Jim Morrison, Amy Winehouse and Kurt Cobain 27 club (has at least 10 members) |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Jim Morrison, Amy Winehouse and Kurt Cobain 27 club (has at least 10 members) |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Roe v Wade (2021)
This movie is often described as the worst film made in 2021 so far. It must surely be a showcase for lousy storytelling, novice acting, and horrible script all put together. Sometimes, we wonder which direction the movie is going, pro-life or pro-choice?This offering is made by the people who feel the country was hoodwinked by Planned Parenthood in believing that the decision to give women the right over the reproductive function was what the government wanted. The Planned Parenthood's link to Margaret Singer and her work in eugenics and the 'Negro project' (and even Klu Klax Klan as the film suggest) meant that the foundation's intentions are subversive. It is said to have enticed medical practitioners and social workers with fake statistics and media to influence public sentiments. The prime advocate of abortion on demand was a gynaecologist Bernard Nathanson, who allegedly changed the whole pro-abortion issue into a money-making endeavour, later apparently repented and started championing an anti-abortion stance.
The film, however, gives a good background of the events surrounding the Supreme Court and the thinking of the 1973 landmark case. A Texan lady, Norma McCorvey, referred to as Jane Roe in her trials to maintain anonymity, was advised to put up an injunction, through her lawyers, to terminate her pregnancy. Norma had a troubled childhood and had had frequent run-ins with the law, even at the age of ten. Married at 16, only to discover that her partner was left with a baby and a drinking problem, her mother adopted her baby. A second partner came around, and a second baby ensued but was given up for adoption. She had her third unplanned pregnancy when she was 21 in 1969. She allegedly made a false claim that she was raped by a black man to demand a termination as it seems it was permissible by Texan law. She lost on paperwork, but the lawyers decided to get the case heard in the US Supreme Court with the backing of Planned Parenthood.The times were changing. The social fabric and the place of women were evolving. From a position of playing second fiddle to men, the two world wars had shown that the women's role in society was equally as important as that of men. Hence, it became logical to demand equal rights, and they viewed reproduction as something that held them back from exploring their full potentials. The thinking was that 'one who controls reproduction controls her future.
With this background and the change of the Supreme Court judges (after Nixon's appointment), the law was passed.
Interestingly, both Dr Nathanson and Norma McCovey later became devout Catholics and fought for anti-abortion lobbyists.
![]() |
Week 3: Embryonic stage |
Scholars have been debating when life actually starts for centuries and still not come to a definite conclusion. For example, is it at Day 14 of conception when differentiation to trigeminal layers occurs? Or is it at the commencement of heartbeat or fetal movements?
All these academic stuff are well and fine to determine the path for the human race to follow, but in reality, in the ground, the public Joe has to handle the day-to-day dealing with more mouths to feed than they actually can. The funny thing about nature is that the people who can ill afford to have children are bestowed (or cursed) with generous gifts from the Stork. So poverty and multiparity are directly linked. How about rape as a justification to terminate a pregnancy? Are we going to lose the next Steve Jobs or Albert Einstein here?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Harold and Maude (1971)
Some look at life as full of doom and gloom, as a purposeless one. Whichever path one takes, we know what the final destination is, and the path leading to it can be paved with shrapnel and pain. Nietzschean and many existentialist philosophers perpetuate this idea. On the other end of the spectrum, others whose sole purpose of life is to savour the joy of being born as a human being push it to the tilt. They view the boon of birth as a gift on a platter to enjoy with no boundaries.
The truth must be lying somewhere in between - between nihilism and hedonism. There must be a purpose in our existence, perhaps to somehow leave a tiny mark of legacy, no matter how small, in a small way to propel our loved ones, family or community forward. A community, hence a country, is, after all, is made of subunits of families. So, improvements in families will sequentially propel the human race forward.
We should probably get our cues about life from the words of the Stoics and Epicureans. In their minds, we have only this one life to do what we can whilst finding pleasure within all of the aches and pains it has to offer.
This 1971 film, made at the end of the time of flower power, must have been an assessment of the liberal care-free perception of society versus the traditional convention-abiding outlook of the community. It was a satire of society we live in, which involves 'groupthink' as determined by authoritative figures - religion, psychology, family, military.
This cult-following offering recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. It is a dark comedy about a death-obsessed 19-year-old young man who falls in love with a happy-go-lucky 80-year old lady. Yes, 80 years old. Harold, brought up in a privileged background by a narcissistic single mother, grows bored with life. He is preoccupied with death and religiously attends funerals, even of unknown people, just to be closer to death. He has a warped sense of humour, sometimes faking himself hanging or cutting off his own limb. His mother's attempts at keeping him entertained with gifts and new girlfriends proved futile.So Harold found himself quite at home with a chance meeting with Maude at a random funeral. Her care-less attitude and total disregard for the rule of law excited him. Their little escapade turned out to be a sort of coming-of-age phase for Harold as Maude shows him all the small things that make one appreciate the reason for living. Harold looks at funerals as the final destination we are all edging to as Maude looked at them as a moment to reflect the time of their existence. I guess the film's message is to accept death as an essential and inevitable recurring process that regenerates life.
The memorable scene in this movie is the one in a field of daisies. Maude said she would like to change to a sunflower most of all as they are so tall and simple. Harold replied that he would like to be one of the daises because "they are all alike". Maude turned to Harold and explained that they are not.
"Some are smaller, some are fatter. Some grow to the left, some to the right. Some even have lost some petals. All kinds of observable differences". Harold could suddenly see the truth in her observation. The camera pans way back to show that Harold and Maude were standing in a graveyard. The gravestones were identical to the daises in one perspective. Even though the stones were all carved to look similar, they signify different lives lived - happy, sad, abrupt, or long. But the ending, the final destination, nevertheless, is the same.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Augmented Reality glasses |
He often campaigns against affirmative action and minimum wage. He asserts that the Black American community had a better quality of life when the aforementioned policies were pinned upon them. Another recurrent theme in his rhetorics is the importance of the family unit in the upliftment of society. He does not justify the 'Black Life Matters' movement. Instead of blaming mistreatment of the blacks in the hands of a white-centred government, he puts the blame of disparity of the community on the 67% black families that have a single parent to manage their home. Between making ends meet and fulfilling personal needs, the parent has no choice but to leave their kids to the unsupervised influence of members of the neighbourhood.
On the future of America, he sees a very bleak future. He pinpoints a decline in values like honesty and a sense of entitlement towards this end. To illustrate his point, he compared the black-outs in New York in 1965 and 1977.During the 1965 power outage, the incidence of crime was the lowest, whereas, in 1977, it saw plenty of looting and arson. Sowell posits that the 1965 society was one that saw the destruction of WW2 and the hard times that followed. Hence, they had some common decency to protect property and practised traditional morality. The later generation feels that by their existence, they feel entitled. Everybody owes them a living. If they fail, they quickly recoil to blame history, ancestry, and how the earlier society had oppressed them and continue to do so.
That is the mantra of the woke generation - every moment awake is a living nightmare.