Coates: The West Wing

The pilot episode of The West Wing creates a very stereotypical image of the president.  He is an older man who appears to have a lot of money and is a fatherly well-bred person.  The image of the president is very realistic because most presidents have been fathers and even grandfathers (similar in this case) and are well-bred men.  However in these roles, there has never been a woman.  Surely a woman can run for president, but there has yet to be one.  I feel that someone should put a female president in the role, just to get opinions on what they think would happen.  Would she be a motherly leader or would she be different?  But those are gender roles, which are another story, but I think it is realistic for a woman to be president and I find it interesting that no one has thought to do that yet.  I am not very educated in what each and every president has done, but I am sure that they all did something successful in their time in office.  I also think that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second bill of rights should have continued to exist.  The ideas are so idealistic, but simple because I think that they could be done.  I feel that it is what the United States has been wanting for a long time, and I don’t see any problem with bringing it up again. Employment with a living wage, housing, medical care, education, social security, and freedom from unfair competition and monopolies are what made up this second bill of rights.  I feel that these are the big things that our society wants today.  So why can’t we? Who cares if we are called socialist? It’s what the people want isn’t it?  We would still have our normal rights and freedoms wouldn’t we? Why has this bill of rights been pushed aside?  I would want to move to other countries with these rights if they still had the same rights that the United States has. I feel that our country should give us rights to our basic needs. 

Coates: Socialism

When looking on Merriam-Webster's definition for socialism, I got a few different forms of socialism.

Socialsim: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Utopian Socialism: socialism based on a belief that social ownership of the means of production can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of their holdings by propertied groups

National Socialism: Nazism


My Interpretation:

-The natural form of Socialism, sounds somewhat structured and boring and also seems that it is not a good form of government to me...The government owns everything and distributes goods when they deem necessary? What?? That doesn't seem fair.

-Utopian Socialism seems to be the ultimate goal of socialism, by nicely saying that it is achieved by a peaceful surrender of holdings to the government...Oh so I peacefully give my holdings to the government? No thank you...

-National Socialism has only one word; Nazism. So in this case, Nazis take, I mean own, my holdings. WHAT?! Nazis were scary people..that does not sound right to me.


I think that each definition is basically saying that the government owns everything and they can give or take away earnings as they please. I assumed that when they taught this in high school, I thought it was just another form of communism, but it seems that it is not. The people do not own anything because the government owns it. It seems that some of the positives are: people get fed; when deemed necessary, they have shelter; but can not own it legally, and they can have a job if they want to; but they never see the money. It seems that basic needs are covered, but no one has any sense of ownership.

So basically, Socialist countries are robbers.  You are allowed to exist unless you do not hand over your money, property, etc.

Or in this picture, Socialist countries are also like slave owners. Do all of the work, have basic needs, but no freedom of speech or any property or money.

And in this picture, Socialism allows you to have a home, yet there is always someone watching it so that they could possibly take it away.

So no, I don't think that socialism is good...

Coates: Capitalism: A Love Story??

Capitalism: A love story.  I think he should have titled it differently, maybe the title, “People are greedy, and it really sucks” would be more suitable. I think that Michael Moore showed us more of what greed is in America, not so much Capitalism. I believe that every form of government; Democracy, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, etc., in its best form is great.  In a perfect world, people might support one another, or would not mind being paid equally or any of the other things that a form of government may suggest.  Since we do not always ‘play nice,’ people are sadly being punished by greed.  If Michael Moore wanted to take that approach he succeeded.  For example, he used way to many points for his accusation, and most of them played the sympathy card. The kids in ’care centers,’ families having no place to live, pilots not being paid fairly, revolution of workers, dead peasant policy, Katrina, the list goes on.  Yes, these are terrible things that happen in our society today; I personally have been in the same situations that the families have gone through with foreclosure and I had to come home to the city of New Orleans and see the horror that had happened there, and it sucked, (but that’s another story, never mind, anyway..) But capitalism did not cause it.  For one, Katrina was a natural disaster, there was no fixing that, but it still took a long time to get New Orleans back on its feet again. That was not capitalism at its worst (That was just FEMA). And the foreclosures, the dead peasant policy, and low salary is just large industries being greedy. What I am really trying to say is that it is the people who are being greedy in their seat of power, is the main problem, not the form of government.  Furthermore, I do not think that Moore gave a good counter argument, or even saying why ‘they’ think that this is right.  He just proved wrongness (and greed).

On another note, What does Wallace Shawn have anything to do with this? Wallace Shawn!? Was Michael Moore just trying to say that Capitalism this is: 

Inconceivable? Why didn’t he just get him to say it? He may have just needed another celebrity in his film.

Oh and maybe in the future we will be judged on things like this: 

I would rather that over greed any day!

Coates: Traffic

Traffic is a movie that shows three different stories about people who are involved in the war on drugs.  The first is about two Mexican cops who work to stop the drug trade in mexico.  The next is about a young girl who is involved with people who do drugs and her father is the man who is the American drug czar.  The last story is about a man who goes to jail for his drug business and his wife has to continue the business to save her family.  

One thing that I find very interesting about the movie is two of the stars who are in the movie have also played other characters who deal with the same situations in other movies.  Catherine Zeta Jones, the trophy wife who has to save her husband’s drug business, plays a similar character in the movie “Chicago.” In this movie, she plays a murderess in the 1920s, which ironically is the time of prohibition laws.  Jones, in both movies, deals with illegal actions that were violent and non-violent; murder and drug/alcohol related problems.  Topher Grace, the star of the popular sitcom, “That 70’s Show” also plays a teenager who seems to be a good person, yet has issues with drugs. In this movie, the teenager characteristics were almost similar. Using these main roles in these movies made an impact to me. Do these actors portray these roles due to type casting or is it a challenge for them because these are/are not their beliefs?

The movie also presents a well asked question, ’Should drugs be legalized because of the extreme actions it takes to stop it?’  I feel that it should be legalized to a certain extent.  Medical use is the main reason why I think that it should.  If people really needed these certain drugs for medical use, why stop them?  Sure people would still try to buy it illegally, but I think that it would be easier to catch the people who buy it.  And the concequinces should be less harsh.  If they really want to harm themselves with drugs, the government should help them to become clean with support groups.  


Its also similar to the prohibition laws.  I think that people do it because it is illegal.  If they were legal, it would be similar to buying drugs over the counter, and people would not necessarily find that exciting.  

This episode of American Dad came on this week and I thought it was funny and similar to the ridiculousness of the drug problem.  Would we still eat trans fat if it were illegal??

http://www.hulu.com/watch/60128/american-dad-live-and-let-fry

Coates "Hate is baggage"

American History X is quite a film.  The movie is very detailed about racism and prejudices that face the world.  The film is about two brothers who are led on the wrong path to become white supremacists. The eldest brother, Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton) is the man of the household after his ‘racist’ father is killed by a black man during a fire. He is then put into jail when he shoots three black men for stealing his car.  His younger brother, Danny (Edward Furlong) begins to follow in his brother’s footsteps under the wing of his brother’s neo-Nazi party leader, Stacey Keach (Cameron Alexander). While his brother is in jail, Danny is sent to the principals office because of a offensive paper he wrote.  He has been told to write a paper about his brother instead.  This is where the story unfolds into black and white memories of the boy’s past.  Derek explains to his brother about what happened to him in jail and how he is a changed person.  Derek tries to change Danny’s behavior and changes his perspective of how he views others.  In the end, we think that all is well because of their change, but Danny is horrifically shot by a black boy who he had confrontation with in the beginning of the movie. 


To me, this movie was way over my thoughts about racism. I never thought that people could be so hateful to each other.  The movie not only shows the racism between blacks and whites, but also against Jewish, Hispanic, and Asian people as well.  It is a pity to think that some people are really that angry about differences.  Even though the movie showed racism to great extremes, it still made an impact on the way that some people view others.  I believe that the adult’s influence greatly impacted this story. There was the father, who was prejudice towards black people, an older brother who was a neo-Nazi skinhead, and an even older father, almost grandfather-like influence that was the same way.  Danny was stuck in a world of hate until his brother told him the stories of his time in prison. 


Sad enough, (I didn’t want to be right) I predicted someone’s death in the end.  I thought that it could possibly be Derek because of the way he killed the men in the beginning or because he turned on his white supremacist friends. But I expected Danny’s death even more. Danny didn’t go through the same change that Derek did. Sure it was great that he changed his views, based on his paper and his new found attitude when taking down his racist posters, but he never really had any closure, forgiveness, or apology between him and his murderer.  Not that there should or should not have been, it was just a movie kind-of prediction.  

Coates: Good Night, and Good Luck

To me, this movie was very boring. It was in black and white and the topic was not necessarily interesting to me. It was set in the 1950s and was filmed in black and white, yet the movie came out in 2005. It was slow and had no variety on the setting. I think that it should have been presented in a way that more people can relate to it instead of only bringing up the point of view of the media. If the movie were to be re-made, the first thing that they could do is put it in color. It brings a lot of meaning to a movie and its easier to concentrate on the movie. Everything looked the same to me, so it was difficult to concentrate on the scenes. Secondly, I think if they wanted to get the points of the movie across to a younger group, they could have made it into a love story along with the main points. I feel like they should have played more on the fact that the husband and wife were not allowed to work together, because it showed how America was almost being Socialist. That way, the movie's story line would have been more interesting and could have had a hidden meaning. Although this movie isn't one that I would recommend, the movie did bring up a few topics of discussion. The points that were in the movie were Communism, Socialism, and most importantly the role that the media plays in society. Communism and Socialism are two things in society that people always fear. It would change the government as we know it and take away certain freedoms that we have. In the 1950s, people also feared that if they had any positive comments about Communism or Socialism, they would be 'hunted' out or be tortured because of their beliefs. Sounds un-American if you ask me. Today, people are free to say what they want, but are still somewhat fearful if our country became Communist or Socialist. In conclusion, the movie really is just about the news and the true difference between the importance of what goes on in front of camera and what goes on behind the camera. 

Coates: Nice is Different Than Good

For my Politics and Reel Life class, we were assigned to watch the movie, "Good". At first, I thought the movie would be boring, but as it continued, it made me think. What classifies the true meaning of good and bad. At first, John Halder seems to be a normal person, but then he changes his ideals because of society. He slowly begins to fall into the wrong crowd and ends up losing a friend over it. John was blind to the wrong that he was doing because of society. He is between the lines of fear and blame. He tries to do what will help his friend, after his friend realizes the danger is in. John is still afraid of what could happen to himself. He ends up regretting his fear, only after it is too late. Sadly, it is not his fault that he was so afraid. He was so pressured into making the right decision, but was unable to pick the good one. If John really cared for his friend, he would have done anything to save him. Instead of buying one ticket for his friend, he could have bought one for himself as well and they could be away from the thing that they fear. But he didn't. In the end, John only saved himself and was left to what would be a dark, scary world.

The movie relates to today's world in many different ways, but the thing I noticed most was the way he conformed to society. Today, many people have sectioned themselves into different social groups or 'cliques.' Teenagers especially can have trouble with this. It may not always be the best choice, but sometimes people are drawn to different groups because they are accepted. In my life, for example, I have been more drawn to people who sing or play music over those who do not. Luckily, all of my friends are good people, but I always wondered what would have happened if they weren't. Although this is a smaller majority than the movie, the ideals are similar. Would I have still been friends with these people if they enjoyed the same things I did, but had bad morals? I think at a younger age, I could have been swayed to go in the wrong direction just to fit in and be a part of this group. If my ideals were different, I could have risked being rejected by peers who were like me. Now that I am older, I have a stronger independence to be who I want to be, and I could live without people who have similar interests.