I love my Google mail "targeted" ads. I've mentioned them before with regard to spam/Spam. I love it when I subscribe to a comment thread on Troop's and I get ads for dresses.
I've also gotten ads for kissing (women and men), ads for specialized kinds of computer hardware, travel options to India, volunteer organizations, and so on. I'm always intrigued by the non-obvious connections, and sometimes I click through out of sheer curiosity.
Of course, I get tons of Obama ads. Curiously, in the past month, they've gone from all positive, to about 1/2 being ads for things like "Obamunism" and anti-Obama program material. I suspect that reflects a sea change.
Anyway, back to us being stupid: Recently I got an ad for Health Care For American Now. And I clicked through because, honestly, I hear very, very little support for the...uh...Obamanation currently under consideration.
And I was greeted with this question (here's the link, if you like, I'll probably start clicking through out of spite, every chance I get): WHICH WILL IT BE? AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, OR MORE MONEY FOR MILLIONAIRES?
We can ignore the stupidity of that dichotomy for now. We can ignore the notion that somehow Bush's tax cuts are all that stand between us and cheap health care. We can ignore the immorality of the basic premise: That it's okay to take money from people who have more simply because someone can think of a better use for it. We can ignore the economic thickness that presupposes that taking money from millionaires has no other impact other than to "spread the wealth around".
What requires monumental stupidity to ignore, however, is the notion that this will ONLY cost the rich a few of their ill-gotten shekels. This is exactly how the income tax started. A mere half-percent, and only on the most wealthy. They could spare half-a-percent, surely?
The Democrats so successfully beat the Republicans up with the income tax issue, that the Republicans finally caved--much to the shock of many Democrats of the time who were absolutely appalled at the notion of there actually being an income tax.
But it's okay, because this tax would never affect average Americans. And, no, we don't need to include a 10% cap on it because the American people would never stand for 10% of their income being taken from them!
And, hey, look at all those rich people not paying their "fair share" again! Wicked rich people, following the laws to minimize their tax burden! We need an Alternative Minimum Tax.
You know? At some point, you really have to be stupid if you think "it's only gonna affect those guys". It never just affects "those guys". Even the poorest of us end up paying, and not just indirectly through increased costs of everything, but through the inevitable VAT they'll pass to pay for this mess once it gets unwieldy. That is, almost immediately.
So, that's the question: How stupid are we?
The arguments never change. The results are always the same: incremental slavery.
How stupid are we?
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Separation of Medicine and State
The latest encroachment of state upon medicine is, I think most of us realize, nothing novel. We have socialized medicine elsewhere in the world, and no matter how badly it fails and how reductive of liberty it is, the drumbeat to implement it here has been constant throughout my lifetime. But the slope didn't start slipping with Medicare or any of the other government programs; in my opinion, the journey predates modern collectivism by centuries.
I've written before about how my great-grandmother was threatened with arrest for curing TB patients. This would've been in the early decades of the 20th century. But she was hardly alone: Medical guilds have been attacking outsiders since the days they were respectable barbers with a shady side-business.
Basically, when the various medical associations managed to get a monopoly on treating the sick, and got the force of the state on their side, they not only diminished prospects for health (in the name of protecting people, of course, it's always in the name of protecting people), they signed their own death warrant.
Someone else at Ace's or Althouse mentioned Microsoft, which is a propos because one of Microsoft's tactics for conquering a niche has always been to "partner" with their future competitors, usually offering some tempting deal. At that point they'd steal code (for example), and integrate it into the OS. Cut off their oxygen, as I think MS CEO Steve Ballmer put it. At that point, you can either outlawyer them, buy them off cheap (if you need to buy them off at all), and voila, you own the market.
I actually consulted for a company that partnered with MS. I was astonished that they partnered with them, seemed to be proud of that fact, and watched as MS created a competitor that is now included with every version of Windows. But at least they're still in business.
That's, of course, similar to how the government works, as well. The government "partners" with doctors--and look how tight the AMA and government are--offering them the sweet deal of a monopoly, and wiping out their competition. (Remember, the government just spent $2.5 billion to prove that none of these other things work. Meanwhile tens of billions go into curing cancer with no appreciable progress made.)
And while the government forbade compensation increases during WWII (to stem inflation), they exempted medical insurance, thus leading to the current weird situation where one is beholding to an employer for tax-deductable coverage or else stuck buying their own, giving us the current market distortions in the insurance market. (Well, that and all the other "help" the government gives.)
And now it's time to pay the piper: The price for the monopoly--for convincing the country that there is only way to treat medical problems, and that there is only one source for that treatment--is to become public servants, under the thumb of the government. In the words of Darth Vader, "I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it again."
The thing that got me thinking about this was stumbling across this somewhat overblown video on poor Willhelm Reich. I referred to him as a "probable quack" in my previous post, which was just a flip statement (plus, like "snake oil", I use "quack" affectionately).
I don't know if Reich was really a quack or not. I do know that he was destroyed, just like my old pal Ignaz Semmelweis, and his writings actually banned by the government! (Or so they say; I haven't seen the order.) I'm not sure how the First Amendment allows celebrities to be attacked with known lies, but also allows controversial philosophical and medical ideas to be banned.
But I do think it's kind of interesting that I keep seeing "the ether" pop up in scientific articles. And I'm pretty sure that it's within my rights as an American--or it was supposed to be--to explore such ideas, however wacky, stupid or even personally harmful, they might be. I think the Founding Fathers would have wanted me to be able to buy an orgone box if I felt like.
Hell, Franklin would've gone halfsies with me.
I've written before about how my great-grandmother was threatened with arrest for curing TB patients. This would've been in the early decades of the 20th century. But she was hardly alone: Medical guilds have been attacking outsiders since the days they were respectable barbers with a shady side-business.
Basically, when the various medical associations managed to get a monopoly on treating the sick, and got the force of the state on their side, they not only diminished prospects for health (in the name of protecting people, of course, it's always in the name of protecting people), they signed their own death warrant.
Someone else at Ace's or Althouse mentioned Microsoft, which is a propos because one of Microsoft's tactics for conquering a niche has always been to "partner" with their future competitors, usually offering some tempting deal. At that point they'd steal code (for example), and integrate it into the OS. Cut off their oxygen, as I think MS CEO Steve Ballmer put it. At that point, you can either outlawyer them, buy them off cheap (if you need to buy them off at all), and voila, you own the market.
I actually consulted for a company that partnered with MS. I was astonished that they partnered with them, seemed to be proud of that fact, and watched as MS created a competitor that is now included with every version of Windows. But at least they're still in business.
That's, of course, similar to how the government works, as well. The government "partners" with doctors--and look how tight the AMA and government are--offering them the sweet deal of a monopoly, and wiping out their competition. (Remember, the government just spent $2.5 billion to prove that none of these other things work. Meanwhile tens of billions go into curing cancer with no appreciable progress made.)
And while the government forbade compensation increases during WWII (to stem inflation), they exempted medical insurance, thus leading to the current weird situation where one is beholding to an employer for tax-deductable coverage or else stuck buying their own, giving us the current market distortions in the insurance market. (Well, that and all the other "help" the government gives.)
And now it's time to pay the piper: The price for the monopoly--for convincing the country that there is only way to treat medical problems, and that there is only one source for that treatment--is to become public servants, under the thumb of the government. In the words of Darth Vader, "I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it again."
The thing that got me thinking about this was stumbling across this somewhat overblown video on poor Willhelm Reich. I referred to him as a "probable quack" in my previous post, which was just a flip statement (plus, like "snake oil", I use "quack" affectionately).
I don't know if Reich was really a quack or not. I do know that he was destroyed, just like my old pal Ignaz Semmelweis, and his writings actually banned by the government! (Or so they say; I haven't seen the order.) I'm not sure how the First Amendment allows celebrities to be attacked with known lies, but also allows controversial philosophical and medical ideas to be banned.
But I do think it's kind of interesting that I keep seeing "the ether" pop up in scientific articles. And I'm pretty sure that it's within my rights as an American--or it was supposed to be--to explore such ideas, however wacky, stupid or even personally harmful, they might be. I think the Founding Fathers would have wanted me to be able to buy an orgone box if I felt like.
Hell, Franklin would've gone halfsies with me.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Links You May Have Missed, But Probably Would Like To See, If Only You Knew About Them
These are for me as much as you. I'll thank me later. Mostly from Twitter.
Via Freeman Hunt : The blog of Milton Friedman's "Free To Choose" PBS series. Funny that for all the PBS crap I got shown in school, this wasn't among the viewing options.
Via Andy Levy via Allahpundit: Face transplant story with pictures. Amazing.
More on the voucher situation from the WSJ: "If, however, you are a pol who piously tells inner-city families that public schools are the answer -- and you do this while safely ensconcing your own kids in some private haven -- the press corps mostly winks."
Also, today is not the day where I wish I sent my kids to public school.
27% of all marketers suck? Sounds a little low to me.
Funny and short: Why copywriters should be native speakers.
Cringely talks about the future of television on the Internet. It's interesting.
Hot: Bill Whittle schools John Stewart on the history behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The beauty of being a useful idiot is that you never have to research and you never have to say you're sorry. Because, damn the facts, you're right, and Harry Truman was a war criminal.
Lastly, Tabitha Hale aka Pink Elephant Pundit has started doing a radio show/podcast/audio blog/whatever the hell the kids these days are calling it. Episode One is here. I was going to listen to it, but there's, like, the entirety of "Walk This Way" at the front and that used up any time I had, plus confused me.
Via Freeman Hunt : The blog of Milton Friedman's "Free To Choose" PBS series. Funny that for all the PBS crap I got shown in school, this wasn't among the viewing options.
Via Andy Levy via Allahpundit: Face transplant story with pictures. Amazing.
More on the voucher situation from the WSJ: "If, however, you are a pol who piously tells inner-city families that public schools are the answer -- and you do this while safely ensconcing your own kids in some private haven -- the press corps mostly winks."
Also, today is not the day where I wish I sent my kids to public school.
27% of all marketers suck? Sounds a little low to me.
Funny and short: Why copywriters should be native speakers.
Cringely talks about the future of television on the Internet. It's interesting.
Hot: Bill Whittle schools John Stewart on the history behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The beauty of being a useful idiot is that you never have to research and you never have to say you're sorry. Because, damn the facts, you're right, and Harry Truman was a war criminal.
Lastly, Tabitha Hale aka Pink Elephant Pundit has started doing a radio show/podcast/audio blog/whatever the hell the kids these days are calling it. Episode One is here. I was going to listen to it, but there's, like, the entirety of "Walk This Way" at the front and that used up any time I had, plus confused me.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
You Don't Understand: I Need The Attention
The late unlamented USSR had a practice of locking people up in labor camps for what we in the West called political reasons. The USSR didn't, of course, refer to it that way. They locked up people who were mentally unsound. I don't know whether they learned this from the Nazis--who labeled the Jews as mentally unhygenic--but there are always members of the mental health community willing to label bothersome people "mentally unsound".
It has happened here before, too. And still happens. Shock treatment and lobotomies have also been used regularly for managing political problems. Really, governments should never, ever have any association with mental institutions, just because the temptation for abuse will always be irresistable--at least until some truly scientific criteria for insanity exists.
I was thinking about this because, well, I used to like Janeane Garofalo. I'm not proud of it. But back in the '90s, she was mildly funny and sort of cute in an angsty college chick way, and she had a pleasing acting persona. She delivered one of the great lines in TV history on "Law and Order", where it turns out she betrayed her celebrity employer for something like $10K:
Anyway, Garofalo has taken to promoting the notion that conservatives, right-wingers (i.e., people who disagree with her) suffer from an actual brain problem. Oversized limbic regions or somesuch scientific-sounding thing.
Most people, of course, won't take the suggestion seriously. But a big enough percentage of the population agrees with it, at least to the extent that they keep giving her avenues to say this. And it's not just her. There were a spate of "scientific studies" last year purporting to show conservatism as a mental disorder.
But, really, it's not an approach to tolerate, because it amounts to "socialists lobbying for the right to institutionalize dissenters". That hasn't worked out well in the past. Well, except for the State, I suppose.
Given the fact that the insane basically have no rights, someone seriously advocating that an entire demographic is insane is not someone who should be broadcast.
It has happened here before, too. And still happens. Shock treatment and lobotomies have also been used regularly for managing political problems. Really, governments should never, ever have any association with mental institutions, just because the temptation for abuse will always be irresistable--at least until some truly scientific criteria for insanity exists.
I was thinking about this because, well, I used to like Janeane Garofalo. I'm not proud of it. But back in the '90s, she was mildly funny and sort of cute in an angsty college chick way, and she had a pleasing acting persona. She delivered one of the great lines in TV history on "Law and Order", where it turns out she betrayed her celebrity employer for something like $10K:
That phrase takes on special meaning now that Garofalo took a paying gig on "24".
You don't understand: I needed the money.
Anyway, Garofalo has taken to promoting the notion that conservatives, right-wingers (i.e., people who disagree with her) suffer from an actual brain problem. Oversized limbic regions or somesuch scientific-sounding thing.
Most people, of course, won't take the suggestion seriously. But a big enough percentage of the population agrees with it, at least to the extent that they keep giving her avenues to say this. And it's not just her. There were a spate of "scientific studies" last year purporting to show conservatism as a mental disorder.
But, really, it's not an approach to tolerate, because it amounts to "socialists lobbying for the right to institutionalize dissenters". That hasn't worked out well in the past. Well, except for the State, I suppose.
Given the fact that the insane basically have no rights, someone seriously advocating that an entire demographic is insane is not someone who should be broadcast.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
They Saved Hitler's Brain!
Well, no, they saved his skull. Or just a picture of it. And it's up for sale on Ebay!
But as always, how do you know if what you're buying (on the Internet from a complete stranger who may, in fact, be a dog) when buying a prized historical artifact?
Well (as always) you should check the seller's rating and comments. And, if possible, you should compare the item against known authentic items (or at least pictures thereof).
So, for your edification, I have here an authentic X-ray of Hitler's skull for you to compare against.
Good luck, and I hope you win!
But as always, how do you know if what you're buying (on the Internet from a complete stranger who may, in fact, be a dog) when buying a prized historical artifact?
Well (as always) you should check the seller's rating and comments. And, if possible, you should compare the item against known authentic items (or at least pictures thereof).
So, for your edification, I have here an authentic X-ray of Hitler's skull for you to compare against.
Good luck, and I hope you win!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Manic Monday Apocalypso: If One Atom Bomb Can Ruin Your Whole Day, Two Would Probably Do You In For A Week
Today's MMA recognizes Tsutomu Yamaguchi, a man who survived the blast at Hiroshima, then went home to Nagasaki just in time to catch then next A-bomb!
It's interesting to me that a victim meme has sprung up in Japan about this. I guess it all fits in with anti-American sentiments--oh, we're so horrible because we're the only ones to have used an atomic bomb in war--but it doesn't seem exactly Bushido to bitch about being slapped by the guy you picked a fight with.
But then, Japan wasn't acting very "Bushido" during that time period, anyway. I've heard that they don't really study WWII that way. That is they don't study their attack on China, and the atrocities there, or their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. As if WWII "just happened".
I don't know if that's true. But it is kind of weird that the whole giant rubber-suited monster genre of movie--Godzilla (Gojira)--begins with an atomic blast, just from a symbolic level. If you've never seen the original Godzilla, I recommend it, too: The obvious parallels to Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a little surreal. Just that mix: Now you're watching footage that looks like a documentary of a true horror, now there's that goofy looking rubber suit.
Japan had its Apocalypse back in 1945 (though its roots go way farther back, obviously) and emerged a peaceful powerhouse, something I think few would have predicted.
As always, a reminder that while civilization is fragile, dedicated work can bring it back stronger than ever.
It's interesting to me that a victim meme has sprung up in Japan about this. I guess it all fits in with anti-American sentiments--oh, we're so horrible because we're the only ones to have used an atomic bomb in war--but it doesn't seem exactly Bushido to bitch about being slapped by the guy you picked a fight with.
But then, Japan wasn't acting very "Bushido" during that time period, anyway. I've heard that they don't really study WWII that way. That is they don't study their attack on China, and the atrocities there, or their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. As if WWII "just happened".
I don't know if that's true. But it is kind of weird that the whole giant rubber-suited monster genre of movie--Godzilla (Gojira)--begins with an atomic blast, just from a symbolic level. If you've never seen the original Godzilla, I recommend it, too: The obvious parallels to Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a little surreal. Just that mix: Now you're watching footage that looks like a documentary of a true horror, now there's that goofy looking rubber suit.
Japan had its Apocalypse back in 1945 (though its roots go way farther back, obviously) and emerged a peaceful powerhouse, something I think few would have predicted.
As always, a reminder that while civilization is fragile, dedicated work can bring it back stronger than ever.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Time Sink for Classic Movie Fans
Sent via Ron of...what is it? Fluffy Stuffin'? I don't want to know who "Fluffy" is and with what he/she/it is being stuffed, much less why. I just go about my Internet business without looking too hard to one side or the other. Especially when Ron tweets that this "Fluffy" entity is running around like Dr. Manhattan. (I hesitate to enquire which aspects of Dr. Manhattans behavior or lack-of-dress "Fluffy" is imitating.)
Anyway, Ron--or perhaps "Fluffy"--sends this blog called Greenbriar Picture Shows, which is a treasure trove of old movie--not all classics--minutiae.
It's an engrossing read for fans of the cinema.
Anyway, Ron--or perhaps "Fluffy"--sends this blog called Greenbriar Picture Shows, which is a treasure trove of old movie--not all classics--minutiae.
It's an engrossing read for fans of the cinema.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Libertarian Optimism
"Expecting Washington to cut back its main instrument of power after a capitalism-bashing political campaign is like expecting Michael Moore to share his Egg McMuffin with a homeless man."
The above from a piece by Gillespie and Welch which is remarkably optimistic given the massive spending. Bankruptcy could lead to--must inevitably lead to?--greater responsibility and less spending and control? Maybe? Dunno.
John Stossel is less sanguine.
It's true that technology--far from the oppressor imagined by Orwell, Huxley and Bradbury--has mostly had a salubrious effect on liberty. Which is not to say that there aren't victims.
Gillespie and Welch's premise seems to be that, in many ways, people are becoming accustomed to tremendous freedom, especially through the 'net. (We are all anarchists now, after a fashion.) This, in turn, will lead to draining of political power.
That might could be. (Yes, "might could". Gotta problem with that?)
It's certainly a nice thought. I think I'll adopt it. See how it grows.
Darcy asked me the other day if I was optimistic, with regard to people and events. Not exactly. With people, I prefer to dwell on their better aspects. Their worst aspects are likely to be banal, but the ways in which they excel or thrive are more likely to be interesting and useful. (Unless, I suppose, one is an extortionist.)
There's an optimism one adopts when taking on a project. The idea is that it should succeed. That's why one generally bothers at all. (And I do the occasional project that I know will "fail" because its success is separate from what I'm trying to get out of it.)
But for large events--society-wide events--history is a bit of a buzzkill. Here we are, in this Golden Age--for surely it is a Golden Age, warts and all--when history demonstrates that all such ages pass, and sooner rather than later. And it's so easy to see--or at least think we see--the reasons why.
But what else can one do but try to stop that, at least until things get so bad the ship must be abandoned?
That doesn't sound very optimistic, though, does it?
The above from a piece by Gillespie and Welch which is remarkably optimistic given the massive spending. Bankruptcy could lead to--must inevitably lead to?--greater responsibility and less spending and control? Maybe? Dunno.
John Stossel is less sanguine.
It's true that technology--far from the oppressor imagined by Orwell, Huxley and Bradbury--has mostly had a salubrious effect on liberty. Which is not to say that there aren't victims.
Gillespie and Welch's premise seems to be that, in many ways, people are becoming accustomed to tremendous freedom, especially through the 'net. (We are all anarchists now, after a fashion.) This, in turn, will lead to draining of political power.
That might could be. (Yes, "might could". Gotta problem with that?)
It's certainly a nice thought. I think I'll adopt it. See how it grows.
Darcy asked me the other day if I was optimistic, with regard to people and events. Not exactly. With people, I prefer to dwell on their better aspects. Their worst aspects are likely to be banal, but the ways in which they excel or thrive are more likely to be interesting and useful. (Unless, I suppose, one is an extortionist.)
There's an optimism one adopts when taking on a project. The idea is that it should succeed. That's why one generally bothers at all. (And I do the occasional project that I know will "fail" because its success is separate from what I'm trying to get out of it.)
But for large events--society-wide events--history is a bit of a buzzkill. Here we are, in this Golden Age--for surely it is a Golden Age, warts and all--when history demonstrates that all such ages pass, and sooner rather than later. And it's so easy to see--or at least think we see--the reasons why.
But what else can one do but try to stop that, at least until things get so bad the ship must be abandoned?
That doesn't sound very optimistic, though, does it?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Rock of Ages
Schoolhouse Rock was a defining cultural moment for a generation: Thousands of kids that schools had failed to reach were suddenly aware of nouns, times tables and American history.
So it's not surprising to see it used to describe modern situations, as in "I'm Just A (Stimulus) Bill". Ruth Anne at The Maternal Optimist links to one of the second revival's songs, Tyrannosaurus Debt. (The first and best run was from '73-'79, and the series was revived in the '80s, briefly, to get some computer stuff in there, and then again in the '90s for a money series. None caught fire like the original.)
On a related note, Blossom Dearie, who sang "Figure Eight" and "Adjectives" died last week at the age of 82.
Lileks reminisces on Reagan, whom the left is trying to blame all our current ills on, so they can--well, you know, take all the money and run the show. That's the goal, right?
Reagan was worse than stupid – he was conspicuously indifferent to our futures. It was generally accepted that he either wanted a nuclear war or was too dim to understand the consequences. It went without saying that he didn’t read Schell’s “Fate of the Earth.” It went without saying that he didn’t read anything at all.
Remember kids, Republicans are either stupid or evil: Ike (Stupid), Nixon (Evil), Ford (Stupid), Reagan (Stupid), GHW Bush (Evil), GW Bush (Stupid). This narrative hasn't changed in my father's lifetime, much less my own. And it probably goes back to the 19th century, though not so one-sidedly as it has in the past 80 years.
Finally, Clarendon at the New Pamplheteers (h/t Instapundit) writes a little bit about the history of the Boston Tea Party and what those who would co-opt those historical giants should know about how that event came about.
We live in intersting times.
So it's not surprising to see it used to describe modern situations, as in "I'm Just A (Stimulus) Bill". Ruth Anne at The Maternal Optimist links to one of the second revival's songs, Tyrannosaurus Debt. (The first and best run was from '73-'79, and the series was revived in the '80s, briefly, to get some computer stuff in there, and then again in the '90s for a money series. None caught fire like the original.)
On a related note, Blossom Dearie, who sang "Figure Eight" and "Adjectives" died last week at the age of 82.
Lileks reminisces on Reagan, whom the left is trying to blame all our current ills on, so they can--well, you know, take all the money and run the show. That's the goal, right?
Reagan was worse than stupid – he was conspicuously indifferent to our futures. It was generally accepted that he either wanted a nuclear war or was too dim to understand the consequences. It went without saying that he didn’t read Schell’s “Fate of the Earth.” It went without saying that he didn’t read anything at all.
Remember kids, Republicans are either stupid or evil: Ike (Stupid), Nixon (Evil), Ford (Stupid), Reagan (Stupid), GHW Bush (Evil), GW Bush (Stupid). This narrative hasn't changed in my father's lifetime, much less my own. And it probably goes back to the 19th century, though not so one-sidedly as it has in the past 80 years.
Finally, Clarendon at the New Pamplheteers (h/t Instapundit) writes a little bit about the history of the Boston Tea Party and what those who would co-opt those historical giants should know about how that event came about.
We live in intersting times.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Does It Smell A Little World-War-Two-ey In Here?
Or is it just me?
I'm not claiming to have made any close examination of the parallels, mind you. I just look at the worsening financial situation, the increasing concentration of government power (in the US, in Turkey, in Europe) and--let's see, all we need is a dangerous, radical philosophy that has the extermination of the Jews as its goal.
Anyone? Anyone?
Nah, I guess not.
I'm not claiming to have made any close examination of the parallels, mind you. I just look at the worsening financial situation, the increasing concentration of government power (in the US, in Turkey, in Europe) and--let's see, all we need is a dangerous, radical philosophy that has the extermination of the Jews as its goal.
Anyone? Anyone?
Nah, I guess not.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Patriot
I like the Roland Emmerich film The Patriot. It's the best of a portfolio that borders on the offensively stupid. (OK, maybe some of that is disappointment. This guy should be my hero. But how do you make a worse Godzilla movie than Toho? How do you make a global warming disaster movie which features the cold as a sort-of monster? How do you make so many bad, expensive movies, like 10,000 B.C., and continue to get hired to make more at huge budgets?)
I found myself increasingly irritated by the portrayal of the British. While it was a war and atrocities abounded, I found it hard to believe that the guys who wouldn't sully themselves to, you know, take cover while shooting, would do anything like the horrific things depicted in the movie.
I remember the controversy at the time and went to look up the Wikipedia entry for the movie; Wikipedia usually carries a "historical inaccuracies" section for every historical movie and I was pretty sure I had read an article on it there (or somehwere). When I went to look, however, there was no entry for inaccuracies.
Then I noticed that there was some controversy, and flipped over to the talk page, where a battle has been raging about the British conduct during the Revolutionary War.
And from a casual reading, the atrocities win out! Some point to this book:
Partisans and Redcoats details the war in the South which was apparently a long list of atrocities (rebels included) and documents Cornwallis' bad behavior. What's interesting to me is that the author makes the point that traditional histories just sort of ignore the South completely and don't talk about Cornwallis until the events leading to his surrender are imminent.
In fact, the author (Walter Edgar) makes a point very similar to the one made in The Patriot: That English atrocities were a big factor in unifying the South against the British. (The ties between them being strong well into the Civil War.)
How about them apples?
I think that makes Mel Gibson 2, Haters 1. (Braveheart, his best historical movie, is also the least accurate.)
I found myself increasingly irritated by the portrayal of the British. While it was a war and atrocities abounded, I found it hard to believe that the guys who wouldn't sully themselves to, you know, take cover while shooting, would do anything like the horrific things depicted in the movie.
I remember the controversy at the time and went to look up the Wikipedia entry for the movie; Wikipedia usually carries a "historical inaccuracies" section for every historical movie and I was pretty sure I had read an article on it there (or somehwere). When I went to look, however, there was no entry for inaccuracies.
Then I noticed that there was some controversy, and flipped over to the talk page, where a battle has been raging about the British conduct during the Revolutionary War.
And from a casual reading, the atrocities win out! Some point to this book:
Partisans and Redcoats details the war in the South which was apparently a long list of atrocities (rebels included) and documents Cornwallis' bad behavior. What's interesting to me is that the author makes the point that traditional histories just sort of ignore the South completely and don't talk about Cornwallis until the events leading to his surrender are imminent.
In fact, the author (Walter Edgar) makes a point very similar to the one made in The Patriot: That English atrocities were a big factor in unifying the South against the British. (The ties between them being strong well into the Civil War.)
How about them apples?
I think that makes Mel Gibson 2, Haters 1. (Braveheart, his best historical movie, is also the least accurate.)
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
In Which You Decide You Can't Trust My Opinion On Movies Any More
If you ever did, of course.
We watched The French Connection the other night.
Five time Oscar-winning French Connection.
It registered a big "meh".
Now, if there's a period of time in the movies that registers a big "meh" from me, it's the late '60s to the late '70s. Say 1966-1975. Movies from this era tend to have certain elements in common:
1. A mustard yellow/avocado green color scheme. These were popular kitchen colors but the whole decade seems drab and--well, sort of like the '50s-future gone totally degenerate. One thing TFC had over similar cop dramas is that it wasn't all this way. There were some very nice shots and some good blocking, some things that presaged The Exorcist.
2. A gawdawful, ugly, brass-heavy score. That's why John Williams was such a phenomenon with Jaws and especially Star Wars. He brought back the full orchestra and aesthetic music. TFC is slightly different if only in that it relies on some really ugly piano work.
3. An attitude of cynicism and nihilism this generation wishes they could touch. So, in TFC, we have incompetent cops chasing incompetent crooks with a bunch of innocent people getting killed, and the bad guys getting away or getting light sentences because the system is broken, man.
There are probably a lot of other things that I object to, too, but I just plain avoid movies from this era. Even good ones tend to be ruined by one or more of these issues.
The Godfather movies, of course, are both remarkably (and uncharacteristically) beautiful with lovely scores, but the "heroes" are mobsters who are slightly less evil than other mobsters. The Wild Bunch makes sociopaths out of the guys who had been cutting heroic figures in the preceding 50 years of cinema. Serpico has an honest cop lead--but he's the only honest cop in the world, apparently. Even the Dirty Harry movies suggest that Harry's the only honest and competent cop around.
The musical dies during this period, with Cabaret putting the nail in that coffin. I love Cabaret, don't get me wrong, but it cemented the notion that we couldn't accept the musical as a serious art form. Post-Cabaret musicals would either be fantasies, kiddie pix or the music would have to come from an "organic" source. No more random people breaking out into song and dance.
This was the time of Heston's Post-Apocalyptic trilogy: Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green and Omega Man. The death of the pro-American war movie with The Green Berets. The death, probably coincidentally, of the big-budget animated feature and Walt Disney. The time of despairing features like They Shoot Horses Don't They and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Not coincidentally, this is both a time critics are often nostalgic for, and a time when box office receipts were phenomenally low.
If not for the (basically) pre-Boomer Spielberg and Lucas, and Roger Corman's influence, movie theaters would probably be oddities today.
Getting back to TFC: It's slow--the vast bulk of the movie is people following other people around! The acting is good, of course. It all feels pointless though, and probably that was the point. Between the nihilism and the super-duper chase scene (which has aged like an episode of "Barnaby Jones"), you had a copy story that you could avoid enjoying for the normal reasons, and could "enjoy" for what it said about The Man.
A Big Meh. For giggles, TFC beat the following movies at the 1971 Oscars:
Films not nominated that year include Harold and Maude and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
We watched The French Connection the other night.
Five time Oscar-winning French Connection.
It registered a big "meh".
Now, if there's a period of time in the movies that registers a big "meh" from me, it's the late '60s to the late '70s. Say 1966-1975. Movies from this era tend to have certain elements in common:
1. A mustard yellow/avocado green color scheme. These were popular kitchen colors but the whole decade seems drab and--well, sort of like the '50s-future gone totally degenerate. One thing TFC had over similar cop dramas is that it wasn't all this way. There were some very nice shots and some good blocking, some things that presaged The Exorcist.
2. A gawdawful, ugly, brass-heavy score. That's why John Williams was such a phenomenon with Jaws and especially Star Wars. He brought back the full orchestra and aesthetic music. TFC is slightly different if only in that it relies on some really ugly piano work.
3. An attitude of cynicism and nihilism this generation wishes they could touch. So, in TFC, we have incompetent cops chasing incompetent crooks with a bunch of innocent people getting killed, and the bad guys getting away or getting light sentences because the system is broken, man.
There are probably a lot of other things that I object to, too, but I just plain avoid movies from this era. Even good ones tend to be ruined by one or more of these issues.
The Godfather movies, of course, are both remarkably (and uncharacteristically) beautiful with lovely scores, but the "heroes" are mobsters who are slightly less evil than other mobsters. The Wild Bunch makes sociopaths out of the guys who had been cutting heroic figures in the preceding 50 years of cinema. Serpico has an honest cop lead--but he's the only honest cop in the world, apparently. Even the Dirty Harry movies suggest that Harry's the only honest and competent cop around.
The musical dies during this period, with Cabaret putting the nail in that coffin. I love Cabaret, don't get me wrong, but it cemented the notion that we couldn't accept the musical as a serious art form. Post-Cabaret musicals would either be fantasies, kiddie pix or the music would have to come from an "organic" source. No more random people breaking out into song and dance.
This was the time of Heston's Post-Apocalyptic trilogy: Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green and Omega Man. The death of the pro-American war movie with The Green Berets. The death, probably coincidentally, of the big-budget animated feature and Walt Disney. The time of despairing features like They Shoot Horses Don't They and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Not coincidentally, this is both a time critics are often nostalgic for, and a time when box office receipts were phenomenally low.
If not for the (basically) pre-Boomer Spielberg and Lucas, and Roger Corman's influence, movie theaters would probably be oddities today.
Getting back to TFC: It's slow--the vast bulk of the movie is people following other people around! The acting is good, of course. It all feels pointless though, and probably that was the point. Between the nihilism and the super-duper chase scene (which has aged like an episode of "Barnaby Jones"), you had a copy story that you could avoid enjoying for the normal reasons, and could "enjoy" for what it said about The Man.
A Big Meh. For giggles, TFC beat the following movies at the 1971 Oscars:
Films not nominated that year include Harold and Maude and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
Friday, December 12, 2008
It's Always Older Than You Think
I pity the poor archaeologist, whose job it is to reconstruct a 5 million piece puzzles with 995,000 of the pieces missing. That said, I'm always confident that whatever the timeline they have built for society, it's wrong.
Severely.
Physicists may have the events right, but they're always making the universe older, too. But archaeologists have to ignore things like super-accurate pre-Columbian maps of South America, chemical batteries found in the ancient world, etc. Our view of the world is still dominated by an old Judeo-Christian model (that Judeo-Christians probably seldom subscribed to).
This is one of those things that's tough to ignore.
10,000 years ago--long before Western civilization crawled out of the muck--an empire on the Indian subcontinent ruled the world.
And yet it's all but forgotten.
I remember reading Durant's Story of Civilization, "Our Ancient Chinese Heritage" and being amused at a paragraph spent on an empire that ruled the ancient world for 200 years--that we know virtually nothing about, other than it existed and dominated.
We know a lot less than we don't know.
Severely.
Physicists may have the events right, but they're always making the universe older, too. But archaeologists have to ignore things like super-accurate pre-Columbian maps of South America, chemical batteries found in the ancient world, etc. Our view of the world is still dominated by an old Judeo-Christian model (that Judeo-Christians probably seldom subscribed to).
This is one of those things that's tough to ignore.
10,000 years ago--long before Western civilization crawled out of the muck--an empire on the Indian subcontinent ruled the world.
And yet it's all but forgotten.
I remember reading Durant's Story of Civilization, "Our Ancient Chinese Heritage" and being amused at a paragraph spent on an empire that ruled the ancient world for 200 years--that we know virtually nothing about, other than it existed and dominated.
We know a lot less than we don't know.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
On Frozen Yogurt and Other Endangered Foods
In this post on the novel I'm writing in November, 1jpb links to ZPS's blog entry on Penguin's Frozen Yogurt.
Penguin's used to be everywhere. Now they're not. ZPS wonders why.
I discussed this phenomenon with a savvy investor person not as related to Penguin's, but as it related to Boston Market. He pointed out that there are very good financial reasons to hyperinflate a company until it bursts--provided you know how to get out before it actually does so.
This happens a lot. Not just with trendy foods, because yogurt was pretty trendy and it's reasonable to think that any given food trend will pass, as it did with cajun and with--well, does anyone remember the chocolate chip cookie boutique days? That predated yogurt a bit.
So, there perhaps aren't as many Mrs. Fields as there used to be because of some financial shenanigans--but there are still some cookie boutiques. Same with Penguin's and frozen yogurt. I don't know of an equivalent to Boston Market, at least around here, but we seem to have trouble supporting "American food" here. No more Roger's Roasters, but plenty of chicken places. Salad bars seem to have mostly vanished, to be replaced by buffets, which I suppose are mostly "American food". (Though the salad bar places used to be pretty high quality, more upscale for a place that made you get your own food, and the buffets seem to be decidedly low rent.) The Sizzler adapted itself a couple of times, including into and out of the "salad bar" phase, though I think it's finally gone for good.
Bob's Big Boy--and going back a ways, The Copper Penny (I think that was just local) and Sambo's, and more recently, Baker's Square and Coco's: All American diner's that used to be everywhere and now aren't.
The upshot is that there are foods that you used to be able to get and now can't, or can't easily. This is a sign of impending old age.
Most of the foods that I like that no longer exist were not from big chains but from little mom & pop shops that went away. Spaghetti from Mike's Pizza (in Encino or Panorama City), a Pageburger Club from Page's (Encino), A Poor Boy Pizza from Jo Mama's (Burbank) or a carob shake from a little shack outside an arcade in Westwood.
The carob shake was insidious. You'd drink a little bit and not like it. But then you'd drink a little more. And by the time you got to the bottom, you were hooked. It was sweet, but a little bitter as well.
Anyway, whaat do you think about remembering lost foods, lost loves, lost places? I tend to think one should severely restrict it, lest one end up sitting on a rocker on the porch, awash in the past, and telling the kids about the orange groves stretching out "as far as the eye can see".
Penguin's used to be everywhere. Now they're not. ZPS wonders why.
I discussed this phenomenon with a savvy investor person not as related to Penguin's, but as it related to Boston Market. He pointed out that there are very good financial reasons to hyperinflate a company until it bursts--provided you know how to get out before it actually does so.
This happens a lot. Not just with trendy foods, because yogurt was pretty trendy and it's reasonable to think that any given food trend will pass, as it did with cajun and with--well, does anyone remember the chocolate chip cookie boutique days? That predated yogurt a bit.
So, there perhaps aren't as many Mrs. Fields as there used to be because of some financial shenanigans--but there are still some cookie boutiques. Same with Penguin's and frozen yogurt. I don't know of an equivalent to Boston Market, at least around here, but we seem to have trouble supporting "American food" here. No more Roger's Roasters, but plenty of chicken places. Salad bars seem to have mostly vanished, to be replaced by buffets, which I suppose are mostly "American food". (Though the salad bar places used to be pretty high quality, more upscale for a place that made you get your own food, and the buffets seem to be decidedly low rent.) The Sizzler adapted itself a couple of times, including into and out of the "salad bar" phase, though I think it's finally gone for good.
Bob's Big Boy--and going back a ways, The Copper Penny (I think that was just local) and Sambo's, and more recently, Baker's Square and Coco's: All American diner's that used to be everywhere and now aren't.
The upshot is that there are foods that you used to be able to get and now can't, or can't easily. This is a sign of impending old age.
Most of the foods that I like that no longer exist were not from big chains but from little mom & pop shops that went away. Spaghetti from Mike's Pizza (in Encino or Panorama City), a Pageburger Club from Page's (Encino), A Poor Boy Pizza from Jo Mama's (Burbank) or a carob shake from a little shack outside an arcade in Westwood.
The carob shake was insidious. You'd drink a little bit and not like it. But then you'd drink a little more. And by the time you got to the bottom, you were hooked. It was sweet, but a little bitter as well.
Anyway, whaat do you think about remembering lost foods, lost loves, lost places? I tend to think one should severely restrict it, lest one end up sitting on a rocker on the porch, awash in the past, and telling the kids about the orange groves stretching out "as far as the eye can see".
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Inadequate
After 9/11, I dropped off the 'net for several weeks. This is pretty rare for me. I started pretty early (ca. 1991), and the Internet has been an integral part of my life for quite some time.
But I know my propensity for getting into stupid arguments, and that's what I saw of participating in online dialogues about what had happened. In some ways, my reaction was the opposite to Ace's. Not the unreality part: I certainly experienced the sense that what I was watching wasn't real. But the wanting to share banalities with other people. I wanted to be alone.
I've been told I'm a pretty smart guy, and not always sarcastically. To the extent that that's true, I think it comes into play, primarily, by knowing where the limitations of that intelligence are. And there's nothing like a demonstration of pure evil to highlight those limitations.
One of the big talking heads sort of laid it out for me. I think it was Dan Rather, but it might've been Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings. Whoever it was was talking. He wasn't saying anything meaningful. He was just talking.
I'm not criticizing this. He was doing what Ace was talking about: sharing banalities. But for me to contribute to that just struck me as adding to the noise. Worse, I could have tried to be clever, or insightful, or profound. At the bottom of the possible experiences, and perhaps the most likely for me, would be an argument that at some level would trivialize what had happened.
It was a time for action, but action was just not possible for most of us. Most of us just had words.
And words were inadequate.
But I know my propensity for getting into stupid arguments, and that's what I saw of participating in online dialogues about what had happened. In some ways, my reaction was the opposite to Ace's. Not the unreality part: I certainly experienced the sense that what I was watching wasn't real. But the wanting to share banalities with other people. I wanted to be alone.
I've been told I'm a pretty smart guy, and not always sarcastically. To the extent that that's true, I think it comes into play, primarily, by knowing where the limitations of that intelligence are. And there's nothing like a demonstration of pure evil to highlight those limitations.
One of the big talking heads sort of laid it out for me. I think it was Dan Rather, but it might've been Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings. Whoever it was was talking. He wasn't saying anything meaningful. He was just talking.
I'm not criticizing this. He was doing what Ace was talking about: sharing banalities. But for me to contribute to that just struck me as adding to the noise. Worse, I could have tried to be clever, or insightful, or profound. At the bottom of the possible experiences, and perhaps the most likely for me, would be an argument that at some level would trivialize what had happened.
It was a time for action, but action was just not possible for most of us. Most of us just had words.
And words were inadequate.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Georgia On My Mind
Putin did the one thing that could actually make me vote for McCain.
I have no desire to see the world slide back into the Cold War. Russia needs to be slapped down, hard for this. But W doesn't have the wherewithal at this point (does he?).
More than Western Europe, Eastern Europe is our natural ally at this point. They've had a taste of life under the yoke and they don't like it.
While I don't think much of running America down, the story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution--I always felt we should have done more about that. We shouldn't have allowed the wall to be built, for that matter, either.
I just get the same feeling about this. We're going to let something awful happen.
I have no desire to see the world slide back into the Cold War. Russia needs to be slapped down, hard for this. But W doesn't have the wherewithal at this point (does he?).
More than Western Europe, Eastern Europe is our natural ally at this point. They've had a taste of life under the yoke and they don't like it.
While I don't think much of running America down, the story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution--I always felt we should have done more about that. We shouldn't have allowed the wall to be built, for that matter, either.
I just get the same feeling about this. We're going to let something awful happen.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Chomskyism
Eric S. Raymond writes on patriotism:
and coins the term "chomskyism" as a counterpart to "chauvinism". (h/t Instapundit.)
I respect that tradition of patriotism by dissent because I am part of it. I’m both an American patriot and a libertarian anarchist. I both love my country and would cheerfully abolish its government and many of its laws as soon as practically possible, in service of a higher loyalty to individual liberty; “Where liberty dwells, there is my country”. Even Americans who disagree strongly with my political stance have no real difficulty understanding how it is compatible with American patriotism.
and coins the term "chomskyism" as a counterpart to "chauvinism". (h/t Instapundit.)
Friday, July 4, 2008
Star Spangled
Here's an Independence Day ramble, in honor of the day. First, what's up with this anti-"Fourth of July" phrasing from the wingnuts? C'mon, people, there's nothing wrong with saying "Fourth of July". We're saying we own this day. (It is interesting that we don't say "the 25th of December" for Christmas, but then, Christmas hasn't always fallen on the 25th, eh, what?)
Growing up when I did, in the shadow of Chomsky and other "useful idiots", steered by the press, movies and television, my teachers, books and music, my sense of patriotism and love of country is precisely the reverse of many in the preceding generation.
I grew up mistrusting it and having no sense of what made the USA great, only that we had killed the Indians and enslaved the blacks. We weren't "all that". European countries were so much better. (Well, I went Europe as a kid and loved it, but it sure seemed primitive, so I wasn't so sure about that.) Patriotism was the same as jingoism. Even at eight, I resisted saying the Pledge of Allegiance and regarded as suspect those who waved the flag or were in the military. I laughed at the thought of voting Republican and regarded Reagan as scarier than the Soviet Union.
Then, I started studying history independently. I never cared for history in school, it seeming to be a long litany of people treating each other badly. Reading Durant is probably what got me thinking, that and reading the L.A. Times. The Times, with its relentless lying--and I think that's a fair assessment of when bias takes priority over data and allows omissions and "errors" all in the same direction--is probably what made me question The Narrative.
In essence, The Narrative is what informed me, and I was actually more critical than most. I knew, for example, that the rate of draft dodging in Vietnam was comparable to that of WWII. Even so, my parents were not particularly political, and the various shenanigans of national agencies were becoming public at the time, so it was easy to look at that and believe The Narrative, with its "mistrust Authority" theme, even if the underlying theme of "don't mistrust our Authority" should've been obvious.
But the more I studied--and continue to study--world history, the more I see what some refer to as American Exceptionalism. It's not that we don't have our sins, really, it's that our sins are typical.
Meanwhile, the U.S.A. created a vision of freedom like no other. And in its shining moments the realization of that vision is available to everyone who is willing to work for it. (In some moments, perhaps not so shining, it's available to those who are willing to do something outrageous for the press as well, or those with ambulance-chasers on speed dial.) And our greatness doesn't stop at our own borders: The infectious ideas of freedom push back, however sporadically, tyranny all over the world.
I've noted many times that the Founding Fathers would be considered as radical today as they were in the 18th century. And sometimes that depresses me. People are so willing to give up their freedoms to a new royalty, to give up on that most basic of premises:
As it shouldn't need to be said, "all men are created equal" did not mean that all men were the same, but only that all were equal under the law. That there was no divine right of one man to rule over another. The law should treat all equally.
What a concept. Like "the right of the people to keep to bear arms shall not be infringed", it's some plain English that that don't people believe any more.
If they ever did. Just like I won't dwell on my country's sins on this date, I won't fault the Founders for failing to change a world population that believed in royalty for the past 5,000 years to suddenly respecting the inherent equality of citizens.
Self-evident. Self-evident! What an audacious phrase to put there.
I like to think that that most people probably do accept the right to life. (Oops. For born people, anyway.)
Liberty? Oh, no. We don't really believe in that. As Jefferson lamented, the State acquires power and loathes to give it up. But in our day, if not in his, it does so by creating hostility and suspicion of our fellow citizens. "Trust us," it says, "because you can't trust them."
And despite its miserable failures, many corruptions, and clearly stated counter-intentions, they succeed in convincing us (as a whole). There's an interesting thread over at Althouse about how children don't play outside any more and how this is the fault (at least in no small part) to the exaggerated tales of kidnapping and violence that permeate the media. How many of those people would admit that their views of the second amendment (and the other nine amendments!) were similarly colored?
No, liberty is too dangerous a thing for the common man to have.
And that most tread upon of the three--the one that really should have been "property", and God help that poor, deceased right--the pursuit of happiness. I remember the good ol' days when it was right wing Christians who were taking away your right to, uh, miscegenate (ok, I don't remember that, but it happened) and liberals were the good guys, protecting your right to, you know, do whatever with whomever.
Now of course, they're the clucking hens of "pursuit of happiness so long as it doesn't leave any trace whatsoever on the planet". Cars, lightbulbs, food, reproduction--not sex, they're still pro-sex, as long as you don't actually use it for its biological purposes of perpetuating the human race--where you live, how you travel, how much you fart, it's all subject to governmental scrutiny.
And free speech? I grew up on tales of the ACLU (a bunch of liberal Jews, as Cedarford would have to note) protecting Nazis' right to have a parade. Now they spend all their time on "freedom from" instead of "freedom to".
But here's the great thing about this country and this day: We have those rights to lose, and we can fight to keep them. And all it's going to take is eternal vigilance and proper education.
God bless America. Let freedom ring.
Growing up when I did, in the shadow of Chomsky and other "useful idiots", steered by the press, movies and television, my teachers, books and music, my sense of patriotism and love of country is precisely the reverse of many in the preceding generation.
I grew up mistrusting it and having no sense of what made the USA great, only that we had killed the Indians and enslaved the blacks. We weren't "all that". European countries were so much better. (Well, I went Europe as a kid and loved it, but it sure seemed primitive, so I wasn't so sure about that.) Patriotism was the same as jingoism. Even at eight, I resisted saying the Pledge of Allegiance and regarded as suspect those who waved the flag or were in the military. I laughed at the thought of voting Republican and regarded Reagan as scarier than the Soviet Union.
Then, I started studying history independently. I never cared for history in school, it seeming to be a long litany of people treating each other badly. Reading Durant is probably what got me thinking, that and reading the L.A. Times. The Times, with its relentless lying--and I think that's a fair assessment of when bias takes priority over data and allows omissions and "errors" all in the same direction--is probably what made me question The Narrative.
In essence, The Narrative is what informed me, and I was actually more critical than most. I knew, for example, that the rate of draft dodging in Vietnam was comparable to that of WWII. Even so, my parents were not particularly political, and the various shenanigans of national agencies were becoming public at the time, so it was easy to look at that and believe The Narrative, with its "mistrust Authority" theme, even if the underlying theme of "don't mistrust our Authority" should've been obvious.
But the more I studied--and continue to study--world history, the more I see what some refer to as American Exceptionalism. It's not that we don't have our sins, really, it's that our sins are typical.
- Genocide of the Native American? Sounds (and is) horrible. It was a forgone conclusion long before we were a nation. From what I can tell, it's a foregone conclusion whenever an agricultural society meets up with a nomadic society.
- Slavery? Every single civilization in the history of the world has a history of slavery. In fact, Keith Chandler theorizes in Beyond Civilization that it's a requirement for civilization.
- Imperialism? By God, we are the most faint-hearted imperialists in the history of the world's superpowers.
- Militaristic? That's a laugh. We're merchants. We have to be roused to attack. Granted, we can be rused to attack (the Spanish-American War and WWI come to mind, and perhaps Vietnam as well). As Iraq shows, we're the kindest invaders in history as well, with an unprecedented concern for those we're invading.
Meanwhile, the U.S.A. created a vision of freedom like no other. And in its shining moments the realization of that vision is available to everyone who is willing to work for it. (In some moments, perhaps not so shining, it's available to those who are willing to do something outrageous for the press as well, or those with ambulance-chasers on speed dial.) And our greatness doesn't stop at our own borders: The infectious ideas of freedom push back, however sporadically, tyranny all over the world.
I've noted many times that the Founding Fathers would be considered as radical today as they were in the 18th century. And sometimes that depresses me. People are so willing to give up their freedoms to a new royalty, to give up on that most basic of premises:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
As it shouldn't need to be said, "all men are created equal" did not mean that all men were the same, but only that all were equal under the law. That there was no divine right of one man to rule over another. The law should treat all equally.
What a concept. Like "the right of the people to keep to bear arms shall not be infringed", it's some plain English that that don't people believe any more.
If they ever did. Just like I won't dwell on my country's sins on this date, I won't fault the Founders for failing to change a world population that believed in royalty for the past 5,000 years to suddenly respecting the inherent equality of citizens.
Self-evident. Self-evident! What an audacious phrase to put there.
I like to think that that most people probably do accept the right to life. (Oops. For born people, anyway.)
Liberty? Oh, no. We don't really believe in that. As Jefferson lamented, the State acquires power and loathes to give it up. But in our day, if not in his, it does so by creating hostility and suspicion of our fellow citizens. "Trust us," it says, "because you can't trust them."
And despite its miserable failures, many corruptions, and clearly stated counter-intentions, they succeed in convincing us (as a whole). There's an interesting thread over at Althouse about how children don't play outside any more and how this is the fault (at least in no small part) to the exaggerated tales of kidnapping and violence that permeate the media. How many of those people would admit that their views of the second amendment (and the other nine amendments!) were similarly colored?
No, liberty is too dangerous a thing for the common man to have.
And that most tread upon of the three--the one that really should have been "property", and God help that poor, deceased right--the pursuit of happiness. I remember the good ol' days when it was right wing Christians who were taking away your right to, uh, miscegenate (ok, I don't remember that, but it happened) and liberals were the good guys, protecting your right to, you know, do whatever with whomever.
Now of course, they're the clucking hens of "pursuit of happiness so long as it doesn't leave any trace whatsoever on the planet". Cars, lightbulbs, food, reproduction--not sex, they're still pro-sex, as long as you don't actually use it for its biological purposes of perpetuating the human race--where you live, how you travel, how much you fart, it's all subject to governmental scrutiny.
And free speech? I grew up on tales of the ACLU (a bunch of liberal Jews, as Cedarford would have to note) protecting Nazis' right to have a parade. Now they spend all their time on "freedom from" instead of "freedom to".
But here's the great thing about this country and this day: We have those rights to lose, and we can fight to keep them. And all it's going to take is eternal vigilance and proper education.
God bless America. Let freedom ring.
Friday, June 13, 2008
250 Years of Crimes and Punishments
S. Weasel dug up this awesome website of criminal proceedings from The Old Bailey.
Murder and buggery, indeed.
Murder and buggery, indeed.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Fading Stars
IT IS interesting to me while watching TCM to note which of yesterday's stars have faded from memory, and which seem (in retrospect) to make you think "What was the big deal?" versus which oversights seem tragic.
Jean Arthur, in the latter category. A silent actress who made the transition to talkies, and starred in such classics as Only Angels Have Wings, Mr. Deeds Goes To Town (and reprised virtually the same role in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington), and later in her career, Shane.
It's probably because she was never a sex symbol and retired early. Whereas, say, Katharine Hepburn worked and was fairly visible well into recent years, and, say, Rita Hayworth was a sex symbol.
I thought of this because Warren Beatty is 71 today. Over in the Althouse bad movie thread, we were talking about Ishtar, which probably deserves to go in the "forgotten mediocrities" category rather than the "greatest disasters of all time category".
Despite the negative pre-press (which was extensive, including absolutely vicious attacks on Elaine May), the movie opened at #1, probably due to the staggering drawing power of Beatty and Dustin Hoffman. (I can't even tell if I'm being facetious at this point.)
However, I gotta believe that Warren Beatty's drawing power at that point was limited to those who remembered his break-through role in the late '60s (Bonnie and Clyde) and his few notable other films through the mid-'70s.
Those whose earliest experience was the pleasant (but not astounding) remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan confusingly titled Heaven Can Wait--and the original, classic Heaven Can Wait was on TV often enough for that to happen even among younger viewers--or worse, the 3-and-a-quarter hour commie-love epic Reds were unlikely to be turning out in force for Mr. Beatty.
At some point, movies and movie stars fall into the category of "old". It has less to do with their age and more to do with their activity level. Like Mac Culkin could be seen as "old", as could Pauley Shore or even, to a lesser extent, Haley Joel Osmont. Any of these guys could come back and start a new career that put them (and intriguingly, their old movies) back into the light, like, say, Virginia Madsen or John Travolta (several times!) but if not, or when they get past the point of no return (say, by dying, as even Don Ameche, Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy had a revival in the '80s that brought their older movies back into the light), then they just become answers in the big book of movie trivia.
I think Warren Beatty's window was really quite small. He really appealed to a segment of the Boomer population for a few years, and that carried him through for the next couple decades of turning out the occasional, largely forgettable flick. And a lot of that "carriage" may have been due to his sex symbol status, and probably tons of favorable press generated by his politics.
Compared to, say, Jack Nicholson, whose 71st is coming up in a few months, and whose drawing power has been considerable for 30 years. It seems likely that in a few decades, both will fade from the consciousness, though hard to imagine that Beatty will be more of a footnote, and Nicholson's penchant for delivering memorable movie moments ("You're not gonna pull that hen-house shit today, are you?", "Honey, I'm home!", "You can't handle the truth!") will keep him elevated above Beatty.
But you never know. Jean Arthur should be better remembered, shouldn't she?
Jean Arthur, in the latter category. A silent actress who made the transition to talkies, and starred in such classics as Only Angels Have Wings, Mr. Deeds Goes To Town (and reprised virtually the same role in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington), and later in her career, Shane.
It's probably because she was never a sex symbol and retired early. Whereas, say, Katharine Hepburn worked and was fairly visible well into recent years, and, say, Rita Hayworth was a sex symbol.
I thought of this because Warren Beatty is 71 today. Over in the Althouse bad movie thread, we were talking about Ishtar, which probably deserves to go in the "forgotten mediocrities" category rather than the "greatest disasters of all time category".
Despite the negative pre-press (which was extensive, including absolutely vicious attacks on Elaine May), the movie opened at #1, probably due to the staggering drawing power of Beatty and Dustin Hoffman. (I can't even tell if I'm being facetious at this point.)
However, I gotta believe that Warren Beatty's drawing power at that point was limited to those who remembered his break-through role in the late '60s (Bonnie and Clyde) and his few notable other films through the mid-'70s.
Those whose earliest experience was the pleasant (but not astounding) remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan confusingly titled Heaven Can Wait--and the original, classic Heaven Can Wait was on TV often enough for that to happen even among younger viewers--or worse, the 3-and-a-quarter hour commie-love epic Reds were unlikely to be turning out in force for Mr. Beatty.
At some point, movies and movie stars fall into the category of "old". It has less to do with their age and more to do with their activity level. Like Mac Culkin could be seen as "old", as could Pauley Shore or even, to a lesser extent, Haley Joel Osmont. Any of these guys could come back and start a new career that put them (and intriguingly, their old movies) back into the light, like, say, Virginia Madsen or John Travolta (several times!) but if not, or when they get past the point of no return (say, by dying, as even Don Ameche, Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy had a revival in the '80s that brought their older movies back into the light), then they just become answers in the big book of movie trivia.
I think Warren Beatty's window was really quite small. He really appealed to a segment of the Boomer population for a few years, and that carried him through for the next couple decades of turning out the occasional, largely forgettable flick. And a lot of that "carriage" may have been due to his sex symbol status, and probably tons of favorable press generated by his politics.
Compared to, say, Jack Nicholson, whose 71st is coming up in a few months, and whose drawing power has been considerable for 30 years. It seems likely that in a few decades, both will fade from the consciousness, though hard to imagine that Beatty will be more of a footnote, and Nicholson's penchant for delivering memorable movie moments ("You're not gonna pull that hen-house shit today, are you?", "Honey, I'm home!", "You can't handle the truth!") will keep him elevated above Beatty.
But you never know. Jean Arthur should be better remembered, shouldn't she?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
