A note to conservatives commenting on Chicago

PG-13 for crude language.

Old-time conservatives when commenting on Chicago need to stop being so ignorant. I know that's a word that's thrown at non-progressives all the time, but I think in this case it's appropriate.

I am not apologizing for the city of Chicago's crime rate and gang wars, but if you want to "prove" that Democratic governance is horrid every time the city is mentioned, in whatever way, then at least drop the headlines that you receive in your local newspapers or whatever - most likely immensely inaccurate - ideas you have about crime in the city.

The "Chiraq" call is effective when commenting on the shootings, when acknowledging that there is a problem in Chicago, but on the South Side. But it stops there when conservatives or when outsiders use it. Why? If you want to get into the particulars a lot of the shooting happen in select low-income neighborhoods whose residents are black. Derrick Rose lived in Englewood which is a neighborhood known for its gang wars and crime. Ben Wilson aka Benji was shot to death in the South Side neighborhood of Chatham even thought Chatham is considered more of a "safe" neighborhood when compared to the likes of Englewood.

Most of the North Side of Chicago and Southwest Side are relatively safe. The West Side is the South Side Light, but like its "heavier" half most of the crime happens in certain neighborhoods - in certain streets/pockets/zones. What demographic tends to dominate the West Side? Latinos. Most of the North Side is white while the Southwest Side is a mixture of white (ie Polish immigrants) and family oriented Latinos. 

Many of the conservatives who comment on Chicago and its crime fail to acknowledge, or simply they succumb to laziness and generalizations, that a couple of the occurring facts that fail to make the headlines: Many of the shootings are located in neighborhoods on South Side which are dominated by black residents. The problem isn't the city itself, but the culture that pervades the South Side in these neighborhoods plagued by gang wars and ghetto mamas.

It's the culture, stupid!

When old-time conservatives complain about the MSM fooling America, they are fooled as well since Chicago crime fits right into the (true) narrative that ghetto culture ruins family and potential which is pushed by the right (and 'rightfully' so).

The irony of shot-gun feelings. No pun.     

The Hatchet (not the book) + Another (school) Shooting

A man snapped and attacked a group of NYC police officers in the borough of Queens yesterday. It reminds me of the knife massacres that happened in China.

Much love and comfort to the family and friends who experienced the Washington school shooting this morning.

Now, this gets me wondering: For all the "gun control" push and "gun free zones", what if the people who  commit crimes with guns resort to hatchets (or knives) instead? Will there be "hatchet control", or "hatchet free zones" being implemented?

If a person can't get a hold of a gun they'll resort to another weapon; let's not forget that our appendages also can be used as weapons (see: domestic violence and fist fights). Our fists, arms and legs can be lethal, but sometimes they're put under "martial arts" as a pretense. I would guess guns - the image of one - the sound of one going off - the destruction that it can cause - are major factors for those that push for such weapon control. They have "gunphobia." Literally.

You can't judge

I don't understand this "You can't judge so-and-so because you don't know them" especially when it comes to entertainers - especially actors and musicians (usually rock stars) - yet politicians, and sometimes athletes, are fair game. It seems like a phenomenon.

Can someone please help me understand this?

Sometimes I wish my interests were things like basket weaving and stamp collecting

But they're not. One of my hobbies is watching movies. Foreign. Indie. Black & White. Subtitles.

You get the idea.

The new critic darling, Whiplash, is lighting the indie movie world on fire. A Sundance favorite, it has garnered many admirers; with these admirers come typical defensive remarks when a critic goes against the the almost consensus view.

The "you didn't 'get it'" card and to be a "qualified movie critic" one shouldn't be offended by the scenes that garner the R (or NC-17) rating. Interesting. I never knew reviewing films had such  qualifications.

And this -

"It's a movie!"

On another comment, on another review, not liking the film is "being cool" for the sake of it.

Wait, I thought the ingrained belief/common-thought was that art was subjective? I guess not, at least not when it comes to indie, foreign and Oscar-type pics that win the critics' hearts. It also turns out that subjectivity is put aside when a movie widely rejected by most critics.

Take for example Andrew Niccol's The Host. I thought it was a decent sci-fi/romance movie. It was at times uninspiring, but overall it was solid. Now, compared to its precedent Stephenie Myer adapted work, the Twilight series, The Host was practically disemboweled; the franchise wasn't met with warmth, but Niccol's movie was just crucified. 

WARNING: SPOILERS ahead.

The Whiplash love I "get", but I can't bring myself to share the same enthusiasm as the critics and its admirers; the "drive to be the best" was way overdone and it resorted to tired cliches (ie musician in family isn't understood, the football player is lauded) to downright petty scenes (mentor framing his student's father as a loser due to the mother/wife leaving them, the "rather be remember than not" mentality). Some of the critics who shared their negative reviews I also "get" -- I can see why the didn't like it (mentor's teaching method rendered him a  borderline sociopath).

I see it all often that when people say a movie is "overrated" - even when giving reasons why - the defenders resort to "So are you saying that all the people who liked it are wrong? Are you seriously saying that so-and-so from NYT/LA Times/Tribune/IndieWire/Hollywood Reporter is wrong?"

Wait, so are the critics the priests/judges now? I thought art was universally said to be subjective so if a a review is negative then it's equally as valid as a positive one. Hmmm. That seems to be not the case.

Those familiar with the movie making world, and not fully on the train of "ma feelings", would agree that it is wrought with amorality, subjectivity, relativism and nihilism. It's a very modern medium. I'm not talking about blockbusters, I'm talking about films that are screened at festivals like Sundance, TIFF, Cannes, and NY FF. Granted not all films are like this that are accepted & screened, but most of the lauded ones - the ones entered in the main competitions or the ones that are the most anticipated, tend to be tackle the similar themes (sexual angst, some sort of LGBT theme, inner turmoil). Basically, they try to humanize many things that might be a taboo to Western culture. I wouldn't really object to one saying that those films is said film fests were pretentious and self-involved without even realizing.  

But, like the person who said that critics who are offended by the contents of R rated movies, maybe I might  not be "qualified" to be interested in such a hobby.

Enjoy the sounds until you pay attention to the lyrics (and the music video).

I heard "Take Me to Church" by Hozier on the radio for the first time today. I didn't catch all the lyrics but I liked the melody, that is until I went on youtube and saw all of the lyrics, made sense of them and later viewed the music video.

My lover's got humour
She's the giggle at a funeral (1)
Knows everybody's disapproval
 
I should've worshiped her sooner
If the heavens ever did speak (2)
She's the last true mouthpiece
 
Every Sunday's getting more bleak
A fresh poison each week
'We were born sick,' you heard them say it

My Church offers no absolutes. (3)
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—
 
I was born sick, (4)
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies (5)
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife (6)
Offer me that deathless death (7)
Good God, let me give you my life


My break-down:
1. The glorification and hero-worship of the "rebel."
2. Sunday's homilies are poison and shouldn't be trusted. Only the rebel should.
3. Bodily/sexual desires are the only absolutes that we know of; obey them.
4. Relish the "sickness" in the faces of the "prudes" for this shows courage
5. People who attend mass are like Pavlov's dog.
6. Who killed the confessor? Was the confessor killed with the candle stick? Was it with the sharpened knife? (Hozier, that's Islam, you Irish git.)
7. The talk of hell does not scare me. Your death doesn't pertain to me.
 
The music video mostly shows a fictional story about two men supposedly in the closet to their town besides to each other - they are 'together.' They're caught walking alongside each other by a man who's in a gang. One day the man who saw them brings his gang to the boyfriend's house, kidnaps him and drags him into the forest where they threaten him. The other homosexual finds out about this and desperately tracks his boyfriend down, but it's too late. The captured man is seen being kicked and beaten in the distance; his lover covering his eyes in horror.

Like such a scenario for the music video wasn't predictable, especially for a song & video meant to speak out for LGBT "rights."

It reminds me greatly of "Sacrilege" with model/actress Lilly Cole, but this time instead of focusing on homosexuals it was about Cole's character sleeping around with most of the townspeople, later getting married to a man who's oblivious to her "bad girl" nature; every man in the pews she has slept with.

The parallels between the two narratives are alike, so I suggest to watch both and draw comparisons. 

Here's a couple of comments; the brilliance astounds me.

Will I keep listening to the song? I'm not sure. I do like the melody and I suppose this is one of those songs that I can "listen to" without paying attention to the lyrics.

It's the same thing when I heard Sam Smith's "Stay With Me" in that I really liked the melody and the lyrics. You're probably saying to yourself "Er, Smith is a homosexual as well." I know. But I didn't know that until after I learned about the singer/writer. The entire time I thought the song was about a guy singing about a girl (as did others).

What's interesting about "Stay With Me" is that, in some way, it's kinda respectful to religion. Smith is wearing earrings that are in a shape of crosses at the 2:20 mark where it seems he's in some kind of church, dressed in white, background white with organ pipes, as the melody transitions into a gospel-esque atmosphere. This tone in melody makes it is the best of the video for me since I enjoy some melodies from gospel music.

Now, every time the song is played on the radio I can't help think of two guys instead of a guy and a girl, which, sadly, diminishes my enjoyment of the song (once I heard it was about one-night stands it was a turn off; it was a second turn off when I learned it was about two guys).

It also doesn't really help that the Top 40 station in my city is playing his new songs -- and every time I hear one of Smith's songs I think "two guys."

Wait, what was that, Mr. Lee?

Honestly, every time. It came to a point where I'd listen to the lyrics if I haven't heard of the song before, then once it's played again some time later I'd switch it. People will probably say that I should be open-minded and get over it. I did listen to the lyrics and see how they relate to my own feelings of my love life and what not, but then reality hits me and remind me it's about homosexuals.

*reaches for radio knob and switches channels*  

Then there's "She Keeps Me Warm" by Mary Lambert who went to an evangelical church during her teenage years (they tend come from evangelical churches ... ). When I head that I felt kinda sick.

*reaches for radio knob and switches channels*

I can't forget about "Same Love" by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis featuring Mary Lambert (surprise surprise), probably the piece that paved the way for airing the above mentioned songs.

Also, bing.com is a gift that keeps on giving. Besides acting as a decent search engine, it also has its own news feed at the bottom. Since this post is about same-sex relationships, bing recently let me know that actress Rachel Evan Wood has entered a relationship with a woman. Such wonderful timing. Thank you, bing.com. According to wiki, Wood was married to fellow actor Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) no less than two years - divorcing in 2013, bearing his child. I wonder how the kid turns out.

I wanted Swan Lake, but instead I got Mary McNamara.

I woke up this morning groggy as usual then I remembered that there might be a review of Joffrey Ballet's Swan Lake which premiered last night. I was suddenly alert. I flipped through my city's newspaper for the arts & entertainment section, finally getting to it and disregarding the rest of the sections like gift wrap on Christmas morning.

"Where is it?" I thought to myself since it wasn't the on the front page. Then at the bottom I saw this eye-catching headline; its content more predictable than I can imagine. It was a review, sorta, not on a ballet production, but how maternity is portrayed on television.

The two series could not be more different. "Homeland" is the once-exalted then much-criticized Showtime political thriller rebooting its fourth season to wary and conditional praise. "Jane the Virgin" is a highly anticipated CW comedy, with magical realism top-notes and a very high buzz factor.

Yet they share a troubling and unexpected theme: Socially Enforced Motherhood.

Despite their contrasting tone, form and intent, both shows insist that, deep down, every woman wants a child no matter the conditions, even when the woman in question has made it very clear that she does not feel this way at all.

So two shows all of a sudden make up a "tyranny" (of motherhood). That's an impressive conclusion to come up with.

No mention of whether or not the use of a biblical story as a plot device to make a comedy -- a virgin becoming miraculously impregnated without any sexual intercourse or in vitro -- was a "wise" decision to the audience members who may be religious since it obviously uses the story in a mocking manner (the character wants to save sex for marriage). It's parody.

No mention of whether or not the feelings of, I would bet, most women when they find they are pregnant: joy - shock - nervousness - happiness.

Nope.

McNamara, a mother of three, sees these two shows - one a comedy, the other a drama - as vehicles of "socially enforced motherhood" even though abortion- on-demand is basically the issue for modern day women -- supported like crazy in her circles, elite journalism, and in the city of L.A. This mentality of feeling threatened I mention here and the abortion issue mentioned here.

I would think that if a mother of three is critical of this "socially enforced motherhood" then she must have a good point, right? I mean, if mothers themselves support abortion and woman's "right" to be childless, for whatever reasons, then that's how society should work, right? 

 All of a sudden the L.A. Times writer feels threatened by two shows. How about all the rest of the shows out there that are getting publicity?

In the Middle portrays a family, the Midwest of course, of five as lovable fools and motherhood as unattractive and (somewhat) miserable. The same with Malcolm in the Middle. Most of the shows today, when two characters have sex, don't even mention the pregnancy. They just get all hot, proceed to make out and get naked. Or the director just shoots the sex scene and skips the make out session and build up (see: Game of Thrones).

Or how about Sex and the City, Mistresses, Scandal and Revenge? How is maternity portrayed? I can safely say maternity isn't shown in anyway positive -- little to no affection, no anything. Just "that's my daughter/wife you slept with," type of attitude.   

All of a sudden McNamara wants the characters to practice "choice."

I do wonder what her thoughts are of the shows I mentioned. I wonder if the choices the females made in the shows would be seen as "empowering." I'd guess McNamara would complain about sexism and patriarchy.  

This "not wanting a child", kinda just using the reproductive sex organs as a gateway to pleasure without the consequences (nipping the babe in the butt), outright rejects the natural purpose of it. It divorces mind & body (though, if McNamara practices yoga or is a marathon runner she'll probably resort to the "mind & body" slogan). It draws a parallel to transgenderism and homosexuality as well, but especially transgenderism.

• Transgenderism - a man/woman whose brain tells them they're a woman/man. Obviously nature gave them something else than what their brains makes them think they are.
• Homosexuality - a man/woman is attracted to a man/woman. "Consuming" the relationship is a waste.
• Feminism - choosing not to allow the natural course of reproduction to occur, therefore rejecting the natural "job" and duty of maternity of which those organs call for.

And it's all about sex (and feelings), isn't it? They are all connected.

There's another through-line involved with these three: Neither of these are romantic. At All. I'm using "romantic" in its most classic sense.

But Swan Like is. It's a classic in the cannon of ballets. It's timeless. Even with modern twists and interpretation, it's still Swan Lake (unless some choreographer totally butchers the story). The only "crazy" thing in the story is between Odette and Odile, otherwise known as the White Swan and Black Swan. No, it ain't no lesbo story (I did enjoy the movie, though).

Maybe I'll be met with a Swan Lake review tomorrow morning. Maybe. Maybe I'll be met with beauty:

It's quite Easy

to defend detainees that are supposed terrorists. Just say the following:

• "they're people, too"
• "there are two sides to every coin"
• "the real evil is to (negatively) judge"

It's the One World, "we're all one human race under the same sun" type of mentality. It's not really flower-power, but it's a mindset that often falls into "let's give them the benefit of the doubt."

You then come off as a sensitive, well-meaning, thoughtful and intelligent person.

Of course, each of the above can be used for most of any modern social cause. Surprise, surprise.