Pilot Review: Grimm

As I’m a huge fan of the crime procedural as well as sci-fi/fantasy elements in TV, Grimm seemed right up my alley. It starts like all crime shows, with the height of the crime flashing by in the opening minutes. Then the police team is called in to investigate and decide their next plan of action. However, main character Nick is seeing things a little differently. Within the first five minutes, he’s seen two people whose faces morph into something otherworldly as he passes by. Having no prior experience with the secret of his family, it’s kind of freaking him out, which I think is understandable. His terminally-ill aunt, a well-known and highly-feared Grimm, comes to visit and tells him that he has to end things with his girlfriend, and as he questions her, a monster jumps out and attacks them. She beats the tar out of him, but not without great cost – though Nick shoots and kills the attacker, his aunt winds up in a coma in the hospital. Hence his jump-start into the Grimm family history, which doesn’t let up as he must immediately start using his powers to find a kidnapper/murderer.

I’m going to go ahead and say right now that this is one of the smartest and most airtight pilots of the new season – if not of the entire multi-network TV season as it stands. Convincing acting, smart writing, excellent cinematography, and everything else you could ask for – there wasn’t much more I wanted from this show.

The whole show had a very noir feel to it, with lots of shadows, late nights, fog, mystery and the fact that everyone has a little bit of bad in them. That combined with the crime procedural aspect and Portland backdrop makes for a show unlike any I’ve seen in a while, and one that matches with the Friday 9/8 time slot (Fringe – Fox, Supernatural – CW). Really, the major problem with this show is that it’s on at the same time as both Fringe and Supernatural – Friday night is genre night, indeed. If this doesn’t get moved, though, there are going to be even more ratings problems – basically only because the audiences who would be drawn to these shows is made of all the same people. This is a show made for thinkers, for lovers of mystery and fantasy, for those who will look up the Grimm fairytales online and learn the lore for the show. Even the pilot is unapologetic in its expectations for viewers, which is unusual for a pilot. This isn’t a show that’s going to give you all the answers, and I appreciate that more than I can say. I suppose that’s why I’m such a fan of crime shows.

Within the confines of a typical crime procedural, the connection between the red shirts probably wouldn’t have worked, but because of the fact that Nick is grappling with understanding himself, he was able to see the connections. There was definitely a Red Riding Hood connection here, since the enemy was another Blutbad (Big Bad Wolf) – this is one of the retold Grimm fairy tales, so I was pleased to see it here. Also, for two such serious crimes within such a short time span, I don’t really see why any potential connections aren’t worth exploring – within a television show. It seemed very true to the lighter end of the genre, in that regard – much like Castle, Rizzoli and Isles, etc. The comedy crime procedural, if you will.

Giving Nick the advantages of being a cop will add to how he views the cases. I expect they’ll address this in episodes to come. While other Grimms, like his aunt, faced the same challenges, they had a harder time gaining access to all the information necessary. Perhaps this will make it easier on Nick, in some regards, but I also anticipate him coming up against some obstacles due to his line of work.

I would be remiss in not comparing this to Once Upon a Time. While entirely different shows, they do have so much in common and do request comparison. Suffice to say, the special effects of Grimm are much more fulfilling than those of OUAT. Also, I appreciate the underlying meaning in the narrative more in Grimm than OUAT; while Grimm has a more monster-of-the-week feel than does the latter, this gives Nick more of an emotional grounding. As he’s learning about his family history and discovering the ledge he’s being pushed off, he’s making the choice to propose to his girlfriend and launch into a new part of life – all pretty scary things. The outline of the show gives it further grounding, too, when you realize that there are over 200 possible episodes laid out, if you only put one Grimm fairytale with each episode. That’s some plot security if I’ve ever heard one, since a traditional American show season covers 100 episodes with almost five seasons (which then opens it up for syndication on other channels). So while I think OUAT has a lot going for it, I predict Grimm to be the one with real staying power.

As far as casting went, I was pretty happy with it all. As Nick Burckhardt, David Giuntoli was convincing as both a TV cop and a Grimm – and he has those Disney prince good looks that lend themselves to a fairytale-centric show (albeit a dark one). Bitsie Tulloch as Nick’s fiancee Juliette Silverton was likable, though not very present in this episode, as was Russell Hornsby as Hank Griffin, Nick’s partner in fighting crime. Silas Weir Mitchell as Eddie Monroe aka a Blutbad aka A Big Bad Wolf is, as of now, the comedy bit of the show, though you know his darkness lurks just below the surface. I was hoping for a little more diversity in the casting, but maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised as the show continues.

And boy, what a cliffhanger at the end. I really don’t relish having to choose between this and Fringe. Sweet dreams are made of these, indeed.

Pilot Review: Once Upon a Time

ABC’s Once Upon a Time premiered tonight at 8E/7C, and was a rousing success. The basic plot is that, at the wedding of Snow White and Prince Charming, The Evil Queen performed a curse upon the entirety of the fairytale world to send them all to the real world, where the only happy ending is hers (although she didn’t seem too happy when we found her next). As Snow White gives birth to her daughter Emma, the queen breaks in and casts the curse. Fortunately, the Prince is able to transport Emma far away, and she grows up thinking she was abandoned by her parents. On her 28th birthday, a boy she gave up for adoption 10 years prior shows up and asks her to take him home to Storybrooke. As they go, he tells her the tale of her own past – but her skepticism keeps her from really believing him. As the characters unfold in Storybrooke, though, she starts to wonder if there might be something to this, and decides to give it a week to try to figure it out.

I really, really enjoyed this show. It was fascinating, and a fresh look at fairytales is always good. Fairytales seem to be the new paranormal success, and I couldn’t be happier. I’m so glad to see these tales get a modern makeover. Fairytales seem to be a genre that can never be fully tapped out, although people have been writing and rewriting them since the beginning of the narrative. I would definitely suggest adding this to your lineup and giving it a fair chance. It may not be as gripping as the upcoming Grimm (NBC, Oct 28 9/8c), but it will certainly catch your attention.

As far as the rest of casting went, I was mostly happy. I think this show requires unknowns to be really effective. Ginnifer Goodwin seems like kind of a strange choice, in that respect. She definitely looks the part, but I’m not sure she has the right presence for television. I’m a little concerned about Jennifer Morrison’s ability to uphold the narrative, but I foresee this becoming more of an ensemble act than one starring her. That’s how the promos portray it, anyway. Morrison’s generally blank face seems to work here, and I can only hope her skepticism keeps up through the season, or we might have a problem. Otherwise, the actors did a great job. The boy who plays Henry (a former Bobby Draper of Mad Men) did well, for what his lines were. And the rest of the supporting cast looked good. Though they mostly had one or two lines, hinting at introduction to their fairytale characters, each of them managed to steal their scenes, and I’m very interested to see where the episodes go.

However, I didn’t really think the flashbacks were all necessary. It was fun to guess at who’s who in this episode, but in general they were too much. The curse was easily explained in the wedding and subsequent visit to Rumpelstiltskin, and I really don’t think we need this many flashbacks. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but I’m just not sure. Coming from two Lost alums, I guess I’m not that surprised, but once the initial explanation happened, I would have been happier with a faster-moving plot and less fairytale world. Part of the reason for this is the extremely under-budgeted special effects. Anytime there was something remotely magical, like the Blue Fairy, it looked incredibly cheaply done and out of place. If you’re going to go there, ABC, you need to go there. It doesn’t look like any budget was wasted on production quality or making the fairytale period seem realistic, so I’m not really sure why the magic got lost.

Sometimes it seemed like the conversations happened for the sake of exposition rather than realism. For example, when Emma and Henry are talking on the beach, she tells him about how her parents left her on the side of the road. She tells him this in rebuttal to his own story about how she gave him up for adoption, and the whole time I was thinking that this was way too much information to unload on a ten-year-old. Yes, the information is necessary, but I don’t know if this was the best way to share it.

All of these are minor complaints compared to my biggest problem with the show, though. This show seems to be taking on the task of bringing together characters from the entire canon of the fairytale genre, rather than a specific set. This may work, but it seems easier to work within a specific collection (as Grimm does). The benefits of this include, to the very least, limiting the rules of magic and possibility – while this may not seem necessary, it definitely provides guidelines and boundaries, which every show needs. I’m of the school that magic needs limits for it to be plausible, so this really bothered me. I just struggle to envision a world where Pinocchio, Alice, Snow White and Red Riding Hood knowingly co-exist. It stretches the suspension of disbelief pretty far, to the point where I started to become disinterested. This was only the first episode, though, so perhaps I’ll be pleasantly surprised as the season continues.

All in all, though, I really enjoyed this show. Don’t let my gripes about it get you down. I’ll definitely make a place for it in my TV lineup, but to be honest, if they don’t step it up as far as production quality and extended storytelling goes, I’m not sure it’ll make it beyond a first season. Once the mystery is solved and the characters start to remember who they are, where’s the story?

Although, I guess that’s what was said about Lost, and look where it went. Kitsis and Horowitz wrote some really quality episodes, so I’ll trust them here. I think this show has real potential. I’m glad to see the networks taking back Sunday night, instead of tossing this on another weeknight. I already have too many things to watch during the week, so this makes one less show I’ll have to make time to watch because it isn’t a priority over others airing the same night.

What do you think?

Catherine Tate to return to The Office, hopefully forever.

Yesterday was a very exciting time for me. First, I became published officially, then I found out that Catherine Tate is for certain returning to The Office this season. If we’re friends in real life, you probably know that I was very upset over the fact that she wasn’t hired on as the new boss; however, at the time she was performing in Much Ado About Nothing in London with David Tennant until September, so I had hoped she might she show up after that. And what do you know?

Yes, that’s right. Nellie Bertram will be back!

According to TV Line,

Tate will reprise her role from last May’s finale as misguided special projects manager Nellie Bertram, who was one of the candidates interviewing to replace Michael Scott (Steve Carell) as the manager of Dunder Mifflin’s Scranton branch (a gig that ultimately went to Ed Helms’ Andy).

According to Office exec producer Paul Lieberstein, Nellie returns to work on a new project and strikes up a “far from professional” relationship with James Spader’s boss man Robert California.

My prediction is that California will kick Andy out of Branch Manager and make Nellie the new one. You know, since he seems to be rather ambivalent about Andy, anyway, and that garden party probably didn’t help. I think this could return The Office to its prime comedy slot, and I can’t tell you how excited I am.

While there’s no indication of any extension beyond the end of the season, I can’t help but be hopeful. Her season of Doctor Who is classified as drama, I guess, but she’s so funny that she brought so much comedy to it. I haven’t seen too much of her Catherine Tate Show comedy, but what I have seen is great.

Here’s one of my favorite clips of her, acting as her character Lauren Cooper in Comic Relief 2007 with David Tennant. There are a lot of Lauren Cooper videos, so lots more to see. She also obviously has a lot more comedy work. I just prefer this one because I’m a big Doctor Who nerd.

What do you think? Did you like Nellie? Are you looking forward to her return?

I’m now officially a published author!

Yes – there are no gimmicks here. Thanks in every way to the Consortium, one of my short stories is now published in the first issue of the quarterly short story spec fic e-magazine, A Consortium of Worlds.

A Consortium of Worlds is your window into Consortium Books’s outstanding stable of speculative fiction authors. A Consortium of Worlds is a showcase of new and innovative voices in all types of fiction from a publisher dedicated to allowing every writer his or her own voice. There are no slaves to trends or what’s-hot lists here, only writers imagining newer and brighter vistas of unseen tomorrows, untold yesterdays, unknown todays, and untouched worlds of pure imagination.

A Consortium of Worlds is a quarterly speculative fiction magazine showcasing the talents of Consortium Books’s array of authors. In this issue you’ll find stories by:

Jessie Sanders
Joshua Unruh
Thomas Beard
Becca J. Campbell
Courtney Cantrell
Bailey Thomas
Aaron Pogue

Sounds pretty exciting, right? First, a definition. What’s spec fic? Wikipedia describes it as “an umbrella term encompassing the more fantastical fiction genres, specifically science fictionfantasy,horrorsupernatural fictionsuperhero fictionutopian and dystopian fictionapocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, and alternate history in literature as well as related static, motion, and virtual arts.”

My short story is entitled “Collision,” and is an excerpt of a larger work, to (hopefully) be published in 2012. It stars Evie Grimme, a young adult who finds herself catapulted into a world she’s only visited in her dreams ever night for the past year. Bewildered by a post-steampunk alternate universe, she must figure out if this is yet another dream or if she somehow found her way into this other universe. And if she crossed over, why is she there and will she be able to get back?

Available from Amazon for a $2.99 download, this e-mag contains seven stories and reviews by different Consortium authors.

And if you didn’t catch it in the first paragraph, this is a continuing effort. The plan is to put forth quarterly issues, so there will be another one in just a few short months. We’re already grinding away at the issue for January, so the bar is only raised from here! All of these stories are fantastic and I’m proud to know each of these writers.

So check it out and let me know what you think, for sure!

Dear Dave Ramsey, Occupy Wall Street is not a waste of my time and especially not yours.

Tonight I had the extreme displeasure of reading a blog post written by The Famous Dave Ramsey, someone many of my friends love for teaching them how to manage their money. I won’t deny that his program works for untold numbers of people. I’ve seen it in action. But his stance on the Occupy movement is unforgivably inconsiderate and clearly takes place from a position of clear privilege.

So I’ve decided to write a point-by-point response to Ramsey’s blog post. I’m not a political expert. The last couple of years have been, for me, a sort of crash course in caring about politics. But I do have a lot of opinions and a lot of feelings, and I think that denying anyone the right to a life above the poverty line is unforgivable.

Ramsey introduces his post by saying that the Occupy movement doesn’t have any clearly stated goals. This is a fact, but it’s not the end of the story and it does not make them unworthy of thought.

Yes, I agree that it is problematic that the national Occupy movement has not made defined demands. But at the same time, this is a growing movement that gains momentum by the day. When I wrote my first piece about this, we were in the middle of a media blackout (now that we’re in a ‘media circus’ over it, it’s easy for the media to say that’s what it was). Now, it’s all over the news. Every time I turn on NPR, they’re talking about some aspect of it. All presidential candidates are discussing it in all debates and all are now coming up with tax plans to win the people over. This movement is not going away, and it’s silly for anyone to pretend otherwise. There’s a reason there haven’t been any demands made. There will be demands made, but this movement must make it into the hearts, and more importantly, the platforms, of politicians before the change we so desire can take place.

“No Government Bailouts!”

Banks and big companies should not receive taxpayer money for a bailout while their CEOs are making hundreds of millions of dollars. If that’s your gripe, then you’re protesting in the wrong location. Pack up and head to Washington, D.C., to deliver your message to the current administration. Don’t get me wrong—I totally support a company’s freedom to pay their leaders well. I just don’t believe that I, as a taxpayer, should subsidize those huge salaries in the form of taxpayer bailouts. I pay my own team members; I don’t need to pay everyone else’s too.

Honestly, this isn’t that bad. I think pretty much everyone can agree on this one. The bailouts did some good in 2008, but if you’ll notice, we’re still floundering financially. The promises made were not fulfilled. Corporate restructuring did not turn out the way everyone expected it to, and we’re still in a mess.

No, there should not be government bailouts. But there should be government restrictions and government regulations of big business. Call me whatever you like, but that’s what I think. There is no reason we should be in this mess other than corporate greed, which brings me to our next point.

“Down with Corporate Greed!”

If you believe a specific company is acting purely out of greed, then don’t just get mad—do something.Point out where and how they’re greedy and let the world know. Stop doing business with them. If enough people listen to you, the company will get the message because you’ll hit them where it hurts: the bottom line. If they don’t get their act together, then they’ll go out of business and another business will take their place.

We’re all in agreement that greed is bad. It’s not one of the Seven Deadly Sins for no reason.

But the fundamental problem with Ramsey’s argument here is that he assumes those who most need financial help are able to choose where they shop, able to choose where they spend their money. For those who live at or below the poverty line, it’s impossible to make such a “discerning” choice. Shopping at the nearest, cheapest supermarket is often the only choice. Those who live paycheck to paycheck frequently work odd jobs in the service and/or no-collar industry, where they have irregular hours and have to go to the supermarket when they can. This often requires the use of public transportation, which only runs at certain hours. Because this person is either going alone or with one or more children (more distractions while you’re trying to shop quickly), he or she can only take what is easy to carry and probably non-perishable, since the journey probably takes at least half an hour each way.

There’s a reason the people spending their days at the Occupy movement are able to do so. Yes, they are privileged. They have enough leeway in their lives to be able to protest. Why? Because they do so in defense of not only their own struggles but to take on the struggles of those who cannot be there. They protest for the people who are working three jobs to put food on the table and pay bills, and turn around and do it again the next day. Those people are not protesting because they cannot afford to take the time to do so. We need to take on the burdens of those who are unable to do so and help them become self-sufficient. Is helping the poor not what Christ teaches? Helping the poor in 2011 is not just taking food to the local pantry and dropping off used stuff at Goodwill. It is fighting the battles for those who do not have the time, energy, or money to spend on this, but who need it more than we can ever imagine.

Does that make it a little more clear? These people can’t just “shop elsewhere.” Many of us do have that privilege and choose to exercise it for leisure rather than necessity, and maybe this does fall on us. Maybe we should be doing more to exercise our freedoms. But for every person who does so, there are dozens more who either don’t understand or don’t care about – or worst of all support – the way things are. For those in poverty, capitalism doesn’t work. It takes money to make money, and when you have zero extra money after bills and living expenses, there is no way to rise above your current situation.

To throw in a little fun fact here, let’s talk about grocery shopping versus eating fast food. If you spend any time at all on the Internet, you’ve probably seen the graphic that looks something like a comparison of $25 of fast food versus $20 of groceries, claiming that what one family will pay for one meal of fast food could feed them for at least a few days on groceries. In fact, I’ll just pull it up here for you.

Take a good hard look at what you see here. Salt and pepper for 5 cents? Where’s that? Look at these prices. When was the last time you saw foods at this price? 37 cents for an onion? No way. Rice doesn’t come in cups – you have to buy the box or bag. Same for most of these. These costs are unrealistic. There’s a reason people buy fast food. Groceries are hard to come by for those in poverty, and once you have those groceries, you have to have time to cook something.  Fast food is simply easier, faster, and satisfies hungry children more than healthy food generally will. That’s hard, but it’s true. And most often, these households don’t have time to cook because they have to be working to be able to buy food. It’s a vicious cycle and because they can’t take a break to “pull themselves up,” they cannot and will not ever be able to break out of it without help.

By the way, if you think food stamps are a viable option, they’re not. They’re not even viable as an income supplement. It’s practically impossible for one person to support him- or herself on food stamps, let alone a family.

“Wall Street is Evil!”

If you have this painted on a sign, well, now you just look ignorant. Wall Street is a street that people drive on. The New York Stock Exchange is a building where people exchange stocks in New York. This is the flea market of the financial world. Don’t turn Wall Street into some terrible monster attacking American citizens. It’s just a road with some buildings on it.

If you want to talk about ignorant, this is it. Yes, this is a factual statement, but I’m going to give Ramsey a crash course in symbolism here. Wall Street is representative of the financial state of the nation. In 2008, it was no problem to talk about Wall Street as an umbrella villain, but now it’s not? That’s unacceptable. Wall Street represents the most important parts of American investment and banking. If it’s just “a road with some buildings on it,” why is the 1929 Crash also well-known as the Wall Street Crash of 1929? Obviously the street didn’t fall down around itself – it was the companies, the stock exchange. Wall Street has symbolized United States investment finances for many, many, many years, and it’s truly ignorant to pretend otherwise.

But here’s what happens. Sometimes when people don’t understand something, they start to fear it. And as the fear grows, it turns into anger. But just because you don’t understand something, you shouldn’t see it as bad or frightening or a conspiracy. You should just think of it as an opportunity to learn something new—something that could actually be a blessing to you.

It’s true, the vast majority of Americans don’t work on Wall Street. And it’s also true that much of the 1% we’re discussing here don’t actually work on Wall Street. Maybe we don’t have a full understanding of “the way things work up there” on that “road with some buildings on it.” But that doesn’t mean that we don’t see some problems that need to be fixed, stat. One of the best analogies I’ve heard regarding the situation is that of a post-surgery patient lying in a hospital bed, able to feel that the doctor has left an instrument inside his or her body during surgery. She complains to the nurse that something is wrong and that she wants to see the doctor immediately to see what exactly is wrong. The nurse says that the doctor knows what he’s doing and the patient should just stop worrying about it and continue to heal and live life to the fullest – because if you aren’t a doctor, you obviously don’t understand when something feels wrong in your body. The job of a doctor is to take care of the body, not damage it, just as the job of those working on Wall Street is to be financially responsible with our investments and protect us rather than take advantage of our lack of knowledge and rob Americans because they are unable to be there. Speaking of theft…

“Wealth Redistribution is the Answer!”

I’ve heard a lot about wealth redistribution over the past few years, and I’m sure you’ve heard it too. Call it whatever you want, but this is how it usually sounds to most Americans: “We are the 99% of Americans who don’t have as much as the 1%, so we’re mad and think the government should take their wealth and property away so that I can have a piece of it. Wealth inequality is a moral breakdown! We should all spread the money around so everyone gets a fair share!”

I have my toughest critique for those who believe this: You are a thief. When someone takes my money and gives me no say in the matter, that’s called theft—whether they’re using a gun or the government. At the core of this demand is envy. And that’s not the same as jealousy. Jealousy just says, “I want what you have.” Envy is a different beast. Envy says, “I don’t think I can ever have what you have, so you shouldn’t have it either.” Decades of horrible economic teaching and the politics of envy have kept this monster alive and growing and moving forward.

Here is exactly where Ramsey has gone wrong. Suggesting that the wealth of the 1% be forcibly taken from them and spread around is, I’m pretty sure, not what anyone is suggesting here. Maybe some fringe activists are blabbing that to the news, but someone needs to come get their folks on that one. The protest is that capitalism has gone awry and needs to be rearranged so that the poor aren’t getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. That sounds like a rhyme you’ve heard before, right? Well, now it’s especially true.

And that makes no one a thief. No one is recommending stealing from anyone else. Yes, I think it’s fair to say that those who go without because they can’t afford to buy food are probably envious of those who eat whatever they want, whenever they want, just because they can. I am incredibly incredibly lucky and privileged that I do not have this as one of my problems, but many do. Refer to the graphic above if you’ve forgotten.

This way of thinking makes you assume that all rich people are evil and have scammed their way into wealth. That may be true in the tale of Robin Hood, but I choose to live in the real world. Sure, there are some scoundrels, but the vast majority of successful men and women got that way by working hard and serving people—lots of people.Steve Jobs and Bill Gates changed the world in ways we’re just now starting to realize. Their positive impact on the world has helped all of us live better lives, and they made fortunes for themselves by doing so. Why is it that you’re holy if you help one person but evil if you help a million? That’s just stupid.

Well, Bill Gates also didn’t go to college and became a billionaire, right? That’s something else people seem to cling to. Look at him, living that American Dream. I can do that, too! You know what? If you’re reading this, you probably can. But this isn’t about you. Let me say that again: This conversation is Not About You. Look at your privilege. Bill Gates is self-made, but he did not come from extreme poverty to there, and this is what Ramsey and other anti-Occupy speakers are suggesting.

Let me share with you the most frustrating sentence of this entire post, because it’s right here:

“That may be true in the tale of Robin Hood, but I choose to live in the real world.”

Listen, Dave Ramsey, your folks need to come get you because that is the most classist statement I’ve heard in a long time. You live in a vastly privileged world where you are able to do and say whatever you want because of your own opportunities and privileges. Dave Ramsey does not live in the “real world.” Again, if you’re reading this article, you live in a world where you are able to be on the Internet and surf blogs for fun. The real world, as he so whimsically was about to refer to it, is where people have no choice but to work multiple jobs and live paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet. Just so they won’t starve to death. Just so their families will have clothes and coats for winter. Last year, it was so cold in Oklahoma that OKC schools shut down because so many of their children walk to school without coats – because they cannot afford coats in the winter. In Oklahoma. It’s not even that cold here most of the time. This is not fair. This is not right.

My problems aren’t his fault. And my problems aren’t McDonald’s fault or Home Depot’s fault or Walmart’s fault, either. My problems are my fault! And the more people these companies serve, the more money they make—and that’s none of my business! If you don’t like McDonald’s, then here’s an idea: Don’t eat there. But don’t walk into the restaurant and demand a portion of their proceeds for the day.

Do you want to know why so many poor people eat McDonald’s? Because it’s cheap. Because one person can eat a “full meal” for two dollars, if you call two items off the dollar menu a full meal. A family doesn’t spend $27 on a meal at McDonald’s unless they’re looking to blow money. McDonald’s is cheap and it’s everywhere. It’s an alternative to eating food from the local gas station because that’s as close as many people can get to a grocery store. If you say that’s not true, you need to check your own privilege and get out in the “real world,” this so-called land of opportunity.

Celebrate the Land of Opportunity

This is the greatest country on the planet, but even here, you’re not guaranteed wealth, talent, fame, a full head of hair or six-pack abs. Those things are not in the Constitution. You are, however, guaranteed the freedom to make your life what you want it to be. And when you do that, when you build your life around your dreams and passions and hard work, you’re guaranteed the right to keep it. No one has the right to take it away from you.

No, no one is guaranteed anything. And you know what? No one is guaranteed freedom anymore. Our lives are so manipulated and controlled by those in power and those who control our investments that we don’t have that freedom. Someone can, in fact, come take that away from you. You can be put in jail for following your dreams, by going to college on loans that were guaranteed not to bankrupt you and in fact did that very thing.

Many, many Americans do not have the luxury to build their lives around their dreams. They have to build their lives around what pays the bills, and I would say a good 99% of the time, that does not involve any dreams, but it does involve a whole lot of hard work. Following your dreams takes time away from earning money and being productive, and most people don’t have that luxury.

So to summarize, I’m not very impressed at the moment. I’m not impressed by your temper fit. I’m not impressed at your lack of goals and focus. I’m not impressed by the fact that the only thing I see about your movement is ignorance, immaturity and envy. Grow up—and get a job.

Of course Dave Ramsey is not impressed, because he is unable to check his own privilege long enough to understand that getting a job is Not That Easy. In fact, it’s nigh impossible, even for college grads. The job market is flooded with those who earned bachelor’s degrees, who were told that having a college education was a guaranteed job and a leg up in the world. What happens when that world comes crashing down and you are unable to survive?

Also, there are people of all ages in this protest. Many of them are over 40, many of them war veterans, many of them who have lost their jobs in the last five years. It is not a hippie’s protest. This is an American’s fight for the right to survive in a country that promised them everything and then pulled the rug out at the last second.

Yes, there are jobs out there. There are jobs out there that haven’t even been invented yet. Go create the next Facebook or Weed Eater. Go pick up so much dog poop that you can start your own fertilizer company. And stop complaining that companies are TOO RICH while also complaining that they aren’t RICH ENOUGH to hire you! I’ve seen a lot of you guys. I wouldn’t hire you, either. But if you take all of that energy and excitement and pour it into something new and creative, you’ll get the chance to serve a whole lot of people really well, and over a decade or two, you’ll get to become the very thing you’re now protesting: rich people who actually earned their money.

I’ll go back to what I said about following dreams. Creating your own job is impossible. It takes start-up cash, loans, investments – all of which are impossible for people who need to get above the poverty line. It’s insane to think that anyone should be able to up and create the next Facebook or Weed Eater. Creating your own product takes a lot of money and a lot of trust by investors, and these days, who has either of those just floating around? Oh, that’s right – people who don’t need that much money to begin with. It’s a cycle of wealth that poor people cannot win. I am 100% positive that there are great ideas out there, but they lack funding and representation and investment, and I’m 100% positive they will never get any of those things. Because so many people are living day to day, there isn’t time for dreams.

This is the problem with anti-Occupy speakers. Those who would deny its legitimacy would also say that the American Dream is still a viable life plan. They would say that the Bootstraps theory applies to every American, regardless of background, when this is Simply Not True. It just isn’t.

This is a cycle of privilege that is upheld by those who live in it. Those who live in the 1% have been there all of their lives and will never fall from that position, barring an extreme financial crisis (but would only be knocked down to maybe middle class, not poverty). They are unable to understand why those in poverty cannot just pull themselves up and make something of themselves because they’ve never had to do it. Sure, they go to work every day, but they don’t have to worry about the money. It’s always going to be there for them. They aren’t living paycheck to paycheck, and their families aren’t constantly looking for their next meals. I’m not saying we need to take money from these people, but the way they make that money must change. There is no reason for them to be making that much money while millions are unable to pay for basic human necessities.

Do you want to know WHY millions of young adults take out thousands of dollars in student loans? Because their whole lives, they’ve been told that they can grow up to do anything they set their minds to as long as they work hard and get a good college education. But now those people are left without the idealistic, high-paying jobs they were promised for their very hard work at the most cost-efficient educational facility for their dreams. And they’re stuck with enormous monthly loan payments that they are unable to pay off. Citizens should not be saddled with debt because they are doing what their parents and authority figures instructed them to do from childhood. Trade jobs are vilified as low-class and underachieving, and so many people think they need to go to college to get a good job, when this is simply not the case. Millions of people do not need to go thousands upon thousands of dollars into the morass of loan debt so they can once again be refused the opportunity to work their way into the middle and upper classes. Those in poverty save to send themselves to college to get out of poverty, and yet are slapped with loans, which leads to low credit, inability to buy and/or rent permanent housing and/or transportation, and therefore they are often worse off than before. They are actively being denied the American dream because they believed in it, and that is wrong.

I know that I’m a liberal, and I appreciate a difference in political values. I understand the necessity. But what is absolutely unfathomable to me is that anyone, regardless of political stance, would refuse to see the fact that there are millions of Americans (to exclude the rest of the world) who live in a state of constant poverty and are unable to “pull themselves up” because of the endless circle that is living below the poverty line.

This is a movement that began in NYC, but has now spread to the entire world. There are movements and demonstrations in major cities all over the world. This has been a long, long time coming, and the worldwide divide between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of us has grown for years. It’s time for that to be over. Without a wealth restructuring plan, this will not change. Poor people cannot change this. Only the wealthy can, and if they won’t, we as a democracy must make the change happen. It’s not “taking money from people who deserve it.” It’s making sure everyone has enough money to feed themselves and their families and stop living paycheck to paycheck. We’re on the cusp of some extreme financial changes in the United States, and I hope you’re all prepared.

Privileged people, come get your folks. Just come pick them up. I haven’t even touched on the racism or sexism that falls under these categories, as well. I didn’t have time to go into the absolutely wildly insanely ludicrous Tea Party comparisons that are being made. There isn’t time. This post is already almost 4500 words in length. There just isn’t time to go into that.

What do you think? If you made it this far, I am truly proud to know you. Let me know what you think.

Movie Review: Ides of March

Full disclosure: This review contains some spoilers.

With star power like this and the added bonus of extreme timeliness, there’s no way The Ides of March won’t be a hit. All of the actors deliver stellar performances – Clooney is Clooney, Gosling is the rising star, Hoffman is the scene stealer, Giamatti is the jovial villain, Tomei is the knowing female, and ERW is the naive young woman. Basically, they all fit nicely into their niche roles – ERW being the least typecast of the bunch, but not by much. But there is definitely a reason all of these actors have these kinds of roles, and this film proves that. I had imagined this to be a Clooney/Gosling film, but really, it was a pretty quality ensemble act. I don’t have much to say about the plot – it’s fairly straightforward. A naive strategist is corrupted by the inevitable path of politics, and then has to deal with the consequences. But this is a sharp, well-written and well-directed film. Without getting too film-school-pretentious on you, there were a lot of things that were meaningful outside of the basics on screen.

More importantly, I think this film is one that will stick around. This is a critical time for the United States, politically, and this film hits upon so many of those small nerves – so many, in fact, that it makes an incredibly strong statement about us right now. In a time when the Good Old Boys club is starting – just starting – to crumble around us, this film exposes the underhanded dealings and “understandings” of modern politics. This is a film about the corruption of a smart but doe-eyed strategist, one whose loyalties change completely from the beginning of the film to the end. Early on, Gosling’s Stephen says that he’ll do or say anything, as long as he believes in it – and for a while, I assumed this was a trailer line, one thrown in for the benefit of those on the edge about seeing this. But it’s true. Early on, he believed in integrity, in dignity, Hoffman’s Paul, in Clooney’s Governor and presidential candidate Mike Morris. He truly believed a campaign could be run and won on honest terms. But by the end of the film, he believed only in himself and his ability to manipulate the situation to his own best benefit. He was sucked into the games he so clearly despised, and yet he does so because he believes this is his only choice, this is what he has to do.

One of my favorite parts of this film was Stephen’s inability to deal with the consequences of his own actions. While he had no problem firing Molly “for the good of the campaign,” he was unable to understand how he was being fired when he directly chose to damage the campaign on a personal level. When Paul fired him, he said, “You didn’t make a mistake. You made a choice.” And that sets the tone for the entire film. It was made very clear that within politics, there are no mistakes – only choices. That’s something Paul and Giamatti’s Tom Duffy understood; while both pretended to be on the up and up, as all good politicians do, they both clearly had very ulterior motives, most not revealed on screen. This is a film that made smart implications and expected intelligence from its viewers, which I always appreciate.

And at the same time, this film frustrated me beyond all reason. It perpetuated the fact that regardless of morals, the white men in charge are able to remain masters of politics without real consequence. Morris’ campaign was built on statements he couldn’t fully deliver, and yet he allegedly still succeeded. Lies and half-truths continue to penetrate politics, while citizens continue to believe them because there is no other option. The two women of substance in this film were utterly dependent on the men, for information and for meaning.

The daughter of the DNC Chairman, Molly had her position through family connections and was taken advantage of because of those connections. Eventually she chose suicide over reality, indicating that for a woman faced with her future at the hands of a political giant, she felt there was no other choice. She would rather take her own life than have her own decisions thrown back in her face, her life ruined by those who would deny her the agency to make her own choices without consequence. And when she’s dead, we see everything but her face – in what world is it okay to have her commit suicide, and not even show her face? It doesn’t get more disrespectful than that. Marisa Tomei’s Ida, a journalist who depends on her relationship with these men to continue her career, is the only woman with the potential to affect the plot – and yet she only appears to make things inconvenient for the men, rather than having an important part to play. If you count Morris’ wife as an important woman here, all there is to say is that she is disrespected both by the plot and by Morris, in pretty much every way. When the First Lady has the potential to be a truly powerful woman, dismissing her like this is truly a disservice. If you’re going to give women such a small part in a movie that will be seen by millions, every word, every movement is a statement.

While it’s true that a movie with this much star power can go nowhere but up, that doesn’t excuse it from misogyny and other problematic issues. If the point was to open discussion about the changes that need to be made in the political structure, it could have been more overt. The women and minority characters could have been more pointed. In a film very clearly directed at understanding the downward spiral into dirty politics, there should have been more of a statement made about privilege.

But while there are problems here, clearly, I think this film will probably stand up to time. It’s not just your average political thriller. It’s relevant at a point in time when politics are falling apart and statements like these need to be made, regardless of immediate problems. These problems are also part of the very thing that will make this film stand out – the lacks in this movie are just as important as the presences. It’s a statement on the way things are right now, when we’re on the cusp of extreme change in a world fed up with the obscured views we’ve been dealt by those rich enough to control them.

However, I will predict Oscar nominations for this movie. For acting, Gosling and possibly Hoffman and Giamatti. Clooney maybe, but I’m not counting on it. I wouldn’t be shocked by a Best Picture nom, either. Alexandre Desplat may score something for music, but it’s questionable at best – the moments where there was a lack of music were more potent than those scored. All in all, I anticipate some nominations and possibly some wins.

Problematic as it was, I would recommend this. I did thoroughly enjoy it, and I’m sure anyone with even a passing interest in politics would find this interesting. I haven’t read the play this was based on, Farragut North, but I intend to – if you have, how does it stack up?

All of the DVDs I presently own:

In case you were ever curious. If you ever want to watch any of these, give me a call! Always happy to watch any of them. I made this list because I alphabetized all of them and put them in an organizer, and I thought I’d like to know what I have.

Doesn’t include my LOST box set. I’d never take those out, because they’re freaking awesome as they are.

  • 10 Things I Hate About You
  • 13 Going on 30
  • 21
  • 27 Dresses
  • 30 Rock season 3
  • (500) Days of Summer
  • Across the Universe – deluxe
  • Alice (SyFy miniseries)
  • Almost Famous
  • Annie Hall
  • Atonement
  • Away We Go
  • Baby Mama
  • Becoming Jane
  • Bedazzled
  • Ben Folds Songs for Silverman (Making Of)
  • Ben Folds Live with WASO
  • Best in Show
  • Better Off Dead
  • Bones (s1-4)
  • Breakfast at Tiffany’s
  • Burn After Reading
  • Casino Royale (deluxe)
  • Catch Me If You Can
  • Charlie’s Angels
  • Cloverfield
  • Community (s1)
  • Corpse Bride
  • Daredevil
  • Dirty Dancing
  • Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood
  • Dodgeball
  • Dracula
  • Drive Me Crazy
  • Drop Dead Gorgeous
  • Edward Scissorhands
  • Enchanted
  • Eulogy
  • Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 set
  • Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
  • Forgetting Sarah Marshall
  • Garden State
  • Grease (Rockin’ Rydell Edition)
  • Grey’s Anatomy (s1-3, 6)
  • Guys and Dolls
  • Hairspray (new)
  • Harry Potter – Sorcerer’s Stone
  • Harry Potter – Chamber of Secrets
  • Harry Potter – Goblet of Fire
  • He’s Just Not That Into You
  • High Fidelity
  • High School Musical 3
  • The Holiday
  • How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
  • I Love You, Man
  • Josie and the Pussycats
  • Juno
  • Just Friends
  • A Knight’s Tale
  • The Last Unicorn
  • Little Miss Sunshine
  • LOTR 1-3
  • The Matrix
  • Mean Girls
  • Meet the Parents
  • Meet the Robinsons
  • Moulin Rouge
  • The Mummy
  • The Mummy Returns
  • Music & Lyrics
  • The Music Man
  • The Nightmare Before Christmas
  • The Notebook
  • O Brother, Where Art Thou?
  • Ocean’s Eleven
  • Ocean’s Thirteen
  • The Office (s1-4)
  • Office Space
  • Oklahoma!
  • The Other Boleyn Girl
  • Pan’s Labyrinth
  • Parks and Recreation (s2)
  • The Phantom of the Opera
  • Pirates of the Caribbean 2
  • Pride & Prejudice (2005)
  • The Princess Bride
  • The Producers
  • Pushing Daisies (s1-2)
  • RENT
  • Role Models
  • Sandra Bullock four-pack (Miss Congeniality, Miss Con 2, Divine Secrets, Two Weeks Notice)
  • Saved!
  • School of Rock
  • Sex and the City (s1-6)
  • Sex and the City
  • Sex and the City 2
  • Sin City
  • Sleeping Beauty
  • Slumdog Millionaire
  • Smart People
  • Something’s Gotta Give
  • Stranger Than Fiction
  • Sweeney Todd, the Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
  • Twilight (for comedy purposes)
  • V for Vendetta
  • Warehouse 13 (s2)
  • War of the Worlds
  • The Wedding Planner
  • West Side Story
  • Whip It
  • X-Men
  • X2

Some news and my annual NaNoWriMo plug

Sorry I’ve been kind of MIA this week – it’s been a pretty busy week in the real world. I moved out, took care of a lot of small responsibilities I’ve been putting off, and generally just kind of wasn’t on the Internet very much.

But, in better news, I’m ordering my iPhone 4, so I’ll be able to get more on-the-go pictures and videos for the blog. I loved my 3G, but that sucker was a tank and it did not take very quality pictures. Excited to get a new phone! Also, I realized when I looked at my account that I’ve been upgrade eligible for more than a year. Whoops. Oh well.

Mostly what I’ve been doing this week is realizing how very much I need to start planning for NaNoWriMo this year. It’ll be my fourth consecutive attempt, and hopefully third win. If you aren’t familiar with NaNo, it’s short for National Novel Writing Month – a 30-day attempt to write a 50,000 word novel. Every November, thousands of writers around the world put forth their very best of worst, or worst of best, and write about 2,000 words a day, come hell or high water.

One of my favorite parts of NaNo are the pep talks written by published authors – many of whom have personal experience with the challenge. This year’s authors include Chris Cleave, Jonathan Lethem, Audrey Niffenegger (!!!!), Brandon Sanderson, Deb Olin Unferth and Erin Morgenstern (author of The Night Circus).

It’s insane, but it’s incredibly, incredibly fun, especially if you know people who are doing it, too. It’s easier the more accountability you have, so having some kind of group, online or in real life, is practically essential.

And you should do it, too. Even if you just have me for accountability. I’d love to hear how you’re doing!

Anyway, I’m winding up for it. I’ve been out of practice of writing regularly for quite a while now, so I’m doing word sprints regularly and just trying to write as much as possible.

It starts November 1st, so you still have a few weeks to plan. And I must advise you to plan. Plan plan plan plan. If you want to succeed, every little detail must be plotted. I know it’s easy to think you have a lot to write about, but trust me – 50k is hard when you have unlimited time. With only a month, it’s near impossible if you don’t know exactly what you’re doing.

Full disclosure: I’m doing a little bit of a cheat. I’m not starting a novel from scratch. I’m going to work on a novel that I’m currently writing, but that has quite a ways to go. I’m going to put forth more better than worse effort for this one, because I fully intend for this to be a legit novel once all is said and done. I’m pretty excited about it. I’m just saying. You’ll be able to read an excerpt from it soon…I’ll let you know when that’s up :)

Are you writing NaNo this year? Let’s talk about it! Be sure to add me on the site so we can stay in touch. And be sure to follow me on Twitter once it all gets going – I’ll be updating all the time to keep myself accountable. Link to the right with my tweets!