Category Archives: arts/entertainment

Sex(y) scandals

Posted on by

Ashley DupréThe Spitzer sex scandal has received alot of press coverage the past week; After all, what self-respecting reporter when offered the scoop of a 32 22 yr. old bombshell babe servicing a powerful, married Political figure would even dream of exercising restraint.

Ya… I couldn’t think of any either.

In all seriousness, I did have a few thoughts to share on the issue. First, Alan Dershowitz (a harvard law professor of whom I have previously referenced on this blog) came out in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal and very nearly defended Spitzer.

Generally, wise and intelligent prosecutors use their discretion properly–to target organized crime, terrorism, financial predation, exploitation of children and the like. But the very existence of these selectively enforced statutes poses grave dangers of abuse. They lie around like loaded guns waiting to be used against the enemies of politically motivated investigators, prosecutors and politicians.

If this is what “wise and intelligent” prosecutors do… one can only think what Dershowitz thinks about the prosecutors in this case. He certainly has a valid point: overly-broad criminal statutes can be used for ill by partisan political figures. This isn’t to say that Spitzer shouldn’t have been held to the same standards as anyone else, or that he is above the law–but it is never right to selectively apply criminal statutes… these should be applied equally to all people.

One other person who came to mind as I reflected on this story was Jean Baudrillard, a french philosopher about whom I have written extensively about. In his book, America, he examines the media fascination and the cultural response Americans have to such events. I’ve re-read the book in its entirety and cannot find the exact quote I wanted… but here are a few relevant portions:

The fact is that a certain banality, a certain vulgarity which seem unacceptable to us in Europe seem more than acceptable — even fascinating — to us here. All our modern governments owe a kind of political meta-stability to the regulation of public opinion by advertising. Mistkes, scandals, and failures no longer signal catastrophe. The crutial think is that they be made credible, and that the public be made aware of the efforts being expended in that direction.

No one keeps count of the mistakes made by the world’s political leaders any more, mistakes which, in days gone by, would have brought about their downfall… The people no longer take pride in their leaders and the leaders no longer pride themselves on their decisions….

Everything has to be made public: what are you worth, what you earn, how you live – there is no place here for interplay of a subtler nature.

What I couldn’t find was Baudrillard’s amazement with the American media’s fascination with scandals (particularly of the sexual nature). He notices that while Americans insist on absolute transparency; the French handle scandals very differently… hiding events under layers of Bourgeois norms and phony appearances. One wonders which is the better alternative.

P.S. – turns out you can become a “fan” of Ashley Dupré on Facebook. Who knew?!

P.S.2 – check out her solo music debut on her myspace page. Not really my style… but… it’s a start.

1 book down… 6932 more to go…

Posted on by

I just finished a book by Dinesh D’souza titled “What’s so great about Christianity”.  I do not exaggerate when I say that D’souza is in the “Buckley” mold–his grasp of philosophy, history, and the sciences firmly establish him as a “renaissance man” (my kind of guy).  Throughout the pages of his book, he challenges and (in many cases ‘destroys’) the arguments and accusations Athiests such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have made against the belief in Christ.  

The book’s basic outline is well constructed.  First, D’souza systematically questions many of the “new Athiesm’s” presuppositions about Christianity.  He points out that Christianity, far from causing the moral tragedies of the modern world… has, in fact, been the changing force that helped overcome these very moral travesties.  For example, Christianity lifted women out of the second-class status Roman society had imposed upon them; it was the impetus for the great artists of our time: Michalengelo, Da Vinchi, Mozart, Bach, Handel… etc… ; it helped create the concept of western government — a concept based around the Christian principle that society must fight against the inherent sinful nature of man and must keep leader’s actions in check.  These are but a few of Christianity’s contributions to world history…  

D’souza then calls Athiesm out — asking it to provide the same answers it chides Christianity for failing to answer.  When tragedy happens, Where is Atheism?  Atheism cannot console the victims of tradgey… nor can it condemn the aggressor.  When Athiest rulers murder millions of their subjects… where is Athiesm’s defense (or apology?).  When Athiesm claims rationality as their trump card… on what basis can they claim that rationality alone provides all answers?  For all it’s proponents, Athiesm still has much to account for.

What’s So Great About Christianity may be the best piece of Christian apologetics in the past decade;  don’t pass it up! 

(America) Part 3

Posted on by

I’m too busy to add much of my own commentary.  This is my last installment.

What develops around the video or stereo culture is not a narcissistic imagry, but an effect of frantic self-referentiality, a short-circuit which immediately hooks up like with like, and, in doind, emphasizes their surface intensity and deeper meaninglessness.  This is the special effect of our times.  The ecstasy of the polaroid is of the same order:  to hold the object and its image almost simultaneously as if the conception of light of ancient physics or metaphysics, in which each object was thought to secrete doubles or negatives of itself that we pick up with our eyes, has become reality.  It is a dream.  It is the optical materilization of a magical process.  The polariod photo is a sort of ecstatic membrane that has come away from the real object.

Posted on by

AMERICA  ~ part 2 

Here is part 2 of my installment on Jean Baudrillard’s book, “America“.  In this portion, Baudrillard really starts ‘drawing the boundaries’, if you will; clearly defining the fundamental elements of society – elements by which we distinguish ourselves from Europe and the rest of the world.   I find great importance in his explanation;  primarily because it reaffirms the fact that we are unique… it carries with it a certain form of identity–an identity we so easily miss without the perspective of a foreigner.  

The confrontation between America and Europe reveals not so much a rapprochment as a distortion, an unbridgeable rift.  There isn’t just a gap between us, but a whole chasm of modernity.  You are born modern, you do not become so.  And we have never become so…

Every country bears a sort of historical predestination, which almost definitively determines its characteristics.  For us, it is the bourgeois model of 1789 – and the interminable decadence of that model – that shapes our landscape.  There is nothing we can do about it:  everything here revolves around the nineteenth-century bourgeois dream.

As an initial matter, I find Baudrillard’s fatalistic point of view fascinating; the differences we have with Europe are not simply skin deep but amount to an insurmountable hurdle.   His phrase, ”a chasm of modernity”, is particularily important in this regard; it implies an inescapable difference in values — values that appear impossible to change.   When he writes, It is almost as if he wishes he could have been born modern; but realizes it would be an futile attempt to become so.  

Continue reading →

AMERICA ~~ a series

Posted on by

I spent most of last weekend reading a book titled “America” by the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard.  Baudrillard, who recently passed away, was perhaps France’s most influental “modern” philosopher (in terms of his writing, he would be classified as a ‘post-modern’ philosopher.)  In some ways, I am on a Baudrillard `kick`… America is the third book of his I have read, all have been excellent.

Although not a particularly recent book, “America” it is still a very insightful look into American culture and opinion as a general matter.  Baudrillard’s genius is the ability to ascertain causes–to determine why things exist in their current form.  Much of the book spends time exploring the reasons WHY the US is different then Europe –Culturally and Politically — often with a surprisingly positive conclusions.

Over the next month, I will be exploring a number of different topics addressed by Baudrillard–sparing you the time required to read the book in its entirety, but allowing you to think about the important issues he raises. 

If you are looking for stimulating reading without weeks of commitment, I highly suggest picking this book up at your local amazon.com retailer.

Wino` post.

Posted on by

A fascinating article from The Economist. Scientists are, evidentially, genetically engineering varieties of grapes to improve their wine-making qualities:

Why should sauvignon blanc be stuck with boring old gooseberry and cabernet sauvignon with cassis? Genomics could beget some novel wine flavours and combinations to ensure the wine really does go with the food: pinot noir with cranberries, pork, and sage and onion stuffing, perhaps.

And why stop there? It would surely be wise to boost the levels of wine’s beneficial ingredients and add a few more for good measure. Consistent amounts of resveratrol, quercetin and ellagic acid will help improve cardiovascular health and may even confirm what the French have known all along—that drinking red wine is good for you.

A gene for producing acetylsalicylic acid, better known as aspirin, would help to prevent heart attacks and blood clots. You could get your doctor to supply your daily half-bottle by prescription. The aspirin’s analgesic effect would head off hangovers before they even started. Caffeine could be added to keep drinkers awake during boring dinner parties. And it may even be possible to insert a gene to produce sildenafil citrate, the active ingredient in Viagra. For many men that would help to prevent the ultimate wine-induced humiliation.

God’s speed, all you scientists and genetic engineers. God’s speed.

Hitchens D’souza Debate

Posted on by

[flv]http://www.mmisi.org/flv/lectures/v000187_cicero_102207.flv[/flv]

Unfortunately, I seem to have stumbled across this debate after-the-fact… but that in no way makes it any less pleasurable for the first-time viewer.  As they say… if you haven’t seen it… you get the drift.  Anyway, here’s a quick teaser:

Christopher Hitchens (a favorite personality of mine) debates Dinseh D’souzda on the topics of Christianity and Faith.  Hitchens gave his usual “rationality alone provides all the answers we need” montra… which was not entirely un-persuasive… and Dinseh countered with scientific metaphysical arguments for a creator and the moral foundation Christianity has given Western culture — a foundation Hitchens almost entirely hijacks for his own purposes.  Dinesh pretty much destroys Hitchen’s premise that Christianity has been behind the horrible evils of the past mellenia… but at the expense of allowing Hitchens to counter with effective attacks on the “vindictive” and therefore undesirable nature of God– criticisms I wish D’souza would have more fully addressed.  

Denish deserves kudos for even attempting this battle and I think he performed very well all things considered.  He is definitely on my radar now as someone to follow closely.

I highly recommend spending 90 minutes and watching this debate in its entirety; it is quite an education to say the least.