A little more than skin deep

This is more of a pop culture post, but whatever… I’d write about the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, but I just don’t know enough about them to contribute anything new to the discussion.

I’ve been a fan of the British television show Skins since last spring, and when I learned that MTV was planning to make a U.S. version of the show I didn’t know how to feel about it.  I felt apprehensive that MTV would either dilute the show for American audiences or create a scene-by-scene remake minus Bristol and the Briticisms.  However, I didn’t want to be too close-minded to give the American version a chance, so I watched episodes one and two.

It turns out that U.S. Skins does, in fact, water down the content, and the first episode is almost a scene-by-scene remake of the first episode of U.K. Skins.  Also, the acting is not on par with that in the original show.  However, MTV’s remake does have a few redeeming qualities, and while I’m not sure that I’ll keep watching regularly, I have to admit that this new version of the show isn’t a complete failure. 

If Skins were a cup of coffee, U.K. Skins would be some of the coffee from my house, and U.S. Skins would by my college’s dining hall’s coffee.  U.K. Skins is strong, bold, energetic, fresh, and definitely not for everyone.  U.S. Skins, on the other hand, is diluted, less bold, staler, and tamer.  Profanities are bleeped out, which feels incongruous in a show that seeks to realistically depict the edgier aspects of youth culture.  Also, nudity is censored out more, which is unsurprising considering that Americans tend to be more prudish with respect to nudity than European audiences. 

Additionally, as a fan of U.K. Skins, the fact that the first episode of the MTV version was so similar to the first episode of the original was disappointing.  For much of the episode, it felt like watching a bunch of Americans do an impression of the British version with somewhat less skill.  The acting is largely passable in the U.S. version, but occasionally the line delivery feels forced and unnatural, which distracts from the plot and detracts from the realism of the show.

However, despite these flaws, U.S. Skins does manage to get some things right.  Particularly in episode two, the show has some moments that give me hope that the American version will come into its own with time. 

The second episode centers around Tea, the most original character in the cast.  The British version featured an analogous character named Maxxie.  While I liked him, I felt that the writers failed to develop his character as much as they could have.  Additionally, the entire “he’s a gay boy who just loves to dance!” thing was somewhat stereotypical.  It seems that MTV is giving Tea more of a chance to develop into an interesting character, whereas the U.K. version mostly only used Maxxie as an opportunity for some cool dance sequences and some lessons about homophobia.  Tea does cheerleading, which is an activity traditionally associated with heterosexuality, and her personal struggles are more nuanced than I’d feared they might be. 

Overall, I’m not particularly impressed with the remake, but with Tea, I think MTV got a few things right.  The depiction of her attempts to come out to her family feels spot-on, her being out to her friends but not to her family is believably done, and I appreciate that when she laments that she has “a screw missing,” it’s not because she’s suffering from internalized homophobia – it’s for different reasons altogether.  It’s refreshing to watch a show that features a lesbian character who’s more than just a lesbian, but still realistically acknowledges that aspect of her.  U.S. Skins doesn’t treat Tea’s sexual orientation as a trivial aspect of her personality, but it also doesn’t reduce her to nothing more than “the lesbian one.”  Her character isn’t perfectly done, however; I wish that her Italian family wasn’t involved in organized crime (between that and Jersey Shore, MTV is well on its way to becoming The Italian Stereotype Channel).  But despite some shortcomings, I think that MTV created a bold and realistic depiction of life as a lesbian teen in America.  Also, her relationship with her grandmother is touching and rather cleverly done. 

I’m not sure if I’ll be sticking around for many more episodes of U.S. Skins, but despite its shortcomings, I don’t think it’s entirely without merit.  While neither the British nor the American versions give a totally realistic depiction of teen life (Skins exaggerates the debauchery a bit – well, a lot), U.S. Skins, when it’s brave enough to break away from the shadow of the original, adds something new and sometimes meaningful to the Skins canon.  I'm curious to see what MTV does with the rest of the characters, particularly Cadie.  I think she has potential to take the show in new directions that her analogous character in the original, Cassie, did not.  

Foolish Friday numero uno

So I've decided that on Fridays I shall post some form of foolishness, which would be Things That Make Peri Laugh or at Least Smirk a Bit.

Foolishness abounds on the interwebs.  This is a known fact, yes?  Also, irony is great.  For example, this charming site is the first Google search result when one types "What is this foolishness?!" into the search engine.  I really enjoy the ALL-CAPS, the only-sorta-related photograph at the top, and the underlining to emphasize the wrath of God.  The whole site screams, "What I lack in aesthetic page design I attempt to make up for in varying font sizes and lots of angry drama."  Also, they have - I kid you not - a moving rainbow effect at the top of the site's main page, further confirming the thesis that many homophobes are at least sort of gay.

One day I would like to displace Mr. Angry Homophobe man from his throne at the top of the Google search results, partly because of my desire for people to pay attention to me (do you really want me to juggle skunks?  No?  Then read my blog and save me from a tomato-bath doom) and partly because of a desire to smash out homophobia like a falling disco ball at a Lady Gaga concert that was dropped by a drag queen from atop the crest of a rainbow.

So read my blog and spread it around like glitter, because that stuff is impossible to get rid of.

And yes, I am shamelessly begging for attention right now.

Power or principles?

From Glenn Greenwald:

The point here is that -- whether justified or not -- telling politicians that you will do everything possible to work for their re-election no matter how much they scorn you, ignore your political priorities, and trample on your political values is a guaranteed ticket to irrelevance and impotence.  Any self-interested, rational politician -- meaning one motivated by a desire to maintain power rather than by ideology or principle -- will ignore those who behave this way every time and instead care only about those whose support is conditional.  And they're well-advised to do exactly that. 

I think Greenwald has a valid point about the inability of progressives to pressure mainstream Democratic politicians to fight for progressive policies.  The criticism of the Left doesn’t mean much if it’s not accompanied by action, namely, the willingness to demand that either the Democrats in power stand up for liberal policies or get out.  Granted, if the progressives were to collectively disown mainstream Democrats, in all likelihood the Republicans and their more unified base would probably take power.  However, when one sees the effectiveness with which the Republican minority managed to block progressive policies like single-payer health care and the DREAM Act even during a strong Democratic majority, it leads one to wonder how different it would really be if the Right took power. 

However, on a somewhat different note, I have to question the idea that holding power is necessarily separate from standing by principles and one’s ideology.  Gravitating towards the political center is a good way to maintain office, but assuming that many politicians have some form of principles that they would at least like to stand by (and that’s not to say that they all do; many politicians probably care more about staying in office than standing by their ideals), the choice to turn one’s back on one’s ideology is less a way of holding power than a means of giving up. 

The point of holding political power is to be in a position that allows one to influence public policy.  That’s why I was so excited to cast my first-ever ballot – I couldn’t wait to be able to say that my vote was counted and made a difference, even a tiny one, in the political climate of my state.  The aspect that thrilled me was that I was representing my own political voice through my vote.  Had I consulted with my more conservative friends and then agreed to change my vote somewhat because they wanted me to do so, I would be compromising my own political power.

In the same way, when Democratic politicians run for office by trying to mobilize and appeal to their progressive base, but then upon assuming office decide to capitulate to the influence of lobbyists and the demands of the Right, they are essentially compromising their power and betraying their base.  There’s more to power than simply holding office.  One has to do something with that position and stand by one’s principles in order to have real political power.  This has its risks; it’s easier to be attacked by one’s opponents and lose office because of it.  However, it also means making a difference, rather than playing to the middle and the middle alone.  Look at Alan Grayson, for example.  He may have lost, but at least he stood for something.

Alienated rights

The House Republicans seem really, really excited about the Constitution.  So excited that they need to set aside time for a special read-aloud session today.  Sort of like reading Dr. Seuss to the kids – er, representatives – except with less rhyming.  For all the complaining that the Republicans do about government waste, I can’t help but feel like this might just be, you know, a waste of time.  If you haven’t already read the Constitution and know it pretty well, why are you in office? 

Also, I feel a bit uncomfortable with the focus on America’s founding document by the Right, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s recent statements about the meaning of the 14th Amendment.  It would seem that the trend in right-wing Constitutional interpretation is one that advocates for limited government and does little to protect minorities and women. 

This perspective devalues the gains in rights that have been made over the centuries.  It’s all well and good to say that rights can come from the ballot box or whatever, but by arguing that the Constitution cannot and does not affirm the equality of marginalized groups, it puts the idea of “inalienable rights” out the door.  While the Declaration of Independence is a decidedly different document than the Constitution, the central concept of it – that there are rights and the government needs to affirm them or GTFO – is pretty important for the whole idea of America.  By saying that things like equality are not guaranteed by the Constitution, one puts the whole notion of those things being rights on somewhat shakier ground.  If the highest law of the land doesn’t guarantee equality, then how inalienable are our rights?

As a lady-type person, I’d really like to know that my essential equality is a central tenet of my nation.  Legislating rights doesn’t always work out so great (I’m looking at you, marriage equality).  Because of this, I’m not too excited about this Republican Constitution frenzy.  I’m sure they’ll pose it as The Ultimate in Patriotism, but reducing the legitimacy of the rights of fifty percent of Americans doesn’t seem very patriotic to me.  If that’s where they’re going with this, I’m none too pleased.    

They can wave their tiny plastic American flags, or Constitutions, or whatever, but it doesn’t make their ideas right.  

Pay attention to MEEEEEEEEEE!

Yes, yes, I know…  This is more or less just a desperate plea for attention, which, while somewhat less dramatic than, say, juggling skunks whilst doused in gasoline whilst tightrope walking over a bonfire, is really only slightly less stupid.  It’s also less impressive, but it’s less dangerous as well, and anyhow, I don’t enjoy being pungent and flammable.  So!  Blogging: a better option for communicating, “Look at me!” 

“So,” you, the poor innocent reader who has remained on this page for inexplicable reasons, ask, “what are you going to blog about?  Are you taking up dangerous wild-animal-and-fire-related activities?  I do hope you are wearing flame-retardant pajamas for safety; do they make those in adult sizes?” 

Ignoring the facetious latter questions, I respond to the question of the blog matter.  My goal is not to write a personal blog.  If you know me, you probably already know enough about my life to render a blog about my day-to-day doings boring.  If you don’t know me, 1) I can’t imagine how or why you are reading this, but good for you, and 2) you probably don’t care about my prosaic existence.  What I do plan to blog about is a wee, tiny bit about my life, but mostly about my perspective on social and political happenings.  My point of view is not unique, necessarily, but I do belong to a demographic – Kids These Days – that doesn’t have a prominent voice in political discourse.  Because of this, coupled with a desperate need for attention, I’ve decided to do some bloggin’.

Let the foolishness commence!