And, well, I still like the movie, but now it seems the basic idea got a few things wrong. In the beginning it explains why that movie future got as stupid as it is by showing an educated couple who never manage to have children because they spend too much time to first get their education and then concentrating on their careers, compared to some trailer trash couple who keep on popping out child after child after child, and explain how the IQ of the nation kept dropping because of that.
Well, of course to start with, that is not exactly how inheritance of intelligence actually works (JD Vance...), it's a bit more complicated than that - and in reality also the really high IQ individuals are actually often enough dropouts because the current school system is not actually well equipped to deal with them. But then when it comes to those somewhat higher than average people who can excel in the current system, what we can now see is that it's not exactly teaching them much of value.
While among the people who keep on having kids are lots more people than just the stupid version of the trailer trash, also people who are religious, have solid old fashioned values, work in trades and not in offices...
That Idiocracy future should maybe have had an upper class of idiots who keep destroying a majority of the kids by forcing them into their schools from as young an age as possible, and then ruining their critical thinking skills that way... Well, we almost got there. The save that seems to have happened now really looks pretty much as if it was a Hail Mary pass.
Hm. Is that the movie we have been watching?
Teemu Selänne, a now retired hockey player, and well known public figure in Finland, got his American citizenship about a year ago, and voted for the first time in your presidential elections - he has been living there for 20 years, played in Anaheim Ducks, San Jose Sharks, and Colorado Avalanche.
And he has been quite open that he and his wife are for Trump. Might have helped to make at least some hockey fans who maybe had been stuck on the MSM image before there to take a closer look at Trump. Celeb endorsements or preferences of course are a lousy reason to vote for anybody on their own, but what they might be good for is to make people who are fans of the celeb to wonder why their idol thinks what he thinks, and then maybe to study the subject better.
Today's news: a family, or rather the mother, is getting a 1500 e compensation from her city because her child's school didn't tell beforehand that in an event in school where a visiting choir was introduced to the children and sang several songs the choir was a Christian one and sang songs of Jesus. And the family is atheist. Seems that "forcing" the child to listen to that without the mother's consent is against religious freedom because due to the songs the whole event can be considered a religious one.
So the feminism movement went off the rails pretty damn fast, but it did start from a good position, I think. When a woman is mostly dependent on the men in her life, that puts her in a very vulnerable position if there doesn't happen to be any good men for her to rely on. I had an aunt who was married to an alcoholic, and some of the stories she told me were pretty damn bad. He wasn't even a man who would become violent when he drank, but he used all their money on alcohol, to the point they had problems getting enough food, and they had 3 sons. The worst years for her were late 1940s, after the war, and 1950s.
And as far as I understand that was one of the early reasons why some women started to advocate for women to get an education and jobs of their own.
Now I think it would be good if we could get more mothers back home, but what if the husband turns out bad?
How would you solve this?
I've been just reading about Diddy, Kanye, and a few other performers. The general idea seems to be that it is almost impossible to do really well in those occupations - singers, songwriters, actors etc. - unless you are "in the club" in one way or another.
And that made me think again about Mark Hamill and both his career and his behavior. Mostly because he is somebody who has been in the news lately, and whose life and career are kind of giving conflicting signals when it comes to that "in that club or not?" part.
In some ways he has seemed like a decent guy, defended fans and what they would have wanted with his character around the Disney sequel movies. And he seems to have had a pretty solid marriage. But then there are his political comments and simping for the White House resident a few months ago.
I suppose there are two alternatives. He is a mediocre actor who managed to luck on with one role in movie that became an unexpected megasuccess, but then could not get much of anything else bigger because he just isn't that good, and has brain rot when it comes to politics, and maybe some other things too (and possibly even a pedo).
Or he was once a fairly decent guy, and a somewhat naive young actor who got that role maybe by luck, or maybe he got some help, but when it became that megasuccess he got an offer - or maybe a demand - he refused because he was at least sort of decent, or didn't want to give anybody that much power over his life (because I assume the price of fame probably does include doing something that would destroy you if "the club" made it public). And because of that he no longer got roles in anything bigger. Maybe he then gave in somewhat so that he could get his voice acting career.
And his latest shenanigans: he has 3 children who are all trying to make a career in that same place.
Maybe, just maybe, he is trying to protect them from getting that same offer he once maybe refused.
I suppose you might even wonder about that car accident he had right after filming for that first Star Wars movie was ending, it's not as if those people "in the club" are beyond arranging things like that. Maybe he had already gotten that offer - and refused it - then.
Who knows.
The sad thought: maybe Harrison Ford is somebody who accepted that same offer.
Looks like he has said that he is not running after this election, whether he wins or not. Who do you think would be the best alternative after him?
This bit is from one Finnish newspaper article that is talking about kamala's (Finnish word, means "horrible") chances in the upcoming election:
"Rosenberg said Democrats must now be able to contrast the strong economic policies of the Biden era and the disastrous economic policies of the Trump era."
BTW, that is a Google translation, I was feeling a bit lazy even if I am quite able to translate from English to Finnish or Finnish to English, but as those are the only two languages I'm fluent with: are there any similar translators one could use for translating between texts of any languages that have nothing to do with Google?
