With Neil Armstrong dead its a fair question to ask. Manned space flight has not developed very well since the Apollo program.
Of course, this is a relative perspective: China has the first module of a space station in orbit with the intent of expanding it. A Chinese moon mission is not out of the question. Iran has stated that it wants to put a man in space; I'm surprised India does not have a manned space program; and Japan could easily put a man in space if they really wanted to. Space exploration is more global now than half a century ago, which is of course a good thing.
Private enterprise is increasingly becoming a major part of space exploration. The first privately funded spacecraft made its first flight eight years ago, and Virgin Galactic, slowly but measurably, is taking progress towards routine tourist space flights. SpaceX is being set up, largely by NASA, to ferry supplies and crews to the international space station. This is happeningly a lot slower than I think alot of people would like, but it is happening, and that matters. By "we" I am speaking from the Western/American perspective: I am Canadian, and our space program and is tied up with theirs.
But we could be so much more. Its so hard to argue against what we could have, should have, may have been.
By the eighties we could have had a presence on or above the moon. Maybe not a complete moon colony, nothing like the Apollo program, but maybe smaller, more frequent flights to the moon with an orbiting laboratory. We should have had a smaller space station. We should have designed the shuttle more intelligently. Columbia and Challenger could have been avoided if there had been no external fuel tank or solid rocket boosters, both of which were concessions to keeping the cost of the program as low as possible.
I'd like to pin the reasons for the decline of the American space program, in ambition as well as materially, on knee-jerk drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub conservatives who view any tax increase as a declaration of war on their sacred freedoms and think science is strictly optional. But let's be real: even in times of prosperity the space program is difficult to rationalize. Remember eight years back when Bush promoted a moonbase? He may have been sincere, I won't deny him that, but I doubt that would have been his highest priority compared to Iraq and everything else he was mismanaging.
Our expectations for the future were inflated, yes. If we had gone back to the moon in the mid-nineties, hypothetically, I doubt much of consequence would have resulted. Going to Mars is complicated, people, even if you strip it down to the bones. We're not likely to have a large Apollo scale mission for at least a decade, no matter what country ends up pursuing it, and we have to live with it. Proposals will come and go.
We don't have the spark to truly motivate us as we did during the Cold War. That is deeply frustrating, knowing that our most commendable drives are tied to our reproachable ones. But that, unfortunately, is the way the human race works. We inflate our virtues---but I believe we equally inflate our vices.
I don't believe America or humanity is in terminal decline. Going through some of the most sucky times in a century, to be sure, but this is just the wheel of history going through some muddy ruts. Our eyes are still on the skies. I don't think our young are any more deprived of imagination than the one that preceeded it. We're definitely better off by having a glorious, albeit inaccurate perception of, history to help inspire us.
So we will have a glorious future. Its taking its sweet time to get here, but that is the problem with history. Once we slog through the bad parts, of course, we will somehow get there. Such is history.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
I still want to be an astronaut when I grow up
Neil Armstrong is dead.
If you were around me as a teenager, you know how much I love space exploration. I always felt pride when I learned that Armstrong and I had the same birthday. I feel bad I never had the talents to go into science and space exploration. Science fiction is the next best thing.
An era has ended: NASA put an atomic powered rover on Mars, the biggest achievment in space exploration in years, not long ago. I hope this is the beginning of a new era.
I don't think America produces as many heroes as they think they do. But when they do, they make them big.
If you were around me as a teenager, you know how much I love space exploration. I always felt pride when I learned that Armstrong and I had the same birthday. I feel bad I never had the talents to go into science and space exploration. Science fiction is the next best thing.
An era has ended: NASA put an atomic powered rover on Mars, the biggest achievment in space exploration in years, not long ago. I hope this is the beginning of a new era.
I don't think America produces as many heroes as they think they do. But when they do, they make them big.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
In which I continue this month's theme of sighing in despair in reaction to today's news
The Republican party wants to add a plank to the 2012 platform outlawing abortion in all cases. All cases: rape, incest and life of the mother included. Just...just gimme a break.
Look, I get it: abortion is controversial. Plenty of people, good honest people, have deep reservations against terminating a pregnancy---I get that. There are people who use abortion as a form of birth control, and I don't think thats right. In a perfect world abortion wouldn't exist; it would be inconcievable. But we do no live in an ideal world.
Leaving the decision to have an abortion should be left to the individual, because that is the only way that abortion can be handled. Trying to legalize it out of existence only creates more loopholes and complications. Its not perfect, its not always used responsibly, but only the individual can make the decision to have an abortion.
This is horribly unrealistic. It is the exact opposite to both realistic policy, and it is not as pro life as its proponents would think.
There are situations where an abortion is essential to save the life of a woman. No, its not fair, but, again, the world is not a perfect place. Maybe in five hundred years all medical conditions requiring abortion will be solved, and that will be a great day. Until that day, however, we have to accept the fact that women's needs to have an abortion must be guaranteed. Not just in preserving a woman's freedom but also their lives.
Asking a woman who has been raped (yes, Todd Akin, I am looking at you) to bear her rapist's child is utterly disrespectful. Someone who has had their body violated once now has to live with the consequences, endure the pain of childbirth and cope with a child they do not want (yes, they can adopt, but still). The rapist practically gets off scot free. Don't even get me started on incest. You completley will lose me if you try to argue that incest is not grounds for abortion.
There are situations where abortion is the lesser of two evils. Maybe they can be handled better. Hindsight is 20/20 and a maze is easier to solve from above. I think its condescending to judge someone for having an abortion: they've done the agonizing for you.
The sole consolation is that women (who Republicans will discover can vote in America), I believe, will overwhelmingly reject the Republican party, growing the demographic group wedded to the Democrats: what I would like to call, the League of Everyone Else. By 2016 I'm hopeful, however irrationally, that reality will sink in and the Republicans will begin to get their act together. I doubt it, and I will await to see the level the Republicans will sink to if the lessons of 2012 are not learned.
I need to do some blogging about science fiction, history, rock climbing or SCUBA diving...anything to take my mind off of all the misguided bullshit Republicans and conservatives have been spewing. Granted, I'm Canadian, I shouldn't be as concerned as those poor Americans, but I can't help but feel sorry for them. I feel sorry they have to live with such crap.
Look, I get it: abortion is controversial. Plenty of people, good honest people, have deep reservations against terminating a pregnancy---I get that. There are people who use abortion as a form of birth control, and I don't think thats right. In a perfect world abortion wouldn't exist; it would be inconcievable. But we do no live in an ideal world.
Leaving the decision to have an abortion should be left to the individual, because that is the only way that abortion can be handled. Trying to legalize it out of existence only creates more loopholes and complications. Its not perfect, its not always used responsibly, but only the individual can make the decision to have an abortion.
This is horribly unrealistic. It is the exact opposite to both realistic policy, and it is not as pro life as its proponents would think.
There are situations where an abortion is essential to save the life of a woman. No, its not fair, but, again, the world is not a perfect place. Maybe in five hundred years all medical conditions requiring abortion will be solved, and that will be a great day. Until that day, however, we have to accept the fact that women's needs to have an abortion must be guaranteed. Not just in preserving a woman's freedom but also their lives.
Asking a woman who has been raped (yes, Todd Akin, I am looking at you) to bear her rapist's child is utterly disrespectful. Someone who has had their body violated once now has to live with the consequences, endure the pain of childbirth and cope with a child they do not want (yes, they can adopt, but still). The rapist practically gets off scot free. Don't even get me started on incest. You completley will lose me if you try to argue that incest is not grounds for abortion.
There are situations where abortion is the lesser of two evils. Maybe they can be handled better. Hindsight is 20/20 and a maze is easier to solve from above. I think its condescending to judge someone for having an abortion: they've done the agonizing for you.
The sole consolation is that women (who Republicans will discover can vote in America), I believe, will overwhelmingly reject the Republican party, growing the demographic group wedded to the Democrats: what I would like to call, the League of Everyone Else. By 2016 I'm hopeful, however irrationally, that reality will sink in and the Republicans will begin to get their act together. I doubt it, and I will await to see the level the Republicans will sink to if the lessons of 2012 are not learned.
I need to do some blogging about science fiction, history, rock climbing or SCUBA diving...anything to take my mind off of all the misguided bullshit Republicans and conservatives have been spewing. Granted, I'm Canadian, I shouldn't be as concerned as those poor Americans, but I can't help but feel sorry for them. I feel sorry they have to live with such crap.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Whisky Tango Foxtrot: The Numbing Racism of Revealing Eden
This exists.
In the year 2012.
People, remember the post I wrote about Scalzi getting shit for writing about white male privilige? Consider this Exhibt A. This is a dystopian future where white-skinned people are in the minority and darker skinned people are dominant and tyrannical....I don't have to say any more, do I? If you can read more than a few paragraphs without closing the preview window you are a stronger person than I am. If you can fight back the urge to weep in despair you are made of iron.
Recently, Weird Tales magazine did a silly thing by giving this book a positive review, saying that it was not a racist book. In fact, if anyone had a problem with the book's racial dynamics, its the fault of the reader! Yes, if you are sufficiently open minded, you can enjoy the different perspective this book brings! According to Weird Tales editor Marvin Kaye:
"The blessing is to wish they acquire sufficient wit, wisdom and depth of literary analysis to understand what they read, and also the compassion not to attack others merely because they hold a different opinion."
You saw the video links of people reading the novel I posted and the Amazon link to check it out for yourself. You saw what was written. Make up your own minds. Irony or irresponsibility? You decide---but the answer is the latter. Yes, it is truly an opinion not commonly expressed, in no small part because this isn't the reconstruction era south anymore and its not tactful to denounce people based on their skin colour anymore. They're also allowed to sit wherever they want on buses too, and they don't have separate drinking fountains anymore.
Saying you need to have an open mind to enjoy this novel is pure chutzpah. It completley ignores the issue, and arguing that if you treat it ironically or symbolically its okay is an excuse that nobody who wishes to be considered an adult should make. I'm not saying Kaye is a frothing at the mouth bigot but he is being very disingenous, towards the contents of the novel and anyone who objects to it. Ignorance of the implications of the text is dishonourable at best, inexcusable at worst.
The internet response to it has not been pretty. Anne Vandemeer, who was a supporting editor for the magazine, has resigned in disgust. NK Jemsin laments what the magazine, who published some of her work, has become. No professional talent is likely to want to be published in Weird Tales. Since the magazine was purchased by a new publisher and fired the Hugo Award winning editorial board, the future will not look bright. I'm slightly disinclined to supporting a boycott solely because we need more short fiction venues---an incredibly weak line of defence, I know, but if Marvin Kaye can resign and go into exile hopefully the reputation of the magazine can be repaired.
My favourite Tweet on the matter.
Racism did not disappear in 1965; if anything I'd argue its making a comeback. Not legally, but in the mind where it finds fertile ground. Since Barack Obama...well, existed, the level of racist discourse in the United States has risen, and it has never been so blatant . Clothed in symbolism and metaphor, but its very obvious what perspective they have in mind. A lazy other mooching off the successes of white people. Food stamp abusing, malt liquor swigging, gangsta rap listeining jigaboos. Welfare cadillac single moms. The content of Republican agitprop of the last thirty years.
Its a vanity press published novel, so the audience the book recieves will not be large. I hope. I pray. It is gaining a well deserved infamy, and will be spoken of in geek circles as an object of ridicule, an unfortunate and inexplicable atavism. I hope that it is also seen as a cautionary tale. All the negative attitudes about race we think went away before we were born? They haven't: they're still around and finding an audience. They'll never go away but hopefully they can be minimized. The fact it is not available in shops is a very good sign, but believe you me this book will find defenders.
Crosses aren't burning on the lawns of America, not anymore, but in the quiet privacy of too many minds they are blazing.
In the year 2012.
People, remember the post I wrote about Scalzi getting shit for writing about white male privilige? Consider this Exhibt A. This is a dystopian future where white-skinned people are in the minority and darker skinned people are dominant and tyrannical....I don't have to say any more, do I? If you can read more than a few paragraphs without closing the preview window you are a stronger person than I am. If you can fight back the urge to weep in despair you are made of iron.
Recently, Weird Tales magazine did a silly thing by giving this book a positive review, saying that it was not a racist book. In fact, if anyone had a problem with the book's racial dynamics, its the fault of the reader! Yes, if you are sufficiently open minded, you can enjoy the different perspective this book brings! According to Weird Tales editor Marvin Kaye:
"The blessing is to wish they acquire sufficient wit, wisdom and depth of literary analysis to understand what they read, and also the compassion not to attack others merely because they hold a different opinion."
You saw the video links of people reading the novel I posted and the Amazon link to check it out for yourself. You saw what was written. Make up your own minds. Irony or irresponsibility? You decide---but the answer is the latter. Yes, it is truly an opinion not commonly expressed, in no small part because this isn't the reconstruction era south anymore and its not tactful to denounce people based on their skin colour anymore. They're also allowed to sit wherever they want on buses too, and they don't have separate drinking fountains anymore.
Saying you need to have an open mind to enjoy this novel is pure chutzpah. It completley ignores the issue, and arguing that if you treat it ironically or symbolically its okay is an excuse that nobody who wishes to be considered an adult should make. I'm not saying Kaye is a frothing at the mouth bigot but he is being very disingenous, towards the contents of the novel and anyone who objects to it. Ignorance of the implications of the text is dishonourable at best, inexcusable at worst.
The internet response to it has not been pretty. Anne Vandemeer, who was a supporting editor for the magazine, has resigned in disgust. NK Jemsin laments what the magazine, who published some of her work, has become. No professional talent is likely to want to be published in Weird Tales. Since the magazine was purchased by a new publisher and fired the Hugo Award winning editorial board, the future will not look bright. I'm slightly disinclined to supporting a boycott solely because we need more short fiction venues---an incredibly weak line of defence, I know, but if Marvin Kaye can resign and go into exile hopefully the reputation of the magazine can be repaired.
My favourite Tweet on the matter.
Racism did not disappear in 1965; if anything I'd argue its making a comeback. Not legally, but in the mind where it finds fertile ground. Since Barack Obama...well, existed, the level of racist discourse in the United States has risen, and it has never been so blatant . Clothed in symbolism and metaphor, but its very obvious what perspective they have in mind. A lazy other mooching off the successes of white people. Food stamp abusing, malt liquor swigging, gangsta rap listeining jigaboos. Welfare cadillac single moms. The content of Republican agitprop of the last thirty years.
Its a vanity press published novel, so the audience the book recieves will not be large. I hope. I pray. It is gaining a well deserved infamy, and will be spoken of in geek circles as an object of ridicule, an unfortunate and inexplicable atavism. I hope that it is also seen as a cautionary tale. All the negative attitudes about race we think went away before we were born? They haven't: they're still around and finding an audience. They'll never go away but hopefully they can be minimized. The fact it is not available in shops is a very good sign, but believe you me this book will find defenders.
Crosses aren't burning on the lawns of America, not anymore, but in the quiet privacy of too many minds they are blazing.
Yes, this happened
So. Rape does not get a woman pregnant. We have Tony Atkins, Republican (can you believe it?), of Missouri to thank for this relevation. If he wins in the forthcoming election I am both going to be very, very surprised and very, very sad. Anyone fleeing from this wacko can crash at my place.
So, what to say about it, except what hasn't already been said by people more skilled than me?
Its ignorant: it ignores a great deal about biology, revealing the depths of Atkin's knowledge about a crucial cultural issue.
Its disrespectful: I cannot for the life of me understand how so called pro lifers can wax lyrical about the poor little fetuses slaughtered by the evil abortionists, ignoring the fact having children is a major emotional, physical and economical investment. Demanding you carry the child of your rapist is inconcievable to me.
Its misogynistic: women can easily shield themselves from being raped, of course there is nothing similar being expected of men. This is just the tip of the iceberg as to the condescension rape victims recieve, and I am not going to elaborate on it because, frankly, I really don't want to feel bummed out right now.
You can say that a cretin such as Atkins will never get elected, but here's the thing: if someone as much of an ignoramus can get that far in politics, its not out of the question that he will be elected---yes, even on the strengths of his moronic arguments. Because of those very arguments, in fact.
It is a disturbing trend in American politics over the past twenty years that politics has been contaminated, in complete honesty, by willfull ignorance if not right out misinformation. I am hoping that Obama's 2008 election victory was a turning point against that, and his likely 2012 reelection will cement that, but given all the birther nonsense since he was elected as the American cultural right doubles down on fantasies and lies....
Is this situation ever going to improve? I just don't know.
So, what to say about it, except what hasn't already been said by people more skilled than me?
Its ignorant: it ignores a great deal about biology, revealing the depths of Atkin's knowledge about a crucial cultural issue.
Its disrespectful: I cannot for the life of me understand how so called pro lifers can wax lyrical about the poor little fetuses slaughtered by the evil abortionists, ignoring the fact having children is a major emotional, physical and economical investment. Demanding you carry the child of your rapist is inconcievable to me.
Its misogynistic: women can easily shield themselves from being raped, of course there is nothing similar being expected of men. This is just the tip of the iceberg as to the condescension rape victims recieve, and I am not going to elaborate on it because, frankly, I really don't want to feel bummed out right now.
You can say that a cretin such as Atkins will never get elected, but here's the thing: if someone as much of an ignoramus can get that far in politics, its not out of the question that he will be elected---yes, even on the strengths of his moronic arguments. Because of those very arguments, in fact.
It is a disturbing trend in American politics over the past twenty years that politics has been contaminated, in complete honesty, by willfull ignorance if not right out misinformation. I am hoping that Obama's 2008 election victory was a turning point against that, and his likely 2012 reelection will cement that, but given all the birther nonsense since he was elected as the American cultural right doubles down on fantasies and lies....
Is this situation ever going to improve? I just don't know.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The Girl Who Lived: Among Others by Jo Walton
"Don't you want to find out?" he asked, his eyes gleaming. That's the spirit of science fiction.
You know the post I made awhile ago where I elucidated my preliminary thoughts on the Hugo Awards? Okay, Among Others has upset my caluclations: its already won the Nebula, been nominated for the World Fantasy Award, and is on a fast track for the Hugo. It will deserve all three.
Imagine if Harry Potter was a girl, been sent to a more grounded high school in Wales and dealt equally with fairies and her evil witch mother and school, science fiction and her emerging sexuality. Boys and magic mingle together, the magic of early adolescence shared with the magic of...magic.
Morgenna (I hope thats her name: I kept confusing it with her sister's name, which are frustratingly similar and long and Welsh) Phelps Markova has been sent to boarding school following her sisters death, during a confrontation against her mother who sought to use magic for her own ends. Mor has acquired a stern limp, and her father (who has been distant and absent for much of her life) plays a more active role in her life, sharing her interest in science fiction novels (the book namechecks virtually everything published in the seventies).
The book unfolds as a journal as Mor chronicles her life at boarding school, depicting how science fiction fans of the late seventies got together before internet was invented, which now seems hopelessly primitive and almost terrifying. Mor seeks to find a karass, a group of people she can belong in, as well as dealing with her mother's magical attacks against her and coming to terms with her sister's death, whose ghost she can visit on particular dates.
I don't think this book can be reviewed as much as nitpicked. All my problems are those are form: I found the pace to be a little lacking, considering the book's length. It pieces out the backstory carefully, and somehow I don't think worrying about boys is on the same level of trying to survive your aspring-Disney-villan mother. Yes, I know its written from the perspective of a fifteen year old girl, who is trying to figure out her life and her body, but still. I wish more attention had been devoted to the fairies, how Mor acquired the powers to communicate with them (or am I just that inattentive a reader---either is possible).
But the strength of the novel is Mor finding herself, first finding a group she can fit in with and a family with her father who has been absent much of her life; becoming an independent person from the death of her mother; using magic responsibly (her powers are used seldom but powerfully: magic is both incredibly innocous and threatening) and confronting her power-man mother. Her mother dosen't have any other aspiration except using magic to enhance her own power, commented on by her daughter as an irrational goal like something out of Lord of the Rings.
This novel has done something I never thought would be possible: make me want to be young ago, really young, when the world is still unfolding and as I make the awkward transition from childhood to adulthood. Adolescence the way we wish we all experienced it: wise, or wise enough, to handle the challenges we face, and do a mostly good job of it.
If you love books enough, books will love you back.
You know the post I made awhile ago where I elucidated my preliminary thoughts on the Hugo Awards? Okay, Among Others has upset my caluclations: its already won the Nebula, been nominated for the World Fantasy Award, and is on a fast track for the Hugo. It will deserve all three.
Imagine if Harry Potter was a girl, been sent to a more grounded high school in Wales and dealt equally with fairies and her evil witch mother and school, science fiction and her emerging sexuality. Boys and magic mingle together, the magic of early adolescence shared with the magic of...magic.
Morgenna (I hope thats her name: I kept confusing it with her sister's name, which are frustratingly similar and long and Welsh) Phelps Markova has been sent to boarding school following her sisters death, during a confrontation against her mother who sought to use magic for her own ends. Mor has acquired a stern limp, and her father (who has been distant and absent for much of her life) plays a more active role in her life, sharing her interest in science fiction novels (the book namechecks virtually everything published in the seventies).
The book unfolds as a journal as Mor chronicles her life at boarding school, depicting how science fiction fans of the late seventies got together before internet was invented, which now seems hopelessly primitive and almost terrifying. Mor seeks to find a karass, a group of people she can belong in, as well as dealing with her mother's magical attacks against her and coming to terms with her sister's death, whose ghost she can visit on particular dates.
I don't think this book can be reviewed as much as nitpicked. All my problems are those are form: I found the pace to be a little lacking, considering the book's length. It pieces out the backstory carefully, and somehow I don't think worrying about boys is on the same level of trying to survive your aspring-Disney-villan mother. Yes, I know its written from the perspective of a fifteen year old girl, who is trying to figure out her life and her body, but still. I wish more attention had been devoted to the fairies, how Mor acquired the powers to communicate with them (or am I just that inattentive a reader---either is possible).
But the strength of the novel is Mor finding herself, first finding a group she can fit in with and a family with her father who has been absent much of her life; becoming an independent person from the death of her mother; using magic responsibly (her powers are used seldom but powerfully: magic is both incredibly innocous and threatening) and confronting her power-man mother. Her mother dosen't have any other aspiration except using magic to enhance her own power, commented on by her daughter as an irrational goal like something out of Lord of the Rings.
This novel has done something I never thought would be possible: make me want to be young ago, really young, when the world is still unfolding and as I make the awkward transition from childhood to adulthood. Adolescence the way we wish we all experienced it: wise, or wise enough, to handle the challenges we face, and do a mostly good job of it.
If you love books enough, books will love you back.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Land of the free, home of the closed minds
Red Dawn has been remade. The jingoistic, implausible American movie about the United States being invaded by the Soviets has been repackaged with North Koreans (substituting for the Chinese) invading the United States to steal everyone's guns and generally be dicks. In fact, it was remade several years ago but the movie has been sitting around on someone's shelf, and now it will finally be released to a dismal box office performance, critical thrashing and praise from unseemly quarters on the internet.
The trailer does not incline me to think that the movie will be anything but a disaster. Quoting my own remarks on YouTube, a considerable ammount of people will consider this movie to be a documentary. I especially enjoyed the American flag in the frame of the bad guy's planes dropping laughingly huge numbers of paratroopers. I suppose there wasn't enough time for the North Korean bad guy to eat and/or rape a puppy (not in that order, of course) but there's always the director's cut.
After this movie ingloriously crashes and burns, my expectation is that it will be considered a sign that the uber masclininity fostered during the eighties, when Americans were licking their emotional wounds from the disgrace of the Vietnam War and learned all the wrong lessons, namely that they needed to be super tough and that was why we lost to the goddamn Commies; and accelerated after 9/11, when the freedom-hating non-Christian foreigners attacked the sacred temple of American capitalism and Americans had to man up to bring freedom and capitalism to the Middle East, will finally have cratered. Unfortunately there will be enough people out there who will care to disagree.
On certain blogs and radio stations Red Dawn's failure will be attributed to squishy left wingers, or whatever the argument will be, the same way that Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 failed. I'm not going to counter the dubious supposition that America is fundamentally a conservative nation with the equally flawed proposal that in fact it is a left wing nation, but I think anyone who thinks that Red Dawn in some way reflects or is supported by some facet of America, its cultures or traditions or history, really needs to reexamine their premises.
Red Dawn has a spectacularly flawed concept: in addition to America's formidable military, the United States is geographically isolated enough to prevent easy invasion. At least the 1984 version was slightly more credible since the invading Soviets were augmented with Central American forces. Anyone who believes North Korea (as opposed to China, an equally unlikely opponent) is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States is mistaken (though it should not be underestimated as a regional security concern) and there isn't any any other country capable of fighting Americans on their own soil.
Conceptually that dosen't matter. The point is that Americans are defending their homes from the rampaging hordes---context is irrelevant, what is important are guns and a clear enemy to fire them at.
One of the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare games, the second I think (I have no desire in finding out) has the Russians invading America, inspired by Red Dawn. It is pandering to fantasies of half-understood memories of partianship and half-remembered stories of American patriots: the desire to redeclare American independence, though exactly against how is unclear. Muslims, certainly, but also Russians, who never got around to being nearly the threat alot of Americans would have liked them to have been. A confused, bloody snarl at the country's illusory enemies.
Its been a decade since 9/11 and the unsuccessful wars that followed it. For much of that time alot of pop culture, mostly video games though to a lesser extent movie and TV, has been devoted to following the military, and for too many anything less than uncritical praise would be construed as American-hating defeatism.
We are living in trying times, especially in the United States. While there is alot to dislike about Barack Obama's handling of the various problems facing the United States (namely, his timidity and circumspectness, and at times unwillingness to act like a left-winger), I truly believe that alot of the opposition is not based on common sense. Obama has tried to address America's problems like a grownup, and alot of people think that they are only a hearbeat away from the jackbooted thugs from kicking down their doors and dragging them off to the reeducation camps.
Thankfully, the United States is moving away from what I consider to be its worst impulses and towards a broader, more tolerant, more compassionate society. Would that it get there quicker and more effectively, but that is a matter to speak of later. Alot of people are scared of that: they remember a simpler time when white people and well behaved black people dominated, grounded half in the Fifties and half in the Eighties. Anything else scares them.
On my birthday a bigot went on a rampage against people who did nothing to deserve it; and following the Aurora shooting panicked Coloradans purchased as many guns as they could, exactly the wrong reaction. Red Dawn reflects a pernicious strain of thought in the United States, one that is slowly unravelling. Its going to take another decade at least culturally for Americans to move on, hopefully wiser, from the miasma of the 80s-00s mindset. Its going to be a long and bloody fight.
Its going to get worse before it gets better, and I sincerley hope the body count is as low as possible.
The trailer does not incline me to think that the movie will be anything but a disaster. Quoting my own remarks on YouTube, a considerable ammount of people will consider this movie to be a documentary. I especially enjoyed the American flag in the frame of the bad guy's planes dropping laughingly huge numbers of paratroopers. I suppose there wasn't enough time for the North Korean bad guy to eat and/or rape a puppy (not in that order, of course) but there's always the director's cut.
After this movie ingloriously crashes and burns, my expectation is that it will be considered a sign that the uber masclininity fostered during the eighties, when Americans were licking their emotional wounds from the disgrace of the Vietnam War and learned all the wrong lessons, namely that they needed to be super tough and that was why we lost to the goddamn Commies; and accelerated after 9/11, when the freedom-hating non-Christian foreigners attacked the sacred temple of American capitalism and Americans had to man up to bring freedom and capitalism to the Middle East, will finally have cratered. Unfortunately there will be enough people out there who will care to disagree.
On certain blogs and radio stations Red Dawn's failure will be attributed to squishy left wingers, or whatever the argument will be, the same way that Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 failed. I'm not going to counter the dubious supposition that America is fundamentally a conservative nation with the equally flawed proposal that in fact it is a left wing nation, but I think anyone who thinks that Red Dawn in some way reflects or is supported by some facet of America, its cultures or traditions or history, really needs to reexamine their premises.
Red Dawn has a spectacularly flawed concept: in addition to America's formidable military, the United States is geographically isolated enough to prevent easy invasion. At least the 1984 version was slightly more credible since the invading Soviets were augmented with Central American forces. Anyone who believes North Korea (as opposed to China, an equally unlikely opponent) is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States is mistaken (though it should not be underestimated as a regional security concern) and there isn't any any other country capable of fighting Americans on their own soil.
Conceptually that dosen't matter. The point is that Americans are defending their homes from the rampaging hordes---context is irrelevant, what is important are guns and a clear enemy to fire them at.
One of the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare games, the second I think (I have no desire in finding out) has the Russians invading America, inspired by Red Dawn. It is pandering to fantasies of half-understood memories of partianship and half-remembered stories of American patriots: the desire to redeclare American independence, though exactly against how is unclear. Muslims, certainly, but also Russians, who never got around to being nearly the threat alot of Americans would have liked them to have been. A confused, bloody snarl at the country's illusory enemies.
Its been a decade since 9/11 and the unsuccessful wars that followed it. For much of that time alot of pop culture, mostly video games though to a lesser extent movie and TV, has been devoted to following the military, and for too many anything less than uncritical praise would be construed as American-hating defeatism.
We are living in trying times, especially in the United States. While there is alot to dislike about Barack Obama's handling of the various problems facing the United States (namely, his timidity and circumspectness, and at times unwillingness to act like a left-winger), I truly believe that alot of the opposition is not based on common sense. Obama has tried to address America's problems like a grownup, and alot of people think that they are only a hearbeat away from the jackbooted thugs from kicking down their doors and dragging them off to the reeducation camps.
Thankfully, the United States is moving away from what I consider to be its worst impulses and towards a broader, more tolerant, more compassionate society. Would that it get there quicker and more effectively, but that is a matter to speak of later. Alot of people are scared of that: they remember a simpler time when white people and well behaved black people dominated, grounded half in the Fifties and half in the Eighties. Anything else scares them.
On my birthday a bigot went on a rampage against people who did nothing to deserve it; and following the Aurora shooting panicked Coloradans purchased as many guns as they could, exactly the wrong reaction. Red Dawn reflects a pernicious strain of thought in the United States, one that is slowly unravelling. Its going to take another decade at least culturally for Americans to move on, hopefully wiser, from the miasma of the 80s-00s mindset. Its going to be a long and bloody fight.
Its going to get worse before it gets better, and I sincerley hope the body count is as low as possible.
Monday, August 6, 2012
I heard the news today, oh boy
Seven people, including the perpetrator, are dead in Wisconsn following yet another shooting in the United States. These are my thoughts:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people is a bullshit argument.
People kill people, yes---thats why guns were invented. So, yeah, maybe its time to reconsider America's attachment to guns, and maybe make them harder to acquire, or at least ensure the irresponsible and the wicked do not have any easy time to access them. Don't throw the Second Amendment under the bus but emphasize that "well regulated" precedes "keep and bear arms."
Americans have a fondness for guns that precludes any sense of reasoning. Yes, guns are easily available in Switzerland, but Switzerland has compulsory military service where responsible gun ownership is no doubt drilled into every citizen; as well, there is a sense of community in Europe that America lacks. Frankly, Americans are too wedded to their concepts of freedom for their own damn good. I won't deny the United States did well by giving its people greater latitude than exists, past or present, in many countries around the world, however I do think that there needs a public influence to counter its worst affects. Ideally by the government---but that is unspeakable.
Freedom in the United States precludes competence and responsibility. As long as the people have guns they are free is a load of bullshit. A country needs a legal appartus to shield people from abuses of its government, and likewise, the abuses of their fellow citizens.
A hundred and fifty years ago guns were an essential tool for settling the broad American frontier. But America is no longer a frontier country, a concept that has trouble sinking into the heads of Americans. The idea of America as a nation of strong, free gun toting cowboys makes for great movies, but translated into reality it is anything but desirable.
Don't think that more ownership of guns will make the United States safer. The perpetrator in the most recent shooting was killed by a police officer. Guns are just a glorified security blanket, feeding into the myth of American self reliance and poorly formed perceptions of heroic resistance.
Guns are unessential to a free country. Granted, the Canadian experience is not the American experience. I don't think that differences are that profound.
Certain firearms should not be in the hands of the public. Full stop.
Having a handgun for self defence is one thing, and I am not threatened by hunting rifles (shotguns, maybe). Having a semiautomatic weapon, however, crosses the line.
Klashnikovs, M16s, etc. are designed to kill large numbers of people in a very short time. No other purpose. Their use for hunting, and by that I mean hunting anything other than the Viet Cong, is limited---and I have to ask, what type of person is cruel enough to go after deer with teflon coated bullets and a semi automatic rifle? Really, if it takes more than six shots to hit people, learn how to aim better.
In Canada firearm ownership is an alienable right: you have to fight for it, prove that you need it. You cannot buy it the same way you can buy a shovel or a car. Some would think that this is an imposition upon our freedom. Why? The government imposes limits all the time, and I think it is hypocritical and absurd that firearms, that exist solely to take life, are outside any regulation. I don't think it is unfair to explain why you need a gun, and it better be a better reason than "because I want to."
I'm probably trampling on toes by suggesting that the government have a greater say into who can carry a gun and what is acceptable for self defence. I don't care. Asking you to have reasonable expectations and resonsible behaviour is not tyranny. A more aggressive system to filter out the unstable and the criminal from firearm ownership is common sense.
MURIKA, Fuck No!
I live in hope that this incident causes Americans to reconsider how they've been percieving Islam or non-Abrahamic faiths and their increasingly multicultural country. The perpetrator in question was an avowed white supremacist who was no doubt hunting for turban heads to kill, if the 9/11 tattoo he was purpoted to be wearing was any indication. Attacks on Sikhs have increased considerably since 9/11, since they are a clear visual target. However, Sikhism is not Islam---a distinction that is not stressed enough.
Education as to faiths outside of the Abrahamic tradition, and even within, is very cursory, if at all. Misinformation about Islam abounds, exacerbated by a pitiful education system and a media full of howling jackasses. It is embarssing how the United States can assert the diversity of its people if they have to scratch their heads and wonder who, exactly, are these people. If you're going to be bigoted, do your damn homework.
Everyone wearing a turban is "The Other" and it is very easy to make the connection to "The Enemy." Over the past decade, over the course of two unsuccessful wars, Americans have formed impressions of fighting primitive savages in glorious wars of freedom. They're not. They are not doing their cause any favours by substituting imagination for information. Anyone who suggests that, of course, is a terrorist appeasing liberal who hates America, or whatever it is Fox News will tell them to believe.
Thats not fair. Not to America's values, and certainly not to the people who live in the United States, especially the ones that left their homelands to find better lives in a supposedly tolerant country. I'd like to think that this is a moment where sophmoric attitudes about them dirty stinkin' turban heads is reexamined. I'd really like to. But it probably won't.
Once again, following the Colorado shooting a month ago, firearm sales will skyrocket, and the media will babble on about what should be done, though I'm pessimistic that this shooting will capture the public imagination the same way the Aurora shooting has. This happened not to God-fearin' good Christians but a faith that is neither in significant numbers nor well understood, which will probably drive many in the worlds to frenzy.
I just hope that a long, long time will pass before we revisit the issue (because there is no other way to approach the issue). But I really doubt it.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people is a bullshit argument.
People kill people, yes---thats why guns were invented. So, yeah, maybe its time to reconsider America's attachment to guns, and maybe make them harder to acquire, or at least ensure the irresponsible and the wicked do not have any easy time to access them. Don't throw the Second Amendment under the bus but emphasize that "well regulated" precedes "keep and bear arms."
Americans have a fondness for guns that precludes any sense of reasoning. Yes, guns are easily available in Switzerland, but Switzerland has compulsory military service where responsible gun ownership is no doubt drilled into every citizen; as well, there is a sense of community in Europe that America lacks. Frankly, Americans are too wedded to their concepts of freedom for their own damn good. I won't deny the United States did well by giving its people greater latitude than exists, past or present, in many countries around the world, however I do think that there needs a public influence to counter its worst affects. Ideally by the government---but that is unspeakable.
Freedom in the United States precludes competence and responsibility. As long as the people have guns they are free is a load of bullshit. A country needs a legal appartus to shield people from abuses of its government, and likewise, the abuses of their fellow citizens.
A hundred and fifty years ago guns were an essential tool for settling the broad American frontier. But America is no longer a frontier country, a concept that has trouble sinking into the heads of Americans. The idea of America as a nation of strong, free gun toting cowboys makes for great movies, but translated into reality it is anything but desirable.
Don't think that more ownership of guns will make the United States safer. The perpetrator in the most recent shooting was killed by a police officer. Guns are just a glorified security blanket, feeding into the myth of American self reliance and poorly formed perceptions of heroic resistance.
Guns are unessential to a free country. Granted, the Canadian experience is not the American experience. I don't think that differences are that profound.
Certain firearms should not be in the hands of the public. Full stop.
Having a handgun for self defence is one thing, and I am not threatened by hunting rifles (shotguns, maybe). Having a semiautomatic weapon, however, crosses the line.
Klashnikovs, M16s, etc. are designed to kill large numbers of people in a very short time. No other purpose. Their use for hunting, and by that I mean hunting anything other than the Viet Cong, is limited---and I have to ask, what type of person is cruel enough to go after deer with teflon coated bullets and a semi automatic rifle? Really, if it takes more than six shots to hit people, learn how to aim better.
In Canada firearm ownership is an alienable right: you have to fight for it, prove that you need it. You cannot buy it the same way you can buy a shovel or a car. Some would think that this is an imposition upon our freedom. Why? The government imposes limits all the time, and I think it is hypocritical and absurd that firearms, that exist solely to take life, are outside any regulation. I don't think it is unfair to explain why you need a gun, and it better be a better reason than "because I want to."
I'm probably trampling on toes by suggesting that the government have a greater say into who can carry a gun and what is acceptable for self defence. I don't care. Asking you to have reasonable expectations and resonsible behaviour is not tyranny. A more aggressive system to filter out the unstable and the criminal from firearm ownership is common sense.
MURIKA, Fuck No!
I live in hope that this incident causes Americans to reconsider how they've been percieving Islam or non-Abrahamic faiths and their increasingly multicultural country. The perpetrator in question was an avowed white supremacist who was no doubt hunting for turban heads to kill, if the 9/11 tattoo he was purpoted to be wearing was any indication. Attacks on Sikhs have increased considerably since 9/11, since they are a clear visual target. However, Sikhism is not Islam---a distinction that is not stressed enough.
Education as to faiths outside of the Abrahamic tradition, and even within, is very cursory, if at all. Misinformation about Islam abounds, exacerbated by a pitiful education system and a media full of howling jackasses. It is embarssing how the United States can assert the diversity of its people if they have to scratch their heads and wonder who, exactly, are these people. If you're going to be bigoted, do your damn homework.
Everyone wearing a turban is "The Other" and it is very easy to make the connection to "The Enemy." Over the past decade, over the course of two unsuccessful wars, Americans have formed impressions of fighting primitive savages in glorious wars of freedom. They're not. They are not doing their cause any favours by substituting imagination for information. Anyone who suggests that, of course, is a terrorist appeasing liberal who hates America, or whatever it is Fox News will tell them to believe.
Thats not fair. Not to America's values, and certainly not to the people who live in the United States, especially the ones that left their homelands to find better lives in a supposedly tolerant country. I'd like to think that this is a moment where sophmoric attitudes about them dirty stinkin' turban heads is reexamined. I'd really like to. But it probably won't.
Once again, following the Colorado shooting a month ago, firearm sales will skyrocket, and the media will babble on about what should be done, though I'm pessimistic that this shooting will capture the public imagination the same way the Aurora shooting has. This happened not to God-fearin' good Christians but a faith that is neither in significant numbers nor well understood, which will probably drive many in the worlds to frenzy.
I just hope that a long, long time will pass before we revisit the issue (because there is no other way to approach the issue). But I really doubt it.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Embarssing their grandkinds
Gay marriage is a beautiful thing and should be allowed to exist in as many places as possible. Period. End of discussion.
I cannot fathom how anyone could think to the contrary.
Gay marriage will not harm your marriage. Gay marriage will not lead to an explosion in pedophilia. Any arguments against gay marriage come from an ignorant (at best) to an outright bigoted (at worst) place, which, like all other forms of prejudice, evapourates the moment you fail to rationalize it.
Canada has had same sex marriage for nearly a decade. We lack the organized religious fundamentalists that the United States is unfortunately plagued with. To his credit Harper has not touched the issue because he would certainly lose, and decisively, though I have no confidence that he would if somehow it became possible to do so. However, public support alone resolutely ensures that Canada will remain proudly in the elite circle of nations that allow its homosexual citizens to enjoy the same status as its heterosexual ones.
Today is Chick-Fil-A appreciation day in the states, organized to support the fast food outlet who is under siege for donating to anti-same sex marriage organizations. There has been grumbling of booting the chain out of cities like Boston and Chicago, which I do not hope succeeds, as it is a massive overreaction that will backfire when similar powers falls into the hands of people that harbour even worse bigotry.
On Twitter mocking pictures have appeared of long lines at Chick Fil A by smug people who stand with the restaurant's stance. No doubt many harbour sincere beliefs that they are standing up for traditional marriage against decadent, out-of-touch elites, though more than a few are probably thinking that they just gave "the faggots" the middle finger.
Frankly, anti-gay marriage advocates sicken me. To intrude severley into the private lives of others, to denounce their relationship to the point of writing it into the constitution of a state and do it with a shit eating grin, explaining that marriage is about 'tradition' just makes me skin crawl. Anyone saying that they harbour no ill intentions against gay people while trying to ruin their lives is lying. I suppose it helps that the Abrahamic invisible man in the sky is on their side, thanks to assurances in the so-called good book.
Marriage has been an institution so mallable over human existence that arguing for a 'traditional defintion' is an excercise in futility. I doubt that the advocates of traditional, heterosexual marriage would want to go back to the days when 12-13 year old girls were married to men in the Fifties or older because her father pledged several goats so that some bearded patriarch to guarantee more children to use as instruments in furthering his family name. Marriage has been a tool for families to play games of thrones for centuries; its only been in, what, a hundred and fifty years or thereabouts since people were allowed to chose their mates because they actually loved them?
If we could transplant some great thinker from five centuries ago he would throw a fit at the immorality he would have seen: woman not taking their husbands name, intiating divorce and protesting when their husbands beat them. For shame! A woman not as the personal property of her husband!
Barack Obama "evolved" to the point where gay marriage will become a plank in the Democratic platform this election. Once elected, like everything else Obama has tried to do, it will be fiercely resisted. Stuck up congressmen from the South will moan and whine and I especially look forwards to Mitt Romney trying to spin his involvement in making gay marriage legal in Massachussetts to the saintly hoi polloi in the deep red states. The road of progress is a bumpy one but I'm confident that in ten to fifteen years---much to short for my liking---Americans from coast to coast will be able to get married to whoever they please.
Today, however, the bigots make their stand. Its discouraging to see. Granted, I live in Canada, but I do feel so for those trapped with this spiteful hate.
Gay marriage is harmless and I wish all homosexuals who want to get married could do so. Gays only want what everyone else enjoys---full stop. End of discussion.
I cannot fathom how anyone could think to the contrary.
Gay marriage will not harm your marriage. Gay marriage will not lead to an explosion in pedophilia. Any arguments against gay marriage come from an ignorant (at best) to an outright bigoted (at worst) place, which, like all other forms of prejudice, evapourates the moment you fail to rationalize it.
Canada has had same sex marriage for nearly a decade. We lack the organized religious fundamentalists that the United States is unfortunately plagued with. To his credit Harper has not touched the issue because he would certainly lose, and decisively, though I have no confidence that he would if somehow it became possible to do so. However, public support alone resolutely ensures that Canada will remain proudly in the elite circle of nations that allow its homosexual citizens to enjoy the same status as its heterosexual ones.
Today is Chick-Fil-A appreciation day in the states, organized to support the fast food outlet who is under siege for donating to anti-same sex marriage organizations. There has been grumbling of booting the chain out of cities like Boston and Chicago, which I do not hope succeeds, as it is a massive overreaction that will backfire when similar powers falls into the hands of people that harbour even worse bigotry.
On Twitter mocking pictures have appeared of long lines at Chick Fil A by smug people who stand with the restaurant's stance. No doubt many harbour sincere beliefs that they are standing up for traditional marriage against decadent, out-of-touch elites, though more than a few are probably thinking that they just gave "the faggots" the middle finger.
Frankly, anti-gay marriage advocates sicken me. To intrude severley into the private lives of others, to denounce their relationship to the point of writing it into the constitution of a state and do it with a shit eating grin, explaining that marriage is about 'tradition' just makes me skin crawl. Anyone saying that they harbour no ill intentions against gay people while trying to ruin their lives is lying. I suppose it helps that the Abrahamic invisible man in the sky is on their side, thanks to assurances in the so-called good book.
Marriage has been an institution so mallable over human existence that arguing for a 'traditional defintion' is an excercise in futility. I doubt that the advocates of traditional, heterosexual marriage would want to go back to the days when 12-13 year old girls were married to men in the Fifties or older because her father pledged several goats so that some bearded patriarch to guarantee more children to use as instruments in furthering his family name. Marriage has been a tool for families to play games of thrones for centuries; its only been in, what, a hundred and fifty years or thereabouts since people were allowed to chose their mates because they actually loved them?
If we could transplant some great thinker from five centuries ago he would throw a fit at the immorality he would have seen: woman not taking their husbands name, intiating divorce and protesting when their husbands beat them. For shame! A woman not as the personal property of her husband!
Barack Obama "evolved" to the point where gay marriage will become a plank in the Democratic platform this election. Once elected, like everything else Obama has tried to do, it will be fiercely resisted. Stuck up congressmen from the South will moan and whine and I especially look forwards to Mitt Romney trying to spin his involvement in making gay marriage legal in Massachussetts to the saintly hoi polloi in the deep red states. The road of progress is a bumpy one but I'm confident that in ten to fifteen years---much to short for my liking---Americans from coast to coast will be able to get married to whoever they please.
Today, however, the bigots make their stand. Its discouraging to see. Granted, I live in Canada, but I do feel so for those trapped with this spiteful hate.
Gay marriage is harmless and I wish all homosexuals who want to get married could do so. Gays only want what everyone else enjoys---full stop. End of discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)