On supposed liberal elitism

Often heard is the accusation that liberals form an "elite," a sub-stratum of society wholly antithetical to the values of "real Americans." Characteristic of this elite are their personal choices regarding reading material, residency, transportation and other affinities. Rarely is the Internet not laden with charges that "Volvo-driving, wine-sipping, NYC/SF-dwelling, gay-loving, college-graduating, Europe-worshipping, subtitled-film watching agnostics look down on 'real Americans'."

How is this any more elite than a truck, an SUV or a Hummer?

If one is to look closely at the elements so scorned by so many of these "real" Americans, one may find that they are hardly elite at all, just different from the mainstream. To begin with, a frequent generalization concerns the mode of transportation favored by these "elites." This, of course, would be the Prius or the Volvo. The Prius starts at just over $23,000, according to the Toyota website: http://www.toyota.com/sem/prius.html?srchid=K610_p312826639 while a Volvo can fetch for between $25,000 to $40,000. Either way, purchasing a Volvo or a Prius firsthand can incur considerable expense, but so can the purchase of a Hummer or a pick-up truck with the latest accoutrements from an American car company. While some could argue that the purchase of a hybrid car can induce a smug feeling of moral superiority on the part of the owner, so could being wholly reliant on public transport, something that is considered decidedly "non-elite" by much of mainstream America.

Despite rumors to the contrary, most subtitled films do make sense!

As for entertainment, it is often generalized that this "elite" would rather spend hours being entertained by the likes of Fellini or Bergman or Truffaut than NASCAR. To many, foreign films, particularly those bearing subtitles, are considered impenetrable and thus only appealing to a small sector of our society. Undoubtedly, some of the works of Fellini and Bergman may have limited appeal; however, several of these "elite" directors have made works that are easily accessible to the masses. Fellini films such as "I Vitelloni" and "Nights of Cabiria" offer no serious obstacles to the ordinary viewer and treat universal themes. So do many of the films by Kurosawa, Herzog and Bergman, particularly "Scenes from a Marriage," and "Wild Strawberries." An affinity for foreign film is not automatically exclusionary. The presence of subtitles does not necessarily indicate that the work is only accessible to those with a background in Jungian psychology or an MFA in film studies.

With color pictures, easy-to-understand vocabulary and entire sections dedicated to the trivial, how is this publication "elitist"?

As for reading material, the New York Times is often held up as the pinnacle of elitist journalism. Although the vocabulary level of the New York Times of today is nowhere close to what it was in, say, 1960, many believe that the Times utilizes a style that excludes the multitude. The Times is hardly impenetrable. As for the charge that it is "elitist," this would be valid if the editors began charging hundreds of dollars for a single copy, but as it stands, the New York Times, for all its flaws, is a very accessible publication that can be had for the same price as its competitors.

In my own lifetime of 37 years, these "elites," these individuals who show a fondness for foreign films, the New York Times and hybrid cars, are often not of the monied class, but are often academics who earn an income that is hardly staggering. The studio-dwelling San Franciscan with a boxed set of Ozu films and posters of Tosca and La Traviata on his walls is hardly an elite who poses a threat to the values of real Americans. The real threat comes from those who see exploitation, greed and violence as the necessary staples of our society.

Shakespeare Marathon, part IX: Henry IV, Part Two

            The maturation of the future King Henry V and the bawdy displays by Falstaff are probably the most salient parts of the two Henry IV plays. Having displayed his mettle in battle, the future Henry V finds himself increasingly drawn to his familial obligations and thus forsakes the company of the raffish Falstaff.
             It is unfortunate that I have not had the chance to watch Chimes at Midnight nor the BBC productions of the two Henry IV plays, matters to which I will attend when I am alloted free time later this week.
            For now, as of 1 November 2011, my readings/viewings have included:
1. All's Well that Ends Well (read; watched the BBC production)
2. Antony and Cleopatra (read; watched the BBC production)
3. As You Like It (read, watched the BBC production and I am almost finished watching the 1936 film adaptation with Olivier)
4. The Comedy of Errors (read; watched the BBC production)
5. Coriolanus (read; watched the BBC production)
6. Cymbeline (read)
7. Hamlet (read; watched the 1996 Kenneth Branagh adaptation and the 2009 RSC production featuring David Tennant and Patrick Stewart)
8. Henry IV, Part One (read)
9. Henry IV, Part Two (read)
10. Henry V (read)
11. Henry VI, Part One (read)
12. Henry VI, Part Two (read)
13. Henry VIII (read)
14. Julius Caesar (read; watched the 1950 film version starring Charlton Heston)
15. King John (read)
16. King Lear (currently reading; watched the 1971 version by Kozintsev)

Other parts of this marathon that stand out were this weekend's viewing of Kozintsev's 1971 adaptation of King Lear.

On the persistent accusation of "America supported the IRA"

Frequently lobbed at American participants in chat forums regarding terrorism is the accusation "you Yanks supported the IRA for decades and now you want to lecture the world on how evil terrorism is!" Unfortunately, such an inane generalization has gained currency in the on-line community. As is the case with such accusations, they have a habit of being repeated to the point where they lodge themselves into the popular consciousness and cannot be extricated easily.

The recent revelations that Rep. Peter King had indeed given money to the Irish Republican Army has bolstered this accusation. Rep. King is, however, hardly representative of the entire House of Representatives. No person, when queried as to how the U.S. subsidized IRA terrorism, has been able to offer examples of legislation passed by both houses allocating money to the Irish Republican Army. Lacking proof of such official U.S. patronage, the argument often turns to two other venues: the existence of NORAID and the collections undertaken in bars in New York and Boston among the Irish diaspora.

Organizations such as Clan na Gael and Noraid have certainly existed and have provided succour of  sorts to those on the Republican side in Ulster; however, to believe that small organizations within a nation of over 300,000,000 people substantiate the claim that "America supports the IRA" is ludicrous. What should one then think of Britain, a nation that has shown itself via public demonstrations, to be the home of more than one would-be Jihadist? Of the nation's 1,500 mosques, what if 10 were found to be linked to radical movements abroad? Would that then make Britain a "supporter of Islamic fundamentalist terror"? Hardly. The actions of certain individuals outside of our lawful bodies of legislation (save for Rep. King, who appears to be an isolated case), hardly makes a nation a supporter of terrorism.

What also needs to be remembered is that the IRA bombing campaigns did not transpire in England until the 1970s. As the Troubles intensified in 1969, a great deal of sympathy was felt worldwide for the Catholic minority in Ulster. Many individuals offering material aid to those on that side of the divide acted in good faith towards those seen as oppressed unfairly. Thus, not all aid offered to the minority in Ulster was geared towards the advocacy of terrorism; in fact, a great deal of it was aid with day-to-day living, a strenuous undertaking for those often denied employment and suitable housing. Althougn NORAID is an agency that has advocated on behalf of the Catholic minority in Ulster, NORAID is hardly indicative of U.S. legislation or the charitable inclinations of the U.S. majority. As stated previously, the presence of those individuals who support radical Islam within Britain hardly makes the United Kingdom a state supporter of Islamic extremism.

One other factor to which attention should be drawn is the inordinate amount of attention drawn to the IRA itself. The IRA is not without its adversarial counterparts. One need only look at the UDA (Ulster Defence Association), active from 1971 to 2007, to see that bloodshed was not inflicted solely by the Republican side. In addition to the UDA, Royalist paramilitary groups have also included:
The Ulster Volunteer Force (responsible for over 400 civilian deaths during the Troubles)
Loyalist Volunteer Force (responsible for 18 murders)
Red Hand Commando (responsible for 13 murders)
Ulster Young Militants
Ulster Resistance
UVF Mid-Ulster Brigade

Whether it be murder, arson, or acts of petty hooliganism, Royalist groups have also perpetrated violence upon people in the United Kingdom. Such facts should not be marginalized when entering into an analysis of the IRA and its history. The actions of the UDA or UVF do not in any way exonerate the IRA, but it should never be forgotten that they do not work within a vacuum. The real issue here is not so much the IRA or its counterparts on the other side of the ideological/religious divide. What stands at the forefront is how persistent an absurd accusation has become, particularly in light of the diversity and sheer size of the U.S. populace.

True crime on film: an introduction

The legitimacy of the true-crime genre was bolstered by the publication of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood (1965). Previously, those associated with genuine artistry were leery of being affiliated with the recreation of the heinous in the modern age. Although violence has been an integral part of much of great literature, documenting real-life atrocities of recent history has drawn the indignation of some literary critics. These critics often saw the true-crime genre as exploitative and unworthy of the serious artist. Capote helped change this, and literature was further enriched by Norman Mailer's The Executioner's Song, the re-telling of the tragic destiny of Gary Gilmore and his victims. Despite such legitimacy, there is often a certain degree of suspicion directed towards aficionados of true-crime narrative. Readers are sometimes dismissed as morbid, potential miscreants who gain amusement from the misfortunes of others. While utter immersion in the field of true crime may be disquieting over the long run, criminality has inspired excellent films that merit considerable attention.

Returning to the man who helped pioneer this literary genre among respected writers, Truman Capote saw his work of literature transformed into film in 1967. In Cold Blood, starring Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, is one of the most powerful re-enactments of a senseless slaughter ever brought to screen. The story concerns two young men, no strangers to the penal system who, upon release, decide to rob the safe of a seemingly prosperous Kansas farmer. Supplied with this faulty intelligence whilst incarcerated, the two cons are disappointed to learn that the farmer is no more a man of means than the two miscreants are men of honor. Enraged, the duo slaughter the entire family, an act of violence completely incomprehensible in peacetime to those resident in Holcomb, Kansas. The film wisely avoids sensationalism and focuses more on subdued character analysis of the murderer with whom Capote formed the closest bond. Robert Blake, the diminutive, former child star, is particularly moving as a criminal who has only known disappointment and has brought suffering upon others. What is most striking about In Cold Blood is the constant reminder that without each other, these two men would likely have never graduated from hooliganism to mass murder. By focusing on one individual, we are led to see that without the malign encouragement of the other, no such cataclysm would have taken place. In Cold Blood is a most worthy starting point for anyone determined to gain a good understanding of the criminal mind via the medium of film. It was remade several years later for television and featured the sadly under-utilized talents of Eric Roberts. While the 1967 production is the worthier of the two, the remake merits viewing as well.

The theme of Folie à Deux, a madness shared by two people, is not applicable to the preceding work. While the savagery of the Clutter Family slaughter could not have transpired without the efforts of two men, no indication of madness is ever given to the perpetrators. Theirs was a crime carried out in the heat of the moment by two desperate men, both eager to prove their masculinity to the other as well as dispose of evidence. In the case of Heavenly Creatures, a genuine exploration of madness is given us. Heavenly Creatures concerns the murder of Honora Parker in 1954 New Zealand. The act was carried out by her daughter and her daughter's closest friend whilst on a hiking trip outside Christchurch. The urge to matricide is generated by the decision of the concerned parents to seperate the girls from what they see as an unnatural attachment. The cinematic treatment of one of the uglier episodes in recent NZ history was given by Peter Jackson who attained even greater acclaim with the Lord of the Rings' series. Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey play the principals and the performances are universally good. Most striking, however, is the near-perfect ability of the camera to recreate the New Zealand of the Post-War period.

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Shakespeare Marathon, Part VIII: Henry IV, Part One

Witnessing the evolution from rogue to man of distinction is a pleasurable experience.  Nowhere is this more evident than in a re-reading of Henry IV, Part One. Hal, the young wastrel and disappointment to his father, is, along with Falstaff, the most distinct element of the play. Henry IV, Part One is yet another work completed in my quest to read and see performed all of Shakespeare's 37 plays. The only options I have for witnessing a performance of the text will be through the BBC series. One somewhat unorthodox alternative will be, of course, a viewing of Falstaff , or Chimes at Midnight (1966) by Orson Welles. One film that borrows much from the saga of young Prince Hal is My Own Private Idaho (1991), an updating of sorts set in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. This filmconcerns a youth born into distinction who surrounds himself with Falstaffian elements that make up the world of male hustling. For now, I have had the pleasure of either watching or reading All's Well that Ends Well, Antony and Cleopatra, As You Like It, The Comedy of Errors, Coriolanus, Cymbeline, Hamlet, Henry IV, Part One, Henry IV, Part Two and Henry V. As film adaptations go, I have not had the opportunity to move beyond the offerings of the BBC, although a viewing of As You Like It (1936) is in the works.

Shakespeare Marathon, part VII: Hamlet

To assume that I could add anything to textual analysis of Hamlet would be the height of arrogance. Having stated such, all I can add to the body of work done on this oft-analyzed tragedy are a few resources for those who enjoy cinematic adaptations of the play. To begin with, it is often stated that Olivier provided the definitive screen portrayal of the tortured Danish prince. Olivier, who also gave us Henry V (1944) and Richard III (1956), filmed this version of Hamlet in 1948.

http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Criterion-Collection-Laurence-Olivier/dp/0780021312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319060001&sr=8-1

Equally impressive is a Soviet adaptation by Kozintsev that premiered in 1964. To purchase it from Amazon, here is the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Grigori-Kozintsevs-Original-Widescreen-Special/dp/B004Q87DBQ/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319060085&sr=1-3

1964 was also significant for this work as Richard Burton brought the character of Hamlet to life on the Broadway stage. A non-dress rehearsal of the play has been released on DVD:
http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Burtons-Hamlet-Burton/dp/B00000JMON/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319060142&sr=1-1

The BBC has proven to be the greatest resource for Shakespeare purists, and Hamlet is part of the series undertaken in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Derek Jacobi plays the tortured Dane in this particular production.

Purists were alarmed at the prospect of Mel Gibson, previously known primarily for action films, as Hamlet. Franco Zeffirelli, who had already given us the definitive Romeo and Juliet in 1968, was at the helm for this offering. It's available at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Mel-Gibson/dp/B00019072G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319060818&sr=8-1

Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is, along with the BBC version, the most faithful to the original text. Although not a commercial success, his 1996 version is well regarded. One can obtain further details here: http://www.amazon.com/William-Shakespeares-Hamlet-Two-Disc-Special/dp/B00005JLCI/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319060904&sr=1-1

Updated to modern-day Manhattan, Ethan Hawke's Hamlet  (2000) finds the tormented soul pitted against the barons of corporate America. Bill Murray and Kyle MacLachlan also star.
http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Ethan-Hawke/dp/B00004Z4RP/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319061369&sr=8-2

For something even more unorthodox, Akira Kurosawa, who many believe gave us the ultimate in King Lear with Ran (1985) and Macbeth with Throne of Blood (1957), also gave a modern take on Hamlet with a corporate setting. This film is known as The Bad Sleep Well and is available at Amazon as well: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Sleep-Well-Criterion-Collection/dp/B000BR6QCI/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319061587&sr=1-1

A collection of the dumbest things you will always hear despite the truth being within reach

If I were to collect the number of declarations uttered as though they were truthful, it would go beyond the limits of what constitutes my knowledge of numbers. So often we hear the following questions or statements that can so easily be answered or discredited. What is disturbing is that in our information age when a question can be answered or a statement invalidated, these questions and statements have a way of popping up time and time again. These are some of the most persistent ones:

Actually, we can!

1. If man evolved from apes, how come we still have apes? No matter how many times this is answered, someone will ask it again and again. Evolutionary biologists do not posit that man evolved from apes; on the contrary, the theory of evolution puts forth that we share a common ancestor with our animal cousins. Now, asking questions is the first step towards eliminating ignorance, but this question has been asked and answered so many times now that you would think it unnecessary to bring it up as many times as it has been raised.

2. The only reason Canada can afford to have 'socialized medicine' is because we Americans provide all their defense for them? Really? Defense from what? The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. Even during the Cold War, did any rational person think that the Soviets were going to attempt a land invasion of Canada? Think of the logistics involved in trying to occupy a land mass that size. The Soviets could not subordinate Afghanistan, a much smaller nation. How would they have subjugated Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon and other provinces and territories?

3. Canada's a neutral nation....they're like America, except they're not brave like us! Right, the country that entered WWI three years before the United States, entered WWII two years before the United States, fought in Korea, the First Gulf War and has undertaken some of the riskiest combat operations in Afghanistan is a nation of cowards. I am sure you could be a great hit at a Canadian comedy club by pointing out their neutrality.

4. Canadians are always coming to America to get their health care; in fact, everyone comes here for their health care! Actually, I won't answer this. I'll just allow you to access the data that is so easily obtained. Please desist from making this statement unless you have the actual statistics stating how many, out of the world's population, come to America for health care. Please look it up!

I am sure that the CEO of IKEA will be shocked to learn that the Swedish government owns all the means of production!

5. Sweden is a socialist nation! I am sure that the CEOs of Volvo, IKEA, Scania, Saab and several other industries will be surprised to hear this! Look up the dictionary definition of socialism, please!

Doesn't look suicidal to me, which puts her in the same category as the overwhelming majority of her fellow Swedes!

6. Sweden has the highest suicide rate on Earth! No, that dubious honor goes to Lithuania. Sweden's not even in the top ten; in fact, no Scandinavian nation is!

Yes, because if ever a man embodied Hitler's ideal, it's a Black American!

7. Hitler was a socialist! Just look at the name of his party, the National Socialists! All right, please tell us five economic policies pursued by Hitler once in power that proved him to be a socialist. Also, do you believe North Korea is democratic owing to its name which has the word "democratic" in it?

8. The French are a bunch of cowards! Just look at their military history....all defeats and surrenders! Why not get a book at look at the lengthy history of French victories in battle? If you want, here is one reliable source: http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp

Wonder what percentage of the "hate-France crowd" enlisted to fill in the French vacancies during the Iraq invasion

While I am thoroughly grateful to the American military for all that it has done for us, we have not been characterized by victory after victory either. As part of an international coalition, we had a stalemate in Korea, a defeat in Vietnam, we had thousands of men evading the draft during the Vietnam war, we did not achieve our ultimate goal of ousting Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, we withdrew from Somalia and have been entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan for a longer period of time than we were involved in WWII. Also, has anyone noticed that the types who usually belittle France are often not war heroes themselves, but overweight couch potatoes who would probably flee if they were within 100 miles of a war zone?

Why these falsehoods and inane questions continue to prevail I will never understand. It is my hope that with greater access to reliable sources of information, people will stop repeating falsehoods.

Shakespeare Marathon, Part VI: Cymbeline

Pre-Saxon Britain, Roman incursions, cross-dressing, banishment, friendship betrayed.....these are all elements of Cymbeline, an under-performed work by Shakespeare. Cymbeline has been the sixth work by Shakespeare I have taken on in sequence since beginning this quest over a week ago. What has not accompanied this reading has been a viewing of a cinematic adaptation. Unfortunately, as is the case with several of the Bard's lesser romances, adaptations are sparse. Once again, I will have to resort to the BBC to see enacted what I have just finished reading.

Cymbeline is reminiscent of As You Like It owing to the following features: female disguised as male, banishment from the king's demesne and joyous reunion at last. The story concerns the Celtic king Cymbeline, who is based upon Cunobelinus. The king's daughter Imogen is loved by Posthumus, who is sent into exile by the king upon his discovery that the youth has married his daughter. Posthumus, while estranged from his true love, enters into a wager with the amoral Iachimo, who professes his capacity for seducing the true love of the forlorn young man. Hoodwinked by Iachimo, Posthumus arranges for his man-servant Pisanio to murder Imogen. Pisanio, gentle of heart, is unable to carry out the deed and allows Imogen to flee whilst disguised as a boy. Hiding in the hinterlands of her country, Imogen is taken in by Belarius, a former confederate of Cymbeline who was unjustly banished years prior. Belarius is the guardian of the two sons of Cymbeline, whom he took as his own, leaving the king unaware of their fates. As Britain is unsuccessfully invaded once again by Rome, the principals find themselves united in a most unlikely fashion leading to an ultimately peaceful resolution.

This entry into the marathon will be revised as soon as I have the chance to take in the BBC production of the play and finally see it dramatized.

Sorry, "conservative media" is not an oxymoron!

Repeated breathlessly and with little thought is the reminder that "liberals own the media," or that "conservatives have so little media representation." For many, this has become almost axiomatic. To take this lament seriously would be to acknowledge that conservatives are a marginalized group when it comes to representation in television, print and radio. The truth is quite different. No matter how many times the right decry the "liberal media," the fact remains that there are several sources of conservative information out there that are hardly underground.

To begin with, who can deny the power of that media colossus FOX News? Since 1996, FOX has given conservative Americans their much sought-after programming. Rupert Murdoch, the founder of FOX, is hardly a marginal figure in modern media. His reach now extends to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and several other media. In addition to Murdoch's channel, several of the pundits from FOX have branched out into publishing and produce regular columns for on-line publications. These include Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, hardly people one would consider to be on the margins of the political debate.

Further additions to conservative media are the numerous publications that have a rightist slant. These include:
1. The American
2. The American Interest
3. American Outlook
4. The American Thinker
5. Chronicles: a Magazine of American Culture
6. The Claremont Review of Books
7. Commentary
8. The Dartmouth Review
9. First Things
10. Front Page
11. Harvard Salient
12. Human Events
13. Imprimis
14. Jewish World Review
15. The National Interest
16. The National Review
17. The New Atlantis
18. The New Criterion
19. Policy Review
20. The Princeton Tory
21. The Saturday Evening Post
22. Southern Partisan
23. The Weekly Standard
24. World

These publications, combined with the ubiquity of Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, David Horowitz, Charles Krauthammer, S.E. Cupp, Michael Savage and several others, hardly lend credibility to the claim that conservatives are marginalized.

Conservatives have every right to media that reflect their views, just as their opponents in the ideological divide have every right to their own media. It would be a sad state of affairs if such publications were forbidden; however, the myth that conservatives lack a media is indicative of a victim mentality, something conservatives so often accuse the left of possessing. The publications and spokesmen that are mentioned within this article are hardly difficult to access. What conservatives need to do is to recognize that while several news' sources do have a progressive bent, conservatives are hardly lacking for an alternative.

Why can't criminals be called "job creators" too?

I have often heard the justification for tax breaks being given to corporations and to people of high incomes with: "rich people create jobs." While it is true that multi-national corporations employ numerous people, we seem to have overlooked another source of employment: criminals. Criminals not only employ people, they also generate employment outside of the criminal sector thanks to their illegal acts.

A job creator before his incarceration and a job facilitator afterwards. Just ask the men who are paid to guard him!

How inactive would our judicial system be without criminals? Think of how redundant judges and prosecutors would become. What would happen to law enforcement? How many would not be able to pursue a career in that very field if it weren't for criminals? Think also of the prison industrial complex. Look at the growth of private prisons! They would not be able to thrive if it were not for criminals. Criminals, because of their acts, generate much-needed employment. The millions of judges, guards, police officers and attorneys can attest to this fact.

The man's a job creator; how can you not love him?

If one's validation comes from being a "job creator," then it is about time we pay tribute to our nation's criminals? Without them, several sectors of our working population would see themselves destitute. If the thieving CEO of a corporation can be excused with the justification of "he's a job creator," why not apply it to the shoplifter or the stick-up man? Without them, a whole sector (law enforcement) would find itself "made redundant."

"Scandinavia has the highest suicide rates on Earth" and other mythology

Attempts to discredit the success of societies where relatively generous social-welfare programs are the norm are legion. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Scandinavia. To many, the idea of applying tax dollars towards maternity leave, public transport, education and health care rather than overextending the military industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned us is anathema. One such attempt to disparage the relative success attained by the countries of Northern Europe is with the introduction of the "fact" that those nations have the highest suicide rates on Earth. This is a patent falsehood.

One may ask, "what is to be gained by the propagation of such a lie?" Much is to be gained. The idea that spending primarily on the general welfare of the populace leads to self murder has its benefits. People are conditioned to believe that such a society is one where the populace would rather die by their own hands than live under a form of capitalism that uses taxes to bankroll the necessary pillars of a civil society. In doing so, the American population are further conditioned to accept a negative status quo within their own society. What is disturbing is how five nations, where the free market, and not socialism, is the norm, are described as "socialist," which completely contravenes the dictionary definition of the term. Scandinavia is neither socialist nor does it feature the highest suicide rates on Earth. Not one Scandinavian nation is in the top ten for suicide rates. In addition, private industry thrives in Scandinavia and the free market is an integral part of those societies. The notion that the Scandinavian governments wholly control the means of production is ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is the perception that the Nordic peoples are killing themselves at the highest rate on Earth. Although I have found great faults with Wikipedia, the following statistics were culled directly from the World Health Organization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

It is my hope that this brief article will dispel the myth regarding Scandinavia. Such mythology is pernicious on many levels as it indicates an unsettling trend within our society. This trend, of course, is one where people can be led to believe something so utterly false when the facts are readily available.

I do not expect America to become a mirror reflection of Scandinavia. Such an aspiration is ludicrous given the differences in population and demographics. What I do hope for is that more people will reject lies proffered by the talking heads of our media and the self-proclaimed pundits of the Internet. For now, Scandinavia may have its imperfections as all societies do, but not one Scandinavian nation ranks in the top ten for suicide. One can hope, however naively, that the truth will grain traction and that the lies about suicide in Scandinavia will be swept aside by reality.

Why aren't people who watch hours and hours of TV told that they have "too much free time on their hands"?

Leisure time is a scarce commodity in American society; thus, how it is spent is of concern to many. For most, television watching is the preferred activity during idle hours. The individual who watches ca. 3 hours of television per night is hardly an anomaly. In fact, the nightly television viewer is hardly at a loss to find the like-minded within greater society. To discard television watching as an activity with absolutely no merit is myopic, to say the least. Although programming has been kept, for the most part, at a consistently low level since television's inception, certain networks have done us a service culturally and intellectually. In the modern era, viewers can opt to watch shows concerning history, travel, cuisine, classic cinema, diet and exercise, as well as art appreciation. However laudable these programs may be, they do not represent the bulk of commercial programming. One is more likely to come across inane sitcoms, tawdry reality shows, shallow reporting of current events, absurdly easy game shows, unintentionally funny soap operas and other detritus unlikely to stimulate the mind. Despite the dross broadcast over the airwaves, dedicating one's free time to immersion within this medium is more than accepted; in fact, it is encouraged.

The individual who dedicates three to four hours a night to watching that which provides no enrichment is hardly likely to see himself castigated for how he spends his idle moments. In fact, he will most likely find an eager group of like-minded individuals who will gladly join him in discussing the previous night's entertainment. The same cannot be said for he who spends his spare moments in study of that which is hardly remunerative. Let us compare a person who watches a nightly diet of sitcoms and reality shows to someone who spends his free moments studying dead languages, obscure literature or anything that is relatively arcane. The former is unlikely to be confronted with the accusation of "you have too much free time on your hands," whereas the latter, should he confess that his leisure time is spent engrossed in studying Sanskrit or cataloguing the greatest examples of dulcimer music, may find his use of his own time under scrutiny.

Likely to result in the accusation of "you have too much free time on your hands!"

Not likely to raise an eyebrow, even if your primary hobby is not only watching this show, but also contributing to its fan sites!

This is not to say that the "couch potato" is never subjected to criticism, but his inactivity and passivity are far more socially acceptable than one who expends much mental activity on that which is unlikely to result in monetary gain. The concept of dedicating one's mental abilities to something that has no financial reward is alien to too many. It is a distressing fact that many who indulge in activities of the mind that promise no compensation other than personal satisfaction are perceived as going against the grain in a negative way. This is an unfortunate feature of our modern society. How one spends one's leisure time is, of course, one's own business, but if the declaration of "you have too much free time on your hands," is given readily to he who spends his nights archiving medieval texts, why should it not be applied to someone who has spent the past hour immersed in "Jersey Shore" or some other inanity?

Should conservative celebrites "shut up and sing" also?

The indignation expressed by many on the right towards celebrities who offer somewhat left-of-center opinions is a curious one indeed. The exceptions taken by conservatives towards the actual opinions are, of course, understandable, but what is striking is the mantra espoused by those same guardians of traditional order: "shut up and sing." Thus Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio-show host entitled her best-selling book as such, and many on the right have taken to chiding celebrities who "overstep" their boundaries and offer political commentary. Outrage that Barbra Streisand, Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Harry Belafonte deviate from their expected roles as entertainers and enter into the political fray is hypocritical when one considers the number of entertainers who have spoken in support of conservative causes.

The belief that an entertainer should stay within his chosen profession and express no political point of view is a misguided one. While the entertainer may offer an opinion that owes little to logic, he is exercising the right for which his forefathers risked all. Whether Mr. Damon or Ms. Streisand offer genuine insight is mostly irrelevant; they, like any other citizen, are expressing what is rightfully theirs: their thoughts on current events. Simply because they have attained fame through the entertainment industry does not negate their right to engage in the same activity enjoyed by those of us who live anonymously within society.

Returning to the theme of hypocrisy, it is curious to see how it is almost always celebrities who express a dissenting point of view who are subject to this rebuke of "you're just an actor; it's not your job to lecture us about politics!" Although most Hollywood luminaries are admittedly left of center, several have shown themselves to be conservatives, and quite vociferous ones, I might add. If actors were to take the advice proffered so often regarding overstepping boundaries, would not conservatives have been deprived of their iconic statesman Ronald Reagan? Reagan, as you recall, was the star of films ranging from the masterly King's Row to the buffoonery of Bedtime for Bonzo. Reagan is hardly the sole exception among Hollywood stars. Several others, some of whom are no longer with us, have at some point shown themselves to be champions of conservative causes. Those actors include:

Steve Baldwin (prominent born-again Christian)
Kelsey Grammer (noted Republican)
Bo Derek (attendee at the GOP convention and supporter of George W. Bush)
Duane "The Rock" Johnson (George W. Bush supporter)
Scott Baio (Republican)
Jon Voight (Republican)
Charlton Heston (NRA spokesman)
Shannon Doherty (Republican)
Jason Priestley (publicly called on Americans to support George W. Bush at the start of the Iraq War)
James Woods (has shown himself to be aligned with conservative ideology on more than one occasion)
Dennis Hopper (shortly before his death, Mr. Hopper was known to have been a supporter of the Republican party although he did not vote for McCain in 2008)
Tom Selleck (promoted The National Review)
Dennis Miller (conservative comedian)
Chuck Norris (prominent conservative)
Ron Silver (prominent conservative during his lifetime)
Kirk Cameron (born-again Christian)
Pat Boone (prominent conservative and Christian)
James Stewart (Reagan supporter)
Fred Thompson (politician and actor)
John Wayne (proud supporter of the Vietnam War)
Jim Caviezel (political conservative and devout Catholic)
Patricia Heaton (noted advocate of family values)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (former Republican governor of California)
Ted Nugent (prominent Republican and champion of the NRA)
Jessica Simpson (supporter of George W. Bush)

Now, so many of the aforementioned celebrities have been honored guests on FOX and have been applauded for the opinions offered; yet, what is striking is that when their left-wing counterparts in Hollywood do the same on other networks, they are vilified. As pointed out, they are not just vilified for their viewpoints, but rather for having the temerity to speak them and engage in something outside the arena with which they are associated. The hypocrisy is flagrant. Although the viewpoints offered by Robert Redford or Tim Robbins may be distasteful to many, these actors are hardly required to limit themselves to the craft with which they are primarily associated. America is a society where freedom of speech is zealously guarded and the idea that only entertainers in favor of the conservative status quo should have a platform from which to express their views is a dangerous one.

All of us, whether celebrities or not, have the right to make our views known. Should one find the views of these media stars objectionable, you are in possession of the same right to let your dissent be known as well. Thanks to the Internet, you also have a stage from which you can make your thoughts visible to many. Whether it's Kelsey Grammer or Susan Sarandon is irrelevant, both are Americans and both have the right to express how they feel. To imply that the latter should silence herself while the former should go on network television to air his opinions is a ludicrous notion that brings nothing positive to our society.