House of Eratosthenes

A few years ago we were having a very high-profile, highly-visible debate about something called NAFTA. It was a proposed treaty establishing a trading bloc among the United States, Canada and Mexico. The pro-NAFTA and anti-NAFTA people were very sure of themselves as they argued back and forth about whether we should sign it or not. It wasn’t too long before people started talking about the “isolationist” faction that made an important plank in the anti-NAFTA side.

It seemed an innocuous label at the time. After all, if you’re an isolationist, shouldn’t you ‘fess up to being one? And there are good reasons for being an isolationist, or at least thinking about being one. “Foreign entanglements” is one of the troubling situations raised by George Washington in his Farewell Address.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

But make no mistake: However reluctant everyone may be to besmirch the words of our first President, the word “isolationist” is a deragatory term. It carries the connotation that the person being described, labors under an unworkably narrow worldview and will live to regret it. It’s not a flattering term; or at any rate, it isn’t used as a flattering term.

And there’s something a little unfair about that.

But here’s something else to chew on.

When someone from what we think of as the “right wing” embraces an isolationist platform — pick one: anti-illegal immigration, anti-legal-immigration, anti-trading-bloc, pro-tarrifs, anti-student-visa, anti-worker-visa, anti-Dubai-port-deal — we don’t have to wait very long before we hear the “I” word, do we?

I find that interesting.

There were a lot of reasons to oppose the Dubai port deal besides “isolationist” concerns. National security is a great example. It’s a perfectly valid point-of-view, and one widely held, that it’s mutually beneficial to do business with foreign countries — just keep those countries away from our port terminals when they have a history of doing business with the Taliban. So how well does the word “isolationist” fit? Sure, it overlaps. But an overlapping is not a fitting. Nobody’s out there saying Hillary Clinton is an isolationist, just because she opposed the port deal.

Here’s the bug up my ass: The “I” word is a perfect fit, like a hand sliding into a glove, to describe the hardcore left-wing effort to oppose the War on Terror and our operations in Iraq. Isolationists are exactly what those people are.

Some of them supported our operations in Afghanistan but insist the excursion into Iraq was an exercise in distraction from the stated goal. They insist that while Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, he was off-topic; therefore, by implication, they insist that all the other bad people in the world with ties to terrorism, are similarly off-topic until someone can offer a substantial, documented connection between the proposed target and undisputed, historical events of terror. And such historical events are to involve injury to the United States, and the United States alone, or else they will remain off-topic.

That’s isolationist. That’s the dictionary definition of isolationist.

Others among the anti-war left don’t even support the operation in Afghanistan. They worry about the image of the United States on the world stage, that our “hostile foreign policy” has caused other countries to “view us with contempt” and “squandered the goodwill” we had with “our allies.” This naturally raises a question about what kind of ally you have, when the ally is only your ally until you defend yourself, and then is your ally no more. But wisely, these anti-war zealots sidestep the question by simply refusing to engage it; they noisily debate only the things that give them traction, nevermind that real life stubbornly insists on debating all aspects of a policy, not just some.

In sum, they propose a policy where America improves its image — as perceived by other countries who would like us to shut up and go away. By piping down. Knuckling under. Let the snakes go ahead and take over the swamp.

That’s isolationist.

There are still others who support the anti-war movement: Those who are concerned about our “civil liberties” and the “erosion” of same. It’s a valid concern. We lead the world in the freedoms we have, thanks to our unique concept of limited government. This leadership is chiseled into our Constitution which, letter-by-letter, remains unchanged since the 9/11 attacks. But this advantage is supported by our culture as well, and out of necessity the culture has gone through significant transformation. It’s just a fact that on September 10, 2001, you could do a lot of things, secure in the knowledge that the government would never find out about it. And that this is no longer true. Some of that is necessary, but nevertheless it’s a good time to stay vigilant.

It’s a balancing act. But it’s the position of those who take up the anti-war banner, over the concern for civil liberties…that it is not a balancing act. They only want to think about one side. Not that they deny the existence of terrorists who want to kill Americans. They simply declare it off the table. Not a relevant topic.

That’s isolationist.

The word fits so well over the anti-war crowd, that I daresay if you show me a hundred anti-war zealots, I can show you a hundred isolatonists. Maybe a lot fewer than a hundred who would be willing to admit that’s what they are; but a hundred isolationists nonetheless. And I’ll bet a small amount of money that if you show me a hundred isolationists, I can show you a hundred anti-war zealots. I’ll bet a much larger amount of money that I could show you, let’s say, seventy or eighty.

Is anyone ready to dispute that?

No? Then how about applying the word that has become so deragatory, and such a synonym for dim-wittedness, knuckle-headedness, obliviousness, myopia, unwarranted hostility, immaturity, and general short-sightedness?

How does the word NOT fit the anti-war crowd? I’d be interested in any argument anyone would have to offer.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Does It F***ing Matter?
Thursday, March 30th, 2006

Does It F***ing Matter?

Justice Antonin Scalia made an obscene gesture in front of a church. Or he didn’t. What a contentious issue. Let us divide what is disputed in this episode, from what is not: On March 27, this story appeared in the Boston Herald.

Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.

“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture, flicking his hand under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.

“That�s Sicilian,” the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the “Sopranos” challenged.

“It�s none of their business,” continued Scalia, who was the keynote speaker at yesterday�s Catholic Lawyers� Guild luncheon. “This is my spiritual life. I shall lead it the way I like.”

A vulgar justice sitting on the Supreme Court. Making obscene gestures right in front of a church. What a scandal.

Not so fast. According to Kitty Arberg, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia did not use an “obscene” hand gesture and he did not “continue” by commenting “it’s none of their business.” Rather, “it’s none of their business” was the point of the gesture and there was nothing obscene about it.

The Boston Herald reported Monday that the justice made “an obscene gesture under his chin” - which prompted some online reports that Scalia had used his middle finger.

Untrue.

“It was a hand off the chin gesture that was meant to be dismissive,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.

Scalia, 70, is Italian and known for wisecracks in and out of court.

The sign he used in Boston is frequently used by Italians to express displeasure with someone - from mild to deep irritation. It is done by cupping the hand under the chin and flicking the fingers like a backward wave.

Scalia himself sent a letter to the Herald, which appears to be consistent with this explanation (link goes to image) (link goes to partial transcript):

How could your reporter leap to the conclusion (contrary to my explanation) that the gesture was obscene? Alas, the explanation is evident in the following line from her article: “‘That�s Sicilian,’ the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the ‘Sopranos’ challenged.” From watching too many episodes of the Sopranos, your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene - especially when made by an “Italian jurist.” (I am, by the way, an American jurist.)

Boy, that’s telling them. And as a side note, I was going to invite Justice Scalia over for dinner the same night as some of the Herald staff and seat them next to each other. Better re-think that.

But wait! The Herald printed up some comments from photographer Peter Smith, who was there, and he says differently:

“It�s inaccurate and deceptive of him to say there was no vulgarity in the moment,” said Peter Smith, the Boston University assistant photojournalism professor who made the shot.

Despite Scalia�s insistence that the Sicilian gesture was not offensive and had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald as obscene, the photographer said the newspaper “got the story right.”

Smith said the jurist “immediately knew he�d made a mistake, and said, ‘You�re not going to print that, are you?’”
:
Smith was working as a freelance photographer for the Boston archdiocese�s weekly newspaper at a special Mass for lawyers Sunday when a Herald reporter asked the justice how he responds to critics who might question his impartiality as a judge given his public worship.

“The judge paused for a second, then looked directly into my lens and said, ‘To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’” punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin, Smith said.

The Italian phrase means “(expletive) you.”

Vaffanculo. It appears that Peter Smith is correct about the meaning of the word (language behind link not suitable for a family audience). If only his account that Justice Scalia used the V-word, were truly undisputed, which it isn’t.

Perhaps the Justice is backpedaling like crazy. People in Washington, elected or not, backpedal all the time. How to tell what he meant? Well there’s the trouble: When you’re trying to figure out what people meant by what they said, other than asking the guy who did the speaking, there aren’t a whole lot of ways to figure it out. And the guy who did the speaking, has spoken.

Scandal? I’m not so sure. A Supreme Court justice is supposed to be one of nine refrees, pronouncing a ball as good or out-of-bounds. If you are an originalist as Justice Scalia has repeatedly stated he is, this should be as much a matter of fact as possible, and as little a matter of personal taste as possible. Like a math problem. It really doesn’t matter what I’d personally like three-times-two to be, it matters what the answer really is.

Now, if I’d just been asked what three-times-two is and I just got done saying the answer is six, and I was asked “what about those people who say the answer is five, and that you only said it was six because of your personal religious views?” That is an accurate parallel to what Justice Scalia was asked, according to my understanding.

And that’s undisputed.

Well, now. Scalia’s retroactive interpretation, “I could not care less,” seems quite appropriate.

“FUCK YOU” seems pretty appropriate too. Three times two has only one possible answer.

So for my edification, why exactly am I supposed to care about this?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Dangerous Diets, Huh?
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

Dangerous Diets, Huh?

Sometimes I’m too prescient for my own good. The week before last, I wrote:

I’ve noticed after watching people for a long period of time, that there really aren’t too many things that can be opposed with widespread unity, quite so much as things involving young girls in skimpy outfits. And when large numbers of people oppose something with unity, and you ask them why they oppose it, in terms of incoherent, babbling, nonsensical answers you get back, the things involving young girls in skimpy outfits really take the cake.

Now, go back and read that one more time. Opposed…with widespread unity. Incoherent, babbling, nonsensical answers. Themz a lot of big wurdz, what do you suppose I’m talking about?

Here’s a great example.

Banned: Cheerleaders’ skimpy outfits

A TEAM of cheerleaders has been banned from wearing the skimpy new costumes they bought themselves over fears they could embark on dangerous diets.

Girls from the award-winning Spirit Shockers team, from Glossop, spent up to �80 each on their specially-designed pink and black outfits.

But the British Cheerleaders’ Association said the crop-tops fall foul of new regulations which prohibit exposure of the midriff. They are worried they might put pressure on young girls to diet and don’t want them to look like “exotic dancers”.

Now the 35 cheerleaders, who are aged from six to 21, are having to save for new costumes in time for a major competition in July.
:
Team member Beckie Bowman, 14, said: “If we are comfortable showing flesh, then we should be allowed to wear our uniforms.”

But the British Cheerleaders’ Association says that too many teams feature girls dressed up “like exotic dancers” with inappropriate costumes and make-up.

Chairman Bob Kirafly said: “This is something we have to be very careful about because young people are very conscious of their shape and size.

“There’s so much going on now about diets and obesity. The outfits may not be complimentary to some girls and it could put a lot of pressure on them to go on diets, which can be dangerous.

Now, this is an issue on which I come down on the side of the buckle-shoe, blunderbuss-toting Bible-thumping prudes. A cheerleading team consisting of girls “who are aged from six to 21″ could do better by taking on a more conservative design, or at least checking with the authorities who might have some say on the matter before shelling out eighty pounds per outfit and then kibitzing about having to save up all over again.

My beef is, why not just come out and say that? What would be wrong with saying “Uniform begins with ‘uni’ which means one…all the girls wear the same thing, and we have to be sensitive to the concerns of the parents of the younger girls as well as with the image of our association, it’s simply not appropriate to have seven- and eight-year-old girls representing our organization in an outfit like that.”

What’s wrong with that?

What’s this nonsense about dangerous diets?

Where is the concern that one would expect to rise up in response to a fragile excuse like this? If dangerous crash diets are your concern, and you’re quashing the skimpy uniform because someone might go on a crash diet…don’t you have a responsibility to put the kibosh on anything else that might put a chubby girl on a dangerous crash diet?

Isn’t it dangerous to be fat, too?

What’s with all the double-talk?

I tell ya…young girls in skimpy outfits. For some reason or another, it drives people absolutely freakin’ nuts. All they have to do is think about it, and suddenly nothing they say makes any sense.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Deep Sea Fishing in a Shallow Pond
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

Deep Sea Fishing in a Shallow Pond

There was this show on a few years ago called “Baywatch” where if you tuned in, you got to see something really shallow next to something really deep: Pamela Anderson in front of the Pacific Ocean. Well, Anderson has opened her mouth and said something incredibly shallow. But there’s something philosophically deep in how she’s chosen to frame her argument, and it’s probably worth pointing out — even though it’s always hazardous to find deep concepts in shallow things people say. So let’s just take a look at it.

Faxing a letter to the office of Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, she said…

“As a proud Canadian who frequently travels abroad, I am alarmed that people are starting to see Canada as a country more beholden to a pack of greedy hunters and to the seal-skin ‘fashion’ whims of a few countries than to the massive international outcry against the hunt,” Anderson, a vocal member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said in a letter faxed to Harper’s office late Monday.

“One of the biggest problems facing the U.S. government is appearing aloof about its own hostile behaviour; I’d hate to see that happen north of the border too.”

Last week I came to the defense of Canadian Senator and America-bashing halfwit Celine Hervieux-Payette (although, I suppose, some would infer that my comments were sarcastic). The Senator chose to defend the seal-hunting industry, responding to a letter from a Minnesota family by, like Anderson, going off on the completely unrelated tangent about American policies.

The circle is now complete.

You bash the Canadian seal-hunting industry, you invoke American hostilities to make your point. You defend that same seal-hunting industry, you invoke American hostilities to make your point.

How long before someone is arrested for jaywalking, sidewalk-spitting, wife-beating, dog-immolating, pulling-legs-off-spiders, kicking-pregnant-woman-in-stomaching, parking-meter-vandalizing…etc…you get the idea…and, called on to make their own defense in court, invokes those oh-so-nasty American policies?

What we have had going on here — all over the globe — is a cultural schism. There are exactly two sides, no more and no less, and there’s going to be a lot of conflict until the day that one side completely prevails over the other. It’s not a pro-American vs. anti-American conflict, it is purely cultural. It has to do with what “your own business” is.

Supposedly, the Bush Doctrine is the catalyst of this conflict, with the pillar about pre-emptive action against entities perceived to be imposing a non-imminent threat. That’s what the conflict is supposed to be about, with the invasion of Iraq serving as a model for that hostile, negative-energy, American belligerance. And supposedly, the discovery that Iraq “posed no threat to us” (America) was a scathing indictment against the American Way Of Doing Things.

Ah, but Saddam was a threat. Our government, plagued by various hobgoblins as it was when trying to form an alliance with the United Nations, and bungling the public relations in the ensuing months & years as it has been doing — at least it defined what the threat was. This is the source of the criticism against them, even today. The definitions of the threat posed by the old regime of Iraq, are up for attack by anti-American zealots…because the definitions are at least there.

I am not at all sure what “the execution of [American] prisoners � mainly blacks � in American prisons” does to pose a threat to Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette. Nor am I supposed to be sure about it. Nor is Sen. Hervieu-Payette going to be called on to explain what the threat is, as President Bush was called upon to explain to the United Nations about Iraq in 2002, and as Secretary Powell was called upon to explain the following spring.

I am not sure what the United States’ “aloof[ness] about its own hostile behaviour” does to pose a threat to Pam Anderson. Nor am I supposed to be sure about it. Nor is Anderson going to be called on to explain what the threat is.

That’s the culture war.

One side, the Yankee-centric side, is thought of as a buttinski for treating a looming threat as if it were an imminent threat, and forming alliances with others to do something about the threat before it becomes such an imminent threat. The other side, the Euro-centric side, forms alliances with others about things that both sides would agree are not threats.

That’s the appeal. When you aren’t even saying something is a threat, you’re spared from the burden of explaining how.

The second side is spared from any accusations of being a buttinski — not because they avoid being one — but because they never even pretend not to be one. It is a stunning inversion of logic. It reminds me of a time when, seven years ago, a certain American President was thought of us not being a pervert for getting a blow job from an intern right in the Oval Office while he was on the phone with members of Congress, then inserted a cigar into the intern’s nether regions…then, a certain prosecutor was thought of as definitely a pervert for writing about what the President did.

And that’s the upside-down logic that prevails over this culture conflict. The Yankees go butting in to things that are threatening, the Euro-pansies and Canucks go butting into everything threatening or not. And the Euro-pansies get to call the Yankees a bunch of buttinskis, because the Euro-pansies aren’t putting any effort into not being exactly what they call others.

The irony of it all? I can envision peace much more easily under the American way. A man living next to your house constructs a heavy rocket launcher in the middle of his driveway, which is an eyesore; he loads it up and points it at your bedroom, which is a threat. What should happen to him? Anyone with common sense would say when his project becomes an eyesore, he is dealt with through warnings and citations and demand letters and fines — and when it becomes a threat, he is dealt with through force. Common sense will insist, unapologetically, that the force was appropriate even though after the force was applied, the rockets were all found to be mocks, duds and blanks. That’s the American way.

The European way is that the warnings and citations and demand letters and fines are prevalent throughout the entire project, both when it is merely an eyesore and after it has become an imminent threat. And not only that, but before the tripod for the rocket launcher is even delivered, such warnings and citations are delivered against the man’s ugly pink flamingo lawn decorations. And for the off-color humor in the vanity plate on his car parked in the driveway. And for his house being the wrong tint of off-white eggshell exterior. And the fact that his live-in girlfriend is not his wife. And, and, and…guess what, the man with the rocket launcher gets to file a whole fistful of complaints of his own. Until the whole neighborhood descends into a dull roar of hyperactive homeowners-association nattering nabobism. Everything everybody does, is everybody else’s business, just nobody actually does anything about anything.

I know, that’s just one man’s opinion. Except, since there are people who agree with me, maybe we could re-define my opinion as what Anderson would call a “massive international outcry.” Maybe we could do that. And that, there, is exactly the problem. Who is the international certifying authority of “massive international outcries,” populist complaints worthy of being faxed into PM Harper’s office over celebrity signatures as prestigious as Anderson’s? Who decides this, in a world/neighborhood where everyone is complaining about everything, threatening or not, all the time? Because from where I sit, just by way of example…the Saddam Hussein I remember from the 1990’s was a much bigger problem than some guy in Newfoundland running out and clubbing some animals over the head.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Too Tolerant to Allow Such a Thing
Monday, March 27th, 2006

Too Tolerant to Allow Such a Thing

“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here!” said Peter Sellers, in a memorable role as President Muffley in “Doctor Strangelove, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” (1964) — “This is a war room!”

We have a real-life parallel to this classic line.

This weekend I was raising questions about the phenomenon of politically-motivated rock concerts, noticing that the music genre we call “rock” seems to have certain bedrock values that are either conservative, or ready to exist in harmony with conservatism — and why is it that when rock concerts have political themes, those themes always lean left? What would happen if such a rock concert were to be organized, to promote school choice, gun rights for otherwise-vulnerable women, an end to reverse-discrimination, etc.? Well thanks to the real-life parallel mentioned above, I have my answer.

A Christian youth rally took place this weekend in San Francisco and (somehow) earned the enmity, through this peaceful exercise of free speech, of the elders serving on the city council. In a move that would surely have made President Muffley proud, the council even passed a resolution “condemning the ‘act of provocation’ by an ‘anti-gay,’ ‘anti-choice’ organization that aimed to ‘negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.’”

No, I’m not making it up, really. Say the wrong thing in “America’s most tolerant and progressive city” and the leaders of that city will condemn you. They’re too tolerant to let your peaceful blatherings go uncondemned.

The rally, which also will visit Detroit and Philadelphia, featured religious rockers, speakers and the debut of what [organizers] called a Christian alternative to MySpace.com - at advance ticket prices of $55 and walk-up prices of $199.
:
Barricades separated Luce’s crowd with counterprotesters about 6 feet away who said the Friday and Saturday event amounted to a “fascist mega-pep rally.”

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, told counterprotesters that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting and they should get out of San Francisco.”

This is why we have liberal movements in this country. We don’t really have liberal people. Not in significant numbers, anyway. Sure, every few election cycles you can get some Democrats elected because now & then the electorate will be sold on the idea that Republicans have some kind of monopoly on scandal. But Mister Average American does not agree with liberals at all. Neither does Mrs. American. If Mr. and Mrs. are in favor of abortion, the repeal of Roe v. Wade, leaving abortion laws up to the states, would suit them just fine. And average Americans certainly don’t agree with “I support the troops but not the mission.”

No, we have liberal movements because liberals don’t talk the way conservatives talk. If the conservatives took hold of a city the way liberals have taken hold of San Francisco, and a liberal rally was held and the conservative leaders wanted to express their angst about it, they would have to pepper their statements with all kinds of diluting disclaimers like “of course, they have the same right to free expression as anyone else, but…” and “while I’m not in favor of silencing their free speech…” which would effectively purge their snippets of any punch. People just don’t get whipped up by a talking-point with the word “but” in it…so it’s good for liberals, that they don’t have to use this the way conservatives do.

Liberal slogans fit on bumper stickers much better. They don’t have to disclaim a damn thing. It’s not that a liberal’s support of free speech is presumed, it’s just kind of…declared off-topic. The liberal cause is so noble, who the hell are you to question a liberal’s support of free speech?

Well, since I’m questioning it — here in the blog that nobody reads, one of the few places you can question such things — I can’t help but notice I don’t have much reason to believe in it. Does Assemblyman Mark Leno believe in the right to express onesself freely, if one is what he calls “loud, obnoxious, disgusting” — and disagrees with Assemblyman Leno? Maybe he does. I don’t know that. This is an issue with me.

Don’t expect it to be an issue with anyone else.

This world is nuts. It’s really stark-raving looney-tunes. Apparently, you can pass a resolution refusing to tolerate certain rallies in your “tolerant” city because your city is too “tolerant” to allow such a thing…and nobody will bat an eyelash. Just amazing.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VI
Sunday, March 26th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VI

Last year, there was this movie that came out. It was the final installment to a science-fiction space-opera movie saga/franchise that started 28 years previous called “Star Wars” and this chapter was called “Revenge of the Sith.” People have been split right down the middle about whether Star Wars is any good or not, with the loud noisy voices of movie reviews and Hollywood trend-setters and amateur critics saying it sucks, and people who actually purchase movie tickets finding it to be a wonderful and rewarding experience, unable to get enough.

Star Wars has been like the Cinderella of movie-making, with “real” movies playing the part of the ugly stepsisters. The more orthodox gliteratti “A-list” celebrities/directors/producers continue to cogitate on how wonderful they are, pumping out such classics as………… I don’t know, “Oceans Twelve” or “Dogma” or “Steel Magnolias” or “Natural Born Killers” or “Erin Brockovich” which we’re told are highly enjoyable, and if we don’t see the wonderfulness we must be stupid or something. While, like Cinderella, “Star Wars” has done the real work of keeping us awestruck, entertained, mystified, and enchanted by wonderful stories of good versus evil. And earning criticism. Lots and lots of criticism. Mostly over stupid crap that really doesn’t matter.

Anyway, someone at Star Wars apparently decided the time was right to ratchet up the effort of marketing, and it would be okay to insert some effort-toward-marketing within the movie script itself. And they did something which I think is extraordinarily clever. Yes, they tossed in political commentary, but that’s not clever, it’s done all the time now. But what political commentary? It’s a matter of opinion. Purely. People see what they want to see. So tighty-righties who want to make it a felony to have sex in the wrong position or use the “F-word” in public and want to bomb every country that isn’t Christian, think Star Wars endorses all their ideas, and lefty-loosies who want to spit on soldiers and butcher babies and pay criminals money to not misbehave, are quite sure Star Wars agrees with them.

The latter of those two, the Bush-bashing liberals who want to blame our President for freaking hurricanes, have been much louder in the forums where people try to figure out Star Wars’ political leanings. This is because you have to do a lot less thinking in order to divine their perspective from the movie script itself, and boy howdy, liberals are very good at not doing much thinking. The scene in which they find support for their position, comes a half-hour before the end of the film. in this scene protagonist-and-antagonist face off for the final climactic duel over a river of deadly lava:

Anakin Skywalker (bad guy): If you’re not with me, then you are my enemy.

Obi-Wan Kenobi (good guy): Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

Skywalker: You will try…YEEEAAARRRGGGGHHH!

There you go. In just two lines the bad guy as-much-as directly quotes not only President George Bush, but also Howard Dean, current Chairman of the Democratic party. So the movie is saying quite plainly that President Bush is nuts.

No, that’s not the liberal argument, because of course in liberal-land you can’t slander anything that’s liberal even when it cries out for slamming like Chairman Dean has been doing for two years straight now. They’re just saying that the bad guy here is a metaphor for President Bush’s statement in November of 2001 that “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” So it’s settled. Star Wars movies don’t like President Bush, and neither should the rest of us.

Okay, point made.

First sign of trouble for that paradigm, is this perplexing question: If the Star Wars stands as a saga lecturing us on the various problems with moral absolutism, how long does this lecture stand? And the answer is, about eleven minutes. Yeah, that’s right. Put the DVD back in the player and watch the movie again…aforementioned good-guy-and-bad-guy are fighting real hard, this time floating down the lava river on some kind of whatchamecallzem hovering platform thingies, and it goes like this.

Skywalker (bad guy, remember): I should have known the Jedi were taking over!

Kenobi (good guy) (exasperated): Anakin! Chancellor Palpatine is evil! (Like, duh! C’mon!)

Skywalker: From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!

Oopsie. Good guy stands for absolutes, bad guy stands for moral relativism. Just like the Republicans keep telling us.

I pointed this out already, back in November when the movie first came out on disc. To be fair about it, the Star Wars saga is indeed trying to say something philosophically deep about moral relativism, and the message is a lot more complicated than “it sucks”. There are passages in the older movies that appear to endorse the moral relativism, or at least to imply that this is the way the universe works and it would serve us well to simply adapt to it.

But it’s obvious that, assuming we’re inclined to take our moral and political lectures from Star Wars, the franchise would caution us from getting too cozy with relativism. Indeed, in the newest chapter referenced above, about an hour earlier in the film, the head, top-notch, Godfather, big-master-honcho bad guy, whose job it is to represent evil itself, actually comes out and says “Good and evil is a point of view.” You can’t get plainer than that. Evil works to seduce us by whitewashing over its own definition, causing us to doubt its existence and thus to question our wanderings into its perimeter. People have been saying this for thousands of years.

Well, enough of that rant, it’s been done before. Pull up Google and ask the “innernets” how we’re supposed to interpret “only a Sith deals in absolutes.” Opinions here are cheap. The web is fairly dripping with them.

But this one is worthy of special recognition, I think. I find the reasoning to be unsually sound.

…nowhere is this parallel alleged to be seen more than in Obi-Wan’s response to Anakin’s earlier statement - “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” Really?

And the Jedi don’t?

Why then must Anakin hide his marriage to Padme if the Jedi do not make absolute moral judgments on the character of their numbers?

Why then is it not the Jedi way to kill an unarmed prisoner?

What then does “The Chancellor is evil!” mean? Is that not an absolute moral judgment?

If the Jedi do not deal in absolutes, then what is Obi-Wan doing on Mustafar in the first place?

Things that make you go hmmmmm…

This kind of logic is solid because it supports an abundance of parallels to real life. How many times have I seen a liberal lecture everyone around him that nobody is deserving of hatred and nobody’s outlook on life or religion is absolutely wrong…and then go on to direct hatred toward Republicans, and wax eloquently about how Christianity is absolutely wrong. Not that liberals have a monopoly in that kind of hypocrisy. It just goes to show that to a weak mind, it’s easy to say “you shouldn’t be putting out negative energy, man,” and then go on to put out negative energy in certain directions where it’s somehow okay to put it out.

Thing I Know #30. A lot of people who crusade against absolutes, employ absolutes quite frequently, especially while crusading against absolutes.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

On Rock Concerts
Saturday, March 25th, 2006

On Rock Concerts

I had another thought after inspecting the report from Karol at Alarming News about the politically-themed anti-Bush anti-war rock concert, which I used to substantiate my observations about Fungi Fallacies. This is a fairly frequent modern occurrence: rock concerts with themes. The anti-war rock concert is inextricably woven into the history of rock music, of course, but there have been other themes as well. Rock concerts enjoy an extremely high potential for making money, and of course everyone likes to feel good about where their money goes. So we have rock concerts to help farmers and rock concerts to find a cure for AIDS.

I’m sure if I ask a rock music fan what values are promoted by rock music, he’d include something like love, an end to hunger and war, opposition to oppression by the corporate classes, etc. Helping the poor to have food, helping the children to live, helping the grown-ups to learn to love. Stopping people from oppressing each other. I can agree with all that. At one time or another, I’ve seen rock music speak up and promote all of these things.

So I’m wondering about several politically-themed rock concerts I have not seen. Why have I not seen them?

California is considering a moratorium on the death penalty. How about a rock concert to help keep that death penalty in place? For the children. We could call it a “No More Polly Klaases” rock concert. Rock music wants kids to be alive, happy, healthy and free. Here in the Golden State, our track record for smoking the perverts who would abduct and murder those children, is dismal, and we’re thinking about giving up. How about some action?

Rock music doesn’t appear to be in favor of raping women, or allowing this to happen by inaction. A woman’s chances of being raped or murdered, drop considerably when she is allowed to purchase and carry a gun. How about a rock concert to protect our right to keep and bear arms? Oh, yes, I know that sounds politically agitating, but there’s nothing politically extreme about protecting women from being violated. Nothing at all. And the right is in our Constitution. Look it up. Now, how about that concert?

Rock music appears to be of the mindset that we’re all just one big family all over the world, and it seems to present a certain hostility to the concept of national borders. Since rock music is also all about personal freedom, how about a rock concert celebrating the fall of Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay? I’m not misstating the values of rock music, am I? Well, the musicians who think the war was a bad idea, are out there, but they’ve had their say. Seems to me it’s a given that if you want the Iraqi people to be free, the celebration is overdue. Let’s go.

Rock music also appears to show acrimony to any sort of racial discrimination, and embrace the vision that skin color will one day become absolutely meaningless. We just had a Supreme Court decision that says we need another quarter century, give or take, of giving special privileges to people with a certain skin color, and this is causing distress, cynicism and rancor. How about a “We Don’t Need Another Twenty-Two Years” rock concert promoting the idea that we’re ready for color-blindedness right friggin’ now?

I believe rock music would agree with my sentiment that children should grow up to choose their own destinies, and that it’s bad when they’re hemmed in to a certain range of lifestyles — especially when this confinement takes place because of the incompetence of today’s grown-ups. Where is the rock concert promoting school vouchers?

Why am I not seeing these concerts?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Fungi Fallacies
Friday, March 24th, 2006

Fungi Fallacies

I lay claim to the concept, but my friend James Bostwick of Newsblog Central gets credit for the name. Fungi Fallacies, a modern plague, threatening to infest and smother and starve us as surely as anything from the Book of Exodus, consisting of nothing but so much intellectual nonsense.

I’ll explain.

We live in an age of a troubling paradox, and I believe it is unprecedented. In all of recorded human history, we’ve managed to rely on an unwavering truth about the information we can gather: Quantity will invariably lead to quality. Put another way, in times past, it was easy for us to take some of our more glaring mistakes, whether the mistakes involved intentional fraud or not, and tie them to some nugget of good information we didn’t have. Had we known just a little bit more, things would have been better. Our parents could do this, as could our grandparents, our ancestors from a century or two ago — it has been, as they say, ever thus. Bad information has a correlation to inadequate information.

And so it has been part of the human condition to, like a dog chasing a car, wish for more information. And like the dog catching up to the car, here we are. We have the “innernets,” which by themselves/itself, put us into an entirely different world. What we want to know, we can find out. Instantly. Usually, free of charge or any obligation whatsoever. And what we call the “web” promises to be merely the first ray of sunshine in a whole new dawn.

And like the dog chasing the car and finally catching it, we find we’ve answered nothing and just raised new questions. We barely comprehend what it is we’ve achieved, and as for the new situation this achievement has placed us in, we’re entirely clueless.

We find ourselves submerged not in useful information, but in crap. It’s up to our armpits. And most distressing of all, before we had all this information, the crap wasn’t here. “Back in the day,” crap was something you found on the bottom of your shoe once in awhile. Now we’re swimming in it. If the crap was only ten percent of everything we heard, like it used to be — or twenty or even fifty percent — we’d be on easy street. But we have all this information, and now ninety-nine percent of it, or more — not ten percent — is nothing more than pure feces. What happened? We were supposed to be enlightened, and instead we’re being smothered.

Why is that? Well, to answer that question, consider what a “fungus” is. The mushrooms you buy in the store to put on your salad, are a fungus. The growths, and the fuzz, and the slime you find on the north sides of trees and rocks deep in the forest, each of these is a fungus. What grows in your crotch when you don’t change your underwear or take a bath is a fungus. The plural is “fungi,” and what amazing things fungi are!

They have it in common with each other that they are fragile. Incredibly fragile. Depending on what kind of fungus we’re discussing, the band of acceptable temperatures is relatively narrow, and they always need moisture. In addition to water, they require a lot of food, preferrably nitrogen-rich food. They can’t digest things very well on their own. So a constant supply of somebody else’s “used food” is ideal. And they don’t like light.

What’s remarkable about a fungus, is that for something so picky and fragile, they are extraordinarily low-maintenance. It’s really a miracle of nature. You get the right conditions in a house, on a tree, on your foot…and there you go. Fungus. Fungi are so low-maintenance, that you don’t even have to work to get fungus — you have to work to not get fungus.

That brings us to the fungi fallacy.

Just as an interested person can now use the “innernets” to learn whatever he wants, we tend to forget that a charlatan can use the same device to sell whatever he wants to sell. That has been the case since before the web, of course. Vaudeville-era chronicles are replete with stories of “snake oil” salesmen and the like. But with the planet covered with a virtual network, today’s snake-oil salesman can be connected instantly with whatever environment he wants to transform into a market. They get to select the enviornment in which their wares are peddled. Just as the student can be connected instantly with whoever might have the information he wants. It’s not a one-way street.

And because the charlatans choose the environment much the same way as the fungus chooses the north side of a rock, we have this “information fungus.” Lots and lots of it. We get to hear ideas that have no intrinsic structural integrity of their own, and are just as intellectually strong as a fungus is hardy. That is to say, not at all. But like the fungi, those ideas get to thrive wherever their advocates feel the ideas have the best shot. Wherever there is moisture, fecal matter, and an absence of light.

In generations past, we had a “fungus” like this. People said Ronald Reagan was trying to advance a nuclear arms race, when America already had the power to “blow up the world seven hundred thousand times.” This started out as “blow up the world five times,” if memory serves, and then the number kept getting bigger and bigger

House of Eratosthenes

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Community Members

Site Admin

IsolationistsThursday, March 30th, 2006

Does It F***ing Matter?Thursday, March 30th, 2006

Dangerous Diets, Huh?Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

Deep Sea Fishing in a Shallow PondWednesday, March 29th, 2006

Too Tolerant to Allow Such a ThingMonday, March 27th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VISunday, March 26th, 2006

On Rock ConcertsSaturday, March 25th, 2006

Fungi FallaciesFriday, March 24th, 2006

Isolationists
Thursday, March 30th, 2006

Does It F***ing Matter?
Thursday, March 30th, 2006

Dangerous Diets, Huh?
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

Deep Sea Fishing in a Shallow Pond
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

Too Tolerant to Allow Such a Thing
Monday, March 27th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VI
Sunday, March 26th, 2006

On Rock Concerts
Saturday, March 25th, 2006

Fungi Fallacies
Friday, March 24th, 2006