The Karate (Kung-fu) Kid

So I decided to comment on the remake of this film. I don’t usually comment on cinema, but this is an exception.

I liked the original movie. I think it’s an iconic film, and I watched it at an age when Ralph Macchio would have been like an older brother to me.

Here’s my problem with the new one. Let’s look at the differences between the two.

The original movie was made about an American kid who moved to a new place and was bullied. So far, so good. Here’s where things get hazy:

The original movie was made in America, about an American. This kid, when his own culture turns against him, looks to another culture’s rich history to help him beat those who have perverted this separate culture. On a philosophical level, true Karate beat the commercialized, American version of Karate.

In the new movie, an American has moved to Beijing. He is bullied by children of ANOTHER culture, then proceeds to master THEIR culture and beat them using techniques from a Kung-fu master turned janitor. On a philosophical level, Americans are better at sports naturally than anyone, regardless of the sport. This kid learns someone else’s native arts faster than their own children, and bests them at their own heritage. Evil Empire, anyone?

First, Karate is from Okinawa, Japan. NOT China. This makes the movie “The Kung-fu Kid”, NOT The Karate Kid. Why change the location? Apparently, there is a dearth of already-famous Asian karate stuntmen. Let’s say that you want to remake Rocky, but this time it’s about ultimate fighting.  Is that the same thing? Remake Rambo as a terrorist? We’re not even going to get into the obvious culturally insulting dialogue here. Those smarmy lines that Hollywood writers think is “cute”, OR the creepy romantic interest form a boy and girl of that age. It’s unnatural!

It’s hard enough to convince the world that American doesn’t walk around thinking that we were founded by Jesus without movies like this making things worse. 

Voting Day

So today we embark on the loftiest of democratic principles. We get to decide what we want, as a people. 

Of course, this is in itself a tainted statement. Who is "we"? We the everybody-of-a-certain-age-who-is-most-likely-a-citizen-and-did-the-necessary-paperwork? Seems a bit superfluous.....

What about Jefferson's idea? We the landowners? That pretty much takes care of all college students and apartment dwellers (basically the Democratic Party). Hmm. Some might say that's not a bad move......

You know, I like the progressives. (i really hate the term "liberal". Honestly, it just means open minded. I don't feel particularly close minded, but I don’t consider myself liberal. I think the term, like “conservative” has been blown out of proportion by a group of people who work for an organization that produces news 24 hours a day, even if there isn’t 24 hours of news to report. (another rant for another time, I assure you.)

So. Here are my alternatives. On the Left, we have the progressives. Progressives believe that there is wrong in the world, and it is our duty to find a new way to fix that wrong. That the old trappings of power were just that, old; and that new ways are better. Progressives largely come from urban areas, where there is a wider variety of viewpoints, and they tend to think that if money is the root of all evil, it can be harvested, ground and served in a delicious smoothie that also contains antioxidants and feeds the poor. They think that war is not the answer; that “it is possible to live in peace” (Gandhi, btw)

 I like these ideas. I really do. I don’t want there to be any war in the world, and I think that if we do engage in a military effort, it should be with as little doubt as possible.   I also think, as I have stated before, that we should do our utmost to provide assurances of a system that aids those who need it in ways that do not degrade their humanity or spirit.

On the opposite side of the Great Eagle of Democracy lies the Right. This party is in the process of being split. On one side are the Traditionalists. On the other, the financially conservative Libertarian/Tea party. I really can’t resist the cry for Liber-tea!  I use Liber-tea because the largest segment of this group of people stand for mostly monetary reasons. They believe that the federal government should spend a little as possible, be as little as possible, and cede as much authority as possible to private organizations or the states, from whom they have stolen all authority.

Traditionalists are, IMHO, the more uninformed members of the Republican party who cry “America” in a distinctive way, and cannot seem to hold a conversation without saluting or evoking the term “founding fathers”.

Notice that there is no moderate group of Democrats anymore. These are a lost group, called dogs by everyone, and left without a champion. They stand in the way of the progressive arm of their party, and refuse to take part in Right-wing saber rattling.

I think the time is right for a real third party. A party that encompasses these lost moderates form the Democratic party and the fiscal conservatism of the Liber-tea movement. I have no idea what to call this group, as any new name would be lost immediately, and an old one would conjure up things not needed in a new group. Let’s call them Centrists for now.

Here’s what I envision the Centrist platform to be:

1.        Fiscal responsibility: We cannot provide anything for our citizens if we have no means to do so, and debt is not money. We simply cannot continue funding things without, well…….funds.

2.      Government size:  The state governments have given much of their authority away in exchange for federal funds. If the federal government is giving money to the state governments. We are already in a big mess. Why not just reduce taxes by the amount given to each state in total each year, then allow those states to increase their taxes to match? States would no longer be held hostage by the Fed in hopes of money that comes from their citizens anyway. I realize that there is a geographical cause here, but I think that those areas can address those needs if they are given the chance.

3.      Social programs:  Earlier I said that the government should be able to “provide assurances of a system that aids those who need it in ways that do not degrade their humanity or spirit.” This means that we should not be giving money away to people who will only become dependant on that money. That money should no be as a drug to the downtrodden, and if they need help up, let’s build them steps out of their hole instead of throwing them a solid gold shovel.  The government should be able to show that these programs are available, not necessarily run the programs themselves.  The state government should be the ones directing these programs within their borders, and the fed should be monitoring and offering a helping hand when needed, or hosting a nationwide program for a nationwide issue, like healthcare.

Part of the reason that we do not know our state legislators as well as we should is because they don’t really engage in the kind of sensational legislature that is a day-to-day occurrence on the hill.  If more of these legislative items were dealt with solely on a state level, it might make the hill a little bit less of a cultural island.

I think Centrism has a future for those who see this endless spending as idiocy, and the chest thumping of the traditional side to be less than erudite in its choice of topics and viewpoints.

Remember, the Eagle of Democracy has both a Right and a Left wing, but the brain lies in the middle. 

What I want in an elected official...

Ok. I think I've come up with a list. No particular order, and I reserve the right to wander...

1. HUMANITY!

2. An open heart, and a closed wallet.

3. Another career. for some reason, I like electing teachers or steel workers or doctors, not councilmen or school board members or community organizers.

4. The desire to make the number of poor people smaller, without decreasing the amount of rich people. I don't have any money, and I don't want theirs.

5. This is a toughie. I think that a good elected official needs to think socially in some way like this: Here's poor person group A: They need jobs to get housing and a better life. what is keeping them from that? Day Care? Education? Medicine? Debt? Culture? Figure the biggest one out, and focus on that. You'll have the best chance to make the world a better place, without trying everything all at once.

6. For God's sake, fire someone in the government! The single biggest taxpayer expense is salary. Federal employees make more and have better benefits than their private counterparts. I KNOW that some of these jobs are higher level ones that require specialized knowledge, but a bunch of them are moronic (cough, TSA, cough). Get rid of them, and either replace them with temp positions that last one year under contract, or get rid of them altogether.  you shouldn't count government jobs as jobs gained. That’s like having kids and counting them as friends. "Hey, I got another friend today!", Dude, you just had a kid. Doesn't count.

Here's an idea, which I know sucks but it solves LOTS of problems. More kids are going to college than ever, right? They exit college earlier, and with less life experience than ever. Most students have no idea what they want to do, and these are smart kids! Why not try this:

Compulsory service. You can choose one of the following:
1. Two years in the military (more pay)
2. One year in public works (TSA or some other menial government job no longer requires a raise)
3. One year in domestic service (delivering food to the hungry, building shelter in poor areas of the country, planting trees in deforested areas)

We would save in salary, keep the jobs in the government that need keeping, kick out people who are doing a crappy job, AND have an opportunity to teach all young people the basics: Personal Accounting and Finance, Sacrifice, and Reality. We've lost what it is to be American: to work hard for something you believe in, and care for. People are looking everywhere for something to do, and the easy ways out are usually self destructive.

Ok.. Moving off base.

I've finally figured out that I want a politician who is socially progressive and financially conservative. Someone who is a true pragmatist. I'd rather we go back to the old way of getting senators, and focus more on our representatives and state legislatures.

I honestly could not care less about parties, and I totally hate the place we are in today. I wish we could pass a law giving the supreme court the power to overturn congress' votes on salary and benefits for itself, and limit the number of non binding resolutions they do in place of a budget. Seriously, pass laws, balance the budget. Do something, don't just talk about crap and pass your personal freaking opinions about something.

Seriously, do you want elected officials interviewing baseball players or passing a budget that both reduces our deficit AND gives the poor some sort of healthcare?

The Aesthetic Experience

I think it's a must for everyone.

Take your regular existence.
9-5, check.
spouse and 2.5 kids, check
pet, check
mortgage, check
colossal amounts of debt you're working to resolve, check

And so on and so forth. Where is that feeling you need to propel you past the mundane experience of working to afford the "simple bear necessities of life"? (Balloo would be so proud of me!)

Some people cheat. Often. Some people work out waaaay too much. Some people take on needless adventures, pushing their lives to the extreme. Some people turn to religion. Some people take on a cause. Others break the law, have deviant lives made up of some crazy thing or another (insert leather based thing here). You name it, people do it.

Why? what is it within us that compels the seeking of these acts? Why go to such lengths to surpass the concrete? transcend to the infinite? Smoke pot? Whatever?

The aesthetic. That which is of pure emotion, pure sensation. Of all senses and none. after the basics of life, it is the aesthetic which propels us.

Take your average hollywood star (My spell checker REALLY wants me to capitalize that word. I'm rebelling). Basic needs are met. Attractive partners are easy. Money is no problem. can't mess us your face. Can't walk in a crowd. Can't go to a concert.  Always hang out with the same people as trapped as you, and pretending that it's better that way. If it was any one of us, I'm sure that deviant behavior would be looming over the horizon. that's why the stable ones have something else to think about. Many are into making their own music, or learn another skill that isn't people based, like piloting. Others turn to drugs to escape, or marry constantly and adopt crazy causes (or kids). They say it's to give back, but I know better.

What about suburbia? Same dance, different partner. People enact their own versions of American Beauty in a feeble effort to hang on to something. That crazy guy that yells way to much for his 6 year old's soccer game. (I hate that guy, if you can't tell. I mean seriously...She's 6! for God's sake! Take a damn chill pill! what do you think she's gonna do, play in the Olympics next year?? I KNOW it's illegal, but tasering that dude would be so...satisfactory.) What about the compulsive shopper? Gym Rat? President of the United St...wait.. not going there...

All for the holy thing, this Aesthetic. Think for a minute. What makes you get that feeling that you can't ascribe to any one sense? What one thing would you endure crazy amounts of work just to earn? Money? Sex? Drugs? Barbershop Quartets? Music?