Entertainment & Sports: April 2007 Archives

Hoards of insipid movies are made every year, but Hollywood is reluctant to distribute movies that challenge the elites' perception of the world. Indoctrinate U is one such film, and it probably won't get wide distribution unless you follow that link and indicate your interest by filling out the form.

In 2004, the American Film Renaissance festival selected Indoctrinate U as its "most anticipated documentary." We include here a sampling of the "buzz" about the film and its short film predecessors, Brainwashing 101 and Brainwashing 201.

"one of the most horrifying and hysterical documentaries I have ever seen."
- Ain’t It Cool News, On Brainwashing 101

“If any of the films shown at this festival are going to breakout and become huge mainstream hits, it's either going to be Michael Moore Hates America or Brainwashing 101 [the short-form precursor to Indoctrinate U]. Directed by new, sharp-witted, gonzo-journalist Evan Maloney, 101 is an unbiased look at censorship and P.C. run amuck on college campuses. This is one of the most horrifying and hysterical documentaries I have ever seen.”

"For those who haven’t been on college campuses recently, Maloney’s documentary is eye opening. "
- American Enterprise, On Brainwashing 201

"Non-left academics are harassed for their political views. Students who show a conservative bent are threatened... Campuses are supposed to be marketplaces of ideas where issues stand and fall on their merits. Brainwashing 201 [the short-form precursor to Indoctrinate U] demonstrates effectively that this is now far from the case."

I've seen the short films, and I can't wait to see the long version in the theater, so go sign up. You won't get any spam or anything, but you will be notified if and when Indoctrinate U is playing in your area.

(HT: Instapundit.)

Geeks of Doom has a tax day tribute to Louis Tully, one of the silver screen's most dedicated tax professionals.

For his four-year anniversary as an accountant, Louis celebrates by throwing a party complete with Nova Scotia lox and Brie cheese kept at room temperature and as well as breakdancing, Twister, and Parcheesi. Being the clever tax man that he is, Louis invites not friends, but clients to the gathering so that he can write off the event as a promotional expense.

Unfortunately, his clever tax deduction gets crashed by Vinz Clorthos the Keymaster, a minion of the shapeshifting god Gozer, who while in Terror Dog form possesses the unsuspecting Louis. On the bright side, the possessed Louis finally gets some real action from Dana, who’s equally possessed by another Gozer minon Zuul, the Gatekeeper.

(HT: RD.)

Reader Adam sent me this great post about Desmond's faith and purpose. (Who's Desmond?) The post talks about Desmond's transformation from a drifter-through-life into a purposeful, world-saving hero -- even if only in his own mind.

What made Desmond worthy of admiration was, exactly, that he did not know for sure he could predict the future. He took it on faith that he could, and then proceeded to live his entire life based on this single, faith based, assumption. He put his money where his mouth was.

Desmond took a leap towards faith, not a leap of faith. He didn't have faith to leap with. He went towards it, picked it. He didn't know the button needed pushing, and so, like a soldier, took responsibility to push it. He took on faith that the button needed pushing and then furthermore decided it was his responsibility to push it, defying logic and sanity and evidence and, well, everyone else. The action wasn't just heroic; it was heroic and defining.

He decided that he was going to give his life meaning, importance, even if it was the most insane, solitary, depressing meaning available; and at the great risk that he could be wrong, a life wasted.

An interesting exploration of faith.

If the writers of Lost intended this exploration, then they named the character Desmond David Hume with a heavy sense of irony. Desmond's philosopher-namesake practically defined empiricism and skepticism in opposition to faith.

Hume believed that all human knowledge comes to us through our senses, a school of philosophy that came to be known as "Empiricism" (derived from the Greek "empeiria", which became later the Latin noun "experientia", in English, "experience"). Our perceptions, as he called them, can be divided into two categories: ideas and impressions. He defined these terms thus in his An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding: "By the term impression, then, I mean all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will. And impressions are distinguished from ideas, which are the less lively perceptions, of which we are conscious, when we reflect on any of those sensations or movements above mentioned." He further specifies ideas, saying, "It seems a proposition, which will not admit of much dispute, that all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions, or, in other words, that it is impossible for us to think of anything, which we have not antecedently felt, either by our external or internal senses." That formed an important aspect of Hume's skepticism, for he said that we cannot believe that a certain thing, such as God, a soul, or a self, exists unless we can point to the impression from which the idea of the thing is derived. The Enquiry concerning Human Understanding concluded with a statement of what has become to be known as Hume's Fork. "When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Hume's ideas are interesting, but problematic in that they tend to deny the existence of things like cause and effect relationships, the validity of induction and deduction, and reason.

Sure, Haley Scarnato isn't the best singer on American Idol. She has probably only gotten this far because of her looks. Everyone knows this. But still, is it necessary for Simon Cowell to mock her, week after week, with flippantly sexist comments about her appearance? Last night when it was Cowell's turn to comment on her performance he just shrugged, feigned exasperation, and said "well, you've got great legs".

It's true, and his larger point that she isn't delivering awesome performances is also true, but he says this every week and seems unwilling to give her honest, helpful criticism anymore. It's funny to be sarcastic and caustic sometimes, but when you're that way all the time, at the same person, it gets old and mean. The look on Haley's face when Cowell made the comment showed that she was really wounded, not so much because she thinks she's the best singer ever, but because she wants to be taken seriously and seen as more than a piece of meat. I know what it's like to be made fun of for my appearance, and it's especially hard to shrug off when you're already vulnerable to judgment. Haley gets on the stage every week knowing that Cowell is going to dismiss her, deride her, and mock her appearance rather than help her with her singing, and it must be getting tiresome and painful. I hope she stands up for herself next time and reminds Cowell that she's in a singing competition and that he should restrict his comments to her vocal ability.