institutional racism is real.

That said, I realize this topic can be touchy. I plan on having the utmost respect for the issue, and I know you all will do the same. Let the debate begin.

Society is dying. Young people are being killed or imprisoned at alarming rates. The family structure is a distant memory. Homelessness is at an all-time high. And minorities are overwhelmingly the victims. 69% of African American babies are born out of wedlock. 45% of African American households lack a father figure. Homicide is the leading cause of death for African American men between the ages of 15 and 34. There are more African American men in jail than there are in college. Depending on the study, anywhere between 10-15% of the male African American population between the ages of 20 and 34 is incarcerated (this high rate is a confluence of two factors: a crime-glorifying culture and historically harsher prosecution for African American offenders).

This is the sad reality. African American children are overwhelmingly born into poverty, abandoned by their fathers, and ushered at a young age into a world of violence, crime, and survivalism. Because of broken homes they are forced to take on responsibilities a child should never need to. They face fear on a daily basis. Fear of violence and abandonment, yes. But also more basic fears of “when will I next eat?”

We’ll all acknowledge that a child born into such difficult circumstances has less opportunity to succeed. Through no fault of their own they have been relegated to a life of hardship, knocked down before they could stand, deemed a failure without ever having a chance.

Programs like Affirmative Action have the potential to turn this around. By enabling young men and women to seek an education, Affirmative Action allows people oppressed since birth to finally determine their own destiny. By escaping oppression and succeeding in life, these young men and women will go on to serve as inspiration for future generations, creating a cycle of aspiration and hope to replace the cycle of poverty and violence.

Affirmative Action can save America. But will it?

Thanks for reading.

Note: I realize this was brief. It would be impossible to cover the entire issue in one post, but I’m hoping this will serve as a springboard for further discussion. Also, I commented again on yesterday’s post. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts.

The Problem with Hillary: Though it’s Not Really about Her Anymore

I quit my job on Thursday. It was a phenomenal experience. Liberating, invigorating, man-damning. Originally I had a post planned relating to my departure (reasons for quitting, the meetings with the higher-ups, etc.) But quite frankly, the discussion that has naturally evolved out of the last few days of blog topics (blogics, if you will) is of much greater interest to me. I hope you all feel the same. I’ll eventually post on quitting my first real job, but for now let’s continue with some issues of greater importance.

I’m saving any affirmative action related thoughts, since this is the issue which seems most likely to spark controversy. I’ll address other comments, questions, concerns as I see fit.

But first, I’ll reveal the answer to my Bonus Question of the Day: Why SHOULD we be afraid of the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton? I suppose I’m not surprised that no one came up with the answer (it is just a crack-pot, paranoid theory of mine).

I think it’s safe to say that threat number one to American security is jihadism. The religious fanatics declaring jihad are Islamic fundamentalists that have a long and well documented history of disrespecting, oppressing, and abusing women (Google Islam+womens’ rights, genital mutilation, burqa, etc). These terrorists- in-training already hate the infidels of the west and what they see as a debaucherous culture. How will they respond if a woman, who they wouldn’t allow to drive a car let alone run a country, takes command of the most powerful nation in the world; the nation that also happens to be their sworn enemy? Will they take seriously her efforts at diplomacy? Her threats of sanctions? Will they think her capable of protecting her citizens?

Or will it be open season on American soil?

I realize there is no solid evidence that a woman in office would result in increased terrorist attacks. Germany is run by a woman (Chancellor Angela Merkel), and they seem to be hanging in there. I just don’t know that I’d like to put my theory to the test.

For getting the right answer I’ve awarded myself a fabulous prize. Congratulations, Zot.

On to some thoughts from Thursday and Friday’s discussion: (most will be addressed to Mr. A, since many of your thoughts focused on the minority issue).

I was just playing devil’s advocate with the objectification of women stuff. Of course Hillary unfairly has to put up with a lot of rubbish that her male counterparts don’t because she is the first woman seriously seeking the presidency. But I, too, am tired of being seen as just a piece of ass. So is Barack: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

You raise an interesting point about the problem with over-analyzing every word a politician says. Because the media pressure and public scrutiny are so intense, they’re forced to prepare every thought ahead of time, stripping them of any possible spontaneity (and we all know what happens when spontaneity gets the better of a candidate: www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc). We are left with hollowed out, one-dimensional caricatures of politicians and are deprived any hint of the very real, multi-faceted, talented and interesting people that they potentially are.

So what is it that we want? As a society, we demand blood. We thrive on the weakness of others. We want to be there when a candidate makes a fatal mistake. And when they do, we ask for their heads. We want our politicians to go for the jugulars of their opponents. And the media delivers. Truly, we are no better than the Roman masses.

This practice will be put to an end when I finally ascend to my rightful position of ruthless dictator and take full control of the media.

On the next topic, concerning how to vote (issues or character), I’m thinking that we’re further separated by terms than we are by practice. Each candidate has certain pet issues, things they are passionate about, and certainly we can agree that these personal projects are largely informed by their ideology. Edwards has social welfare, Clinton has universal healthcare, Barack has audacity (or is it hope?), Romney has polygamy, Giuliani has adultery, McCain has old man crotchery.

Joking aside, the issues a candidate is passionate about are the best barometer of that candidate’s ideological stances. This is the primary reason that I lean left. For me, social welfare is much more important, ideologically, than unreasonable efforts to prevent homosexual marriage.

In response to the blowup about Barack Obama not placing his hand on his heart during the National Anthem: it’s much ado about nothing. It was initially the result of a misleading caption (another example of either careless or deliberately manipulative journalism) that claimed Barack refused to put his hand on his heart during the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. The picture was later found to have been taken during the singing of the National Anthem, not the reciting of the Pledge. Barack went on to explain (clearly exasperated by repeated questioning) that he was raised to simply sing the National Anthem and to put his hand on his heart for the pledge. Interestingly, though, he was breaking a law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode36/usc_sec_36_00000301----000-.html
Even so, this is exactly the kind muckraking journalism that we all agree creates divisive, ineffective politics. In the end, I agree with Mr. A. Come on, people.

Now think about this: I have made a personal decision to no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It would be hypocritical. Think about what the Pledge of Allegiance forces you to say: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I don’t. I never will. I hope that if and when I decide to pledge my allegiance to anything it is a far greater good/power than the flag or what it stands for. I’ll speak for all of us when I say we each have strong and carefully considered belief systems. We all have things we stand for, would fight for, and ultimately would die for. Are we really going to tie this to a flag? To a country (which is defined merely by the geographical region in which we were born)? I admire America and what it has done. I respect America and what it stands for. But will I ever pledge my allegiance to America? Absolutely not.

Does that make me unpatriotic? I’ll let you decide.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. As expected, this post got long before I even touched on affirmative action. Maybe it’s all a ploy to keep putting the issue off…Or maybe it’s coming tomorrow.

The Problem with Hillary: A Response

There was some good conversation following yesterday’s post, and I’d like to chime in with some thoughts of my own.

Mr. Antagonist, I agree that we shouldn’t resort to derogatory comments about Hillary’s womanhood. After all, no one would dream of calling Giuliani a greasy Italian or Romney a polygamist or Obama (we all see where the slippery slope goes).

As far as Hillary’s hot or not status, I’m sure no one had any ill-intent. However, to play devil’s advocate, it’s an undisputed fact that a good part of the female population votes based at least partly on looks. Isn’t it a bit of a double standard to say the male population can’t objectively assess and comment upon a female front-runner’s appearance?

I believe all potential presidential candidates should be held to the same high standard and put through equally rigorous tests. These people are in line to become (arguably) the most powerful individual in the free world. Every word they say should be combed over, scrutinized. Every inconsistency, every display of weak character, every gaff should be questioned. It’s the reality they have placed themselves in, and if they’re going to be train wreck in the White House it’s much better to find out before they get there.

Unfortunately the system is broken (clearly Bush slipped through the cracks). The media focuses solely on the one or two front runners, giving the impression that the rest of the candidates shit roses. Then we end up with a situation like 2004, where Howard Dean has been crushed by the media and the Democrats end up with a shlub like John Kerry as their candidate. I would argue that Bush didn’t win that election. Kerry lost it.

Mr. A and Late Night, you guys are funny. Vote the issues…you must be living in some sort of fantasy land where politicians tell the truth and always follow through. You can vote party lines (thus the party’s issues). You can vote individuals (thus character). But a vote for a politician’s issues is a vote for empty promises. Call me a cynic, but in my short time following politics I’ve already come to realize that a presidential hopeful’s campaign issues are about as solid as a hay-house in a sandstorm (imagine that said with a southern twang. It’s more entertaining that way). It’s like the 8th grader runner for class president on the no more homework platform (on a much grander scale). Once they’re in office they’ll quickly realize that their issues were a pipe dream and there are too many roadblocks in place (bureaucracy, budget, special interests) to get a damn thing accomplished.

So how does Zizzle-Zot vote? I vote ideological beliefs. Where the candidate stands on philosophical issues such as ethics and morality informs the positions they’ll take on practical issues such as the use of force, fiscal policy, and a pet issue of mine, education.

In this way I am more inclined to side with P Corcs. We shouldn’t necessarily vote personality, but character is of the utmost importance.

The problem, of course, is that this creates a vast grey area. How do we know that a candidate’s persona in front of the camera truly reflects upon her/his character when no one is watching? What if we agree completely with a candidate’s ideological stance on one issue, but adamantly disagree on another?

As voters, it’s our responsibility to form a personal “map” (lame analogy I know – but fitting) to navigate this hazy zone lacking in absolutes. We must use our discernment and judgment (tools best kept out of the hands of those who refuse to educate themselves, which unfortunately includes most. Does that make me sound like an elitist? So be it.) to familiarize ourselves with a candidate and to determine which ideological issues are the highest priority.

Late Night, you brought up an interesting point when you stated that “If there were two candidates who had the same stances on the issues, and were of equal ability, yet one was a white male and the other was female or a minority race, I would vote for the woman or the minority.”

I recently had a long talk with one of my roommates concerning a similar issue. She had been working at an inner-city school as a substitute student aide for over two weeks. The teachers she was working with loved her, the students adored her, and it seemed like the intervention of fate when a full-time position opened up. She was extraordinarily qualified, hard working and passionate.

But she didn’t get the job. She didn’t even get an interview. Why not? The principal told her that the school was only going to hire minority candidates. At first, I was furious for her. She didn’t even get a fair shot.

My roommate, however, wasn’t even irritated. She felt that a minority could relate to these students in ways that she never could, could inspire these students to rise above their circumstances, and understood that no matter how passionate she was, these students would be better served by an influence who knew where they were coming from.

You’re right on the money, Late Night. Think of the positive impact on society as a whole should a minority or female figure rise to the presidency; an individual capable of inspiring historically oppressed people and serving a community outside of Yale graduates breast fed with a silver spoon (who else loves mixed metaphors?)

Mr. A, I agree that Sarkozy is the man. And by the way, no one has gotten the bonus question right…yet. I’ll reveal the answer on Monday.

Thanks for reading.

On a side note, the rest of today is going to get wild and I’ll be out for most of the day tomorrow, so there probably won’t be a new post. I apologize for the recent inconsistency; I’m working to get things back on track. New post on Monday (it should be interesting).