Open Letter to American Moviegoers

Dear American Moviegoers,

Like, dude. What the hell? If you keep buying tickets to Crap, Crap II, and Crap III, you will only encourage them to make More Crap. What gives? Have you no taste?

Just say no to torture porn.

Yours with love,
Qwertz

Coincidence?

I don’t think so!

From what I’ve been able to dig up on the Internets, “Macgyver” was composed by Randy Edelman and “Rescue Rangers” by Mark Mueller. “Macgyver” predates “Rescue Rangers” by 3½ years. I think “Rescue Rangers” was intended to be evocative of “Macgyver.”

Again, both are favorite shows from childhood.

The Secret

I have discovered the secret of high blog traffic!

Since I posted about this week’s episode of House, M.D., my hits have quadrupled. Apparently, many people want to know about the phrase written on the chalk­board behind House in the classroom where he grilled his 40 or so candi­dates:

Tesla was Robbed!

The phrase appears alone on the board early in the episode. But later in the episode, House writes the following above it:

SYN
RBC
TACH
PANIC

for synes­thesia, red blood count, tachy­cardia and panic attacks.

These latter are part of House’s diag­nostic procedure. He’s using the chalk­board instead of the old white­board in the office. But the Tesla remark, which appears, on a cursory exam­i­nation, to be written in a different hand (though the style of the R is similar), is incongruous.

Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia in 1856 and emigrated to the United States and became a citizen there. He was a prolific and eccentric inventor. Among his more enduring inven­tions are fluo­rescent light bulbs and alter­nating current. AC is the operating standard for all major elec­trical distri­b­ution the world over, and Tesla’s AC generator design is used to generate very nearly all of the elec­tricity on the commercial market. Having revo­lu­tionized the world with AC, Tesla next tried to move into wireless trans­mission of elec­tricity. Tesla constructed large air-​​core resonant trans­formers for the purpose, and was extremely successful in getting them to transmit high voltages great distances without wires. Tesla invented long-​​distance radio commu­ni­cation in 1897 and was awarded US patents on the tech­nology in 1900.

An upstart Italian, named Guglielmo Marconi, was working on achieving a similar feat. He was initially successful only in trans­mitting elec­trical signals a short distance. Nothing compared to what Tesla had been able to accom­plish at his Colorado Springs labo­ratory. Marconi applied for patents on radio tech­nology beginning in late 1900, after Tesla had been awarded his patents. Naturally, the US Patent Office denied Marconi’s applications.

Tesla is rumored to have once quipped,

Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using seventeen of my patents.

That Marconi used tech­nology that was covered by patents held by Tesla is a matter of historical record. Whether Marconi actually got the ideas from Tesla, or developed them on his own, is debatable. What is also known, however, is that Marconi’s major American investor was a man named Thomas Edison. Edison was also a prolific inventor, and was a proponent of direct current elec­trical trans­mission. The electric chair was invented by Edison, using Tesla’s alter­nating current, as part of the two inventors’ ongoing and often bitter feud. But so long as Tesla held the patents on the tech­nology Marconi was using in his radio exper­i­ments, Marconi could not obtain a patent.

That changed in 1904 when, for reasons unknown to history, the US Patent Office reversed its decision not to award Marconi a patent on the radio. Marconi also even­tually won the Nobel Prize for his “invention.” Tesla never won one, even though he made a much more lasting contri­bution to elec­trical science than any other inventor of his time. Tesla even­tually went broke and died in massive debt.

This is, I believe, what “Tesla was Robbed!” refers to. Not only the loss, during his life, of his radio patent, but the loss of the Nobel Prize to Marconi.

But Tesla wins in the end. In the same year as his death in 1943, the United States Supreme Court finally upheld Tesla’s prior patent on radio tech­nology. To this day, as a matter of US law, Tesla, not Marconi, is the inventor of the radio. Tesla has even triumphed over Edison. Edison’s most cele­brated inven­tions (phono­graph, movie projector, light bulb) have largely been replaced by tech­nologies that rely more heavily on Tesla’s contri­bu­tions (CDs, digital video projectors, fluo­rescent bulbs). Today, Tesla’s inven­tions touch and improve every corner of modern Western Civilization.

Snuff from Netflix

So I had Jesus Camp on my Netflix queue. A movie showed up yesterday. (Actually, two did, because Perfume: The Story of a Murderer came at the same time.) The sleeve said Jesus Camp, and the disc said Jesus Camp, but when I put it in the player to watch it, I discover, to my shock and horror, that it is a snuff film!

Well, long slow, brutal and graphic depic­tions of mass child abuse and the utter anni­hi­lation of children’s minds are as damn close to a snuff film as I’m going to get from Netflix. Hopefully. It might not quite be murder, but it is surely a depiction of death.

My favorite moment happened very near the beginning, when Pentecostal Youth Minister asks an audience of very young children and their parents, “who here believes that God can do anything?”

Cut to medium shot of mother and two young children. Mother grabs Children’s arms and raises Children’s hands for them. Which is exactly what you would expect. Because Evangelical Christianity is not about faith or hope or love or freely accepting Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior. It’s about indoc­tri­nation and control.

Documentaries are not my oversized mug of sweet, sweet berg­amotty Earl Gray. The genre is auto­mat­i­cally deceitful. The label “docu­mentary” attempts to place the veneer of objec­tivity on a production that is, essen­tially, inescapably, propa­ganda. The genre, as it exists today, was created by the Soviets expressly as a technique for agit-​​prop. See, e.g., Человек с киноаппаратом (Дзига Вертов 1929); Sergei Eisenstein, A Dialectic Approach to Film Form, in Film Form (1929). By attaching the term “docu­mentary” to a production, the producer is asserting that the film repre­sents an accurate document, without artistic comment, of reality. But this is never the case. The natu­ralist photog­rapher still takes photographs according to his artistic prin­ciples, which he uses to exclude or include content. Even the nihilist photog­rapher makes conscious decisions about his “art.” It is, I suggest, impos­sible to “document” reality in any way without making some kind of meta­physical value judgment about what is important to document and what is not. Documentarists’ and Goddard’s asser­tions of a quest for “truth in film” notwithstanding.

This isn’t to say that a film (or other piece of art) cannot depict truth. I only mean that docu­mentary film purports to present the truth of some arena of human affairs without the necessary value judgments involved in arriving at that truth. “Draw your own conclu­sions from the raw facts we present” is a perfect lie, because no one, not even the most accom­plished and well-​​studied docu­men­tarist, can evade the respon­si­bility of valuation.

So I come to the movie pretty biased against it. And indeed the film­makers assert that they are non-​​judgmental. It is quite clear, though, that they are not. It is easy to discern their political message (and really, all docu­mentary is political — even March of the Penguins, which purports to be a nature piece, ulti­mately impli­cates the politics of global warming), which is that funda­men­talist, evan­gelical Christians are ideo­log­i­cally similar to Islamic terrorists. This is in fact true, but relying the facts presented by a docu­mentary (which facts have already been filtered by the documentarist’s lens) in order to make that judgment is not an entirely objective method. Some docu­men­tarists recognize this, and bank on it. Michael Moore is an excellent example of a docu­men­tarist who recog­nizes the deceit, and relies on the average viewer to be less vigilant about the quality of the facts presented. Such docu­men­tarists can very effec­tively manip­ulate those who are intel­lec­tually relaxed (a condition the word “docu­mentary” helps to induce) in order to lead viewers to the desired final judgment. This is the essence of docu­mentary, which echoes right back to its Soviet agit-​​prop origins.

The film would have been of more interest to me had they spent more time on the effects of Evangelical indoc­tri­nation on the children. Sick as it is, I would have preferred to watch a film with more “child abuse” than was actually depicted. I would have had slightly more interest in a film that was trying to lead viewers to the conclusion that parental behavior of this sort consti­tutes child abuse, at least in an abstract moral sense. (Which is to say, I doubt whether the case can be effec­tively made that it is child abuse in a legalsense. Further inves­ti­gation into the hotly debated area of children’s rights is required.)

I did not dislike the film in the way I dislike Michael Moore’s docu­men­taries. But as a typical disin­genuous attempt to withhold judgment, it can not possibly earn a higher rating than:

**1/2

Tesla was Robbed!

Tonight’s House, M.D. is very enter­taining so far. House should have a 40-​​member team all the time!

Update: But next week’s “Dr. House Pulls a Kiefer in Flatliners” looks awful!

Update II: See The Secret for more on the meaning of “Tesla was Robbed!”

Blast from the Past

I’m quite busy. I have three large papers due in the next 7 days. So posts this week are likely to be on the rather fluffy side. Like this:

I used to watch this show when I was very young. The theme has been stuck in my head ever since. It would pop up, usually in the shower, from time to time, and I couldn’t place it. Then I stumbled on this. It was truly a delightful moment. I could feel my brain click.

Poor? Have a Baby!

Our Glorious American System of Welfare and Entitlement has been, in no small part and despite Bill Clinton’s inef­fectual efforts to the contrary, instru­mental in increasing the size of the Welfare-​​dependent popu­lation of this country. If you’re poor, one of the fastest ways to get money without having to do any [Ed: well, much] work is to have a baby.

Having more kids means you get more money from TANF, more food stamps from WIC, more tax credits, more free services.

Now, Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary R. Clinton wants to give every baby born in America an automatic five grand. The money (stolen from other Americans) would be put in a ‘bond’ that would allegedly increase in value until the baby turned 18, when the baby could cash out the ‘bond’ and and use it for, well, whatever. Apparently. Clinton thinks they’ll be used for education. Education I’m sure she hopes the government will provide. Where the government will get the money for this initiative, or the money to make that money “grow,” is left unsaid.

And of course the very last thing we need is more people having babies in order to get money from the government.

My favorite part is this quote from Democratic Key Midwestern State Representative:

Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until their 18?

The article had been corrected twice as of 10:30pm EDT today to add some comments form Clinton’s campaign and to correct Democratic Key Midwestern State Representative’s name. But somehow, the writer still managed to get the wrong “they’re.”

Also notice Democratic Key Midwestern State Representative’s assumption that each and every American citizen is equally respon­sible for a portion of the national debt. A debt many of those citizens never wanted, never applied for, never accepted, and, in exchange for accrual of which, never received any benefit.