The Recreational Nihilist Articles

Pennsylvania is done, we have Indiana and North Carolina to look forward to – yes, the national gastric disorder I call Indigestion ’08 continues. And with it endures the media’s most annoying analytical blind spots.

Michigan and Florida

Missing in all the theatrical pleas to help “disenfranchised” Michigan/Florida voters is the fact that their votes aren’t part of a big-­D Democratic process, but are involved in an internal party matter. Complaining about disenfranchised voters in these two states is like complaining that members of the local Country Club were disenfranchised in voting for their officers. When it comes to Florida and Michigan, the people responsible for screwing over voters aren’t the candidates or the DNC; the fault lies with state party leaders who tried to get cute by breaking their own party’s rules. Put their heads on a platter, let them apologize to voters for throwing out their votes, and let’s all remember that…

When it comes to film criticism, or any kind of art criticism for that matter, I don’t subscribe to interpretations that reflexively assume that what’s on the screen serves a symbolic purpose. An individual character isn’t necessarily a symbolic stand-in for a whole class; a movie’s plot isn’t necessarily allegorical. Of course, in some cases, a film can evoke a deeper interpretation, something beyond what-you-see-is-what-you-get. A woman getting murdered on screen by a male slasher may not automatically be a symbolic victim of social misogyny, but if that woman is first paraded around naked and the filming technique creates an aesthetic that caresses the violence, it would certainly be reasonable to see misogyny at work. But any interpretation really depends on the individual movie; how it tells the story, how it presents characters, how it is filmed. It’s very easy to create meaning where there is none, highlighting the importance of drawing on what is in the movie itself to make a case for any given interpretation.

This week concludes my interview with Californians for Independence co-founder Kyle Ellis.

Frédérik: The movement for secession isn’t only based on grievances with the United States. As your website states, Californians for Independence is also about fostering a kind of Californian self-awareness, whether it’s the state’s history and culture or the need to vastly improve the quality of education. Can you describe these goals in more detail? How do these fit into your group’s drive for independence?

This is part 2 of my interview with Kyle Ellis, co-founder of Californians for Independence.

­


Frédérik: In a feature (­http://www.goodmagazine.com/section/) with Good magazine, Christopher Ketcham discusses Vermont secessionism along with broader rationales for seceding from the Union. What struck me in particular was his view that the United States is simply too big for its own good, a conclusion I’ve reached based on my own observations. The U.S. – unlike, say, Canada – is a deeply divided country – hot-button issues like abortion and gay rights only scratch the surface – and it seems rather ridiculous for various political/cultural factions to continually fight each other for control over the government bludgeon. And yet, the end result of all these secessionist movements might very well transform the United States into something very different – it might not even be a “United” States. Do you agree with Ketcham that the U.S. experiment has failed? What will it mean to be American in a post-secessionist U.S.?

Californians for Independence is an advocacy group working towards the non-violent secession of California from the United States. I recently had a discussion with Kyle Ellis, a founding member of Californians for Independence.

Frédérik: Growing up in Québec, I was often surrounded by separatists who were quite serious in their desire to split away from Canada. I was never persuaded by the need, however. The province is already distinctive on account of the French Canadian language and culture, has many regulations in place to maintain that distinctiveness, and is economically quite powerful relative to many of Canada’s other provinces. While it is a complex topic, Québec separatism struck me in part as petulant – the spoiled child clamouring for more spoils – and also as rather academic, since Quebecers are distinct on the basis of how they live their lives – laws have nothing to do with it.

There are many topics I’d like to tackle – the Michigan/Florida primary debacle, Obama’s speech, military spending, and so on – but I’m turning this week’s column instead to Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. To be precise, I’m piggybacking on Democracy Now’s reporting of the Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan hearings put on by Iraq Veterans Against the War between March 13 and March 16. As the Iraq War hits the five-year mark and U.S. troop casualties reach 4,000, it seems only right that we set aside the usual business.

To some extent, the lowered bar that sees candidates halleluiahed for promising the obvious, has to dampen the enthusiasm around Obama’s campaign, in the sense that unity, hope and change for the better, change for the better, while very good things, are also fairly expected. When political bodies are deadlocked, thanks to partisan bickering, nothing gets done and people get rightly annoyed. That’s how we get fillet of incumbent on the menu. (Mmm, tasty.) Unity, optimism, a can-do attitude are just what we need.

In a provocative A.P. article titled “Clinton hints at shared ticket,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305, we’re teased yet again with the tantalizing one-two punch of a Clinton/Obama bid for the White House. Of course, the fat lady is nowhere in sight, and the primary loser’s swan song is far from being sung. Predict­ions as to who would get top billing on a hypothetical team-up are still very much in the fuzzy stages. And what did Clinton say, anyway? To quote from her appearance on CBS’s The Today Show, “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”

To continue, loosely, on last week’s column praising Huell Howser for his enthusiastic championing of California, this week I turn my attention to L.A. Like Mr. Howser, I am not a native of California, a little fact that often prompts people to ask me how I like L.A. My answer: I love L.A. For all its flaws and blemishes, for all the good and the bad, I actually prefer L.A. to the other city – you know, that big one on the East Coast – that is culturally correct to gush over.

When I first went to Disney’s California Adventure shortly after it opened, my enthusiasm weighted down somewhat by early mixed reviews, the first question I had was: Why does Southern California need a California-themed park? Whatever answer I could have come up with was soon set aside. While maybe not quite on par with Disneyland, California’s Adventure had a certain charm while offering its share of fun rides – even one that took a place among my favourites: Soarin’. While my wife and I had annual passes, we became wizards at using the FastPass to go on our favourite rides at California Adventure without missing out on our favourite rides at Disneyland.