Perspectrum: Teen Pregnancy Edition

Just a couple of comments on two stories dominating the headlines today:

 

By Alex Koppelman
TUESDAY, FEB. 17, 2009 11:20 EST

Bristol Palin says abstinence “not realistic”

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only sex education. Her daughter, however, may be a different story.

Monday night, Fox News broadcast an interview that its Greta Van Susteren conducted with 18-year-old Bristol Palin, who recently became the mother of a baby boy. During the interview, Van Susteren brought up the inevitable question, asking, “I don’t want to pry to personally, but I mean, actually, contraception is an issue here. Is that something that you were just lazy about or not interested, or do you have a philosophical or religious opposition to it or…?”

“No. I don’t want to get into detail about that,” Palin responded. “But I think abstinence is, like — like, the — I don’t know how to put it — like, the main — everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it’s not realistic at all.”

Of course, Palin was only saying what most of us already know — abstinence-only programs don’t work.

 

” … everyone should be abstinent or whatever …“

Well, which is it, Bristol:  abstinence or “whatever”?

 

13-Year-Old Dad Cashes In

While America fixates on Nadya Suleman and her brood, Britain has developed a tabloid obsession of its own with Alfie, the 13-year-old, four-foot tall father. According to The Telegraph, “Alfie’s crash course in adulthood has introduced him to a world where everything has a price, but little has value.” His life now includes a PR guru “drafted in by the parents apparently to maximise the earning potential of their children. Or exploit them, as it is also known. … In such circumstances, it’s hard not to be judgmental – not so much of Alfie and Chantelle, but of the adults who surround them, and those who have seized on their misfortune to market rather than protect them. The real outrage is not that two children had sex and made a baby, lamentable though that may be, but that in some quarters, parental rights and responsibilities have been warped beyond recognition, and children are being reduced to commodities, to be used, abused or discarded at will.”

 

There is no. way. this kid’s name is really Alfie.

Theater of the Absurd

For the British comedy series Extras, Ricky Gervais convinced Kate Winslet to spoof her own Oscar-seeking career. Her character tells Gervais’ that the surest way to strike gold with the Academy is to star in a “Holocaust film.” This year, Winslet seems poised prove that it was funny because it’s true, having otherwise-inexplicably become the front-runner in the Best Actress category for her portrayal of a former SS officer in The Reader. (In Extras, she played a nun — about the furthest thing from The Reader‘s frisky Fräulein.)

Unless, that is, the Academy misses the point of its award just like they missed the mark with this year’s nominations.

 

Winslet Under Fire for Nazi Role

Joel Ryan / AP Photo
While Holocaust movies are seen by some as one of the fastest routes to an Oscar, accusations of an overly sympathetic portrayal of Nazis in The Reader may cost Kate Winslet a Best Actress win. The head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which confronts anti-Semitism around the world, has called the film “Holocaust revisionism.” Film critics have suggested that the film lets Winslet‘s character, a death camp guard who helped burn 300 Jewish women in a church, off easy and some have complained that its depiction of ordinary Germans as unaware of the crimes being committed against European Jews is inaccurate. Opponents of the movie are circulating emails among Academy members in an effort to block the film from winning any major awards, The Sunday Telegraph reports.

It’s a shame that if The Reader does poorly at the Oscars, people may be able to say that it was because of this protest campaign, rather than the fact that’s an abysmally bad movie.

Members of the Academy would be missing the point if they chose not to support The Reader because of its questionable portrayal of Nazi Germany. If a movie can present a compelling story with fascinating characters in an artful way, its historical veracity can become a question of “What is the film trying to say?” rather than “What did the filmmakers get wrong?” Since The Reader has none of the above, its treatment of the Holocaust has become the focal issue.

And it’s easy to misinterpret. The action is driven by a character who is sociopathic, but she is never acknowledged as such. The audience is meant to “read” her lack of normal social responses as a character quirk, and so it’s within reason to wonder if her complete remorselessness about her role in the death of hundreds of Jews is tacitly pardoned by the filmmakers.

I don’t think that’s the effect they were trying to create. But they fill this film with so many unrelatable and unbelievable interactions that you almost want to be able to accuse them of something far more heinous than artistic cluelessness. It’s supposed to be a dramatic moment when Winslet’s Hannah reveals that she has no problem taking full responsibility for manslaughter, lying to the court, and exonerating her fellow killers in order to spare herself the embarrassment of having her illiteracy discovered. But since we’ve been given no good reason to care about this person, her choice comes off as crazy at best and loathsome at worst.

I can understand the argument that the movie makes light of Holocaust complicity by seeming to redeem the character through literacy, especially when reading was all she cared about to begin with. But as for the complaint that the German people are portrayed as innocently ignorant, I can’t see how that notion is conveyed. Willfully ignorant, perhaps, but not innocent. Whatever the case, the film should be judged by its creative content rather than its view of historical events.

Kate Winslet deserves an Oscar this year, but despite The Reader, not because of it. She should’ve been nominated Revolutionary Road.  And if you want to see a movie that uses the Holocaust as a backdrop for an intimate drama, watch The Remains of the Day.  Anthony Hopkins’ eyes speak volumes.

What so proudly inhaled

The world’s most famous pothead, who also swims occasionally, still hasn’t finished apologizing for getting caught. The New York Times reported today that Michael Phelps’ endorsement deal with Japanese zoom manufacturer Mazda was on the line until he agreed to videotape an apology … to the people of China.

Apparently, the citizens of Japan, the Americas, and the rest of the world should be okay with it by now, but China still needs some reassurance that Phelps understands how much his actions hurt their feelings.  Despite the fact that he competed for the United States and single-finndedly gave the Chinese the biggest thrashing they received in the Games, the people of China laid claim to the greatness of what he accomplished within their borders.  Oriental culture places a high premium on integrity and honor, and how can the good people of Mazda expect to move automobiles in this economy if their spokesman spits chlorinated bong water in the face of their highest ideals?  Or so goes their logic, apparently.

Seriously, the arrogance of these corporations who think they can decide for an entire society that an apology is necessary.  How patronizing!  Maybe that was the entire point, come to think of it.  The Japanese leadership of Mazda is slyly insulting the Chinese by suggesting that they give two shakes of a dolphin’s tail about an American swimmer committing a misdemeanor in his own country.

Do we really need to be reminded that China basically owns the United States?  They’re probably laughing about the fact that we’ve hamstrung our already hobbled economy by pulling advertising campaigns and wasting time on corporate memos for the sake of making sure that no one thinks we support athletic achievement and drug use.

Girth of a Nation

As the economy continues to shrink and consumers narrow their field of options when it comes to discretionary spending, we keep hearing about mergers, take-overs, and corporate restructuring that reflects this going-down-the-drain sensation. Here‘s an article about the proposed combining of entertainment megaliths Ticketmaster and LiveNation. The writer wonders, along with the rest of industry, whether or not this will create an issue with monopoly and anti-trust regulations.

My guess is that it won’t, even if only because the rules of the game are changing, and everyone seems to be most concerned with keeping the money flowing, regardless of how tight the channels become. I don’t think we’ll have to worry about price escalations either, for the same reason: if people have less to spend, they’ll either go for a bargain or stay home, and that doesn’t help anyone in show business. I’m more concerned about the customer service issues that arise inevitably when one company controls too much of an industry’s market.

As the manager of a Ticketmaster outlet and frequent “patron” of live entertainment, I can say with some degree of expertise that it’s already difficult to resolve issues whenever a problem arises relating to ticketing for a major event. And as anyone who’s ever been locked in to a contract with a phone company will tell you, it becomes exponentially more difficult to find a competent, helpful service advisor when the company knows you can’t go elsewhere for those services at the drop of a hat. If Ticketmaster and Live Nation become Live Nation Entertainment, I would worry about what might happen when I get a live person on that AT&T-controlled phone of mine.

Danson queen

I truly owe a debt of gratitude to Best Week Ever’s Michelle Collins. Not only does she keep me laughing on a daily basis with her hilariously sharp commentary on our modern-day absurdities, I can always count on her to give me something to co-opt for my own blogging purposes.

This one won’t mean much to anyone who’s not familiar with the FX series “Damages,” but for those who can’t get enough of the show’s extreme(ly uncomfortable) close-ups of Ted Danson — cheers.

HOTTIES OF THE DAY: Ted Danson and Phillipe Cousteau
By Michelle Collins

Whooooo lawwwwwwd oooo my gawwwwwd. Did any of you know about the world’s most famous aquaman Jacques Cousteau’s incredible gene pool? His grandson, Phillipe Cousteau from the Ocean Conservancy, appeared alongside Ted Danson during a hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee examining the effects of offshore oil drilling.

And something tells me this guy knows a thing or two about offshore drilling…

Heyeaux! (That’s French.) And what of Danson? Clearly, he also wants a taste:

Ahead, the twosome discover their true feelings for each other in a glance that is worth a thousand words…

Jejune bugs. Juno?

We’re less than two weeks away from Hollywood’s biggest night, and so far the front runners are still “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” which led the nominations with 13.  My problem with these movies is that they don’t have a good enough reason for existing.

In both cases, the filmmakers expected that audiences would be so enthralled by the big gimmick that they wouldn’t mind the banality of the story lines or the shallowness of the characters.  In Button, the gimmick is obvious: man ages backwards, and not just any man — a de-glamorized Brad Pitt!   The very idea of a man growing young is supposed to compensate for the Forrest Gump plot devices and tritely-drawn characters.  It works for about 5 minutes, and the movie is considerably longer.

With Slumdog, the gimmick is the setting: exotic India! We’re meant to be so overwhelmed by the frenetically-filmed scenes of poverty and degredation that we couldn’t possibly care about such petty concerns as likeable protagonists or an inventive story structure.  Just as Button apes Gump, Slumdog mimics “The Usual Suspects” to create a ridiculously contrived framework for its overwrought, under-thought fable.

from top to bottom

Both of these films were directed by men who know better.  David Fincher made a name for himself by challenging conventional cinematic storytelling with fascinating character studies, and Danny Boyle has reinvigorated more than one genre with his stylishly dark visions.  Maybe it’s the economy, maybe it’s the shortage of angst in the age of Obama, or maybe it’s just me, but my friends, I think we’ve been hoodwinked.

Where are all the grown-ups?

Every year when Oscar season rolls around, I find myself scrambling to see as many of the nominated movies as possible, so I know what all the buzz is about.  This often involves seeing films that I would’ve skipped otherwise, but I like to believe that The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is, as the ponderous name would suggest, a bastion of quality and an eminently respectable arbiter of taste.  ”In a world” where ceremonious self-congratulation has become anyone’s game, it’s nice to able to think that the imprimatur of a select few well-established institutions still carries timeless cultural significance.

Which is why I’m so concerned that this year’s Oscars is looking like the People’s Choice Awards.

Music makes the world go ’round.

The technological wonder that inspired yesterday’s post came courtesy of The New York Times’ David Pogue, who turned me on to yet another an amazing iPhone application: Ocarina.  I’ve seen other app’s that turn your iPhone into a musical instrument using the touch screen, so when I read that this one is composed of circles that simulate the openings on a flute, I wasn’t terribly impressed.   Until I started discovering why Mr. Pogue chose to feature this particular program.

In addition to the touch screen, the application uses the phone’s microphone to help you create the sound, by blowing into it.  And rather than just a simple, straight tone, a nice vibrato is produced by tilting the phone, which employs the accelerometer.  The program also utilizes the iPhone’s massive computing power with a feature that allows you to change the musical key.  But most amazingly, the program taps in to the device’s GPS, internet connectivity, and gorgeous graphic display.

With the touch of an icon, a map of the earth appears, covered in flickering lights.  As the sounds of Ocarina float through the iPhone’s speaker, the world turns and the map zooms in on someone else using the same application at that very moment.  You can listen for a while and rate the performance, or scroll across the globe to the next nearest player.  Or you can pipe in with a tune of your own for others to hear.

Yesterday I listened in awe to “Amazing Grace” in Indonesia, “The Hills Are Alive” in Scotland, and “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” in New York.  Inspired to create some music of my own, I pulled up the company’s website, where users can post “sheet music” to a community message board.  It took me a few tries to get the rhythm right, but before long I was evoking a scene from space as the notes of John Williams’ Superman theme went out across the continents.

Name me another phone that can do that.

This discovery speaks to my fascination with all things technological.  Similar to music and other forms of art, the development of computers and mobile applications is a creative process with the potential to change the ways we see the world and interact with it.  I haven’t been blessed with the skill to contribute to those endeavors, but I love to follow what’s new on the scene and see how previous ideas have been built upon and taken in new directions — just like I do with music.

At their best, these advancements can take us beyond our own little world in ways heretofore unimagined. And if nothing else, they can entertain us while we’re waiting for the next big thing.

It’ll come to you.

That’s the slogan for the new Palm Pre cell phone, recently unveiled and hailed as the next leap forward in mobile technology.  The catchphrase refers to the phone’s ability to pull information from multiple online calendars, contact databases, and e-mail accounts, synthesizing them into one intuitive program.  It looks very impressive.  I’ve always loved the Palm operating system, and this really does appear to be a major advancement in design and functionality.

The Pre is the only phone I’ve seen that does effectively what Apple has done so successfully: create an “image” that sets it apart.  It’s got a great name – much better than all those LG and Motorola whatevers (“Dare,” “Razr,” etc.) – and the design emulates the iPhone but doesn’t feel like an uninspired imitation.

iPhone killer? Prease.

But the slogan also describes what makes the iPhone so much more than a phone — the App Store, where independent software developers can sell – and develop – their programs for mass distribution with astonishing ease.  Once you’ve paid for an application (or downloaded it for free) you simply enjoy its current iteration while the creators work on improving it.  Whenever glitches are fixed or features added, the new version is delivered directly to your phone with the touch of an icon — at no additional charge!  And a similar process applies to the operating system itself; when updates to the iPhone software are made available, they show up automatically in your computer’s iTunes program.

As far as I know, Palm has yet to create a comparable method for the continuous expansion and evolution of its products’ capabilities, and until they do, Apple will continue to come first.

Make it one for my baby.

I’m surprised by how frequently I enjoy reading the posts in Salon.com‘s “Broadsheet” section — written, as the name suggests, F.W.B.W. (for women by women).  But I like to think I’m “in with the ladies,” and I found today’s post of particular interest.  I’ve reprinted the entire article here, with my commentary interspersed.

 

Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009 12:00 PST

Is it “irresponsible” to have more than two children?

Here we go again! Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises the British government on environmental matters, has caused a fracas by suggesting that it’s “irresponsible” to have more than two children.

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt, a father of two, told the Daily Mail. “I think we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.”

As Salon readers know, the view that two-is-enough hardly puts Porritt on the radical fringe when it comes to espousing how many children is the “correct” number per family. Bill McKibben, the environmental writer and global warming activist, made the case for half that number in his 1999 book “Maybe One.” How great is that title.  And the fact that it’s not just an article (or a bumper sticker), but an entire book.  God bless that guy.  Then, there are the good folks over at the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, I haven’t even followed the link yet, but I already love this group.  who contend that *if you must* raise children,  adopting them is the only sensible and ethical way to go.

However, it’s obviously a whole different ball of wax when a government advisor who helps influence federal policies starts arguing that fewer kids are better, since it raises the specter of intrusive government interference in private child-bearing decisions. See China’s one-child policy and the radically gender-imbalanced society that it’s resulting in.

“The unpleasant aspect of this is the idea that how many children you have should be down to the state,” a spokesperson for the Pro-Life Alliance told the Daily Mail.”Wherever we have seen such policies being imposed, such as in China, we have seen a preference for male children and a rise in infanticide.”  But I don’t think that would be the case in United States.  I think Americans would prefer female children, and if that created a gender imbalance that meant more women, I don’t think you could find any already-living men who would have a problem with that.

In Britain, the birthrate is at its highest in almost 30 years, which according to the Daily Mail is due to both high teen pregnancy rates and higher birthrates among immigrants. Porritt added: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high rates of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they wish to become mothers.”

Sure, there are statistical outliers, like the single mother of six in California who just gave birth to octuplets is crazy.  Yet, the average woman worldwide has 2.6 children in her lifetime, which is way down from more than four children in 1970.

What makes women choose to have fewer children? Population experts concur that it’s not simply access to safe contraception and abortion. Education and economic opportunities are extremely important, too. For instance, declines in illiteracy rates among female populations have been tightly correlated with declines in fertility rates.  Imagine that.

If Porritt is so concerned about the birthrate, maybe he should start trying to figure out how to improve the educational and economic opportunities for the poorest women in his country.

― Katharine Mieszkowski