DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

Interesting. I'll have more clarity on this tonight after I see it. But I think my favorite non-genre sub-genre is the divisive difficult/strange movie. I'm not surprised that Aronofsky finds himself there.....again.

Well first off....Ted Cruz is among the least likable high profile politicians I can remember. Dude is ghastly from an aesthetics standpoint. His entire vibe is "ick." So I'm sure that didnt help. Anti-rural discrimination is surely a problem. My concern is less with ruralites seeking to impose their white privilege on everyone rather than them doing it PASSIVELY, because their interests are largely discussed as sort of the baseline "good people" constituency. I don't doubt that church-going rural folk try to live nice wholesome lives. My concern with the discussion at large is that we use these people as the reference point when discussing economic anxiety. Its a problem when rural america wastes away economically. But we dont take that same tone talking about the wastes of rural black america....or urban black american. When we talk about those areas its "poverty" "crime" "dangerous." Thats a little bit of where the privilege comes in....the exertion of societal empathy for downtrodden white folks that doesnt get extended to downtrodden black folk. And thats what the most recent Coates piece says, rather forcefully. Too forcefully? IDK. Maybe. But maybe not. I also think there are inevitable "out group" issues that form in rural areas, largely because they are so racially cohesive. But I dont know how to even begin to solve that. So I think its sort of baked in. As for anti-Christian discrimination.....thats a tough issue for me. What some Christians feel is discrimination, I feel is preserving the neutrality of the public square. Just because something is not PRO a given group, does not mean it is ANTI that said group. Now thats not to say there isnt anti-Christian sentiment. Of course there is....although I do think that the vast majority of those feelings have less to do with actual Christianity so much as it has to do with the way those Christians interact with the outside world. Still, there's a widely recognized trope of the "church lady" that's probably unnecessary. But at some point, it would seem to me that there should be some recognition of the dominance of Judeo-Christianity in American culture. The calendar reflects this. The money reflects this. The social holidays reflect this. Is it completely dominant? No, of course not. But appreciation for Christianity is unquestionably more prevalent in America than any alternative religion or philosophy. That has to count for something.

I loved Black Swan and Requiem. Really liked Pi and actually liked Noah quite a bit. The Fountain is a cool little flick but nothing amazing. Actually havent watched all of the Wrestler which is sacrilege but, unfortunately, it never finds its way to streaming sources. I've been really interested in how they marketed mother! I wasnt even aware it was a thing, let alone a thing with significant star power attached. All of a sudden, a month before release, we start getting 70's-era scare trailers. I like that.

But this is already in place. States DO run themselves independently, especially in health care where the state-level regulations make cross-state risk pools impractical. Health care is an essential enough consideration that its unsustainable to have a system wherein healthy people remain outside of the risk pools. I agree, forcing people to buy insurance is a dicey proposition. But the alternative is sacrificing millions and millions of Americans to a form of de facto duress. I'll be honest, I dont think theres an answer for the American Health Care problem. Because it resides in a paradox of sorts. The importance and essential nature of health is such that its difficult to argue against access for everyone. But that same importance drives just compensation for healthcare providers. If you perform a vital and essential function, its perfectly reasonable to expect to be compensation appropriately. I just dont know that theres a solution to that tension....outside of something like single payer. Which has its own unintended consequences.

I'm more concerned with the aspects of "takers" or "freeloaders" that forms such a pillar of those voting blocs. Or the apparent abject terror/revulsion with which rural folks view urban environments. I think those things have deep roots in "passive" racism. And I think they're significant factors in electoral choices. As for party affiliation, I admit, I'm not really concerned with that. Voting Republican does not make one a racist. Voting Democrat does not absolve someone of racism. While the parties may have a significant ideological overlap with certain underlying philosophies, I don't think they're the same thing. I also think that its concerning that so many of the economic factors that have motivated this feeling of being "left behind" have been products of largely Republican policy. So, in that respect, I find it troubling that the very people left behind feel their salvation is in the Republican party, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. And dont get me wrong, those forces (globalization, economic efficiency, gravity of wealth) are almost certainly inevitable, regardless of how free the market is. But these folks have been sold a fraudulent bill of goods on that point. To that end, the right has been remarkably effective at messaging. Frankly, the right has dominated messaging for about 30 years....and we all suffer for it.

I think if we started factoring the dogwhistle stuff in, the number would push as high as 75-80%.

I thought It was really great, although I had two key concerns: 1) It REALLY highlights how television has overtaken film as the ideal story-telling vehicle for stories of any considerable heft. Theres just soooo much content in the novel that the movie felt a bit rushed. We didnt get to see the friendships bond organically in the movie the way they do in the book. Which was fine because the kids' performances were really strong. But a series would have been better, IMO. Two seasons and you're good. 2) The director could have scaled back a good deal of his herky-jerk/loud noises scare choices. The movie was shot so well that slow rolling some of the creepier stuff would have worked better. I'm hoping to see mother! tonight. I'm a huge Aronofsky fan so I'm sure I'll dig it. I get the idea that its "masturbatory" because he has such a jarring style, but I've enjoyed everything the's done.

While I don't doubt that this was a leading reason, I think its wrong to suggest that "isms" weren't added to the calculus. Because when you start talking about "pandering to the poor" you're really talking about a pretty narrow spotlight...one that has huge roots in racism. Ta-Nehisi Coates published an article about this last week that did a fantastic job distilling the whole issues down to its essence, IMO.

Cost concerns are really only limited to fighting rent seeking, IMO. But we already have that issue today. In terms of raw dollars, the dubious notions of the "national debt" are more problematic than the actual money that would be spent...let alone the money NOT spent any longer. Discussions of wait times are frequently difficult because they compare foreign wait times as a raw average against an assume baseline wait time of 0. It's not like wait times dont exist in the US. I mean...you aren't waiting 40 weeks for a knee replacement but you're definitely waiting...from the moment you try to get into the ortho to the moment your surgery is done.

I'm afraid that we're losing the ability to tackle this problem at the smallest scale, exactly for the reasons you've mentioned. Because Partisanship is so virulent right now, the conversations can't even start. And really, the conversations are the only way we're going to get anywhere. Discussions working toward finding a common ground and communicating understanding.

The score is pretty awesome too. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Released on Apple Music last Friday. I'd guess its on Spotify too.

I think there are some that are fighting the good fight, with varying size of forums. Unfortunately, I think we lack an electorate with either the willingness or capacity to really get into those discussions.

I think theres a more nuanced justification for the racial elements than "you're bigots, thats why you vote Republican." And TBH, I think that until we wrestle with that nuance, we're going to keep doing the same old dance.

When people say they're a "fan" of the ACA, they're typically in one of two categories: 1) people who simply could not get insurance prior to its passage and 2) people who appreciate the overall policy approach (like me). I dont think anyone is under the illusion that the ACA is some panacea that is going to provide super affordable health care for anyone interested. Thats not realistic. But its a step in the right direction. As Dave has said, I think it needs to be tweaked and refined. Continually. Make it better. Work at it.

Trap games aren't real.