We have seen the enemy, And he is us

"We have seen the enemy. . .And he is us . . ."
Pogo . . .Okeefenokee Swamp, 1958. (Walt Kelly)

The single biggest problem in the world today is lack of self-control. The ability for each one of us to keep our own actions in check has eroded to the point of a national crisis. There are long lists of problems that can be traced back to a lack of self control, from adultery and Abuse to Overeating and Sloth, almost no one is immune to problems stemming from a lack of personal control. I guess my suggestion for a solution is that we should each focus more on ourselves instead of trying to mandate society to fix our problems. It seems like we in the United States are trying to force the government to make decisions for us that we should be making on our own, and then blaming the government when we mess up. Newsflash: You are responsible for your life. No one else cares if you succeed or not, nor should they. They have to be busy taking care of their own business. And once everyone realizes that they must take responsibility for themselves and stops trying to remove sawdust from others eyes while having planks in their own, we will all be better off. So my pledge to you is to take care of my own business and trust you to take care of yours. Good luck.

"You can't handle the truth!!!"

I have no real basis for this and I cannot prove it, but I think there is some sort of cosmic goodness scale that can allow us to determine how good a movie is going to be based on the people associated with it. The way to determine whether or not a movie is going to be good would be by adding the goodness points of all the main players in the movie together. Some would have negative and some would positive scores. This would allow you to determine if a movie would be slightly good, slightly bad, very good, horrible, instant classic, ect. For example on of the greatest movies ever made was A Few Good Men. Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Kevin Bacon, Keifer Sutherland, Christopher Guest (he was the doctor), Kevin Pollack, and the list keeps going and going. This movie is off the charts with positive points. The only definite existence of negative points would be Demi Moore, and while that would be a formidable number to combat, this movie still rates highly. Another example would be the cast of Much Ado About Nothing (Kenneth Branagh, Robert Sean Leonard, Emma Thompson, Denzel Washington, Michael Keaton, ect more than covering Keanu's negative point impact.)
On the flip side, think of a horrible movie. IMDB has "From Justin to Kelley" rated as one of the worst movies ever (being narrowly edged out for first by "Anus Magillicutty"). I can't think of a single good star in those movies and obviously everyone major associated with this movie was sporting some serious negative points. Which leads me to the usefulness of this system of rating movies.
If movies are a reflection of the points of those associated with them, we may be able to determine if society has misjudged an actor, based on the points of a current. Someone whom the media adores makes a horrible movie, perhaps we should re-evaluate how good that person actually is. Trust me, this system works. The truth is you want this system, you need this system and instead of questioning the manner in which this system works I would prefer that you just said thank you and used the system or you can pick up a copy of Premiere and help me fine tune the system. Either way I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. Are we clear?

"And Friends are Friends forever...."

Not to sound like a broken record, but I guess I am still confused about America's fascination with pop culture icons and their relationships. The question I pose today specifically is... what makes YOU think YOU know Jennifer Anniston? I guess most of the country feels as though they have grown up with her and that she is on of their close, personal friends because of her role as Phobe on Friends. I personally only watched perhaps three episodes of the show in my entire life, and I'm ont sure I watched them completely. It doesn't really matter to me that Joey's ex-wife was a lesbian, or that Chandler and Rachel were dating and Ross was an actor and Rachel's brother. I couldn't care less about the the machinations of these people and their lives. It really means nothing to me.
However it does matter to a lot of people. I realize that I am in the minority and that Friends was a powerful force in our culture. In fact there are some people who are reading this right now that are going crazy that I mixed up the names and relationships of the fictious people in this show in the last paragraph, as if they know them personally and they actually exist. (These are the same people who make statements like "Did you see Ross in that movie about dead people?" refusing to call David Schwimmer by his self chosen fake stage name) What is perhaps even crazier than that is that I, someone who really hated the show and never completed one episode, someone who actively tries to stay away from anything to do with Friends, know that it is Ross (Schwimmer) and Monica (Courtney Cox) who are siblings, that it was Ross who married the lesbian and dated Rachel (Anniston), that Joey (LeBlanc) was the actor and also dated Rachel, and that Phobe (Kudrow, not Anniston as I suggested earlier) was a surrogate mother and optimistically dense (or perhaps densely optimistic). The point is that no matter how much you know about Ross and Joey and Rachel, you know nothing more about Jennifer Anniston than I do. You've never spent any time with her and cannot speak to any of her attitudes on anything important in life. (If you do have a close relationship with her, then this post is probably useless to you anyway.
So given that we all know the same amount aout Anniston as a real human (nothing), and equal amounts about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt (again, nothing and nothing) why does everyone assume that Jolie and Pitt are bad guys and Anniston is the good guy in American culture? Perhaps even more importantly, why do there have to be good guys and bad guys in this situation and returing to the start of my post, why do we even care about the relationships of celebrities? Knowing nothing about any of these people also raises some more questions for me about American perceptions in general. It seems to me that the general consensus is that Jennifer didn't deserve to be left, that Jolie doesn't deserve Pitt and that Pitt (retrospectively, one can only assume) really didn't or doesn't deserve Anniston anyway. So my questions are #1 Why does Anniston deserve to be loved properly by a "gorgeous" man who deosn't deserve her? #2- Why doesn't Jolie deserve this? and #3- (the real point of this post) What is love (and can it show us the meaning of life)?
Obviously on the points of questions #1 and #2 I don't think either woman deserves love any more or any less than each other or any other woman in the world. It is obviously my feeling that the country has some sort of abnormal attachment to Anniston because she has been in their living rooms for a decade as a sweet, girl-next-door, and Jolie only came in in skinamax movies or in wierd news stories about Billy Bob Thornton. So America had picked sides in this issue before it even happened. However I have a different view on this because of question #3. To me love is a verb. Love is an action, and no one deserves love from anyone else, especially not for being in a TV Show. That is why love is so special when it happens. It is a free gift from the giver. One a person arrives at a point that he or she believes that the gift of love is an entitlement, then problems are going to arise. And if I may interject some observations to this discussions, my own eyes show me that Jolie goes around the world loving people and children and not requiring anything in return for it. She seems to want to use her celebrity to help others. I'm not saying that Anniston doesn't, but I know that Jolie does. So I don't buy that Jolie is a horrible human being and Anniston is perfect. More likely it didn't work out and Brad moved on and is that really such a shock? Perhaps there are issues that none of us know about (ie the hinted about aversion Anniston has to having children would be one example) that make Jolie a better choice for Pitt. Maybe Anniston wasn't providing Pitt with a reciproical relationship. Perhaps Jolie is actually the good guy in this relationship. Reguardless, does it really make any difference in your life? If Brad wasn't loving Jennifer (active verb) isn't she better off anyway? And can't he and Angelina at least try to be happy by creating a family? And how does any of this matter?
It matters because it exposes a truth about our culture and why a majority of people have chosen Jen over Ang: Anniston is "pretty" and Jolie is "sexy." Women in particular want men to want Anniston because her beauty is average. She stays fit, grooms herself, and looks relatively normal. Most women feel that if they applied themselves they would look something like Anniston. They therefore want Brad Pitt to have to stay with her because it means they might have had a chance with him if things had fallen differently for them and they ended up in Hollywood instead of Anniston. Jolie on the other hand is gorgeous. Just born that way. She is better looking than most people on the planet and that threatens people. "Why should she get to have Pitt?" they seem to be saying. It just seems unfair to them. So they hate her, disparage her, and berate Pitt for wanting to be with her. It removes all faux hope that Pitt could love or choose them in the right circumstances. At this point you are saying, "Methinks he doth protest too much. If you really don't care about celebrities, why are you writing so much about it?" The thing that I really care about in this situation is the underlying, unwritten attitude it seems to highlight in our culture.
The problem is that we have evolved into a selfish and lazy culture. We want the best looking guy to have to love us and be faithful to us. We don't care what his needs or wants are or if we are meeting them. We deserve the best looking guy to be faithful to us. We are not required to work to keep anything, it should exist only for us. My desire is to be someone who loves others, not to be an object of love. My desire is to give love and show love and not to require or demand love from anyone else. My desire is to actively love other people without expecting to gain anything in return. And if Jennifer Anniston really does need a true Friend, perhaps she should try to put into practice the wise words or the scholars who once wrote:

"So no one told you life was gonna be this way (clap clap clap clap)

Your job's a joke, you're broke, your love life's D.O.A.

It's like you're always stuck in second gear

When it hasn't been your day, your week, your month, or even your year

But I'll be there for you (when the rain starts to pour)

I'll be there for you (like I've been there before)

I'll be there for you (because you're there for me too) "

Chess Anyone?

Do you get chill bumps every time you hear ABBA's "Dancing Queen?" What about "The Winner Takes It All?" It seems to me that music is a very touchy subject, especially with people who have horrible tastes in music. Apparently to exist in our society today you must identify with a specific genre of music.
Throughout high school I identified myself as a lover of classic rock. I listened to the Beatles and Eagles. I would probably have classified my favorite artists as Billy Joel and Elton John. In college I suppose I dabbled, finally setteling on the alternative revolution as defined by Dave Matthews, Blues Traveler, and Alanis Morrissette. My military carrer continued my Dave Matthews fandom and added Barenaked Ladies and Kid Rock. My return to school for a master's degree introuduced me to pop-punk. Greenday, Sum 41, and Linkin Park now reflected my personal asethetic. Recently I have begun once again trying to redefine what it is exactly I listen to. And I am at a total loss.
For the longest time I disliked myself because of my lack of ability to commit. I wished I could be singularly identifiable. I thought that my inability to commit to one type of music was a reflection on my personal life and perhaps a projection of a larger problem of commitment in relationships, jobs, ect. What I have come to realize is that all these years I have been trying to find a designation for myself; it was for everyone else and not for me. I have tons of different musical tastes and none really have an identifiable thread or connection. I cannot be boiled down to a single concept or entity. I am unique; I like good music and that's that. And the definiton of "good" music is music that I like or deem valuable in some sense. It is perfectly circular reasoning which creates unity about my stance. I guess, in summary, I no longer wish to allow people to categorize me within the first ten seconds of meeting me by asking me in what genre of music most of the things I listen to fit. I have varied tastes. Spend some time and get to know them. Or if you aren't willing to invest that time, don't pretend that you are interested in knowing more about me, because you clearly aren't.
What does all this have to do with ABBA, you may be asking? Well ABBA is one of the easiest ways to explain to people what "good" music is. Everyone who listens to ABBA likes at least one of their songs, however open they may or may not be about their feelings. Allow me to list some songs and let me know if you like at least one: "Dancing Queen," "Take a Chance on Me," "Fernando," "Waterloo," "Winner Takes it all," "Money, Money, Money," "Super Trouper," "SOS," "Knowing Me, Knowing You." Find at least one you like? Probably. The songs are just "Good." Much in the same way Ace of Base was good. Catchy tunes, melodious orchestrations, and rythmic beats. That same description could be applied to Elton John, Green Day, Pink Floyd, the Beach Boys, the Bee Gees, Billy Joel, or My Chemical Romance.
SO WHAT??!?!?!? you say. Please tell me what any of this has to do with anything else. The answer is simple, SHOWTUNES!!!! I love a good showtune. IT doesn't matter what style of music the songs are. For example: Classic tunes (Sound of Music, Westside Story, Oklahoma), 60's (Hair, most notably), 70's (Godspell, Chorus Line), Sondheim (Into the Woods, Assassins, et al.), Andrew Lloyd Webber (Jesus Christ Superstar, Starlight Express, Evita, Phantom), Boubil/Schonberg (Les Miz, Miss Siagon), 90's (RENT, City of Angels, Closer Than Ever), and even continuing to current shows such as Wicked, Avenue Q, and Putnam County Spelling Bee. And all of the arists mentioned in the last sentence of the previous paragraph, with exception of MCR, have some type of musical theatre work, or something that could in some way be classified as a complete telling of a story within a single album. ABBA fits into this category as well with their Broadway Hit Show, Mamma Mia. However my point today is about a more obscure, but in most ways better show from the same guys that brought you Dancing Queen and Mamma Mia: CHESS.
Chess is a story about international competitive chess set during the cold war. This makes the story an engaging one as every competition between the US and Soviet Union during the cold war was in some way a validation of one political system over the other. (See 1980 re:Miracle on Ice.) Chess follows a snotty American and his female assistant and a dashing Russian and their travails at and between Chess Championships. The Russian falls in love with the American assistant and defects, much to the shagrin of his wife and Boris, his second in command. The American deals with chess as the only thing that validates his exsitence and reveals some deeply rooted turmoil. The show climaxes with everyone at a chess championship trying to figure out what makes them tick. Love, Glory, Honor, Fidelity, Loyalty? Scored with music from the BB's of ABBA and with lyrics from a fiesty Tim Rice (fresh off Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita, but before Alladin and Lion King), Chess represents the best musical no one performs. If you like good music, why not try on this musical for size. Grab a copy of the Original London version (in the black and white case) and get ready for a wonderful musical experience. You'll be shocked to learn that "One Night in Bangkok" is from this show and to find out who chooses what and why. Don't waste any more time trying to pidgeonhole yourself into a musical catergory. Free yourself from the chains that bind you musically and embrace a brave new world. One listen will have you wondering if the winner really does take it all.