the hunger games aren’t amazingly unique or flawless or anything but I think katniss as a character is very important and i think the media misunderstands
we aren’t in it for the cute boys. we’re in it for katniss. thousands of young girls were introduced to an introverted, angry girl born into poverty and watched her become the savior of the world and the media doesn’t seem to understand that she, as a character, is important to girls. not who she dates, but her
I think that portrayal is equal parts because of cultural misogyny/sexism inherent in mainstream media, and also because it’s classified as YA.
The former is maddening because, you know, even reading it cold as a spoiled, privileged, straight white male, not once did I get the impression that any of this was a love story or about “which boy do I choose?” I think it was a fantastic device, and the story told plays out wonderfully, but it does not define Katniss or, more importantly, the overarching threads and themes of the novels
As for the YA thing, that’s understandable because admittedly, it is. But that’s not a bad thing. If Catcher in the Rye came out today, it’d be on the same shelf as all of John Green’s shit. I’m not saying that the Hunger Games trilogy is high lit or anything, just an observation. And Hell, maybe it will if we’re given a few decades to put these books in their proper context.
On that note, I am feeling very sick and going to bed at 8pm. Goodnight.
Washington (CNN) — Newt Gingrich is fighting back against conservative critics who attacked the former Speaker of the House and co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire” for his praise of Nelson Mandela.
An unfortunate side-effect of echo-chamber liberalism is that it jumps on any and all criticism of the right and gives all those critics equal weight. But before we get to the idea that this this is representative of a shift - an example of cuddly old guard Republicans bristling at the new wave of Tea-Partying Republican Rock Stars and their lack of tact, gaul, and common sense - let’s admit that there’s a bit strawman politicking going on here. I’m not convinced that you can ascribe the anti-Mandela sentiment to a group. The problem with the Internet Age is that cranks used to write letters and get one published in the paper. Now they post a blog entry online, get comments and Retweets from a thousand other cranks, and suddenly the thought is given more weight than it deserves.
Now that that’s out of the way - this isn’t actually a shift. Reagan and many, many others were criminal in how passive and apologetic they were towards South Africa’s brutally oppressive practices. They did not view Mandela in the same light as many others did (yes, including Gingrich) and, ultimately, history would. In fact, Gingrich openly called out Reagan on vetoing sanctions and other actions against apartheid-era SA.
BUT - we need to be careful not to paint this as some sort of strange corner of enlightenment bursting forth from the mind of Newt Gingrich, because it totally isn’t.
At first glance it’s easy to assume the opposite. After all, here’s a guy with a PhD! And he’s railing against all these Internet-happy pundits criticizing Mandela before his body’s even cooled!
But the fact is that this is actually more of a holdover of Gingrich’s strange, complicated, highly contentious, and outright contrarian relationship with Reagan than it is a brave statement in defense of one of the greatest men of the twentieth century.
Those “right on” moments in Gingrich’s crusade against Reagan, including his anti-apartheid stance and his scathing indictment of Reaganomics, are far outnumbered by instances where he thought the US under Reagan was too soft on the Soviet Union (seriously) and another where he compared Reagan’s summit with Gorbachev with Churchill’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler (SERIOUSLY).
Gingrich isn’t a great mind standing up for the old guard, he’s a broken clock that was right twice.
Trust me, I wish I could give Gingrich more credit on this, but I just can’t other than to simply say that outside the context of who said it, he’s right. But more to the point, critics of Mandela are, by and large, narrow-minded cowards.
But when it comes to Mandela, many of the things that these cranks and cowards are railing against they’re actually right about. They don’t like him because he actually WASN’T the man the mainstream media portrays him to be. They have a legitimate point there.
But that’s where they stop being correct.
The problem with the coverage of Mandela’s death is that it hasn’t been fair at all to his legacy. Over the last several decades, mainstream outlets have portrayed him as a figure akin to Gandhi, a man who thought good thoughts and intentions were enough and would win the day. In fact, the way recent news reports covering his death were written and delivered, you’d think his greatest act and accomplishment was being black and forgiving white people.
But Mandela’s greatest gift, and in fact his contribution, was that he WAS a fighter. He said no, fuck this, and struck back against an impossibly evil socio-political machine. He was more of a revolutionary than anyone wants to give him credit for, and that says more about the weakness of contemporary American intellectualism than it does about him.
But that’s a whole other rant.
LONG STORY SHORT: Gingrich is right, but not “right on!”. And Mandela was fucking great, but not because he “forgave” white South Africans for their bullshit.
MMA isn’t for you. Neither is pro boxing. Just no. No no no. Get out, right now, this is the end of you and me.
Don’t be that guy. Seriously.
I’ll see my way out then.
UNDERSTAND THAT ONCE YOU WALK OUT THAT DOOR, THE…
I prefer JDS/Hunt too. But I’m also a big Cigano fan… so, I guess it doesn’t count…
With that said, I can see why people might like Hunt/Silva more. It was more competitive/back and forth as apposed to the three round beating that was JDS/Hunt.
Good fight though. Good card. Much better than expected. The gods have been good to us this year.
JDS/Hunt was a good fight. This was more than a fight. That’s the thing; a fight that transcends just being a fight. I watched this card with a group of casuals and by the end of the 4th round, everybody was on the edge of their seats. There’s an emotional connection that takes your average good fight and makes it something special and downright remarkable.
By myself, if I want to be a techie kinda guy, I’ll probably watch JDS vs Hunt. That’s JUST an MMA fight though. Hunt vs Silva was something much more than that.
A great fight is a great fight, and it really is that simple.
All these internet fanboys belly-aching over it not being a technical masterpiece are tilting at windmills.
Look: sometimes the Match of the Year is Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels. Sometimes it’s Misawa vs. Kobashi. Sometimes it’s Flair vs. Steamboat. Sometimes it’s Ishii vs. Shibata. Sometimes it’s even Hogan vs. Warrior.
Some years, the best film is a Swedish art film ruminating on mortality with Death as a central characters. And other years it’s a movie about a goddamn shark eating people.
A great match is a great match, a great movie is a great movie, and a great fight is a great fight. The whys you can certainly identify - with Hunt and Bigfoot, it was the combination of raw physicality, tenaciousness, and crowd atmosphere. And others are great because they involve two skilled strikers and/or grapplers plying their wares in a razor-thin decision. But the moment you decide that the whys aren’t so important as your pre-determined set of criteria is the moment you stop being a fan and just start being a nuisance and a gadfly.
This Thanksgiving the Internet is thankful for Elan Gale, Twitter and the Woman in #7A.
I’m having trouble reconciling people I know cheering on a guy for antagonizing a woman who’s obviously a bit unbalanced and telling her via notes, publicly on twitter, and to her face to “eat [his] dick.”
It’s not as if her behavior is excusable. It’s not. In fact, it’s abhorrent, especially the way she treats the staff.
But what was done in this situation that diffused it? Is he a hero for further antagonizing her and making things more difficult and complicated for the staff?
I can get if he felt the need to stick up for the flight crew, and I can certainly empathize. But the hill I can’t get over is when he starts telling her repeatedly to “eat [his] dick.” She was being disruptive and abusive to staff, but even through his interpretation of events, she comes across more as mentally unbalanced than entitled. Don’t get me wrong: that’s not a “get out of jail free” card by any means. But, you know, there’s such a thing as being the adult in a situation.
Sometimes it’s appropriate to stand up for what is right and speak “truth to power.” That’s not what it seems like this guy was doing.