It's Miley!

There was less outrage when Amanda Bynes almost set her dog on fire than there has been about this whole Miley Cyrus VMA performance. There's a line between a woman being sexually overt and being mentally ill/depraved/so sad, and it's not one of Robin Thicke's blurred ones, either.

The online universe erupted with critiques of Miley Cyrus twerkin' her tongue off with Robin Thicke.

"The performance clearly showed she was mentally ill! She's following in the footsteps of Britney and Amanda Bynes! The performance was racist! The reaction is anti-feminist! The reaction is sex negative!" - summarized from hundreds of post I was subjected to today.

First off, let me make one thing clear: I don't care about the performance at all. It wasn't very creative or amazing, and Miley should have sang Wrecking Ball instead of We Can't Stop because Wrecking Ball is a fantastic song, and I have it on repeat as I write this!

I CAME IN LIKE A WRECKING BAAAAALL!

Okay. So here are my thoughts.

I thought the performance was hilarious, and I think that was the point. The entire song is about doing whatever you want and not caring what people think. Here are some lyrics from the verse she didn't sing: "To my home girls here with the big butt / Shaking it like we at a strip club / Remember only God can judge ya / Forget the haters cause somebody loves ya."

Yes. She was very sexual. And typically, that is not socially acceptable, but stop comparing her to Britney Spears and Amanda Bynes. She isn't drinking and driving, throwing bongs out of windows, getting ridiculous plastic surgery, attacking cars with umbrellas, setting fires in driveways of assisted living complexes, or dousing her dog in gasoline.
Being extremely sexual on stage at the VMAs is not a symptom of mental illness. It is a symptom of performing at the VMAs. (Someone go back through the last ten years of VMA performances and count how many of them contained sexual innuendo or even overt sexuality. Or songs about sex.) For the record, I do happen to think there is some merit to the posts about how when a woman is sexual, people think something is wrong with her, but when a man is sexual, he's just a good dancer with great hair (looking at you, JT).

ALL I WANTED WAS TO BREAK YOUR WAAAAALLS!

If I had a daughter, would I want her to perform the way Miley performed? No. But I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that parents do not want to know about their children's sex lives (or vice versa, mom!). But if I did have a daughter who wanted to do what Miley did on a national stage, then I would hope that society would be decent enough not to call her a terrible human being for doing it. Or accuse her of being mentally ill.

Now, even if you insist that what she did was wrong and stupid, then I have one more thing to say: She's 20 years old, people. What stupid mistakes were you making at 20? Maybe you didn't have a TV broadcast and a microphone, but would you really want your 20-year-old self's mistakes to be the top story on CNN, Huffington Post, The Today Show . . . and have millions of people posting Facebook statuses and tweeting about how you're insane or morally reprehensible?
Yeah. Didn't think so.*

ALL YOU EVER DID WAS WRECK ME / YEAH, YOU WRECK ME!

Now. I don't want anyone to think I am making some crazy big statement about feminism, racism, or just plain sex-negativity. The whole point of this is to make sure that everyone knows how much I hate reading all of your statuses and tweets that you think are making statements about how society could be better.

*I totally think Miley wants this performance to be the top story on all those media outlets.

People Kill People Using Guns.

I'm really tired of people using the phrase, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Here's my rebuttal: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people using guns."

So now we've both had our clever turn of phrase; please enter the debate with actual arguments and logic instead of a pithy saying.

The idea that "If he hadn't killed him with a gun, then he would have found another way to do it" is erroneous, too. Killing someone with a gun is impersonal, quick, and efficient. Other methods of killing are much more intimate, troubling, and filled with hate. Not to mention they must almost always be done at close range, giving the victim at least a chance of fighting back. A gun allows the murderer to psychologically remove him- or herself from the act of killing someone, making it much easier. It is easier to pull a trigger from across the room than it is to strangle someone or stab them.  Other methods, such as poisoning, take much longer and have a higher risk of failure.
Much of the time, when someone says, "If he hadn't had a gun, then so-and-so would likely be alive today" . . . guess what? That's a fact. Please stop ignoring it because it is inconvenient.

I don't want to take away anyone's guns, but the staunch defense of guns only serves to aide the people who are making guns available illegally because it ties the hands of the law and allows them to hide behind the second amendment.

Here's an actual argument FOR guns.
"Laws only make lawful people jump through the hoops to get the guns. If someone is willing to kill someone, they're not going to worry about being licensed to carry a gun."

There's your argument! And it's a GOOD ONE. Stop trying to absolve guns, the people that manufacture them, and the people who make them available illegally, and focus on the argument that actually carries some weight.
Because guess what? Even bleeding heart liberals like me don't have a sufficient answer for that.

I do think that making it more difficult for people to procure firearms legally could, eventually, make it more difficult for people to procure them illegally. The smaller the watering hole, the more expensive the bucket of water.  But that's a theory, not an argument.

Please realize that saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" just serves as a way of making it (just a little more) okay that people are killing people. The rhetorical power of that statement goes beyond what most people intend when they say it.

My bottom line:
Guns, the people that manufacture them, the people that make them available illegally, and the people who use them illegally are ALL (at least in part, and certainly NOT equally,) responsible for violent gun crimes. Stop letting everyone off the hook, and maybe we'll have less violent gun crime.

Emmy Predictions

All my posts since I started this up again have been. . . preachy. So now some fun:

Emmy Predictions!

Here are the categories that will appear on the telecast along with my choice winner and predicted winner. I haven't included all the nominees. Here's a link to all the information.

Variety and Reality Categories:

Outstanding Variety Series:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (For the tenth year in a row. Yawn.)

Outstanding Reality - Competition Program

The Amazing Race (for the 8th time in the 9 years this has been a category)

Host for a Reality or Reality Competition Program

Cat Deeley - So You Think You Can Dance

With Jeff Probst not nominated for the first time, I think the award will probably go to the host that does the most work in his or her show. Cat Deeley wrangles contestants and judges like no one else.

Movie or Miniseries Categories:

I have actually watched most of this year's nominees, surprisingly. Even more surprising is that I think the performances I enjoyed the most will also win the categories, but tt might just be my ignorance in these categories talking.

Supporting Actor:

Will win and should win: Ed Harris, Game Change

Supporting Actress:

Will win and should win: Jessica Lange, American Horror Story

Writing:

Will win and should win: Danny Strong, Game Change

Directing:

Will win and should win: Kevin Reynolds, Hatfields and McCoys

Lead Actor:

Will win and should win: Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock, A Scandal in Belgravia

Lead Actress:

Will win and should win: Julianne Moore, Game Change

Outstanding Miniseries or Movie:

Will win: Hatfields and McCoys

Should win: Game Change

Drama Series Categories:

Supporting Actor:

Will win: Giancarlo Esposito, Breaking Bad

Should win: Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones

So many people love Breaking Bad. I don't get it. But I think this is the category that will get the trophy this year for the show.

Supporting Actress:

Will win: Maggie Smith, Downton Abbey

Should win: Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Anyone who saw the episode, "The Other Woman," and doesn't give Hendrick an Emmy. . . is an idiot.

Writing:

Will win: Alex Gansa, Gideon Raff, & Howard Gordon, "Pilot" - Homeland

Should win: Semi Chellas & Matthew Weiner, "The Other Woman" - Mad Men

Directing:

Will win: Brian Percival, "Episode 7" - Downton Abbey

Should win: Phil Abraham, "The Other Woman" - Mad Men

Lead Actor:

Will win and should win: Jon Hamm, Mad Men

I am going out on a limb here. . . but I don't think Emmy will return to Bryan Cranston after a year off. The voters will finally give Jon Hamm the recognition he deserves for an amazing performance over the course of the last five years.

Lead Actress:

Will win and should win: Claire Danes, Homeland

This is the category I am far and away most confident about. Her performance as the bipolar CIA agent, Carrie Mathison, is the best acting on TV bar none.

Outstanding Drama Series:

Will win: Mad Men

Should win: Homeland

This might be the toughest category to predict of the night. Mad Men, Downton Abbey, Homeland, and Breaking Bad all have a serious chance at winning. And if the voting group is right, I would say Game of Thrones has a slight chance for the craziest upset ever. I still think Mad Men will pull it out and become the winningest drama series in Emmy history, tying for most awarded series overall (comedy or drama) with Frasier.

Comedy Series Categories:

Supporting Actor:

Will win and should win: Ed O'Neill, Modern Family

I think the Emmy voters will finally right the injustice that has been done to this TV icon.

Supporting Actress:

Will win: Julie Bowen, Modern Family

Should win: Kristen Wiig, Saturday Night Live

Writing:

Will win and should win: Lena Dunham, "Pilot" - Girls

Directing:

Will win: Robert B. Weide, "Palestinian Chicken" - Curb Your Enthusiasm

Should win: I genuinely have no clue who should win this category. None of the nominees seem like home runs.

Lead Actor:

Will win and should win: Louis C.K., Louie

All the hard work in writing, directing, and editing will pay off in the (very, very, very weak) lead actor category for Louis C.K.

Lead Actress:

Will win: Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep

Should win: Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation

Amy Poehler can't catch a break. She should have won last year AND the year before, but she keeps getting overlooked.

Outstanding Comedy Series:

Will win and should win: Modern Family

The show is simply the best comedy on TV right now. It hits all the right notes that voters usually look for in this category (heart, mass appeal) and it is hysterical. 

Overall, I think the theme of this year's Emmy awards will be, "Spread the Wealth." Even though the top prizes will go to the same shows, Mad Men and Modern Family, all the other awards will get spread out and become extremely inclusive. 

The Principles of Writing Generously

I believe that bad storytelling is actually just selfish storytelling. It is instance of a writer or storyteller taking things away from the audience or insufficiently helping the audience along.

In that vein, I have thought of a few principles that storyteller/writers should follow in order to write generously. Please note, these suggestions are specific to people who are writing stories (not devotionals, blog posts, or newsletters). They are also specific to people who are writing for an audience (not journals, diaries, or Facebook statuses for people with no friends).

I simply believe that if you want to write for an audience, you must write for them, not AT them.

1. Give your moments to the audience.

How many times have you been reading a book, watching a TV show or enjoying a movie and a character on the screen spoon fed you information? A great example of this is the TV show Full House. At the point of the episode where someone is supposed to learn a lesson from Danny, certain music will start playing. Danny will go into one of his “dad talks,” and the other household member will listen intently while he doles out wisdom. In Full House, this was part of the genre of the show. It was a family sitcom aimed at younger audiences. . . but if you watch it as an adult, you’re likely to get tired of the dad talk music.

My point is this: If you have done your job right as a writer, your audience will reach the “moral of the story” without you ever having to directly state it.

Last year, I was so frustrated by the movie Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close when, in one scene, the young boy admits that he knew all along that his quest was hopeless. I felt that, as an audience member, I already realized that he was holding on to the past in an unrealistic way. I didn’t need the character to tell me that was what he was doing. It felt like I was at the end of one of Aesop’s Fables, and my elementary school teacher was telling to work like the ants so I would have food to eat in winter. If the movie had allowed me to make the realization, I believe the effect would have been more powerful.

Even though it would be much easier to write a “dad talk” into every short story, novel, TV show, and movie, in the end you’re shortchanging your audience by taking those powerful moments of realization away. 

2. You do the legwork.

Writing is fun. I presume you agree or are at least interested in writing if you’re still reading. However, anyone who has sat down with a story to tell knows that it isn’t always easy. In fact, the vast majority of writing anything worth reading is hard work. In order to be generous with your writing, I believe that you have to do the hard work for your audience. You must build your story in a way that will make sense, be enjoyable, and have big payoffs.

This might sound contradictory to the first point I made, which makes it sound like the audience is responsible for filling in the gaps. Wrong. The audience is responsible for planting the flag on the summit. As a writer, you must pick them up at base camp and carry them to the very top of the mountain, and when you get close enough to the top, you have to put them down and let them think they got there by their own efforts.

In  one of my classes, we recently read the screenplay for Back to the Future. It is a great example of the writer doing the legwork, but allowing the reader to plant the flag. The first part of the movie is filled with little pieces of information that will later be explained.

For example, Marty wanders near a van with speakers encouraging people to “Re-Elect Mayor Goldie Wilson!” in 1985. Later, we see that it is Marty who first plants the idea of becoming mayor in Goldie’s head in 1955. After he does this, he never takes credit for it. He never tells anyone else in the movie that he is the one who is responsible for Goldie’s eventual success. The audience knows, and that’s enough. This moment, however, does not work if the writer doesn’t give you the setup earlier in the movie.

It seems like mundane detail work, but payoffs don’t happen without setups. Setups aren’t as fun or easy to write as payoffs, but they give the audience a logical story experience, as opposed to a bunch of payoffs in a row. Imagine that an entire movie comprises the moments when couples get together at the end of romantic comedies. Scene after scene is a couple having a fight where one person convinces the other that they love them, and the scene ends with a kiss. We don’t know the couples; we’re not invested. Granted, those scenes are fun to write, but they aren’t fun to watch unless you’ve been through the rest of the movie.

That’s all I have right now. I may post more of these principles as I see them in the future, but in the meantime, what do you think?

And here’s a question I haven’t really though about very much:

Do these principles apply to types of writing that are not exactly storytelling?

Dixie Chicks-Fil-A

Take a quick trip with me back to 2003, if you will.

Natalie Maines, at a Dixie Chicks concert in London, infamously said, "Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
The backlash was immediate and severe. People and radio stations across the country were suddenly boycotting the Dixie Chicks music. I remember KLLL in Lubbock, Texas (Natalie Maines's hometown), advertising a "Dixie Chicks Free Weekend" to much acclaim. Rallies were held where people broke their Dixie Chicks CDs. I vividly remember footage of people running over the CDs with bulldozers.
People sent death threats, telling Natalie she should "shut up and sing." Some of the death threats were very specific, telling the girls from the band that they would be shot during their concerts. (All of this was the subject of a fantastic documentary, Shut Up and Sing.)
If you don't know all the facts about that situation, please go and at least read the Wikipedia article section here before rattling off inaccuracies at me.
Dixie Chicks proponents defended their right to free speech.

Fast-forward to 2012
Chick-Fil-A COO Dan Cathy made his remarks. (Again, educate yourself here before sounding like an idiot.) The reaction? Boycotts and outrage. Mayors of cities (Boston, Chicago, San Francisco) have made statements about how Chick-Fil-A is not welcome within their limits. And Facebook is blowing up with statuses of the strong-willed but ill-informed.
Chick-Fil-A proponents defended the corporation's right to free speech.

Here's my point: I don't think I need to point to statistics to prove that many people who are defending free speech in 2012 were the people who were bulldozing and death threating in 2003. (That's admittedly a gross generalization. Let's just say this: conservatives were outraged by Natalie Maines in 2003, and they are proud of Dan Cathy in 2012. Liberals defended Natalie Maines in 2003, and they are boycotting Chick-Fil-A in 2012.)

Here's what I have to say:
Chicks shouldn't talk.
Okay, just kidding.

Here's what I really have to say:
Way to go for speaking your minds. Way to go for saying what you think.
Good job, Natalie Maines. What you said was brave because you knew your fan base would probably disagree.
Good job, Dan Cathy. What you said was brave, especially since most of the country is in favor of gay marriage, and you knew there was a possibility of a backlash.
Everyone should be able to stand up and say exactly what she or he believes.

Now, to everyone else who is taking this Chick-Fil-Issue and making it into Hurricane Gaytrina. . . . by all means, boycott. By all means, tell everyone why you are doing it. Don't let your money be used to keep others from equality. OR, if you liked what Dan Cathy said, eat there every day. Organize people to go in droves! Eat there so much that you get cancer.
BUT PLEASE STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER!
1. It's annoying. 2. Your posts do have the ability to hurt other people, even if you think they those other people are WRONG. (For an excellent discussion of point number two, please see this blog post by a person I am proud to call a good friend, Brent Bailey.)

As for me:
No. I won't be eating at Chick-Fil-A any more. I mean, if I'm with a group and they want to go? Sure. I'm not gonna yell about it and tell them all to stop enjoying their precious dipping sauces, but I won't make a conscious decision to go there. I don't want my money going to oppress people. Unless those people are children who are good with a sewing machine. Then everybody be cool. Now excuse me while I go bulldoze some chicken nuggets.

Wait! I would also like to point out one other thing:
Using these two cases as equal is absolutely stupid. Why? Because when Natalie Maines said she was ashamed President Bush was from Texas, she was literally hurting no one. She wasn't causing any pain or oppressing any groups of people. And yet she received death threats.
Chick-Fil-A is helping to oppress people, and that was the point of the entire statement. Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A are proud to donate to causes that "strengthen traditional families" by opposing marriage equality. I believe that actively hurts people and causes pain. And he, to the knowledge of this blogger and the media, has not received any threats to his life.
I think that says a lot about the differences between radical conservatives and radical liberals. I know which group I would rather be associated with.

Why Blog?

Hello everyone (no one) -

I am reactivating this blog, and here are my reasons:

1. I love writing and telling stories. Writing on this blog is something that is going to bring me joy. The fact that someone out there might read it also brings me joy. As long as I'm not hurting anyone, I'm gonna do the things that make me happy. While I do like to talk about "issues" and explain my own worldview, I promise this blog will not just be an opinion factory. I'll definitely write some funny stories, too. I prefer to make people laugh anyway.

2. Social media is for connecting with people. Not for talking AT them.

I've been increasingly annoyed lately with all the political, religious, and generally malcontented debates happening on my Facebook and Twitter feeds. I have also found myself posting updates in this vein, commenting on the belligerent and controversial updates of others, and genuinely making myself look like an ass hat. Social media is for entertainment and remembering it's your cousin's birthday. It is for posting updates about life events to keep in touch with people you care about. It is for the punchiest of one-liners and jokes that will make someone out there laugh. It is for telling everyone how much you loved The Dark Knight Rises.
It is not for telling people how to raise their children and convincing people that President Obama is a muslim. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. . . wow. I made it through almost 10 sentences without a TV reference, and when I pulled one out, it was Seinfeld.)It is not about attacking the worldviews of others. It is not about bickering and making someone's day worse. It is not for telling everyone how much you hate another person (even if that person is a public figure).
I apologize for engaging in those types of behavior in the past.

3. Blogging allows a context.

A Facebook status or a tweet is not large enough to handle to subtleties of complex issues. When someone tweets, "Stricter gun control laws could have prevented what happened in Colorado," they are ignoring approximately 99% of the facts of the situation. (The statistic in the previous sentence was 100% fabricated.) With a longer post, I can explain every reason why I think gun control laws are necessary or why I am starting up my blog again. You're never going to convince someone to change his or her beliefs in 140 characters.
I can explain what I think the best parenting techniques are or I can give evidence for every reason why I believe President Obama is a muslim. I'm not just making a pronouncement and expecting it to educate all my followers and friends.

4. Blogging allows my friends and followers to make an active decision to read or not to read.

This post isn't just automatically thrown in someone's face while he or she is scanning a newsfeed with the hope of reading something important or funny. When all you want to do is look through someone's vacation photos, this post isn't going to pop up and make you read it. Do my posts annoy you? Then kindly exit my blog, and you are not required to return.
I have blocked a lot of people from my newsfeed because of the hate speech they spout about issues that do not affect them. I don't want to see it. But now I have no clue about anything that is going on in those people's lives. It is a failure of social media because I've lost those connections.



All of this was prompted by several events over the past few weeks. Today, however, my older brother and I got into a Twitter tussle, tweeting pointed quips at one another. I re-read the tweets a little later, and I thought to myself: "Wow. We look like idiots, and anyone who follows us both is probably rolling their eyes." I'm tired of looking like an idiot, so I'm going to try not to do it any more. If I am going to spend my time and energy on the Internet talking about important issues, then I am going to choose to do it in a venue where I can address all the complexities of why I think the things I think, and I want others to be able to craft a comment that fully explains their own views if they choose to do so. And I hope many people do. -Brent

Emmy Reactions

I was pleased overall with the Emmys this year. (The winners, that is. The writing and hosting was. . . pretty much terrible. Sorry Jimmy Fallon.) Let's go over the winners.

Best Actress, Drama
Kyra Sedgwick, "The Closer"
I was surprisingly OK with her win. She has been nominated in this category for so long without a win. It seemed like a foregone conclusion that Julianna Margulies would win (and that is what I predicted). Even though I have never and will never watch an episode of "The Closer" I am ok.

Best Actor, Drama
Bryan Cranston, "Breaking Bad" (1 point for me!)
Like I said. . . his character is super complex. The writing deserves this award just as much as the actor.

Best Supporting Actress, Drama
Archie Panjabi, "The Good Wife"
I haven't seen this show, yet. I am sure she is wonderful. I would have liked to see Elisabeth Moss win, though.

Best Supporting Actor, Drama
Aaron Paul, "Breaking Bad" (2 points!)
Emmy went back and corrected her mistake from last year.

Best Actor, Comedy
Jim Parsons, "The Big Bang Theory"
Honestly, this category was a little weak. Alec Baldwin probably deserved it, but it does get a bit repetitive when you give an award to the same actor over and over. (See: Bryan Cranston, David Hyde Pierce . . .)

Best Actress, Comedy
Edie Falco, "Nurse Jackie"
I have to agree with Edie here. She isn't funny. Her winning this award is kind of mean. . . it is like the Dramadies have teamed up to oust the funny shows from the awards altogether.

Best Supporting Actor, Comedy
Eric Stonestreet, "Modern Family"
I listed that this was one of my wishes. I thought the academy would go back and give NPH a retroactive award. . . but nope. They settled for awarding him two Emmys last week (for "Glee" and hosting the Tonys). Eric Stonestreet deserved this award. Hopefully the writing on "Modern Family" continues to impress and Ty Burrell and Jesse Tyler Ferguson (and Ed O'Neill, Julie Bowen, and Sofia Vergara) all end up with a statue. Seriously.

Best Supporting Actress, Comedy
Jane Lynch, "Glee" (3 points!)
I had a Facebook status a year ago that said they should just go ahead and give her the trophy. Brilliant. I was a little disappointed with her speech. Could have been hilarious.

Best Comedy Series
"Modern Family" (4 points!)
It deserved it. And I am thrilled that it won. I hope it keeps bringing the funny and doesn't lose in the future to shows that really belong in the drama category ("Nurse Jackie" and the like!).

Best Drama Series
"Mad Men" (5 Points!)
It is a brilliant show. But I still think "Lost" was just better. I was really hoping for "Lost" to win, honestly. When the montage of drama for the year was showing, I teared up when they showed Jack laying down with Vincent. And the montage ended with Jack's eye closing. "Lost" really was the final word in drama this year.


So that means I got exactly half of the awards right. Honestly, I don't feel too bad about that. The Emmys are notoriously difficult to predict, especially in the supporting categories. The thing is: TV is on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That is a LOT of TV. And these people represent the best of the best. Pretty amazing.

Other notes: "Top Chef" beat "The Amazing Race"!!! What?! That was surprising.