surprise me

When I studied nutrition in college, a strange thing started to happen to me when I ate. I could not longer eat food without an acute consciousness of what was happened to that food as I digested it: proteins breaking down into amino acids; carbohydrates into glucose; all those little molecules floating through my intestinal villi and into my bloodstream.
Forward twenty-five years or so and I take a screenwriting class. Now I can no longer watch a movie without breaking it down into its component parts, stripping away the fat and honing in like an x-ray on the skeleton of the three act structure within.
A three act structure is the basis of all commercial viable screenplays, or so we are taught. To simplify (and three act structures are all about simplification) the first act is where the central conflict is defined and the action gets going, preferably within the first few minutes. During the second act, the action proceeds, but at the end of the second act comes a "reversal", where it looks like the resolution we expect (and probably want) is not going to happen. The third act corrects the reversal and brings about the resolution of the conflict.
We've all seen zillions of examples of this type of movie: the struggling hockey team that wins the championship; the crusty old cowboy that befriends the wayward teen; the team of archaeologists that escapes marauding dinosaurs; the star crosssed lovers that overcome all obstacles to kiss passionately in the middle of a mountain meadow.

The trouble with three act structure is its predictability.  Writing by the numbers may (not necessarily) protect against outrageous failures, but the screenplay with never transcend its essential formulaicness. I fail to see the entertainment value of a movie where you can predict all the major plot turns within the first ten minutes.  I've got nothing against narrative structure or happy endings per se, but I want to be surprised.  Let Godzilla destroy the city.  Let the quarterback quit before the big game.  Let the bad guy win.  Let everybody win.  Teach me something about a character that I don't already know; show me that a situation is not what it appears to be.  sometimes a three act structure movie partially redeems itself with good acting or cinematography, but it still feels pointless. After watching them I feel like I've wasted two or so hours of my life.

You might ask, what's the big deal?  I guess I just don't buy into the concept of "vegging out". I don't find it relaxing, just boring.  I might enjoy sitting on a couch now and again, but I am a person, not a potato.  Whatever I am doing, whether it be work or play, I prefer to be fully present and engaged.  I don't want to zone out.  I want to remember where I've been.

Speaking of surprises, I was not in the least surprised that the Department of Homeland Security has been busy tracking our phone calls.  PUt it smack in the second act of the major movie of the decade:  The Collapse of Democracy.

canned peas: the key to long life?

A study just came out showing that the British have lower rates of most life threatening diseases–including cancer, coronary heart disease and stroke–than Americans.  We already know that Americans have lower life expectancies than most citizens of WEstern Europe.  But the British?  They drink.  They smoke.  Their diet consists mainly of fish and chips, canned peas, and repulsive puddings made from organ meats.  They aren't exactly lounging on their piazzas, basking in the Mediterranean sun.  Now we discover that the health of a poor British factory worker is equivalent to that of a wealthy American.

Some credit probably rests with their socialized medicine system, as it covers all citizens and emphasizes preventive care.  But that can't explain everything, especially since we're talking about rates of disease incidence, not rates of control or cure.  I thnk lifestyle, or more precisely, life attitude, has a lot to do with it.

One person of British descent mentioned their tradition of a "stiff upper lip".  Americans are a nation of whiners, pathologizing the slightest discomfort and popping pills at every opportunity.  Could obsessing about disease make us sick?  Maybe?

Not only are we a nation of complainers, though, we are remarkably frenzied and glum about it.  That Paxil isn't working too well.  The British have a more relaxed attitude towards life.  In the early "90s my husband worked for a British bank. They sent him to their home office in London for "training", which mainly seemed to consist of learning how many kinds of alcohol you can mix together before passing out.  The workday routinely ended at lunch.  The firm also sent investment bankers to the US.  These guys, mainly twentysomething males flush with their six figure salaries, dated gorgeous models and partied their heart out.  One of them was the only person I knew who actually danced on a bar top with a lampshade over his head.  Sometimes I think of these guys and their alcohol guzzling, coke snorting ways, so handsome then, now limping into a dissipated middle age.

But maybe not.

save the internet

This isn't original but it is important.  Giant corporations like AT and T and Verizon are attempting to control the flow of information on the internet. At present any website, whether it be this humble one or one from Verizon, gets equal billing–equal access, equal listings on Google.  The communications giants have introduced legislation in Congress that will allow their websites to open more readily than others, in effect creating a class division on the Internet.

With the consolidation of radio, TV, and print media networks, the Internet has become our only truly democratic and vital means of communication.  Let's keep it that way!  Please call your congressperson or sign one of the petitions circulating to save the internet.  You can contact moveon.org for more information.

original thinking from the Democratic party?

Judging from the flood of op-eds on this topic, the powers that be in the Democratic party have apparently come up with a new message: Democrats support the "common good".  Well, I suppose that beats "together, we can do better" as an inspiring slogan.  By a little bit, anyway. 

The common good theory reasserts the concept that government has a valuable role to play in society, in contrast to the popular belief that the smaller government is, the better, and our obsessive faith in free markets. Capitalism may be the most effective economic system around, but people are not solely economic beings.  Even if capitalism worked like the diagrams in Economics 101 (which it doesn't) it would require governmental regulation. Many important functions of society–art and culture, care of children and the elderly, health care, to name a few– cannot be measured solely by their economic value.  Sometimes the activities that lead to apparent short term economic profit ignores hidden costs and are detrimental to society, and the planet we all share, in the long run. (see my many posts on globalization).  The success of a capitalistic society is measured by "growth", but another term for uncontrolled growth is cancer.  WE need governmental controls to ensure the health of our body of humanity and the health of the planet on whom our survival depends. YOu can define those controls as assuring the "common good".

What role should the government play in assuring the "common good"?

1)  Enforcing environmental regulations and land use laws.  What bigger violation of individual rights could there be than industries who pollute the air and water that belong to all of us, or who destroy valuable farm or forest land—all for their own, personal, short term profit?

2) Enforcing the laws of the land, most especially our constitutional rights.  Boy, the Bush administration sure is falling down on that one!

2)  Providing a basic safety net of health care and education for all citizens.  Health care is a perfect example of how, when market values are allowed to be predominant, they do not support the common good.  The primary priority of the health care system should be optimal health for all citizens.  Right now, the primary goal is maximum profits for insurers and health care administrators.  Do we need government bureaucrats in charge of health care systems?  No, but we sure as hell don't need the private industry bureaucrats that hold power now. We need to put medical professionals back in charge of health care.

Similarly, children are not products.  Schools shouldn't be run like factories, churning out drones for corporate America.  WE need to get rid of the "bottom line" view of education, which reduces learning to limited and linear concepts measurable by multiple choice tests.

Government should not be running health care or educational systems per se, but it can provide an environment in which quality systems can flourish, and enable access to these systems for all citizens.

4) Foreign policy.  The government should represent US interests as part of the community of nations, working with the rest of the world on issues that effect us all, such as terrorism, global warming, hunger, and disease.  When necessary   it can intervene mllitarily, but only in self-defense or in reaction to atrocities such as genocide, and only when all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.

 5) Ensuring free access to accurate information, ie possible side effects of prescribed or OTC drugs, the origin of supermarket meat, or accurate food labellling.

 When is the government not acting in the common good?  A few examples: 

1)  When they make pre-emptive strikes on other nations that have not attacked us and have not made any preparations to do so.

2) When they support the well being of multinational corporations at the expense of the American public.

3) When then allow, and sometimes actively promote, the irreversible environmental destruction of our planet.

4) When they deepen the divisions between rich and poor, effectively destroying the middle class.

The question is, are the Democrats going to focus on these core issues or are they going to dilute their argument by insisting that the government function as a giant mother figure, warning us not to eat too much fast food, or drink alcohol, or let our children watch pornography?

The question is