Reacting

#202: Over and Under

Starting last night, I think I've listened to at least 7 news broadcasts about 3 key headlines here in Australia. One was about the outrage of Australia over the comments made by a Muslim Mufti likening women dressed in skimpy clothes to uncovered meat. If the cat eats the uncovered meat that is left outside, then it's not the cat's fault but the uncovered meat's fault.

The second one is about the DVD being sold by a group of teenagers in Melbourne who videotaped their torture and rape of a young girl. The issue was whether naming and shaming these teenage boys would be the best thing to do. One group says that's too much of a "punishment" for the boys whose future rehabilitation may be negatively impacted by such an action. Another group says that if they were blase enough to put their names on the DVD they made of such a horrific act, then let the world know who they are and what they've done.

The third one is about Princess Mary being pregnant with her second child.

Hmm.

Let me tackle the Mufti issue first. See, the Muslim leaders in Australia convened last night to decide whether to sack the Mufti because of his irresponsible comments implying that girls who dress skimpily bring it upon themselves to be targets of sexual assault and violence; or to let him stay given that those certain comments from his sermon were taken out of context and misinterpreted by the public. A female leader of the Muslim community here in Australia guested on one of their morning shows declaring that she was appalled by such degrading comments towards women. "Rape is a crime. It's not about how you dress. It's not about lust..." I was actually surprised that no one challenged her on lust being a separate entity from rape.

To illustrate how the public or how the Muslim community felt about the Mufti's comments, the show took a tall, sexy, blonde woman in a short dress to walk through a junction in a Muslim community. Then the "field reporter" (their version of our Bobby Yan or Ryan Agoncillo, probably), asked the Muslims to look at the girl and tell him if they thought she was dressed nicely. The Muslim men smiled and nodded their heads. Wha-? I can't believe it. The network has got to be kidding with that juvenile exercise.

And then there's that huge debate over whether to "name-and-shame" those boys who videotaped their torture of a girl (at one point, one of them actually set fire to the girl's hair.) It's so easy to get lost in all the technicalities sometimes. You have a psychologist saying that doing so would harm the fragile youth and their futures and presto! People forget about the tortured girl and dwell on the fragility of the twisted minds of the people who should have known better that actions have consequences. Evil actions merit punishment.

Then we move on to the debate on what the right punishment is. Is it in the naming and shaming? Is not the legal system adequate to address this? Here's my question, where are the charges against these boys? I personally don't think that the thing they need most now is a fluffy blanket and a thumb to suck on. They have not shown any remorse. Some reports even point to how they've manifested enjoyment of their notoriety. I think what they need is to be struck with fear in the same way they struck fear and inflicted damage physically and mentally on that girl. Do I now call for a society that promotes revenge? No. I call for one that seeks justice.

As I said earlier, it's easy to call everything "gray." Thing is, if people just step back a little bit, maybe we'll all realize that the DVD of the torture is more outrageous than the comments of a Mufti made to his congregation in a non-English language. Maybe we'll see that lust is a possible driver of rape in the same way that a bushfire can be ignited either by an irresponsible smoker who throws his cigarette butt carelessly or a family BBQ gone haywire or a bunch of teenage boys setting fire to the hair of a helpless girl. Maybe we'll see that Princess Mary getting pregnant deserves less airtime than the issues that will define whether this society is capable of distinguishing what is right and what is wrong amidst all the shades it wants to see in between.

Then we'll all know how to react within that sweet spot between over and under.

Movie Nights

#201: With the Ambrosio Boys

My dad, my brother and I used to watch movies together from time to time. I would draw out the streak in me that likes a certain type of "guy movies" and for a couple of hours or so, I'd be "one of the boys." On the way home, we'd fill the car with rundowns of the scenes we liked as if we weren't all there watching the same movie.

Strange that the movies we enjoyed together would always have either Matt Damon, Tom Hanks, Mark Wahlberg, Brad Pitt, a really fast car or some really bizaare twist in it.

Say "yay" if you liked the following:
1. Catch Me If You Can
2. The Italian Job
3. The Bourne Identity
4. The Bourne Supremacy
5. Ocean's Eleven
6. Fight Club
7. Road to Perdition
8. The Transporter 1
9. Face/Off

Today, I saw "The Departed," a Martin Scorsese film with a powerhouse cast. Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon, Leonardo di Caprio, Mark Wahlberg. It was so darned twisted it actually worked. And it was so bizaare, I actually liked it.

"Every actor is firing on all cylinders: Damon has never been more appealing and conniving, DiCaprio has never been tougher or more layered and Nicholson dazzles as a grinning, snarling Cheshire cat ready to pounce on anyone who looks at him funny. The difference between cop and criminal dissolves in a swarm of surveillance and deception, and Scorsese presides over the whole operation like he's the only one in the world who knows where illusion ends and identity begins." ~ Chicago Tribune

"A deranged sense of humor weaves its way through "The Departed," from outrageous opening scenes introducing the sulfurous crime boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) to its eye-roller of a final shot." ~ Washington Post

Bottomline, It's going straight to that list above.

On the way home, I tried to imagine how it would be in the car with my brother and my dad after watching this movie. I know they would rave about it during our 20-minute drive home. And then some more the following day. But the voices were absent and the bus ride, quiet. And I suddenly sorely missed them.

Archie, Betty and Veronica

#200: Lessons from Riverdale High

I grew up reading Archie comics. I wanted to go to Riverdale High. Thought that Jughead was the coolest character because he could eat the world and not grow fat. Wanted to name my dog, Hotdog. Wanted, at some point, Moose to beat my brother up. Didn't think Moose deserved Midge. Thought that Reggie was cuter than Archie, but boy, was he an a*s. But the thing that has always bugged me about that gang was how Archie would always choose snooty Veronica over girl-next-door Betty. He would practically float at her command and Betty would always be left hanging. I never understood that as I was growing up. Why does the good girl always end up getting the shorter end of the stick? (Or schtick.) And my goodness, why does Betty just keep on taking it? What the heck does she see in Archie? Betty needed some bright lights flashed into her eyes.

But I guess that comicbook world is a better descriptor of reality than I had realized. There will always be people who can eat truckloads and not get fat. Don't be envious. There will be thick-skulled guys ending up with smart girls. Don't be shocked. And there will always be a hot girl which some guy will always choose over the good one.

I've always sided with Betty but it seems like that's a mistake. Betty is a character who doesn't learn. I think it's fairly easy to read rejection when it's written that clearly. If she had any bit of dignity in her, she would easily dust herself off and walk away. My advice to Betty, go for Dilton. He's the one with a future.

And as for my learning, it's this: Be good and hot at the same time. That should drive any Archie crazy.