Present and past in fiction

I've read the first three volumes in Meg Cabot's The Princess Diaries series. The first was very good but the next two get much less intense. There's a serious continuity issue. The first book, published in 2000 and taking place in the beginning of a school year, implied that Hillary Clinton was running the country as president (hence, taking place in fall 2000). The second book, taking place shortly after the first, nonetheless referred to George W. Bush having run for president, hence taking place in October 2001. This attempt to always have the story in the present just makes the books less realistic; particularly troubling is the lie that in the fall Iran bombed Afghanistan when in fact Iraq attempted to invade Iran in September 1980 and was supported by the U.S. for years.
The first book seemed like reasonable observation of teenagers of 2000, but with the ignoring of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent bombing of Afghanistan, the illusions of American nobility and national and student harmony is only a lie.

A more prominent fictional series that remains in the present is the television series The Simpsons. While it can be entertaining and make good points, I think denying the passage of time in-series prevents true artistic greatness. The point of a series is to see how events change the characters, so having them remain so similar means that the full potential hasn't been reached, in fact may reflect a fear of change and having to write the characters in a different way.
Going to the past, many praised the film The Dark Knight for not giving the Joker a concrete backstory or origin, liking the idea that he was just an embodiment of evil and chaos. But to me that seems like another denial of reality; it's a comforting fantasy that there are good guys and bad guys and that the bad guys aren't worth taking the time to understand, that bad guys sprout out of nowhere with no justification.
I think not defining the villains more, but making them supernatural is what makes most slasher movies lackluster-Freddy Krueger is so obviously fantasy that he's acceptable, but Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees seem to be mortal, yet aren't, so what's the point of the good guys trying to kill them if that's impossible, if escape is pretty much hopeless? On the other hand, I liked that in the Scream movies the killer was human and fallible but believably skilled (well, the third movie went into the immortality aspect and lost some credibility).

Tone and text

On August 2nd, I watched the Houston Shakespeare Festival's production of Twelfth Night. As with some of Shakespeare's other speedy developments, Olivia falls in love with Cesario (actually a disguised Viola) in one meeting. While I don't know the author's intentions, the play implicitly mocks the idea of two women loving each other, with Viola claiming it's simply impossible and hopeless. The mood of the production wasn't homophobic, showing that delivery certainly has an impact on message, but it can only do so much to change the original.

More recently I watched the film Wild Wild West. I thought Will Smith and Kevin Kline had good charisma and did fine comedy work, although their characters' relationship wasn't very developed. I also liked the fantasy tone of roughly the first half. The rest was a bit overtaken by action. This film had some jibes at homosexuality but not in a mean way (unlike Planes, Trains & Automobiles), aside from one moment-when Smith's Jim West sees a picture of lesbians and dismisses it as, "White folks."

The right to selfishness

Much of what we hear is about citizens' duties, the so-called common interest, improving efficiency, making systems work.
Yet nations are composed of people, and persons are human beings before being a citizen.
It's a basic human right to choose one's own values and, correspondingly, to live according to those values as long as they don't violate a just law (in causing concrete and illegitimate harm to others).
While selfishness may be distasteful (if, given this attitude, oddly prevalent), it's certainly an attitude that people can choose and should be able to choose, and in a sense it's important given that those who call for pulling together for the "common good" usually have bad motives, and even someone who calls for this for good reason sets a precedent for a more nefarious character to exploit the same sentiment later on for bad reasons.

Socialism, democracy and the Constitution

Many consider the charge that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats are moving the country in a socialist direction to be petty nonsense.
I'd define socialism as "government involvement with the economy with the goal of evening out wealth and well-being."
By this definition, Obama and many Congressional Democrats, as well as many Republicans do meet the qualifications to be described by the term, as seen in their conditional assistance to financial and auto companies, as well as Democratic attempts to force insurance companies to cover everyone or have the government run the health care system.
While capitalism can have failures that impact a lot of people, at least those people chose to be associated with the organization that failed. Tying up all of the economy together in communism would leave the whole national system at risk.
The government controlling people through communism or socialism is unsettling, but a mild form would be nearly as bad-the government providing health care without making health demands (which it shouldn't do) would just result in wasted money, as many people right now don't place a high value in health now (I'm not perfect myself), let alone with the financial burdens of ill health are removed. Guarantees to the people without demanding responsibility seems wasteful and unproductive; since the American people dislike waste and politicians love to control people, demands would likely be forthcoming ...
Some say that we can have socialistic programs without getting the bad side effects. But the Medicaid and Medicare systems are a major part of the budget and expected to grow, and form part of the justification for government-provided health care system. Who knows what universal health care might be used to justify next?
The funds for government-provided health care would likely come from the rich without benefitting them as much. The typical defense of taxes against the claim that it's robbery is that everyone pays and everyone receives benefits. But if the amount that some pay and others receive is too unequal, the defense seems unconvincing.
Some try to legitimize a move to socialism and unequal taxation & receiving of government simply by saying that it's the result of the democratic process. But democracies are not infallible, and, for instance, 60 people putting a burden on to 20 or 5 so that they can benefit isn't really decision-making by the people, but one faction gaining at the expense of a smaller one.
A far better system is limited democracy, that recognizes that people have rights, including to their own beliefs and property, regardless of what others think or want. Recognizing the dangers of democracy and putting safeguards to prevent them is important, as the First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise, or abridging the freedom of speech or assembly. If Congress or the government was the represented people doing the public will, there'd be no reason to put limits to their power, but since majorities can be unjust, a limited democracy is necessary.

When so-called feminism is counter to equality

Some proof to my idea that this situation can occur. From Rachel Lehmann-Haupt's recent Newsweek article "Why I Froze My Eggs"

Dr. Eleanora Porcu said that women shouldn't accept a "mentality of efficiency" but rather having "demonstrated that we are able to do everything like men," "we have to do the second revolution, which is not to become dependent on a technology that involves surgical intervention. We have to be free to be pregnant when we are fertile and young."

From Lehmann-Haupt-"companies and society need to better adapt to the needs of working mothers."

So it seems that the "second revolution" would be towards unequal, special treatment, with those who choose not to have children having to pay the price to accommodate those who do.

Katy Perry and precursors

In Katy Perry's "You're So Gay," she complains about a boyfriend who feels unhappy & likes complaining songs that ask for realness and asks him to be more real.
Also hypocritical is how in "Hot 'n Cold" she complains that a guy is indecisive while in "I Kissed a Girl" she did it just to try and liked it but doesn't want to have any of the consequences of her boyfriend finding out. Looks like she thinks girls shouldn't be too real with their romantic partners.
While these inconsistencies are annoying, it's worthwhile to look at precedents.
Her message and attitude reminds me of Keira Knightley and Avril Lavigne.
More specifically,
-Her experimentation in IKaG does seem to follow Paul McCartney's (in "Yesterday") lament that "Yesterday Love was such an easy game to play" in "Yesterday"
-Her claim of objectivity "You're wrong when its right" in HnC can be compared to The Beatles' demand for a one-way stand-down in "We Can Work It Out"
As more people hear this sort of thinking applied to men, they may realize it's bad generally (or, conversely, that impulsiveness is good for everyone). But I think most fans don't consider the attitudes bad.
Quality of art isn't synonymous with message, but the latter should be considered. The mean-spirited and self-contradictory nature of the song sink YSG, the repetitivity and simplicity sink IKaG (especially coupled with how much it sounds like a knockoff of Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll"), while the beats make HnC somewhat entertaining, but it's been overplayed (as have some songs from other artists). Perhaps if YSG was played to a similar extent, there'd be more realization of the down-putting aspects of the singer.

Spider-Man joke

Norman Osborn drove the women of New York mad with his performance enhancers.