Prove It All Night

I'm a firm believer that there is no right or wrong answer to anything. There are moral absolutes (this is how I can defend any political ideals I have...helps to hide behind morality - turns out the GOP doesn't have a hold on it...I digress) to be sure, but I'm talking about subjectivity here, people. Get hip to it. 

Some of the most irrational arguments I see from people are after seeing a movie, listening to a song, or reading a book. The classic is the simple, yet effective, "It's dumb." 

"Why didn't you like Munich?" "It's dumb." 

I used to write critiques of movies (some of them are archived on this very blog!) and, having never been known for brevity, used to write thousands of words explaining, in my humble opinion, that something didn't cater to my tastes. Saying "it's dumb" may not be entirely inadequate of a statement if you can back it up. 

I'll admit, some movies I've watched the only true reaction that comes to my mind is, "What a piece of trash. How ill-conceived and, quite frankly, stupid." I prefer the snotty, elitist approach at times like this. I never pass up a chance to expound my abhorrence for the movies that rub me raw. 

You ever talk to a musician about music? Oh, boy...this is the best. For some reason they forget that music isn't about who is the most technically proficient, or how the chord progression is simplistic and blah blah blah. I don't expect you to like Bruce Springsteen because I do. In fact, if you don't like his music, I hope you never ever listen to it. Why waste a moment of your time with it? But if you can't give me a better answer than "he sucks as a musician," your case, while clearly a step up from "it's dumb," doesn't hold all that much water with me. 

I really love the Oscars. This is a time when we get to see who's snobbery in taste is more influential, the quiet little Slumdog Millionaire type, or the mega-movie The Return of the King type. (Major caveat: my biggest dream in life is still to win an Oscar, so please take this into consideration when labeling me as someone who thinks they are holier than thou, because this post is me being facetious at many times). 

And, really, no one is free of snobbery. The rage pulsating through my veins when Springsteen didn't get even an Oscar nomination for "The Wrestler" (Note: he WON the Golden freakin' Globe!!!) was enough for me to run out and knock over a tall oak (tree). I wanted him to be voted the best in the world! (Or, really, I wanted him to be the winner of the popularity contest of the other four crappy songs he was nominated along with). 

Is the Academy wrong for giving Slumdog Millionaire all the attention it got? No. Were they right? Sure, because it's their ceremony, but that doesn't really mean that it was the Best Picture of last year. It's unknowable what movie that was. The best barometer of this is probably the highest grossing movie, which was The Dark Knight. And don't even get me started on that one! (I already vented on it here). 

What is all this about? 

I'm looking for subjectivity to come into our common vernacular. I love arguing for the heck of it just as much as the any self-conscience jackass in a debate between which route is quicker to our friend's house in North Ridgeville, but sometimes it goes too far. I don't think you're inadequate for liking a movie I don't, but I think it's unhealthy to give up explaining why, or, conversely, take the ill-informed I-can-shout-louder-than-you approach because you can't come up with anything better. You know why you do or don't like something. 

You don't need to write a blog about it, either. You don't need to get it down in MLA format or take me through some intellectual journey. 

Do you resent famous musicians with a particular sound because they aren't as technically proficient as the band you do like? It's not the proficiency, it's the sound. This argument holds more water - in fact...wait a minute...it holds water! 

Plainspoken is ok. It's wasn't Bush's inability to articulate a complete sentence that really bothered me. He really does seem like a guy you'd want to have a beer with or watch a ball game with. I don't think he is dumb, either. To avoid both a diatribe of my feelings on the Bush era and the risk of appearing like a hypocrite by simply saying, "He sucked as a president," I'll offer something a little more succinct - though non-specific. 

Under his reign, which coincided with my formative years in understanding my political leanings, I came face to face with an argument that my GOP friends still use on me to this day. "You may be a Democrat now, but just wait until you make some money for yourself." That's part one of the argument. The second part is the guilt-trip they lay on you. "We're giving handouts to people that live on welfare to avoid working for an honest living." 

As long as that is the argument that I hear on a daily basis, I'm going to resort to my guttural instinct, which is to work to defeat you. Wealth is unimportant to me. Sure, I want to live comfortably. I want a car that runs. I want a big screen tv. I want a nice computer. I want a nice place. (Note: I have all these things, and I ain't rich). My instinct is to help as many as possible, and I don't do it for extreme financial gain. I don't deserve to get rich for helping the poverty stricken. No one does. This is a guttural feeling. I can't paint you a picture, but it's there. And I'm not calling you dumb. 

I don't have all the answers, because it's all subjective. You just go out and prove your point to best of your ability. 

If someone proves theirs more effectively, chalk it up as a loss and go back to the drawing board. Your beliefs don't die on Election Day or on Oscar night. They live on. 

For Democrats, they haven't won definitively. Congresses only last two years. For Republicans, they haven't lost definitely. 

Who will win the next subjectivity battle? 

Time for us all to go out and prove our points. 

Scott.