"It is something that mankind was not meant to disturb."
That's Sallah's warning to his friend Indiana Jones about the Ark of the Covenant. But he may as well have said it to Steven Spielberg and George Lucas regarding the Indiana Jones legacy itself.
Indeed, it is as I feared. With Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, they have done to Indiana Jones what they did to Star Wars: extended the series with work that is not at all up to the brilliant standards of the original trilogy.
In my mind, there are three elements that make an Indiana Jones movie great (besides Harrison Ford as Indy, which is a proven constant even in a movie such as this). Those three elements: great characters, a great artifact, and great stunts. It grieves me to report that in all three of these respects, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a thorough failure.
Oh Steven, oh George, why have you forsaken Indy?
1. Great characters
A. Villains
The villains of the original trilogy - Belloq, Toht, Lao Che, Mola Ram, Walter Donovan, Colonel Vogel - were successful because they combined personality with magnificent - but not cartoonish - evil. Belloq is a self-proclaimed "shadowy reflection" of Dr. Jones, a disturbing image of what would happen to Indy himself if his values succumbed to his greed. Toht is a terrifying, eccentric, and mysterious embodiment of Nazi evil. Lao is the consummate devious gangster, and Mola Ram's Thuggee sadism is terrific fun to watch. Walter Donovan is a smart and resourceful turncoat whose own greed undoes him. Vogel is an SS Colonel who relishes the infliction of pain as a perk that comes with the job. All have qualities that give them depth and lines that are memorable as Indy's.
The central enemy in Crystal Skull is the Soviet Irina Spalko, a cookie-cutter "Natasha"-type villain, who in a horrendous waste of talent is played by the brilliant Cate Blanchett. Her personality is developed clumsily by her two-dimensional lust for 'knowledge' and her ridiculous attempts at exercising psychic powers. None of her lines are memorable, and all are delivered in a Russian accent worthy of Rocky and Bullwinkle. She captures neither the venality of Belloq or Donovan, nor the genuine, bone-chilling evil of Toht or Colonel Vogel; she is simply, transparently, cartoonishly evil. Given a role with deeper, more complex motivations, Cate Blanchett could have made Spalko a disturbing and memorable villain; instead she is merely laughed at and forgotten.
Even the minor villains of the original movies were memorable: the shirtless German mechanic who fights Indy around, on, and under the plane; the Arab swordsman Indy insouciantly blows away; the tenacious Nazi captain who struggles with Indy over control of the truck.
Tragically, ALL of the secondary villains in Crystal Skull are faceless, interchangeable Soviet thugs. None of them has any personality, none of them provide Indy with unique or interesting challenges. They're mere ducks in a shooting gallery.
B. Allies
Indy's friends - most notably Sallah, Marcus, and his father - are characters who not only are engaging in their own right, but also whose chemistry with Indy convinces the audience that they genuinely go way back. And the Indy girls are every bit a match for Dr. Jones, be it Marion's no-nonsense personality and independence or Elsa's intelligence and manipulative wiles. (One could argue also that the great weakness of the Temple of Doom was the allies, in particular the strident, prissy, and insufferable Willy Scott.)
Indy's allies in Crystal Skull are a mixed bag. Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood was good, but would have been superb, had they given her the snappiness she had in Raiders. Shia LaBeouf as Mutt Williams actually exceeded my expectations, though his relationship with Indy falls far short of that of Indy and his father, one of the greatest movie duos of all time.
Dean Charles Stanforth (Jim Broadbent) is a decent role, but one that could have benefited from further development. We don't feel a shared history like we do between Indy and Marcus or Sallah.
Sadly, Marcus Brody and Henry Jones, Sr. have passed on by the time of Crystal Skull, and Sallah is nowhere to be found (enjoying retirement in Cairo, presumably?). Their absence is made all the more painful by the inexcusably wretched roles intended to replace them: 'Mac' George McHale and Professor Oxley. Both are played by great actors; both are tragic wastes of talent.
'Mac', played by Ray Winstone, tried, and failed, to be interesting. His double-cross of Indy links him to Elsa of Last Crusade, but he lacks her intelligence, charm, and passion. The chemistry between him and Indy is terrible; all of their dialogue sounds forced. The audience is left wondering why we should care whether he's Indy's friend or enemy.
Professor Oxley is the most tragic shortcoming of the whole movie. Played by the incomparable John Hurt, Oxley could have been the next Marcus Brody, an eloquent and supportive ally to Indy; instead, Spielberg and Lucas made the inexplicable decision to turn him into a babbling, raving lunatic for nine-tenths of the film. The clues buried in his incoherent ranting and babyish behavior are a poor excuse for a plot-driving device. Professor Oxley is to this film what Jar-Jar Binks was to Star Wars Episode I: an irritating, purposeless distraction. George Lucas, must you put one of these in all your revisited films?
C. Dialogue
The dialogue in this film vacillated between forced, corny, falsely sentimental, and only occasionally witty and engaging. Some of the lines (like Indy's about his father at the end) were so excessively cheesy as to be appalling. It was difficult to understand how the dialogue in this film could have been conceived by the same minds who thought up the epic one-liners of Raiders or the delightful father-son banter of Last Crusade.
2. A great artifact
The Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are potent symbols in the Western imagination. In the Indy movies, they carry awe-inspiring yet understated power, and their looming presence is so well developed that the audience can actually come to believe their supernatural properties.
The crystal skull belongs to a crystal skeleton of an alien being. It is also a magnet. As if this were not stupid enough to begin with, when you return the skull to the skeleton (in a tomb of thirteen of these skeletons), you receive great 'power'. Which turns out to be great 'knowledge'. Which turns out to incinerate you, or something (it's not really clear why). It's a silly artifact with an unclear purpose and an anticlimactic execution. And whereas in the original films, Indy is a prime actor in the culminating scene when the artifact is used for its designed purpose, in this movie he simply jumps out the window before Cate Blanchett is burned up with, uh, knowing too much and the aliens - or single alien? again, it's not really clear - go up into the spaceship (christ I wish I were making this up) and flies away after causing a big tornado that destroys the ruins in which it all took place.
What the fuck, George and Steven? Did you ask a five year old for these ideas? Aren't there about a million artifacts you could have used that would have had at least some basis in reality and some relevance to the audience?
3. Great stunts
The stunts and special effects of the original Indiana Jones films are legendary, and set the bar for all action-adventure movies to follow. The truck chase in Raiders and the tank chase in Last Crusade are the most famous examples. Yes, those are real stuntmen being dragged behind the truck or jumping off a horse onto a moving tank! Yes, that boulder is rolling after Indy! Yes, that plane is actually exploding! The gritty and genuine realism of these stunts and effects lend an authenticity to the Indy films that makes them stand out in movie history.
But Spielberg and Lucas have gotten lazy, and have turned to computers to do a lot of the stuntwork and effects for them. The results are tawdry (the car chase through the jungle is transparently CGI), unrealistic (the duck boat's entry into the water via tree bending down from cliff), or just plain fake (everything having to do with the aliens at the end, particularly their 'sweeping up' as they leave, looks so fake it's might as well be a cartoon).
The scene when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle like Tarzan, accompanied by a cohort of monkeys, is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on film. And Indy surviving a nuclear-blast-induced airborne ride in a refrigerator makes me weep, for the standards for stunts have sunk so very, very low.
When stunts and special effects go too far, the audience doesn't watch with bated breath; the audience points and laughs.
Other observations
-The opening scene of the teenagers on a joy ride is a complete waste of time. It contributes nothing to the plot and bears no relevance to anything. The movie could start five minutes later, with the trucks entering the military installation, and nothing would have been lost.
-The ending troubles me. First of all, the idea of Indiana Jones getting married seems fundamentally wrong - unless it's a sign that he's through adventuring. Secondly, it's a bizzarely muted note to end on. Raiders ended with the magnificently ironic warehouse scene, and Last Crusade concludes with the iconic ride into the sunset. And this movie ends with Indy walking out of a wedding chapel? How pedestrian!
All of this being said, I will see this movie again. Why? Because even though the characters were weak, and the special effects were cheesy, Harrison Ford can still wear a fedora and crack a bullwhip like nobody else. Despite the film's many flaws, Indy, at least, is still Indy.
22 May 2008
16 May 2008
Answering Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
My personal favorite (because one hears this idiotic objection so often):
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
My personal favorite (because one hears this idiotic objection so often):
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
14 May 2008
The Methods of Dr. Jones
CNN: Experts: 'Indiana Jones' pure fiction
Indiana Jones managed to retrieve the trinket he was after in the opening moments of "Raiders of the Lost Ark." He pretty much wrecked everything else in the ancient South American temple where the little gold idol had rested for millennia.
Though he preaches research and good science in the classroom, the world's most famous archaeologist often is an acquisitive tomb raider in the field with a scorched-earth policy about what he leaves behind. While actual archaeologists like the guy and his movies, they wouldn't necessarily want to work alongside him on a dig.
Indy's bull-in-a-china-shop approach to archaeology will be on display again May 22 with "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," in which he's sure to rain destruction down on more historic sites and priceless artifacts.
To argue that Indy is an 'acquisitive tomb raider' who has a 'bull-in-a-china-shop approach to archaeology' is to entirely miss the point of the Indiana Jones movies.
And I don't mean in the sense that it's Hollywood, so of course it's going to misportray the methods of archaeology. I mean that in the plots of the Indiana Jones movies, the traditional methods of archaeology become a moot point.
Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade are, fundamentally, race movies - Indy and the Nazis are both trying to acquire a priceless and powerful artifact, and the fate of the civilized world hangs in the balance. As Indy's father, Henry Jones Sr., says: "The quest for the grail is not archeology. It's a race against evil. If it is captured by the Nazis, the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth!"
When you're trying to get to something before the Nazis do, you don't exactly have time for a traditional archaeological dig. Indy realizes this and smashes through whatever he has to in order to prevent Hitler from having eternal life or the Ark (the Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction). The same goes for the Temple of Doom - I'm sure Dr. Jones would love to spend more time looking around at ancient artifacts, but there are several hundred child slaves in a subterranean forced labor camp, so forgive him if he doesn't take time to stake out a standard dig site.
Moreover, this article couldn't be more wrong when it says that Indiana Jones "rain[s] destruction down on historic sites and priceless artifacts"; it's the historic sites and priceless artifacts that are trying to rain down destruction on him! The Well of the Souls in Raiders, the Temple of the Crescent Moon in Last Crusade, the Temple of Doom, the South American temple mentioned above - all of these places are fraught with lethal traps and pitfalls, and it's all Indy can do to get out alive! If anything is over the top, it's the deadliness of the places themselves, not Indy's trying to escape them.
We know that most of the time, Dr. Jones is either teaching at a bucolic New England college or, indeed, doing traditional archaeological digs. But that doesn't make for good filmmaking. So lay off his methods in the movies: they're not supposed to be about archaeology. They're about "a race against evil"!
Indiana Jones managed to retrieve the trinket he was after in the opening moments of "Raiders of the Lost Ark." He pretty much wrecked everything else in the ancient South American temple where the little gold idol had rested for millennia.
Though he preaches research and good science in the classroom, the world's most famous archaeologist often is an acquisitive tomb raider in the field with a scorched-earth policy about what he leaves behind. While actual archaeologists like the guy and his movies, they wouldn't necessarily want to work alongside him on a dig.
Indy's bull-in-a-china-shop approach to archaeology will be on display again May 22 with "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," in which he's sure to rain destruction down on more historic sites and priceless artifacts.
To argue that Indy is an 'acquisitive tomb raider' who has a 'bull-in-a-china-shop approach to archaeology' is to entirely miss the point of the Indiana Jones movies.
And I don't mean in the sense that it's Hollywood, so of course it's going to misportray the methods of archaeology. I mean that in the plots of the Indiana Jones movies, the traditional methods of archaeology become a moot point.
Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade are, fundamentally, race movies - Indy and the Nazis are both trying to acquire a priceless and powerful artifact, and the fate of the civilized world hangs in the balance. As Indy's father, Henry Jones Sr., says: "The quest for the grail is not archeology. It's a race against evil. If it is captured by the Nazis, the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth!"
When you're trying to get to something before the Nazis do, you don't exactly have time for a traditional archaeological dig. Indy realizes this and smashes through whatever he has to in order to prevent Hitler from having eternal life or the Ark (the Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction). The same goes for the Temple of Doom - I'm sure Dr. Jones would love to spend more time looking around at ancient artifacts, but there are several hundred child slaves in a subterranean forced labor camp, so forgive him if he doesn't take time to stake out a standard dig site.
Moreover, this article couldn't be more wrong when it says that Indiana Jones "rain[s] destruction down on historic sites and priceless artifacts"; it's the historic sites and priceless artifacts that are trying to rain down destruction on him! The Well of the Souls in Raiders, the Temple of the Crescent Moon in Last Crusade, the Temple of Doom, the South American temple mentioned above - all of these places are fraught with lethal traps and pitfalls, and it's all Indy can do to get out alive! If anything is over the top, it's the deadliness of the places themselves, not Indy's trying to escape them.
We know that most of the time, Dr. Jones is either teaching at a bucolic New England college or, indeed, doing traditional archaeological digs. But that doesn't make for good filmmaking. So lay off his methods in the movies: they're not supposed to be about archaeology. They're about "a race against evil"!
08 May 2008
Taking a holiday from good economic sense
Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are supporting the idea of a summer 'holiday' from the federal gas tax. Most economists - and, I'm happy to say, Barack Obama - think that this is a bad idea. It may be a popular idea - doesn't cheaper gas sound great? - but it is indeed a worthless and stupid solution.
It's economics 101: what happens to consumer incentives when the price of a good goes down? There is an incentive to buy more of that product. And what happens when consumers buy more of a product with a limited supply, like oil? Supply shrinks. And when supply shrinks but demand doesn't, prices go up. So essentially, by the end of the summer 'holiday', the price of gas will have risen to its previous level anyway. The difference is that instead of some of that revenue going to the government, it will be going into the pockets of the oil industry. The net effect of this brilliant scheme is that the government is taking our tax money and giving it to oil companies. (At least that's so with McCain's version of the plan. Clinton's version involves taxing the oil companies more after the fact, which basically taxes the consumer via the company - since the company will raise prices to make up for the tax - rather than taxing the act of consumption directly.)
As Paul Krugman points out in his blog, the McCain gas tax holiday would be "a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers," whereas Clinton's holiday would be "in one pocket, out the other... pointless, not evil."
By opposing an idea that is both popular and bad, Barack Obama is demonstrating that he is willing to do what is in the people's best interests rather than what appeals to their visceral sentiments. If that's elitism, it's just the kind of elitism we need!
It's economics 101: what happens to consumer incentives when the price of a good goes down? There is an incentive to buy more of that product. And what happens when consumers buy more of a product with a limited supply, like oil? Supply shrinks. And when supply shrinks but demand doesn't, prices go up. So essentially, by the end of the summer 'holiday', the price of gas will have risen to its previous level anyway. The difference is that instead of some of that revenue going to the government, it will be going into the pockets of the oil industry. The net effect of this brilliant scheme is that the government is taking our tax money and giving it to oil companies. (At least that's so with McCain's version of the plan. Clinton's version involves taxing the oil companies more after the fact, which basically taxes the consumer via the company - since the company will raise prices to make up for the tax - rather than taxing the act of consumption directly.)
As Paul Krugman points out in his blog, the McCain gas tax holiday would be "a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers," whereas Clinton's holiday would be "in one pocket, out the other... pointless, not evil."
By opposing an idea that is both popular and bad, Barack Obama is demonstrating that he is willing to do what is in the people's best interests rather than what appeals to their visceral sentiments. If that's elitism, it's just the kind of elitism we need!
06 May 2008
Praying at the Pump
AFP: Tired of paying through the nose, Americans try praying at the pump
The half-dozen activists -- Twyman, a former Miss Washington DC, the owner of a small construction company and two volunteers at a local soup kitchen -- joined hands, bowed their heads and intoned a heartfelt prayer.
"Lord, come down in a mighty way and strengthen us so that we can bring down these high gas prices," Twyman said to a chorus of "amens".
"Prayer is the answer to every problem in life... We call on God to intervene in the lives of the selfish, greedy people who are keeping these prices high," Twyman said on the gas station forecourt in a neighborhood of Washington that, like many of its residents, has seen better days.
"Lord, the prices at this pump have gone up since last week. We know that you are able, that you have all the power in the world," he prayed, before former beauty queen Rashida Jolley led the group in a modified version of the spiritual, "We Shall Overcome".
"We'll have lower gas prices, we'll have lower gas prices..." they sang.
I'm not making this up. This is real. There are people out there who do this. These are citizens - people who are entrusted with drivers' licenses and voting and jury duty and the rearing of children. And they believe that the best way to bring down gas prices is not to educate oneself about macroeconomics and elect leaders who will effect appropriate change, but to stand at a gas station and ask God for cheaper super unleaded. Given the choice, they would sooner act like a neolithic vilager begging the gods for rain than an informed citizen of the 21st century who could watch a meteorological report.
I find this terrifying.
The half-dozen activists -- Twyman, a former Miss Washington DC, the owner of a small construction company and two volunteers at a local soup kitchen -- joined hands, bowed their heads and intoned a heartfelt prayer.
"Lord, come down in a mighty way and strengthen us so that we can bring down these high gas prices," Twyman said to a chorus of "amens".
"Prayer is the answer to every problem in life... We call on God to intervene in the lives of the selfish, greedy people who are keeping these prices high," Twyman said on the gas station forecourt in a neighborhood of Washington that, like many of its residents, has seen better days.
"Lord, the prices at this pump have gone up since last week. We know that you are able, that you have all the power in the world," he prayed, before former beauty queen Rashida Jolley led the group in a modified version of the spiritual, "We Shall Overcome".
"We'll have lower gas prices, we'll have lower gas prices..." they sang.
I'm not making this up. This is real. There are people out there who do this. These are citizens - people who are entrusted with drivers' licenses and voting and jury duty and the rearing of children. And they believe that the best way to bring down gas prices is not to educate oneself about macroeconomics and elect leaders who will effect appropriate change, but to stand at a gas station and ask God for cheaper super unleaded. Given the choice, they would sooner act like a neolithic vilager begging the gods for rain than an informed citizen of the 21st century who could watch a meteorological report.
I find this terrifying.
01 May 2008
Crazy
"Faith is what credulity becomes when it finally achieves escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse - constraints like reasonableness, internal coherence, civility, and candor. However far you feel you have fled the parish, you are likely to be the product of a culture that has elevated belief, in the absence of evidence, to the highest place in the heirarchy of human virtues. Ignorance is the true coinage of this realm - 'Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed' (John 20:29) - and every child is instructed that it is, at the very least, an option, if not a sacred duty, to disregard the facts of this world out of deference to the God who lurks in his mother's and father's imaginations.
"To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human beings) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. Clearly, there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religous people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are. This is not surprising, since most religions have merely canonized a few products of ancient ignorance and derangement and passed them down to us as though they were primordial truths. This leaves billions of us believing what no sane person could believe on his own. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions. Consider one of the cornerstones of the Catholic faith: [the Eucharist]. Jesus Christ - who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens - can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgandy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad? The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous."
- Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp. 65, 72-73.
"Isnt' it interesting that religious behavior is so close to being crazy that we can't tell them apart?"
- Gregory House, M.D.
"To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human beings) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. Clearly, there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religous people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are. This is not surprising, since most religions have merely canonized a few products of ancient ignorance and derangement and passed them down to us as though they were primordial truths. This leaves billions of us believing what no sane person could believe on his own. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions. Consider one of the cornerstones of the Catholic faith: [the Eucharist]. Jesus Christ - who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens - can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgandy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad? The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous."
- Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp. 65, 72-73.
"Isnt' it interesting that religious behavior is so close to being crazy that we can't tell them apart?"
- Gregory House, M.D.
23 April 2008
Electing the Elite
One of the things that has mystified me over the past several years is how voters are drawn to 'average joes'. Normal guys. The candidate you can 'have a beer with'. Some people, it seems, are most comfortable electing a president who isn't much superior to themselves. (If it weren't for this fact, I don't believe our current administration would have been possible.)
I was once arguing with person much older than myself over the weak mental faculties of President Bush. I pointed out how Bush's numerous gaffes - mistaking 'persecute' for 'prosecute', adding an 's' onto the word 'children', etc. - are of too serious a nature to be normal verbal slip-ups, and come unsettlingly close to signs of actual functional illiteracy.
The person's response? "Well, maybe he's not the smartest person in the world, but then, neither am I."
Ok. But then, YOU AREN'T THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Jon Stewart gave a refreshing editorial aside last week during the Daily Show. In response to charges of 'elitism' levied against Barack Obama, Stewart said:
"Doesn't 'elite' mean good? Is that not something we're looking for in a president anymore? You know what, candidates: I know 'elite' is a bad word in politics, and you want to go bowling, and throw back a few beers. But the job you're applying for - if you get it, and it goes well - THEY MIGHT CARVE YOUR HEAD INTO A MOUNTAIN. If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what the fuck are you doing? In fact, not only do I want an 'elite' president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me. Somebody who speaks sixteen languages, and sleeps two hours a night, hanging upside-down in a chamber they themselves designed!"
I was once arguing with person much older than myself over the weak mental faculties of President Bush. I pointed out how Bush's numerous gaffes - mistaking 'persecute' for 'prosecute', adding an 's' onto the word 'children', etc. - are of too serious a nature to be normal verbal slip-ups, and come unsettlingly close to signs of actual functional illiteracy.
The person's response? "Well, maybe he's not the smartest person in the world, but then, neither am I."
Ok. But then, YOU AREN'T THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Jon Stewart gave a refreshing editorial aside last week during the Daily Show. In response to charges of 'elitism' levied against Barack Obama, Stewart said:
"Doesn't 'elite' mean good? Is that not something we're looking for in a president anymore? You know what, candidates: I know 'elite' is a bad word in politics, and you want to go bowling, and throw back a few beers. But the job you're applying for - if you get it, and it goes well - THEY MIGHT CARVE YOUR HEAD INTO A MOUNTAIN. If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what the fuck are you doing? In fact, not only do I want an 'elite' president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me. Somebody who speaks sixteen languages, and sleeps two hours a night, hanging upside-down in a chamber they themselves designed!"
16 April 2008
The Conceit of the Faithful
CNN: Crash Survivor: God 'still has work for us to do'
A missionary family from Minnesota is glad to be alive and together after surviving a plane crash in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the father said Wednesday.
"We couldn't believe that our family of four could all escape a plane that was crashed and on fire, but by God's mercy, we did," he said.
Mosier said he believes the family made it for a reason.
"I think the Lord has a plan for us, otherwise we wouldn't have survived," he said. "He still has work for us to do."
I don't know who's more insufferable: these conceited jerks, or the arbitrary jerk of a god in which they believe.
When a survivor of a crash that killed more than thirty others says he's alive because god 'has a plan' for him, he's implying that God's "plan" for the others was simply to let them die. So why didn't they get a better plan? Were they too unfaithful? Too... black? Or did god just not feel like letting them live? In the end, God's either a stickler, a racist, or an indifferent slob.
My, how easily faith in a god above can become faith in one's own personal superiority on the earth below!
A missionary family from Minnesota is glad to be alive and together after surviving a plane crash in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the father said Wednesday.
"We couldn't believe that our family of four could all escape a plane that was crashed and on fire, but by God's mercy, we did," he said.
Mosier said he believes the family made it for a reason.
"I think the Lord has a plan for us, otherwise we wouldn't have survived," he said. "He still has work for us to do."
I don't know who's more insufferable: these conceited jerks, or the arbitrary jerk of a god in which they believe.
When a survivor of a crash that killed more than thirty others says he's alive because god 'has a plan' for him, he's implying that God's "plan" for the others was simply to let them die. So why didn't they get a better plan? Were they too unfaithful? Too... black? Or did god just not feel like letting them live? In the end, God's either a stickler, a racist, or an indifferent slob.
My, how easily faith in a god above can become faith in one's own personal superiority on the earth below!
14 April 2008
In Touch and Out of Touch
Barack Obama has been catching hell for this comment he made last week about small-town America. Clinton and McCain have argued that this shows how Obama is 'elitist' and 'out of touch' with average Americans.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I fail to see how this statement is inaccurate. It seems to me a reasoned insight on why some Americans think and vote the way they do. If anything, it demonstrates how well Obama understands the psychology of Americans.
But people in this country don't want to be told the truth about why they're religious, militant, or xenophobic. They merely want to cling to the comfort that their willful ignorance provides. And so honesty and candor are perceived as 'elitist' and 'out of touch', and are replaced in the political discourse by ingratiating equivocation - which gets people elected but doesn't accomplish much else.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I fail to see how this statement is inaccurate. It seems to me a reasoned insight on why some Americans think and vote the way they do. If anything, it demonstrates how well Obama understands the psychology of Americans.
But people in this country don't want to be told the truth about why they're religious, militant, or xenophobic. They merely want to cling to the comfort that their willful ignorance provides. And so honesty and candor are perceived as 'elitist' and 'out of touch', and are replaced in the political discourse by ingratiating equivocation - which gets people elected but doesn't accomplish much else.
04 April 2008
Lil' Bush
The Comedy Central cartoon series Lil' Bush fascinates me. How can a comedy show do such a terrible job of imitating the most easily imitated and mocked president in our history? It's pathetic. It's like they're shooting at fish in a barrel and missing.
From what I've seen in commercials and at the tail end of episodes, the show makes our president out to be a mischievous little prankster, taking charge and orchestrating juvenile adventures with his cabinet. It portrays Bush as a successfully scheming and impulsive leader, and neglects the qualities that make him (in)famous: his backwoods humor, his lack of presidential dignity, his astounding ignorance, his difficulties with grammar and syntax, his unparalleled capacity for the disastrous execution of poorly planned schemes.
But the worst thing is the impersonation itself. For an impersonation to work, it has to resemble the person it's imitating; by caricaturing certain aspects of the actual person, the basis for humor is formed. In this regard the show is a thorough failure. The writing doesn't resemble in the slightest anything you can actually imagine Bush saying - it's too snappy, and doesn't have enough stumbling, hesitation, or failed attempts to sound dignified and intelligent. The cartoon version of Bush, frankly, looks and sounds a lot brighter than the real president. It especially doesn't capture the simian expressions that make President Bush so bewildered all the time. And the voice! I don't know who does the voiceover for the cartoon, but it's terrible. It sounds more suitable for a hot dog commercial.
And lastly, why would a cable network want to spend money developing a show that is guaranteed be dated almost as soon as it airs? (Last season, I remember seeing Rumsfeld in commercial adverts for the show, despite his resignation months earlier). This season they're apparently having an episode about Katrina. Way to be two-and-a-half years behind the issues! Good luck selling this crap on DVD in a year.
From what I've seen in commercials and at the tail end of episodes, the show makes our president out to be a mischievous little prankster, taking charge and orchestrating juvenile adventures with his cabinet. It portrays Bush as a successfully scheming and impulsive leader, and neglects the qualities that make him (in)famous: his backwoods humor, his lack of presidential dignity, his astounding ignorance, his difficulties with grammar and syntax, his unparalleled capacity for the disastrous execution of poorly planned schemes.
But the worst thing is the impersonation itself. For an impersonation to work, it has to resemble the person it's imitating; by caricaturing certain aspects of the actual person, the basis for humor is formed. In this regard the show is a thorough failure. The writing doesn't resemble in the slightest anything you can actually imagine Bush saying - it's too snappy, and doesn't have enough stumbling, hesitation, or failed attempts to sound dignified and intelligent. The cartoon version of Bush, frankly, looks and sounds a lot brighter than the real president. It especially doesn't capture the simian expressions that make President Bush so bewildered all the time. And the voice! I don't know who does the voiceover for the cartoon, but it's terrible. It sounds more suitable for a hot dog commercial.
And lastly, why would a cable network want to spend money developing a show that is guaranteed be dated almost as soon as it airs? (Last season, I remember seeing Rumsfeld in commercial adverts for the show, despite his resignation months earlier). This season they're apparently having an episode about Katrina. Way to be two-and-a-half years behind the issues! Good luck selling this crap on DVD in a year.
28 March 2008
God is NOT an HMO
AP: Parents pick prayer over docs; girl dies
WESTON, Wis. - Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor.
Prayer: the ultimate post hoc fallacy. If you pray, and you get what you prayed for, then God answered your prayers. If you pray, and you don't get what you prayed for, then, well, that's just God's will. No matter what happens, it's construed to prove that prayer works. Irrefutably beyond the grasp of logic, either way!
These frightfully daft parents chose to pray instead of getting their daughter to a doctor, and now their daughter is dead from a treatable illness. Is that God's will?
A more appropriate term might be manslaughter.
Anyone who refuses a safe and preventative medical treatment on religious grounds deserves the illness that consequentially befalls him. And anyone who refuses a child such a treatment on religious grounds deserves to be prosecuted for neglect to the fullest extent of the law.
This is well beyond the purview of religious freedom. Religious freedom protects one's personal views and actions only insofar as they do not harm others. If you choose to die of measles or diabetes because you hold the idiotic belief that an imaginary man in the sky is a better medical provider than your local hospital, then Requiescat In Pace, you moron. But if your foolish beliefs cause the death of a child, then you'll have a long time to come to terms with that by praying in your prison cell.
WESTON, Wis. - Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor.
Prayer: the ultimate post hoc fallacy. If you pray, and you get what you prayed for, then God answered your prayers. If you pray, and you don't get what you prayed for, then, well, that's just God's will. No matter what happens, it's construed to prove that prayer works. Irrefutably beyond the grasp of logic, either way!
These frightfully daft parents chose to pray instead of getting their daughter to a doctor, and now their daughter is dead from a treatable illness. Is that God's will?
A more appropriate term might be manslaughter.
Anyone who refuses a safe and preventative medical treatment on religious grounds deserves the illness that consequentially befalls him. And anyone who refuses a child such a treatment on religious grounds deserves to be prosecuted for neglect to the fullest extent of the law.
This is well beyond the purview of religious freedom. Religious freedom protects one's personal views and actions only insofar as they do not harm others. If you choose to die of measles or diabetes because you hold the idiotic belief that an imaginary man in the sky is a better medical provider than your local hospital, then Requiescat In Pace, you moron. But if your foolish beliefs cause the death of a child, then you'll have a long time to come to terms with that by praying in your prison cell.
26 March 2008
Is that really a preference you want to advertise?
Some people who especially hate tailgaters can be seen to have on their cars a bumper sticker that reads:
"Unless you're a hemorrhoid... GET OFF MY ASS!"
This is almost witty, until you consider the bumper sticker's implication that hemorrhoids are a perfectly acceptable thing to have on one's ass. Personally, I'd rather have the tailgater.
"Unless you're a hemorrhoid... GET OFF MY ASS!"
This is almost witty, until you consider the bumper sticker's implication that hemorrhoids are a perfectly acceptable thing to have on one's ass. Personally, I'd rather have the tailgater.
21 March 2008
"Good" Friday
What's so "good" about a Friday that commemorates someone being nailed to a piece of wood and left to die?
Christians, of course, would respond that the crucifixion of Jesus was good because it allowed for the salvation of mankind. But isn't that a fantastically morbid event upon which to found a system of religious and ethical beliefs?
Christianity may advertise itself as being about the "resurrection and the life", but in reality it is entirely obsessed with death. Not only does an ancient form of execution constitute its founding myth and central symbol, but the main message of Christianity is that this life does not matter: it is all a prelude to the hereafter, the life to come, heaven - which is essentially a child's fantasy land in the clouds taken seriously.
When you combine irrational religious fervour with an obsessive death wish, you get behavior that is indistinguishable from being retarded or insane:
BBC: Philippines Crucifixions
Millions of people in the mainly Roman Catholic country of the Philippines celebrate Easter every year, with some penitents following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ even up to the point of being nailed to a cross.
True, there are millions of Christians around the world who don't indulge in self-flagellation and mock crucifixion. But most of them do go to a building every week to wallow in their own spiritual unworthiness and hear sermon after sermon about a man who was tortured to death for their benefit. Isn't that a kind of spiritual self-flagellation and intellectual crucifixion? I fail to see the "good" in any of it.
Christians, of course, would respond that the crucifixion of Jesus was good because it allowed for the salvation of mankind. But isn't that a fantastically morbid event upon which to found a system of religious and ethical beliefs?
Christianity may advertise itself as being about the "resurrection and the life", but in reality it is entirely obsessed with death. Not only does an ancient form of execution constitute its founding myth and central symbol, but the main message of Christianity is that this life does not matter: it is all a prelude to the hereafter, the life to come, heaven - which is essentially a child's fantasy land in the clouds taken seriously.
When you combine irrational religious fervour with an obsessive death wish, you get behavior that is indistinguishable from being retarded or insane:
BBC: Philippines Crucifixions
Millions of people in the mainly Roman Catholic country of the Philippines celebrate Easter every year, with some penitents following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ even up to the point of being nailed to a cross.
True, there are millions of Christians around the world who don't indulge in self-flagellation and mock crucifixion. But most of them do go to a building every week to wallow in their own spiritual unworthiness and hear sermon after sermon about a man who was tortured to death for their benefit. Isn't that a kind of spiritual self-flagellation and intellectual crucifixion? I fail to see the "good" in any of it.
18 March 2008
That is the question
YouTube: Patrick Stewart on Sesame Street
Patrick Stewart is a phenomenal Shakespearean actor; I saw him in Macbeth this past weekend, and he suited "the action to the word, the word to the action" like none other. In this short clip from Sesame Street, he explores an ontological conundrum that has troubled humankind through the ages.
Patrick Stewart is a phenomenal Shakespearean actor; I saw him in Macbeth this past weekend, and he suited "the action to the word, the word to the action" like none other. In this short clip from Sesame Street, he explores an ontological conundrum that has troubled humankind through the ages.
04 March 2008
Men are from Mars, Women are from... Stupid?
The Washington Post: We Scream, We Swoon, How Dumb Can We Get?
I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women "are only children of a larger growth," wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?
What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental?
I swear no man watches "Grey's Anatomy" unless his girlfriend forces him to. No man bakes cookies for his dog. No man feels blue and takes off work to spend the day in bed with a copy of "The Friday Night Knitting Club." No man contracts nebulous diseases whose existence is disputed by many if not all doctors, such as Morgellons (where you feel bugs crawling around under your skin). At least no man I know. Of course, not all women do these things, either -- although enough do to make one wonder whether there isn't some genetic aspect of the female brain, something evolutionarily connected to the fact that we live longer than men or go through childbirth, that turns the pre-frontal cortex into Cream of Wheat.
Charlotte Allen wonders - apparently, in all seriousness - whether women have some kind of a predisposition to be the stupider and weaker sex. At first glance it appears this is nothing more than a simple logical fallacy: she assumes that the glaring mental deficiency so manifestly displayed in herself must be present also in the rest of her sex. But she doesn't stop there - in one short article, she takes the reader on a whirlwind tour of hasty generalizations, half-baked arguments drawn from arbitrary examples, and conclusions that are laughably and patently wrong.
Her argument is so imbecilic that it's self-satirizing, largely because she backs it up with such absurdly trite and meaningless examples. Oprah? Sappy romance novels and soap operas? Swooning over cute polticians and rock stars? Bad driving? Yes, this really is the hard evidence she brings to prove women's intellecutal inferiority. Her argument is based on nothing more substantial than tired old jokes from a bad stand-up routine about differences between men and women.
In an attempt to be more convincing, though, she appeals to the authority of experts:
Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true. Women really are worse drivers than men, for example. A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men's 5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women. The only good news was that women tended to take fewer driving risks than men, so their crashes were only a third as likely to be fatal.
So, women get into 11% more accidents, but their accidents are 66% less fatal? Sounds to me like women are better drivers.
It gets worse:
The theory that women are the dumber sex -- or at least the sex that gets into more car accidents -- is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence. Men's and women's brains not only look different, but men's brains are bigger than women's (even adjusting for men's generally bigger body size). The important difference is in the parietal cortex, which is associated with space perception. Visuospatial skills, the capacity to rotate three-dimensional objects in the mind, at which men tend to excel over women, are in turn related to a capacity for abstract thinking and reasoning, the grounding for mathematics, science and philosophy.
Apparently Ms Allen thinks that brain size determines intelligence. Male brains are bigger; therefore men are smarter. That argument appears sound - until you consider that the brains of Neanderthals were about 10% larger than those of homo sapiens. A bigger brain does not mean a better brain.
Ultimately, with regards to this and all of her examples, it's a simple case of selective evidence. It would be just as easy to write an article parading the apparent mental shortcomings of the male sex. Women are worse at navigation? Ok, but there are more women enrolled in higher education than men, and they tend to get better grades. Women watch sappy TV shows and cry about superficial nonsense? Ok, but men act functionally retarded when they attend sporting events, and they exhibit constant paranoia about the relative size of their genitals. Women swoon over sexy politicians and stars? Well, men are the reason that pornography makes up so much of the internet.
Self-oppressing idiots like Charlotte Allen take subversive glee in expressing a viewpoint that is against the grain of conventional wisdom and political correctness. In the end, though, her argument is nothing but a series of outrageously misogynistic opinions strung together by scattered and unconvincing examples. She's clearly not the brightest crayon in the box.
Fortunately, her breathtaking fatuity is the exception, and not the rule.
I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women "are only children of a larger growth," wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?
What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental?
I swear no man watches "Grey's Anatomy" unless his girlfriend forces him to. No man bakes cookies for his dog. No man feels blue and takes off work to spend the day in bed with a copy of "The Friday Night Knitting Club." No man contracts nebulous diseases whose existence is disputed by many if not all doctors, such as Morgellons (where you feel bugs crawling around under your skin). At least no man I know. Of course, not all women do these things, either -- although enough do to make one wonder whether there isn't some genetic aspect of the female brain, something evolutionarily connected to the fact that we live longer than men or go through childbirth, that turns the pre-frontal cortex into Cream of Wheat.
Charlotte Allen wonders - apparently, in all seriousness - whether women have some kind of a predisposition to be the stupider and weaker sex. At first glance it appears this is nothing more than a simple logical fallacy: she assumes that the glaring mental deficiency so manifestly displayed in herself must be present also in the rest of her sex. But she doesn't stop there - in one short article, she takes the reader on a whirlwind tour of hasty generalizations, half-baked arguments drawn from arbitrary examples, and conclusions that are laughably and patently wrong.
Her argument is so imbecilic that it's self-satirizing, largely because she backs it up with such absurdly trite and meaningless examples. Oprah? Sappy romance novels and soap operas? Swooning over cute polticians and rock stars? Bad driving? Yes, this really is the hard evidence she brings to prove women's intellecutal inferiority. Her argument is based on nothing more substantial than tired old jokes from a bad stand-up routine about differences between men and women.
In an attempt to be more convincing, though, she appeals to the authority of experts:
Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true. Women really are worse drivers than men, for example. A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men's 5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women. The only good news was that women tended to take fewer driving risks than men, so their crashes were only a third as likely to be fatal.
So, women get into 11% more accidents, but their accidents are 66% less fatal? Sounds to me like women are better drivers.
It gets worse:
The theory that women are the dumber sex -- or at least the sex that gets into more car accidents -- is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence. Men's and women's brains not only look different, but men's brains are bigger than women's (even adjusting for men's generally bigger body size). The important difference is in the parietal cortex, which is associated with space perception. Visuospatial skills, the capacity to rotate three-dimensional objects in the mind, at which men tend to excel over women, are in turn related to a capacity for abstract thinking and reasoning, the grounding for mathematics, science and philosophy.
Apparently Ms Allen thinks that brain size determines intelligence. Male brains are bigger; therefore men are smarter. That argument appears sound - until you consider that the brains of Neanderthals were about 10% larger than those of homo sapiens. A bigger brain does not mean a better brain.
Ultimately, with regards to this and all of her examples, it's a simple case of selective evidence. It would be just as easy to write an article parading the apparent mental shortcomings of the male sex. Women are worse at navigation? Ok, but there are more women enrolled in higher education than men, and they tend to get better grades. Women watch sappy TV shows and cry about superficial nonsense? Ok, but men act functionally retarded when they attend sporting events, and they exhibit constant paranoia about the relative size of their genitals. Women swoon over sexy politicians and stars? Well, men are the reason that pornography makes up so much of the internet.
Self-oppressing idiots like Charlotte Allen take subversive glee in expressing a viewpoint that is against the grain of conventional wisdom and political correctness. In the end, though, her argument is nothing but a series of outrageously misogynistic opinions strung together by scattered and unconvincing examples. She's clearly not the brightest crayon in the box.
Fortunately, her breathtaking fatuity is the exception, and not the rule.
02 March 2008
Jared
Some Subway commercials have been airing recently to congratulate Jared, the company's ex-XXXL spokesman, for celebrating his tenth year at a respectable weight.
Only in America can someone be lauded as a hero for the simple reason that he's no longer a fatass. Jared is an icon to the millions of overweight and obese who dream that one day they, too, can shed their supersized waistlines.
Why does Jared deserve congratulations? What about the millions of the rest of us who never become whales in the first place? Where's our million-dollar endorsement deal and laudatory commercial?
Only in America can someone be lauded as a hero for the simple reason that he's no longer a fatass. Jared is an icon to the millions of overweight and obese who dream that one day they, too, can shed their supersized waistlines.
Why does Jared deserve congratulations? What about the millions of the rest of us who never become whales in the first place? Where's our million-dollar endorsement deal and laudatory commercial?
25 February 2008
Du bist, was du isst
You may be familiar with the old adage 'you are what you eat', but you have to read it in the original German to really get the joke. It was originally coined by the nineteenth century German philosopher Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach. In his essay Concerning Spiritualism and Materialism, Feuerbach wrote:
"Der Mensch ist, was er isst." (The man is what he eats.)
It's a clever pun: in German, 'ist' means 'is', and 'isst' means 'eats'. Feuerbach, a firm atheist, was not trying to give dietary advice, but rather was making a fiercely materialist point about the biological, non-divine status of man.
"Der Mensch ist, was er isst." (The man is what he eats.)
It's a clever pun: in German, 'ist' means 'is', and 'isst' means 'eats'. Feuerbach, a firm atheist, was not trying to give dietary advice, but rather was making a fiercely materialist point about the biological, non-divine status of man.
22 February 2008
How not to be an agent of germ warfare
YouTube: Why don't we do it in our sleeves?
If you think it's proper to cover your mouth with your hand when you sneeze or cough, you need to watch this CDC-approved video and learn the correct way to stop spreading germs.
If you think it's proper to cover your mouth with your hand when you sneeze or cough, you need to watch this CDC-approved video and learn the correct way to stop spreading germs.
16 February 2008
Witch
True story: once a rather pathetic man found that he couldn't maintain an erection, but he didn't want to accept his loss of virility as the due course of nature. So he accused a poor illiterate woman of being a witch, and blamed his impotence on her sorcery. She was sentenced to death.
In what year did this take place? 1440? 1693?
Try 2005.
BBC: Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'
The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.
Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent.
Witchcraft.
It's the year 2008, and people are still being sentenced to death for witchcraft.
Sadly, backwards nonsense like this can still pass as legitimate in certain parts of the world, thanks to religion's enduring power to advocate even the most astonishing kinds of ignorance and injustice.
It's no coincidence that the witch trials of Salem and the Spanish Inquisition were also motivated by religious belief. As H. L. Mencken pointed out, "Any half-wit, by the simple device of ascribing his delusions to revelation, takes on an authority that is denied the rest of us." Would accusations of witchcraft in the modern day be taken as anything but ridiculous, if it weren't for that they are sponsored by a religion?
In what year did this take place? 1440? 1693?
Try 2005.
BBC: Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'
The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.
Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent.
Witchcraft.
It's the year 2008, and people are still being sentenced to death for witchcraft.
Sadly, backwards nonsense like this can still pass as legitimate in certain parts of the world, thanks to religion's enduring power to advocate even the most astonishing kinds of ignorance and injustice.
It's no coincidence that the witch trials of Salem and the Spanish Inquisition were also motivated by religious belief. As H. L. Mencken pointed out, "Any half-wit, by the simple device of ascribing his delusions to revelation, takes on an authority that is denied the rest of us." Would accusations of witchcraft in the modern day be taken as anything but ridiculous, if it weren't for that they are sponsored by a religion?
08 February 2008
Atoms
"At sea level, at a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit, one cubic centimeter of air (that is, a space about the size of a sugar cube) will contain 45 billion billion molecules. And they are in every single cubic centimeter you see around you. Think about how many cubic centimeters there are in the world outside your window - how many sugar cubes it would take to fill that view. Then think about how many it would take to build a universe. Atoms, in short, are very abundant.
"They are also fantastically durable. Because they are so long lived, atoms really get around. Every atom you possess has almost certainly passed through several stars and been part of millions of organisms on its way to becoming you. We are each so atomically numerous and so vigorously recycled at death that a significant number of our atoms - up to a billion for each of us, it has been suggested - probably once belonged to Shakespeare. A billion more came from Buddha and Genghis Khan and Beethoven, and any other historical figure you care to name.
"So we are all reincarnations - though short-lived ones. When we die our atoms will disassemble and move off to find new uses elsewhere - as part of a leaf or other human being or drop of dew. Atoms, however, go on practically forever. Nobody actually knows how long an atom can survive, but according to Martin Rees it is probably about 10^35 years - a number so big that even I am happy to express it in notation."
Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything, p. 133-134
"They are also fantastically durable. Because they are so long lived, atoms really get around. Every atom you possess has almost certainly passed through several stars and been part of millions of organisms on its way to becoming you. We are each so atomically numerous and so vigorously recycled at death that a significant number of our atoms - up to a billion for each of us, it has been suggested - probably once belonged to Shakespeare. A billion more came from Buddha and Genghis Khan and Beethoven, and any other historical figure you care to name.
"So we are all reincarnations - though short-lived ones. When we die our atoms will disassemble and move off to find new uses elsewhere - as part of a leaf or other human being or drop of dew. Atoms, however, go on practically forever. Nobody actually knows how long an atom can survive, but according to Martin Rees it is probably about 10^35 years - a number so big that even I am happy to express it in notation."
Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything, p. 133-134
07 February 2008
Dirty Money
In a simultaneous admission of weakness and betrayal of principle, Hillary Clinton pumped five million dollars of her own money into her campaign yesterday.
Blithely calling her massive self-donation a "loan," Hillary said that she wrote herself a check because "I believe in this campaign and I think the results last night proved the wisdom of my investment."
The subtext here is undeniable. She believes in her own campaign, but thinks the belief of others hasn't been sufficient. She considers her campaign a wise investment, but one risky enough that she needs to shore it up with her own cash.
But most outrageous is the message Hillary is sending: I can buy my way to the White House. If I'm not getting enough support from the people, I'll just make up the difference with my own bank account. I'll get to the Oval Office with or without you - I've got the cash to do it. The Presidency has a pricetag, and I can afford the down payment.
Barack Obama's campaign also got a financial boost the day after Super Tuesday. While Hillary cut herself a check for five million dollars, Barak raised six million. It came not from his bank account, but from hundreds of thousands of his supporters.
The messages of each campaign are clear. Hillary thinks that the White House can be bought. Barack is demonstrating that it must be earned through the support of the people.
Blithely calling her massive self-donation a "loan," Hillary said that she wrote herself a check because "I believe in this campaign and I think the results last night proved the wisdom of my investment."
The subtext here is undeniable. She believes in her own campaign, but thinks the belief of others hasn't been sufficient. She considers her campaign a wise investment, but one risky enough that she needs to shore it up with her own cash.
But most outrageous is the message Hillary is sending: I can buy my way to the White House. If I'm not getting enough support from the people, I'll just make up the difference with my own bank account. I'll get to the Oval Office with or without you - I've got the cash to do it. The Presidency has a pricetag, and I can afford the down payment.
Barack Obama's campaign also got a financial boost the day after Super Tuesday. While Hillary cut herself a check for five million dollars, Barak raised six million. It came not from his bank account, but from hundreds of thousands of his supporters.
The messages of each campaign are clear. Hillary thinks that the White House can be bought. Barack is demonstrating that it must be earned through the support of the people.
02 February 2008
Bag It
Every two minutes, one million plastic bags are used worldwide. That's 42 billion bags per month. Yes, you read that correctly. About 100 plastic bags are used yearly for every person on the planet.
Because of their flimsiness, most people dispose of plastic bags after one or two uses. Because of their chemical composition, the planet is stuck with them. You may have only needed it to carry your Cheerios, bread, and milk to your car that one night, but that bag will sit on the face of the Earth for a long, long time.
We live in a bagging culture. In America, there is a tacit understanding among all retailers that transactions only become complete when the purchased item is placed in a plastic bag for the customer.
It's always unnecessary, and sometimes it's downright stupid. You go into a music store, and buy a CD. They place it in a bag that is only slightly larger than the CD itself. Is it supposed to be easier to carry the CD in a little bag than it is to just carry the CD in your hand?
I was once in Staples, and bought a tube of superglue. It weighed 0.7 oz. They tried to give me a tiny bag for it. The bag probably weighed half as much as the purchase itself, and would have afforded me no advantage whatsoever in transporting the burdensome item all of the fifty feet to my car. (I put it - how did I ever think of this? - in my pocket instead.)
The fact of such prepostorous wastefulness is apparently lost on retailers, who will rush to bag any item, no matter what the size or shape or weight, once you've bought it.
It need not and should not be this way. Take the case of Ireland, as reported in this article by the New York Times:
In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.
“I used to get half a dozen with every shop. Now I’d never ever buy one,” said Cathal McKeown, 40, a civil servant carrying two large black cloth bags bearing the bright green Superquinn motto. “If I forgot these, I’d just take the cart of groceries and put them loose in the boot of the car, rather than buy a bag.”
Today, Ireland’s retailers are great promoters of taxing the bags. “I spent many months arguing against this tax with the minister; I thought customers wouldn’t accept it,” said Senator Feargal Quinn, founder of the Superquinn chain. “But I have become a big, big enthusiast.”
It's not hard. It really isn't. I started keeping canvas tote bags in my car a couple of years ago, and I haven't used a plastic bag since.
People are lazy, though, and have come to feel entitled to a useless bag as part of their shopping experience, so we need a tax like Ireland's. Of course, at the beginning, customers and shopkeepers alike will whine. But they will change their minds. Soon retailers can stop ordering bags, and shoppers will forget why they ever put up with the annoying things clogging up their trash in the first place.
America needs such a tax more than anywhere else. It's this country that puts a gallon of milk in two plastic bags, instead of having you just carry the jug by the handle (which is, presumably, designed for carrying). It's this country that puts items into a tiny bag when they could just as easily go into your pocket. And it's this country that will set the record in leaving behind these flimsy monuments to shortsighted indolence and stupidity.
Because of their flimsiness, most people dispose of plastic bags after one or two uses. Because of their chemical composition, the planet is stuck with them. You may have only needed it to carry your Cheerios, bread, and milk to your car that one night, but that bag will sit on the face of the Earth for a long, long time.
We live in a bagging culture. In America, there is a tacit understanding among all retailers that transactions only become complete when the purchased item is placed in a plastic bag for the customer.
It's always unnecessary, and sometimes it's downright stupid. You go into a music store, and buy a CD. They place it in a bag that is only slightly larger than the CD itself. Is it supposed to be easier to carry the CD in a little bag than it is to just carry the CD in your hand?
I was once in Staples, and bought a tube of superglue. It weighed 0.7 oz. They tried to give me a tiny bag for it. The bag probably weighed half as much as the purchase itself, and would have afforded me no advantage whatsoever in transporting the burdensome item all of the fifty feet to my car. (I put it - how did I ever think of this? - in my pocket instead.)
The fact of such prepostorous wastefulness is apparently lost on retailers, who will rush to bag any item, no matter what the size or shape or weight, once you've bought it.
It need not and should not be this way. Take the case of Ireland, as reported in this article by the New York Times:
In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.
“I used to get half a dozen with every shop. Now I’d never ever buy one,” said Cathal McKeown, 40, a civil servant carrying two large black cloth bags bearing the bright green Superquinn motto. “If I forgot these, I’d just take the cart of groceries and put them loose in the boot of the car, rather than buy a bag.”
Today, Ireland’s retailers are great promoters of taxing the bags. “I spent many months arguing against this tax with the minister; I thought customers wouldn’t accept it,” said Senator Feargal Quinn, founder of the Superquinn chain. “But I have become a big, big enthusiast.”
It's not hard. It really isn't. I started keeping canvas tote bags in my car a couple of years ago, and I haven't used a plastic bag since.
People are lazy, though, and have come to feel entitled to a useless bag as part of their shopping experience, so we need a tax like Ireland's. Of course, at the beginning, customers and shopkeepers alike will whine. But they will change their minds. Soon retailers can stop ordering bags, and shoppers will forget why they ever put up with the annoying things clogging up their trash in the first place.
America needs such a tax more than anywhere else. It's this country that puts a gallon of milk in two plastic bags, instead of having you just carry the jug by the handle (which is, presumably, designed for carrying). It's this country that puts items into a tiny bag when they could just as easily go into your pocket. And it's this country that will set the record in leaving behind these flimsy monuments to shortsighted indolence and stupidity.
31 January 2008
Politician
Politician, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
30 January 2008
Romney
Mitt Romney, I think, is the Republican twin of John Kerry. They look alike, and both come from Massachusetts. Both have been unable to shrug the label of 'flip-flopper'. They both have charisma issues and a propensity for awkward gaffes. They both come off as stiff and uncomfortable when wearing anything more casual than a suit, and their attempts to connect with working class folks feel gimmicky and insincere. And if Romney were to win the Republican nomination, I think his presidential campaign would, like Kerry's in '04, often define itself in opposition to the other party rather than on its own terms. And we know how well that worked out for Kerry.
27 January 2008
The Fallacy of Meat
NY Times: Rethinking the Meat Guzzler
Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.
My challenge:
1. Read this article.
2. Give me one - just one - good reason for eating meat or fish (outside of a survival situation). And no, "it tastes good" doesn't count.
3. Explain how you can claim to give a shit about the environment at all and continue to support one of the most ecologically destructive processes in the world.
Anyone?
Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.
My challenge:
1. Read this article.
2. Give me one - just one - good reason for eating meat or fish (outside of a survival situation). And no, "it tastes good" doesn't count.
3. Explain how you can claim to give a shit about the environment at all and continue to support one of the most ecologically destructive processes in the world.
Anyone?
26 January 2008
This just in: druggie girl doing drugs again
I take a certain pride in staying deliberately aloof from much of American pop culture, but that's difficult when the line between pop culture and news is blurry at best.
I keep seeing news stories about how someone named Amy Winehouse smokes a lot of crack. I hear she also sings?
I keep seeing news stories about how someone named Amy Winehouse smokes a lot of crack. I hear she also sings?
21 January 2008
Jekyll and Hyde
The world of political smear tactics presents a difficult question: how do you smear your opponent without being smeared yourself for running a negative campaign?
Barack Obama has gotten around it by, well, not smearing.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has a different tactic. She has been using her husband as a mercenary. Bill does the smearing, and gets media attention because he's Bill Clinton. And Hillary gets to maintain her image as a positive, clean-fighting politician.
This technique has not been subtle. But it is irritating, and it lends the otherwise idiotic and usually sexist question of who's really running for president - Hillary, or Bill for round two - more credit than it deserves.
Bill, of course, has the right to his opinions. He also has the right to voice those opinions in public support of his wife. But the division of labor that has been set up so transparently between him and Hillary exemplifies just the kind of cynical prevarication that we've endured under this administration for eight years. I don't think we need it for another four.
Barack Obama has gotten around it by, well, not smearing.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has a different tactic. She has been using her husband as a mercenary. Bill does the smearing, and gets media attention because he's Bill Clinton. And Hillary gets to maintain her image as a positive, clean-fighting politician.
This technique has not been subtle. But it is irritating, and it lends the otherwise idiotic and usually sexist question of who's really running for president - Hillary, or Bill for round two - more credit than it deserves.
Bill, of course, has the right to his opinions. He also has the right to voice those opinions in public support of his wife. But the division of labor that has been set up so transparently between him and Hillary exemplifies just the kind of cynical prevarication that we've endured under this administration for eight years. I don't think we need it for another four.
15 January 2008
14 January 2008
Now they're slinging mud over how much mud they're slinging
CNN: Bill Clinton complains about Obama's attacks
"I've got before me a list of 80 attacks on Hillary that are quite personal by Sen. Obama and his campaign going back six months that I've had pulled," he said, speaking to CNN contributor Roland Martin on WVON-AM's "The Roland S. Martin Show" based in Chicago, Illinois.
What -- is this elementary school? Oh right, worse - it's primary season.
Only a few more weeks of intraparty squabbling. Then we can look forward to eight months of interparty scrapping! God bless America.
"I've got before me a list of 80 attacks on Hillary that are quite personal by Sen. Obama and his campaign going back six months that I've had pulled," he said, speaking to CNN contributor Roland Martin on WVON-AM's "The Roland S. Martin Show" based in Chicago, Illinois.
What -- is this elementary school? Oh right, worse - it's primary season.
Only a few more weeks of intraparty squabbling. Then we can look forward to eight months of interparty scrapping! God bless America.
12 January 2008
Pleonasm
Ambrose Bierce defined the pleonasm as "an army of words escorting a corporal of thought." It's basically a fancy term for redundancy. Like, for instance, if one was to say, "At the ATM machine, you need to enter your PIN number," which stands for "At the Automatic Teller Machine machine, you need to enter your Personal Identification Number number."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
