Brave New World

Hello, hello. I apologize for the dropoff in posts, but one of the funny things about graduate school is that they make you do a whole bunch o' readin' and writin'. Didn't see that coming. Consequently, I don't always have a desire to write for fun. But I thought this recent analysis of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley that I wrote for my course on the history of science and technology would be appropriate for the blog. Huxley's book is a modern classic, and I don't see how anyone could argue against its relevance in contemporary culture. That being said, here's my 1,800 words on the book. I could've written more, but the professor only wanted five pages, and I was working on a heftier term paper at the same time. Lemme know what you think, and if you haven't read the book, I hope my thoughts spur you to read it yourself.

“When the Individual Feels, the Community Reels”
An Analysis of Brave New World

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley cynically destroys visions of technological and scientific utopias by presenting the reader with the World State: a society existing several centuries in the future that has taken technological and scientific development to an extreme by systematizing the entire human experience. From the time one is artificially conceived and developed in a hatchery up until the time he or she is admitted to a “hospital for the dying” around the age of 60, a citizen is a controlled member in the World State’s society. Although the World State was created as a utopia, where the harnessing of science and technology created an ideally efficient existence, it is indeed the very opposite. In Huxley’s world, humanity continues to exist, but the experience of human existence is largely denied by a loss of individuality, the repression of free-thinking, and the absence of meaningful interpersonal relationships.

Huxley introduces the reader to his futuristic world by introducing the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. A tour that the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning is giving to a group of young students serves to describe the processes in which human life is created. Traditional childbearing no longer occurs; in its stead is a system of external fertilization that involves “Bokanovsky’s Process,” which artificially multiplies zygotes in order to yield a maximum number of human beings from every egg. The embryos are then methodically developed to fit into one of five castes, ranging from Alpha, which is comprised of those with the most developed minds, to Epsilon, which is filled with the dullest beings whose lack of intellect relegates them to jobs such as sewage worker or elevator operator. Human beings are conceived and developed in what amounts to a factory, and Huxley reinforces the idea of mass production by adding that the World State’s calendar marks the number of years elapsed since Henry Ford’s production of the Model T. This effectively bestows a divine status upon Ford, who is generally remembered, among other things, for the development of the extremely efficient assembly line.

From this point, the reader learns more about people’s daily life through the introduction of Huxley’s main characters. Model citizens, like Lenina Crowne, faithfully attend to their work during the day, and at night engage in community-oriented activities which promote the consumption of products. The pleasures offered by promiscuous sex and the drug soma are de rigueur and are encouraged by the State in order to keep citizens happy and occupy their time outside of working hours. On the other hand, Bernard Marx, who is infatuated with Lenina, stands out among the others for not adhering to social norms. Despite being an Alpha-Plus, Bernard is small in stature, which is a trait of the lower castes. Bernard is also deemed odd because he does not enjoy participating in community events and prefers to spend time alone.

The story progresses when Lenina accompanies Bernard on a trip to an Indian reservation in New Mexico. The community at Malpais provides the reader with a society that can be compared and contrasted with the “civilization” of the World State. The “savages” are less hygienic than Bernard and Lenina, they have religious beliefs which are manifested in rituals and stories explaining the world’s creation, and they practice monogamy and procreate naturally. They soon meet John “the Savage” and his mother Linda, who used to belong to the World State until she was separated from her group while visiting Malpais several years before. It is also revealed that she had had a relationship with the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning, and had accidentally become pregnant with John. Without access to abortion, which she would have easily found in England, she was forced to deliver John naturally. As a native of the World State, she longs to return to the luxuries of consumerism and soma.

In the final portion of the book, John and Linda accompany Bernard and Lenina back to England for the purposes of study. Through John’s interactions in England, one can see that his moniker of “savage” is quite ironic because he experiences much more complex emotions than most of the people in the World State. He longs for Lenina, but remains chaste because does not want to betray the virtue of monogamy that he learned in Malpais; he is overcome by Linda’s death and how indifferently death is treated in his new environment; he is stirred by the writing of Shakespeare and finds the “feelies” (a sensory film) a hollow form of art because they stimulate only the physical senses. Ultimately, John tries to isolate himself from the new society, but when others find him and come to watch him as if he were a museum exhibit, he hangs himself.

One of the main themes that runs throughout Huxley’s novel is the loss of individual identity that occurs due to the systemization of society. This is introduced from the outset when the Director lauds Bokanovsky’s Process for its social stability, because it guarantees “uniform batches” of men and women. (p. 7) This absence of identity is exhibited further on the multiple occasions that parenthood, particularly motherhood, is treated as profane. A simple utterance of the word “mother” is an ignominious act that makes others uncomfortable. (pp. 23-24) This strong rejection of parents is essentially a strong rejection of identity. Every individual’s mother and father, whether for better or worse, is part of his or her identity. And the hypnopædic phrases that are repeated thousands and thousands of times during development provide an ethos among everyone that shows that they are incapable of original thought. There are several times in the book where Lenina frustrates Bernard because she is only able to answer his conversation with the short phrases that everyone else repeats.

One could argue that the social construction of the World State allows for its citizens to have some sort of an identity, as each person identifies with a specific caste. But this is an artificial identity that is automatically thrown upon the individual even before they are decanted. It is also a denial of free will that is inherently human. A person is unable to cultivate an identity for oneself because the powers-that-be condition a person to fit a certain niche in society. And in the same way that embryos are assigned to different castes, men and women do not have a choice concerning what kind of livelihood they wish to pursue because in many cases they are specifically conditioned for certain environments and tasks before they are decanted. (p. 17) It also appears that Huxley’s main characters all sustain and perpetuate the World State’s system, since they are employed in positions involved in the production and development of human beings. It seems that the sole purpose of regeneration in the World State is to produce the succeeding generation of men and women who will continue the cycle and achieve the “stability” of the government’s motto. This raises a whole host of existential questions which cannot be appreciated by the people of Huxley’s future.

It could also be argued that while the World State suffocates the individual, it fosters a strong sense of community. After all, its motto begins with “community.” But the community oriented activities in which citizens participate, like the “Solidarity Service” that Bernard is mandated to attend, are little more than mindless group activities. In fact, the World State is an awful example of a society because one of the bedrocks of community—interpersonal relationships—is generally non-existent. Children are taught hypnoædic aphorisms like “every one belongs to every one else,” but this lesson seems only to apply to sexual relations. During the course of an average life, it is normal for one to “have” many different partners, and these encounters are treated merely as a recreational activity. A conversation between Lenina and her friend Fanny suggests that it is abnormal to have only one sexual partner for months at a time. (pp. 40-41) This lack of interpersonal connections also allows the citizens of the World State to avoid the complex emotions involved with death. During Linda’s death, the nurse fails to understand why John is so distraught. Her inner-monologue reveals that she does not think death is all that terrible or that any individual matters all that much. (p. 206) This, of course, relates back to the homogeneity of citizens. Since every person is virtually a carbon copy of all the others, it is difficult to find reason to mourn an “individual.”

But there are other reasons why little attention is paid to death. One is that the feelings involved with the end of life require some level of introspection, but the World State eliminates this and many other thought processes by administering soma. Soma is the ubiquitous drug that allows the user to take a “vacation” from reality, which essentially isolates them from the rest of the world for hours at a time. Soma pills are freely administered to everyone at the end of the workday, and the euphoric effects they provide are very much in demand, because a deprivation of soma is an “appalling thought.” (pp. 208-210) One of the other pastime activities offered is the “feelies,” which are essentially films that stimulate one’s senses. In the end, the culture’s emphasis on sex, soma, games, and feelies provide men and women with a constant bombardment of pleasure, but they are all distractions because they do not allow anyone to utilize their brains during their leisure time.

On top of all of this, Huxley adds tiny bits of evidence that suggests that those in control of the World State are aware of how unnatural their human engineering is. Natural biological impulses are remedied through hormone treatments. Around the age of 21, women are given “pregnancy substitutes,” presumably to extinguish any desire to bear children. (p. 38) “Violent Passion Surrogates” are also administered to everyone on a monthly basis so that the adrenal glands are regularly stimulated. (p. 239) This is a recognition that the nearly constant state of pleasure that men and women experience must be balanced with a more natural mixture of hormones.

Ultimately, Brave New World is much like Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in that it is a warning against the excesses of scientific and technological discovery. Huxley’s version of mankind is very culpable for its excesses of science because it chooses to use its knowledge to create the systematic manufacture of human beings. As a result, individuality, identity and meaningful relationships are sacrificed in the name of efficiency. Human beings are devoid of the many things that define human nature, and are little more than cogs in a giant machine. Huxley best summarized the main point of his novel in his 1946 foreword when he said that science and technology should be useful tools for mankind, not something to which humanity should be “adapted and enslaved.” (p. ix)

BCS Bedlam

Howdy, y'all. I'm about to use this web space to rail against the BCS. By no means am I the first to levy criticism against college football's championship system, but I wanted to add my voice to the choir.

The BCS (Bowl Championship Series) rankings were just announced, and they determined the winner of the Big XII South. For those that don't follow college football, here's a quick rundown of what transpired in the Big XII Conference's South Division this season. Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech each finished with a 7-1 conference record, which created a three-way tie for the division winner. What complicated matters was the incorporation of the head-to-head results between the three squads. Texas beat Oklahoma. Oklahoma beat Texas Tech. Texas Tech beat Texas. As you can see, this created a never ending cycle which left the issue of division supremacy quite murky.

So, conference rules stipulate that the highest rated team in the BCS rankings would take the crown. The problems with the BCS rankings are myriad and have been detailed in a much better fashion elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the rankings are flawed because they proclaim which teams in the country are best through a bizarre formula of computer rankings and coaches' opinions. The formula annually upsets football fans, as only two colleges are picked to play in the championship game from among a handful of excellent teams.

Anyway, cut to today. The BCS rankings presumably deem who is the best, and Big XII fans anxiously awaited to see whom the BCS thought better. It just so happened that the rankings placed Oklahoma slightly ahead of Texas, and consequently, they will play Missouri for the Big XII championship. That's correct. Oklahoma, whose only blemish this season came at the hands of Texas, is ahead of the very team that beat them.

And so, I find myself as another football enthusiast who pleads to the powers-that-be: please, please get rid of the damned BCS. This isn't entirely the BCS' fault, but the fact that the Big XII puts faith in its authority to decide a divisional winner just legitimizes it further.

2008 Music Picks 'n Pans: The Bedlam in Goliath

To me, The Mars Volta are like Santa Claus, insofar as I look forward to any of their new releases with as much anticipation as a five-year-old on Christmas Eve. Such was the case in the months leading up to January 2008’s release of The Bedlam in Goliath. I had been aching to ingest as much TMV as I could after Amputechture completely rearranged my musical sensibilities and tastes in the fall of 2006, and the seemingly interminable wait for the next album was probably akin to what a junkie experiences when he or she can’t get a fix.

As the fall of 2007 passed, a date was finally set for The Bedlam’s release and a tantalizing snippet of what was to follow was offered to fans when “Wax Simulacra” hit the internet. It was still painful, though, because the song clocked in at just under three minutes. At the three minute mark in most TMV tracks, things are just getting good. Nevertheless, “Wax Simulacra” fed my addiction for a short while.

When I finally got my hands on the whole album, I nearly wept tears of joy. Well, not really, but I hope you can appreciate how eager I was to get into a proper listening environment (dark room, headphones) and just gorge. Once I hit the second half of the opener “Aberinkula,” I knew I was in for a treat.

Yes, I definitely enjoyed TBIG. I can’t see how you wouldn’t if you were already accustomed to their complex sound. But how does it compare with the rest of their catalog?

TBIG, like two of its predecessors De-Loused in the Comatorium and Frances the Mute, is purportedly a concept album. I’ll take Cedric Bixler-Zavala and Omar Rodriguez-Lopez, the creative forces behind TMV, at their word, but it’s hard to make much of Bixler-Zavala’s cryptic and often nonsensical lyrics. Oddly enough, I thought Amputechture (the album they claim is not concept album) had more of a universal theme, as it bludgeons you over the head with its constant references to religion. Anyway, the guys claim that the recording of TBIG was filled with a whole lot o’ bad luck after Bixler-Zavala received a strange Ouija board from Rodriguez-Lopez. The bad juju led to lost recordings, a sound engineer having a nervous breakdown, et cetera. The story is a bit much (especially for a skeptic like me) but whether it’s a fabrication or not, it adds an intriguing element to the music.

TBIG hits the ground running with “Aberinkula,” where Bixler-Zavala’s falsetto demands, “Have you seen the living tired of their own shells?” What follows is an interesting musical dichotomy that exhibits why TMV is so great. The first half features Bixler-Zavala wailing with the band dutifully creating an organized cacophony of guitars, percussion and synthesizer behind him. The second (and better) half is replete with urgency. The commanding guitar lines are answered by a panicked saxophone solo that is nothing short of amazing. Other highlights are the funk-rock of “Ilyena,” the stadium-sized guitar riff of “Goliath,” and the Middle-Eastern influences of “Soothsayer.”

One noticeable change in the group’s music is the addition to drummer Thomas Pridgen, who brings an explosive and energetic change to the kit. I’m generally an ignoramus when it comes to percussion, but I couldn’t help but notice the incredibly intense drumbeats that prop up “Wax Simulacra.”

And I daresay that Omar Rodriguez-Lopez’s guitar work is a bit more constrained and focused on this album. But by other standards, that’s still not very constrained and focused. There are still sprawling musical constructions like “Metatron” and “Cavalettas,” but nothing of “Tetragrammaton” grandeur.

To my wife’s chagrin, Bixler-Zavala’s cloying falsetto is still omnipresent on the record. Love it or hate it, it’s most definitely a signature of TMV’s music. But they did choose to run it through some voice modifiers here and there, which prove to be interesting. The fade-in, fade-out of “Cavalettas” is likely to cause head trips whether you’re on hallucinogens or not. On the flipside, his vocals have arguably never sounded stronger than they do on “Soothsayer” or “Conjugal Burns.”

So, to make a long story short, if you liked any of the TMV’s previous work, this album is right up your alley. If you haven’t cared for them in the past, there’s nothing redeeming here (save for the interesting background story, if you didn’t find yourself rolling your eyes while reading it). Their sound has become more nuanced, but it’s not likely to win over any listeners who didn’t get hooked on De-Loused in the Comatorium.

As for me, I once again find myself in that “in-between” stage, anxiously awaiting the next release. I’ll be all right, though. Don’tchoo worry ‘bout me.

Happy listening!

Another day at The Office.

I’d like to pretend that I’m a high-minded snob and profess that I don’t watch any television. But that, as I said, would be pretending. I’d also like to tell you that since I don’t have cable television, I’m not up to speed on shows that aren’t accessible with a pair of bunny ears.

But of course, I cannot. I religiously watch a handful of major network shows, and other favorites that are pumped through the magical system of cable television can easily be found on the internet these days. Suffice it to say that in 2008 one can keep abreast of pop culture (and save a lot of money) by only paying for internet access. Hulu.com has been a godsend, as well as most of the networks who offer up their goodies online in exchange for a handful of 30-second ads. My Netflix membership also allows for instant access to a selection of classic programs that any self-respecting know-it-all should be familiar with. Yes, sir, these modern times sure are good for television junkies.

But if you were to ask me to select the show that I would never, ever want to give up, let alone miss an episode of, it would be “The Office.” Yes, the American one. If you ask me again in early ’09, I might tell you “Lost,” but as of November ’08, it’s The Office.

We’re currently 6 episodes deep in Season 5, and the overarching storylines are beginning to take shape. Here are some of the things that I think will transpire before the season finale in May. I invite other fans to join in the speculation.

Jim and Pam

Jim’s proposal in the season premiere definitely took me by surprise. I mean, I knew it was coming at some point this season, but I figured it’d be toward the tail-end. The interesting thing that most fans probably saw coming is the slight strain that the long-distance relationship is putting on them. That and Pam’s burgeoning art career is shaping up to be a problem down the road for the two lovebirds. In last week’s episode we saw one of the dudes from Pam’s art school attempting to convince her to stay in New York City once her education is complete. We also learn that Jim is planning to purchase his parents’ house, which I assume is somewhere nearby in Pennsylvania. Any fan who thought these two would have an easy-go-lucky engagement are in for a let down. I foresee a rocky road ahead. Of course they’ll probably get hitched someday, but it won’t be by the end of this season.

Michael and Holly

I was saddened to read that actress Amy Ryan (who portrays Michael’s love interest Holly Flax) only signed on to do five episodes. Her move to Nashua, New Hampshire, should put her out of the picture for a little bit, but if the writers are wise, they’ll bring her back in some capacity. I know I just berated fans who thought Jim and Pam were perfect, but c’mon. Michael and Holly are perfect for each other. Michael, despite all of his glaring flaws, is a very nice guy. Ultimately, he deserves Holly: someone just like him. I know Jan will be back in the mix, but I’m hoping Michael has the self-respect to not get involved with her again. Oh, who am I kidding? They’ll probably be back together by the end of this season.

Andy and Angela (and Dwight)

I’ve really been enjoying the dynamic that’s developing between Andy and Dwight. Dwight’s Cornell gag elicited a hell of a lot of belly laughs from me. I foresee the season finale revolving around Andy and Angela’s wedding. But now that we know it’ll be held at Schrute Farms, we can rest assured that Dwight will sabotage it somehow. It only remains to be seen whether or not he’ll enlist the help of Mose!

Toby

Not so sure where they’re going with this one. I sincerely hope that they bring Toby back into the show, because I thought Michael’s inexplicable and unfounded hatred of Toby was one of the most gut-busting running gags. Toby left Dunder Mifflin at the end of last season, but in the current season’s opener, we learn that he broke his neck very early on in his visit to Costa Rica.

Writers, if you happen to stumble across this blog somehow, please hear my plea: BRING TOBY BACK!!!

So it is written, and so it will be. Well, maybe not. After all, I'm just an over-involved fan. Watch tomorrow night's episode and see if any plot developments match up to my predictions.

NFL Playoff Predictions

The Tom Brady-less 2008 NFL season has eclipsed the halfway point and all 32 teams have nine games in the bag (well, except for San Francisco and Arizona, who are currently slogging it out on Monday Night Football as I type this, but they'll get there soon enough). Time to make a series of playoff predictions so that once the season is complete, I can reread this post, scratch my head and mutter something along the lines of "what the hell was I thinking?"

Parity seems to be making a huge comeback to the league. Fans of the Tennessee Titans and New York Giants would probably have an argument against that assertion, but there really are no sure picks beyond those two squads. The AFC East, the division to which I'm most partial, is currently a four-way dash to the top. I definitely couldn't have imagined that at this time last year.

So let me embarrass myself now.

First up, the NFC.

East Champs: New York Giants (Currently 8-1)

I don't see the reigning champs finishing any worse than 11-5, and although the remaining three teams in the division are all very much alive, I think they're going to have to settle for a Wild Card. Eli and company look ten times better than last year's championship team, which should absolutely frighten the rest of the NFL.

North Champs: Minnesota Vikings (Currently 5-4)

The Chicago Bears (currently 5-4) could easily win this division, especially if they are able to beat the Vikes in the Metrodome in a few weeks. But the Bears' problem this year, as it has been for the past several years, is the quarterback spot. Kyle Orton thinks he could play this weekend against Green Bay, but something tells me that his high ankle sprain won't be completely healed for little longer. Rex Grossman kept the Bears in it 'til the end against the Titans, but we've seen so much inconsistency from him in the past that we can never safely bank on him. A case can also be made for the Packers (currently 4-5), but I feel that their last two games (OT loss against the Titans and a one-point loss against the Vikes) show their inability to put games away. I give this one to the dudes in purple because they've got a veteran in Gus Frerotte, a stud in Adrian Peterson, and schedule that looks favorable down the stretch.

South Champs: Carolina Panthers (Currently 7-2)

The Panthers will exact revenge on the Bucs in Week 14 for a humiliating loss earlier this year, and, in doing so, will wrap up the NFC South. Kudos to Matt Ryan and the surprising Falcons (currently 6-3), but reality will soon set in, and I don't see that squad keeping pace with Tampa Bay or Carolina.

West Champs: Arizona Cardinals (Currently 5-3)

These guys would have to have a supreme meltdown to not win this, 2008's sorriest division. They could probably finish 8-8 and still not break a sweat about the 49ers sneaking up on them. Oh, and Kurt Warner for MVP? I dunno. Maybe.

Wild Card #1: Washington Redskins (Currently 6-3)

I'll take a page from the CBS pundits and say that the Redskins won't overtake the Giants, but they'll finish a close second because their remaining divisional games are all at home. They've already shown they can handle the Cowboys and the Eagles, so it'll be interesting to watch their rematch against the Giants. Plus, they get to play a couple o' cupcake teams like the Bengals and 49ers. Playoffs? No problem.

Wild Card #2: Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Currently 6-3)

The defense will get 'em in. The offense will determine whether they stay in or not. I have to admit that I haven't seen them play at all this year, but their remaining schedule looks like they'll have no problem racking up a few wins.

Okay. Deep breath. AFC Time.

East Champs: New York Jets (Currently 6-3)

As much as it pains me as a Pats fan to say this, I think the division will start to take a definitive shape when Favre and the Jets beat New England on Thursday night. The Patriots many injuries are simply going to catch up to them. As I write this, I'm browsing through a story that says Adalius Thomas is likely gone for the season. I think it also comes down to the comparison of QBs. Favre is Favre. The dude will probably have an adjective made out of his name someday to describe outstanding quarterbacks. Matt Cassel is Matt Cassel. Sure, it looks like he's gaining confidence and growing up before our eyes, but in the classroom that is the NFL, he remains a C-student (7 TDs against 7 INTs in 8 starts). The Jets can score more points than the Patriots, and that's the difference.

North Champs: Pittsburgh Steelers (Currently 6-3)

Although the Ravens (currently 6-3) could very well surprise us, this division comes down, once again, to the respective QBs. Ben Roethlisberger has a ring. Joe Flacco is the rookie, and although he's been impressive, I've gotta believe that experience is going to trump inexperience.

Look for the Bengals to play spoiler. Am I joking? Yes. Yes, I am. Ha ha.

South Champs: Tennessee Titans (Currently 9-0)

I think they've padded the lead pretty well. The Colts (5-4) are a distant second. Will they finish 16-0? Of course not. Will they be playing in January? Let me answer that question with another question: is Barack Obama the President-Elect?

West Champs: Denver Broncos (Currently 5-4)

The San Diego Chargers have relegated themselves to sitting on the sidelines come playoff time due to their inconsistent play against teams they could've and should've beaten. Did you see that game this past weekend? The lowly Chiefs would've taken them to overtime were it not for the fact that they have nothing to play for! Now they have to virtually run the table against teams like the Steelers, Colts, Buccaneers and Broncos. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Denver Broncos will win the West in spite of themselves.

Wild Card #1: New England Patriots (Currently 6-3)

Look for Cassel's crew to finish right behind the Jets and probably make an early exit in the first round, regardless of whom they play.

Wild Card #2: Indianapolis Colts (Currently 5-4)

It's taken a while for Manning to look like he's fully recovered from that offseason knee surgery, but he's looking like the supremely confident quarterback we're used to. Would I ever count a Manning-led team out of it? Not on your life. Of course, it's also nice to have teams like Houston, Cincinnati and Detroit on your remaining schedule.

As a famous philosopher once said, "it is what it is." If there's one thing I've learned through all of this analysis, it's that being a sports prognosticator isn't as easy as one would believe. Make sure to check back in at the end of December so you can guffaw at my picks. I'll be eagerly awaiting your ridicule!

Vendetta!

The presidential election is over. Huzzah!

My candidate of choice won. Double huzzah!

I’ve gotta say that election night was pretty sweet. Barack Obama ran a great campaign. Sure, it was full of lofty rhetoric, the majority of which I didn’t really buy into, but that’s not why I voted for him. I checked his name off on the ballot because his platform, for all intents and purposes, was diametrically opposed to the way things have been run during the past eight years. I won’t mention any names, but I’ll wager you have a good idea of what I’m talking about.

So, there I was election night, basking in the nascent reality of a Barack Obama presidency, and although I just said otherwise, I was swept up in the lofty rhetoric of Barack’s victory speech. Well, that’s not fair. It was a momentous occasion for both sides of the political spectrum: the vision of the civil rights movement had come to fruition and Americans had elected their first black president. Much has been written about the historic occasion, so I’ll let that be. But the main point was that I was quite taken by the historical enormity and occasion of the night. Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

Riding the emotional high, I did an about-face and headed into the dark and sordid catacombs of the internet: the forums on Sean Hannity’s website.

Now, allow me to provide you a little bit of background. I despise Sean Hannity. I’m very much a non-violent guy, but Sean Hannity is one of the few people on this earth whom I’d enjoy strangling. The weekend before Election Day, I registered a free account on his website so I could partake in the spirited political debate within. Oh, and by “spirited political debate” I mean “vile, baseless attacks on Barack Obama.” You see, what started out as an honest attempt to engage the other side in civil debate quickly devolved into portraying the Republican electorate as an uneducated, xenophobic group of outlandish reactionaries. I make no excuses for what I did, only that that’s the environment that Hannity fosters every single day he shows up for his radio and television gigs.

So my short stint on the Hannity forums was nothing to be too proud about, but around 12:30 am EST on November 5^th, I wrote and posted a scathing, but polite, criticism addressed directly to Hannity, accusing him of dumbing down the electorate and costing John McCain any realistic chance of election.

And it got me banned from the forum. For life.

I’ll be the first to admit that I was gloating. And I won’t apologize for it. After the low, low feeling that accompanied the 2004 results, the night of Obama’s election was like the combination of three Christmases and two birthdays from childhood. It was a great! But even though I was a dirty gloater, my post contained no profanities. I addressed Mr. Hannity, but did not threaten or insult him in any way. I simply criticized his lowbrow tactics and his role in creating a gaggle of inexplicably hysterical Republicans who would rather face electric shock therapy than an Obama presidency.

Yet, about 15 minutes after posting my screed, I refreshed the page and was informed that I had been banned from the forums for “contempt of host.” When would that ban be lifted? The window informed me that I would never be welcomed back.

Of course, the grand irony in this whole story is Hannity’s commitment to conjuring up the mythical bogeyman of talk radio: the “fairness doctrine.” This doctrine, which has been discussed in Congress, but has zero chance of ever becoming an actual piece of legislation, supposedly aims to eliminate the bastion of conservative thought (an oxymoron?) on the public airwaves. He loves to bring it up at every chance he gets in the hopes of illustrating how liberals are vehemently opposed to the First Amendment rights. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.

And so it is that this self-proclaimed champion of liberty and opinion has banned exactly that. On his own website. Hypocrisy much, Mr. Hannity?

My bold prediction is that freedom of speech will be fine. Hannity and company will be free to develop their asinine personas as Obama’s presidency progresses. If there’s anything Americans love more than firearms, it’s insipid blowhards who have opinions they can’t keep to themselves. But beware Hannity’s website. Unless you’re a god-fearing, socialist-hating Dixiecrat, you’ll be silenced.

And since I’m forever silenced on your website, Mr. Hannity, I’ll take the liberty of using my own webspace to give you a bit of advice: read a damned book, you moron.

Congratulations!

Congratulations, President-Elect Obama! Your election last night has been the best political news this country has had in a great long while. Now let's get the progressive agenda rolling throughout the land!

Coming out of the woodworks.

I'm happy for Lorne Michaels and the gang at Saturday Night Live. I really am. I fell in love with the show when I was in junior high, about the time when Will Ferrell was beginning to find his way in the topsy-turvy world of sketch comedy. The world that SNL created for 90 minutes on Saturday nights made a strong impression on my young brain. And yes, I consider it a world unto its own because it definitely was an escape I looked forward to during the week. In a lot of ways it established the guidelines for the type of humor I enjoy. Going through my "Best of [Insert Cast Member's Name Here]" DVDs usually welcomes a certain sadness because I've yet to come across another character with the brilliant absurdity of a Suel Forrester (played by Chris Kattan) or the inimitable comic sensibilities of Will Ferrell impersonating Robert Goulet.

I'm glad I persevered through the meager talent of both writers and performers over the past few years because it's so thrilling to see the show reinvigorated once again.

Lately, the show's been killing in the ratings due to the wild popularity of Tina Fey's interpretation of media-pariah Sarah Palin. The show has also garnered some less-publicized cameos from former cast members Chris Parnell and Bill Murray, as well as spots from Hollywood royalty like William Shatner, Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg.

But Will Ferrell's reprisal of George W. Bush on Thursday night affirmed what was already openly known: Saturday Night Live is back.

View the video here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/40684/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-thursday-1023

Allow me to qualify that statement: SNL isn't back because Will Ferrell made a cameo. SNL is back because Will Ferrell, whose recent films have been terrible, capitalized on the resurgence of SNL. Now, I'm not hating on Will. As you can tell from what I already wrote, I will always have a soft spot in my heart for his comedic genius. But let's take a step back and think about his last few films. Talladega Nights and Semi-Pro are films which merit a comparison to light beer: they leave a bad taste in your mouth and when you wake up the next morning, you find yourself wishing that you had done something else the night before.

So, my long-winded point is that Mr. Ferrell probably noted the fact that everyone was buzzing about SNL's consistently funny sketches this election season, figured (correctly) that he needed to score a few points with the hockey moms and the Joe Six-Packs, and lined up his spot on their Thursday night special. And I'm also saying that it's okay with me, because it's wonderfully, wonderfully funny.

The gang at SNL probably won't have the Palin punching bag after November 4, but hopefully this resurgence will carry over into the new presidency.

Lipstick on an insane person.

NBC Nightly News ran a fluff piece tonight about the parents of special needs children (read: children with Down’s syndrome) and their outpouring of support for Sarah Palin. I’m actually sort of convinced that it was a tongue-in-cheek piece, because earlier in the same broadcast Brian Williams presented us with the latest CBS News poll which has Obama absolutely destroying the Republican ticket by 14 percentage points.

Originally I was going to use this space to write about how hypocritical Palin is, as I had heard somewhere that she had actually slashed the budget for the Special Olympics in her first year as governor (before she gave birth to her Trig, her son with Down’s). However, I stand corrected on that issue, as it was apparently a false claim levied by the Daily Kos. According to http://factcheck.org she’s actually tripled the budget allotment since taking the reins in Juneau.

Nevertheless, the buzz surrounding this extraneous issue continues to irk me. Those on the right have stalwartly defended Palin’s decision to bring a fetus with Down’s syndrome to term, citing her as a modern day hero in the pro-life initiative. On the flipside, I’m shocked that the sheer irresponsibility of Palin and her husband would be lauded by so many. Far be it from me to dictate people’s procreative rights, but wasn’t four children enough? Especially with the rigors of governing a whole god damned state? And to not consider contraceptive measures in your mid-forties? That’s just playing Russian roulette, as countless medical studies have shown a correlation between birth abnormalities and older mothers. And don’t you dare pull the religion card in this debate. If you have a problem with the pill or condoms, there are several alternatives. Among these is abstinence, of which I’ve heard the governor is quite fond.

So Palin’s failure to grasp the fundamentals of sex education is conveniently overlooked, and in its stead is the charming campaign prop that is her special needs son. Palin seized the spotlight at the RNC and Vice Presidential debate by playing the compassionate, caring mother. When the inanity of her VP acceptance speech concluded and again when the furor of debate with Senator Biden subsided, she took a hold of Trig and thrust him before the lens of the cameras to show us all that she is a card-carrying member of the “culture of life” and that, above all else, she is a saint because her baby has Down’s syndrome.

In the arena of professional politics, admittedly a sport in which every action taken and word spoken is ultimately self-serving, has there ever been a stunt as shameless as this? I think you’d be hard pressed to top it.

So, with three short weeks until Election Day, the Republican strategists will continue to paint Barack Obama as the candidate of inexperience; the “elitist” out of touch with reality.

But, my friends (to borrow the disarmingly friendly rhetorical style of John McCain): Sarah Palin’s ignorance of the things most of us learned about in tenth grade has been spun into a campaign prop. To me, that emphatically shows us that she’s the inexperienced politician existing in her self-constructed reality.

Very Unpatriotic.

Football is a game of peaks and valleys. At least that's what my high school football coach used to drum into our heads. While I didn't care for my coach, and I wouldn't have expected any sagely advice from such a dull man, I found this particular aphorism to be true.

Sure enough, the first six weeks of another NFL season has provided some high points and, as a Patriots fan, a whole lotta low points. The casual observer might figure that New England's low point transpired in the first quarter of Week One's game when Kansas City's Bernard Pollard did his best to make Tom Brady do a flamingo impression, effectively tearing the all-world quarterback's ACL and MCL. But, I can assure you that the team's pitiful performance last night against the Chargers did so much more to perpetuate the awful feeling of malaise that currently surrounds the squad.

Here's a glimpse into the average Pats fan's mind after Brady went down against the Chiefs: Sure, it's a kick in the groin to lose the reigning MVP, but come on! Let's be realistic. Mr. Brady is definitely a vital part of our offense, but just look at how many other cogs there are in the machine! Matt Cassel played all throughout the preseason, so he knows the ins and outs of this offense. And hey, let's be honest: with an offense as stacked as this, we could put Tarvaris Jackson behind center and still put points on the board. These guys might not replicate the 16-0 record of last season, but because they play in the weakest division in football and because most of the same faces were back to play out the NFL's easiest schedule, it's not unrealistic to think that this team will finish 12-4 or 13-3.

In Cassel we trust!

For a few weeks there, we were able to delude ourselves into actually believing this, especially after Cassel was able come out and play mistake-free ball in his start against the Jets. Hell, we were even able to chalk-up the embarrassing 38-13 loss to the Dolphins as an inevitable hiccup in a 16-game schedule.

Flash forward to last night in San Diego.

The feelings of doom began on the Chargers' first play from scrimmage, when Philip Rivers connected with Vincent Jackson for a 48-yard gain that setup a field goal.

The feelings of doom blossomed into feelings of despair when Rivers hit Malcom Floyd with a 49-yard touchdown pass a few minutes later. It seemed that before the Pats had even arrived at Qualcomm Stadium they were trailing 10-0. The remainder of the first half was just an ugly blur that left last year's AFC runners-up ahead of the reigning champs by two touchdowns.

If the theme of the first half was that New England's defense is old and vulnerable, then the second half's theme dealt with the very un-Bradylike play of Matt Cassel. Brady's understudy nearly inspired new hope among the faithful when he led the team 76 yards down the field to the doorstep of the end zone. But then he dashed our hopes with his two-bit attempt to sneak past the San Diego defenders on fourth-and-one. What's worse is that before he tried to maneuver his lanky frame past the menagerie of defensive linemen and linebackers, he failed to spot a wide-open Benjamin Watson in the back of the end zone. Fueled by the roar of the hometown crowd, the Chargers seized the ball back and Rivers was able to march his team 98 yards for another touchdown; the coup de grâce that put New England down 24-3 when they should have only trailed 17-10. The game was over in the third quarter.

The second crushing defeat in a span of three games brings with it a whole host of questions. First and foremost: how can last year's juggernaut barely scrape together 10 points when they hold the football longer than their opponent? And how long can the Pats stay confident in Matt Cassel if he continues his lackluster play? How will the Patriots deal with playing in a division that's no longer a laughingstock? (For those not keeping score at home, the once-lowly Buffalo Bills, New York Jets and Miami Dolphins are now 4-1, 3-2 and 2-3 respectively.) Can Laurence Maroney stay healthy once he’s back on the field? How long will it take Randy Moss, notoriously unhappy while playing for the unsuccessful Oakland Raiders, to throw in the towel on the 2008 season? These questions may seem premature for a team that has 11 games remaining on their schedule, but with upcoming games against solid opponents and having to play in an increasingly competitive division, they must be posed.

And while they still maintain a winning record in the face of two humiliating losses, can anyone still realistically see this team finishing with 12 wins? Of course not. How about 10? Even that's iffy. A team whose three wins come against squads that are collectively 6-10 is highly suspect.

Next week presents the challenge of a “must win” game, which is something that this group really hasn’t had to face very often. Gillette Stadium will undoubtedly be packed with fans lusting for a dismantling of the Broncos, who have also dropped two of their last three. Anything short of a win will most likely introduce the team to something else with which they’re unfamiliar: a chorus of boos cascading down upon them from their hometown fans.

Welcome!

Welcome to The Popper's maiden post! My name's Ryan, and I'll be your captain on this wild, wild journey through the land of popular culture.

I've created this blog in an attempt to collect my musings on that which I find entertaining, which is predominantly the products churned out by our cultural machine. This includes, but of course isn't limited to, television, music, film, politics, and sports.

Now's the proper time for a short bio: I'm 23 and a graduate student in the history department at the University of Maine. I currently live in a quiet house on a quiet road in Hampden, Maine, with my wife Sarah (we've been married a little over two months) and our 17-month old golden retriever Sammy.

That's that. Thanks for reading! Time to blog!