Imagine waiting 34 years to meet Luke Skywalker as a Jedi Master, and finding him to be difficult, abrasive, engaged, and unlikable. [1] That's what we have with the Last Jedi. There's still a lot of a whiny farmboy in him. After the awful sequel-reboot that was the Force Awakens, this one is much better, but still missing something. [2] Is IX a reboot of V? No, but it's a little too familiar. We start with the Rebels desperately fleeing their base (an even more reduce version than the Rebel Alliance), a novice force user confronting the last member of the Jedi order- who is difficult and hostile to training- on a remote, hidden, and undeveloped planet, and a land battle against AT-ATs on an apparently snow-like planet. I'm not sure I like how Luke is presented, a lot more could have, and should have, been done with this character, but it was done better than Solo.
The big question is how does this all fit together? Rey is still the strongest part of the last trilogy, despite really being a Luke clone. But, it remains to be seen how this story completes the Skywalker epic. This certainly does not feel like the story Lucas would have continued. The Last Jedi moves the story along, but it also places a higher pressure on Episode IX to end the story with a coherent and unified conclusion.
The biggest problem, in my view, is the origin point of the trilogy: while being the New Republic, the Galactic government is instantly reduced to a group of Rebels, and by the end of the second film, just a group of people transportable by one piece-of-junk cargo chip. While the novels try to retcon how the First Order became so powerful behind the scenes and were able to overpower the Republic, a better setting for the trilogy would have been the struggles of an ascending Republic and a new enemy, not just the old Imperial Navy/ Dark Force mix. It just feels like a repeat of the middle trilogy. But, the first time, the Empire was the ultimate domination, so it made sense that even after the loss of the Death Star they could begin to get the upper hand against the rebels. Here, the loss of the First Order weapon/base doesn't retard their destruction of the established government, and the fringe militant group still has domination. It doesn't make sense. Hopefully this will all pay off, but there is only one chance, everything rests on IX.
Other thoughts: I like the look of being in hyperspace, [3] borrowed from the games. The timing is a little better. At least some length of time is shown while traveling, unlike the instant travel through a hole in The Force Awakens and Rogue One (something that started back in Episode III). The WWII air campaign battle styling was interesting. Kylo came across as more, well, characterized, and his ambition beyond what Darth Vader pursued was an interesting plot point. There is still too much attention on comedy, at least at the most illogical points, and it's a little too forced. Leia's fake death seemed unnecessary and a waste, as we know she had too be written out anyway, why not make a dramatic and useful death scene that makes a significant plot point. Laura Dern's character seemed completely out of place. That's what an admiral acts like in the New Republic fleet? It would have made more sense to have her the last member of the civilian leadership. Benicio Del Toro's character also seemed misused. Looking back, the subplot makes a little sense, but seems somewhat like a waste of a character.The entire Resistance escape makes no sense. They should have used the first of three ships to destroy the Mega-Star destroyer, saving the final two (the venerable Nebulon-B and the Calamari Cruiser). But, even after destroying the First Order fleet, they land and lock themselves in a salt version of Echo Base and then wonder how to escape, not realizing the just flew in on transports that could now be used to fly away from the no longer existing enemy ships (especially once the Falcon can provide escort). Do they have phones in their Universe? Do phone jokes make any logical sense?
Instead of the dark, moving set up for the final resolution, we get a movie where nothing goes anywhere.
Everything could have been done in the first battle: The Resistance is
destroyed, Kylo kills Snoke, and Rey is off learning that Luke is no
longer the Luke of legend. The End. Episode VII didn't really do anything in terms of narrative advancement because it had to introduce new characters and integrate them with the old. It was the set up. OK. Now, Episode VIII doesn't really go anywhere. The only thing these movies have done is negate the
resolution found in Return of the Jedi, it just resets the situation
back to Episode IV/V. So almost the whole story of trilogy three will reside in Episode IX. Seeing Luke as a Jedi Master defeat all perceivable threats, and then be confronted with the danger that his student (and relation) might be the thing that resurrects the Sith, forcing him to prevent that by any means, would have made a great story. That's what the trilogy should have been, rather than putting the interesting narrative in flashbacks just to explain situations that may or may not have any significance and which we may never even get a complete answer to. These movies revolve around the edges of the real story. Unless Rey is revealed to be a Skywalker and brings the Anakin/ Luke lineage to a conclusion, she should have just been set up at the end to carry on in the upcoming trilogy. As for the Republic and First Order, unless the destruction of both of them together is meant to be a parallel to the necessary negation of the Jedi/Sith dichotomy, the inconsistency and flux in their respective power positions makes no sense.
It's just disappointing that by getting this story we will never get the Skywalker tale we were waiting for. This seems like fanboy fanfiction (which JJ might be the worst of all), "wouldn't it be cool to see someone do this?" "Wouldn't it be cool to see Luke milk a walrus?" Etc. No, it wouldn't. Have any of these people seen the original films - in a way they understand the characters and can continue to develop or adhere to them? Ultimately, the story of this trilogy is just bad, it can't really be saved. The value of Star Wars is its cultural mythology. It became entwined with fundamental human existence, to become an active mythology that will persist to embody the late twentieth century. That is why it important to take it seriously.
For all those defensive replies that Star Wars was always a simple, youth-oriented story, I have two points: 1. We, as a media receptive audience are far more sophisticated now than in the 1970s. Film making has evolved immensely in forty years [4], replacing (and becoming) literature as the dominate cultural engagement with narrative art. Look at Game of Thrones, or any of the New Golden Age of television [5]. 2. Star Wars (A New Hope) is largely responsible for this generational leap. It began a new era where sci-fi was not just awful B movies. So, it has to compete against its own history as a measurement and evolve as well, resulting in the final parts of the story more advanced than the original that was a (relatively) low budget fantasy of an independent filmmaker. It has been reported that Lucas was distraught after making A New Hope, realizing that he made "a kid's movie,"
rather than a sophisticated epic. Even if that is true, there has been continual opportunities to take that simple story origin an expand it toward the other side of the spectrum, that it making it an advanced story while still retaining the basic elements of the original. Lucas may have tried, with the result being some politically obtuse Prequels, but he also never did really try, focusing effort on elements like Jar Jar.
Since Disney has no plans to slow releases, we always have more forthcoming films to enhance the legacy (and maybe the dark, gritty TV series planned by Lucas will eventually materialize), but hopefully the legendary Skywalker center of this universe will remain intact following Episode IX.
Updated 12.20
[1] If someone had long ago told me that after waiting half a lifetime, the next time I see Skywalker, he will be milking a space walrus, I would have inquired as to what kind of bizarre alternate universe this person travels from. Of course, I've already been asking myself how I came to be in that weird alternate universe. [A]
[2] Beyond being a retelling of A New Hope, another (God please stop) larger Death Star, the annihilation of Han Solo's character and far too much emphasis on comedy, the main problem was the logic of each scene. Despite having much larger, more capable Star Destroyers, the First Order's only attempt to stop Finn and Poe is a few concussion missiles. Their only ability, despite being a massive starfighter carrier, is to send a few Tie fighters against the Millenium Falcon, etc. And, don't get me started on the Starkiller weapon. Having people watch (as through visible light) a hyper-space beam destroy multiple star systems at least light days away from each other is possibly thew stupidest thing ever done in sci-fi.
[3] But did they really have to constantly use the term lightspeed? It's just bad science, and sounds worse now than when Battlestar Galactica insisted on it in the 1970s. Speaking of which, the space battles seemed a little too influenced by the Galactica reboot (ships emerging from Hyperspace, tracking through jumps, the camera being too prominent in the framing, etc). But, I guess that's just a little historic revenge. The original trilogy had the best scientific consistency(for what that's worth) and it has continued to go downhill when it could easily be rectified.
[4] Here I don't mean technologically, although Star Wars deserves recognition for its great visual advancements and contibutions.
[5] This may partially explain why TV now seems much more interesting than film. These two hour dramas have embraced the idea of a visually exciting story taht fills the time, but doesn't leave lasting room for contemplation that very long series can.
[A] Where the FBI is the enemy, the Russians are the good guys, the free press is bad, etc
Sunday, December 17, 2017
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Paper Lies
It's a sign of the times
We believe anything and nothing
Paper lies
When you kill the truth
You can make a killing
You might just make losing look like winning - Marillion (1994)
Despite Trump's assertion that he invented the word fake, it actually has been in use a long time (since at least the 18 century). And the idea of fiction, falsity and bias in news reporting has been around for a long while as well (someone even mentioned it in a song in 1994). Trump's statement is a fascinating example of irony that displays what it is attacking. We used to even have a more-than-one-syllable word for it: propaganda. As such, propaganda attempts to close any open, unresolved elements to ensure a complete, monologic transmission of thought. That is, to force a conclusion without question. It is a mode of ideology in operation.
The problem isn't news that's fake, it's use of the term itself. Fake news is a term that is used to shut down a debate and enforce ideology over facts. And it's used by, and to describe, people who don't want to think for themselves. Other than the noise created by negative chaos of social media and deliberate lying manipulation by memes, and organizations so deprived, evil and so ridiculously stupid that only a true moron would follow them [1], which aren't news at all, but lies meant to incite: psychological warfare, there isn't much fakeness. The news reported is based on real events, it's the presented fields of interpretation that add There is a responsibility on the part of the receiver to understand these fields and discern some levels of relevancy and accuracy. In this information age, it is easier than ever to fact check on one's own an d to stay current.
As American landscape has changed over the last 10 years, there has been a lot of blame put onto the media, lamenting the loss of objective reporting and accusing the of inserting bias. But this is just a surface reaction. To understand the real issue requires a look at the subject of what is being reported. It isn't the media that has changed -fundamentally - but the political landscape itself. Changes in the media are only a response, a a reaction to that.
As Fareed Zakaria has noted "Politics is about tribal affiliation. It's not about issues anymore. In the old days is was about issues, it was really about economic issues, and economic issues you can comprise on . . . When you get into these cultural,social issues which are really more about core identity, how do you compromise? . . . These have become issues on which people see the world differently. we have become Sunnis and Shiites . . . for the last ten years there has been no compromise"
The culture has become so split that no news report could be completely objective in the perspective of both parallax views. But, that does not mean both sides are equivalent. Not all forces of persuasive discourse are equal. Power systems must be factored in and the existing dominant structures recognized. Reporting that challenges the power structure is not the inverse of reporting that promotes it. Challenges still leave an open space for understanding. But, reports that mimic what leadership wants one to believe closes space for debate and argumentation.
In the case of Fox vs CNN there is a difference. First Fox is very monologic, with talking heads spouting ideology to force conclusions inline with their desired power structure. When the head of power is on the left, they attach to figures on the right that form an opposition. In the case of CNN, first there is active debate. Panels made up of three to three on the left/right are common, sometimes 2 on the left against 3 on the right . The balance of left/right on CNN is even more distorted to the right than it was to the left during Obama's term, with the placement of panelists who have been paid members of the Trump team. With panelists like Lewandowski, Jeffrey Lord, Kayleigh, Ed Martin, Andre Bauer, there is a direct defense of Trump's establishment and hence, CNN cannot be monologic. The debate raises issues that the viewer can contemplate. Secondly, while the channel does challenge Republican administrations, it also heavily criticizes Democratic ones as well. For instance, Erin Burnett would at times lead with three stories attacking the Obama administration.
With each swing of the pendulum, the challengers in the social discussion adopt tactics that the former side used and there is further escalation. What is needed is not a draining of the swamp, but a return to the establishment, when policy makers were professionals and worked in terms of policy primarily rather than cultural ideology. When the debates become once again anchored on facts and not judgment, then the competing arguments can be presented and evaluated in objective and comparable terms.
[1] Pure non-sense like Info-wars and Alex Jones which de-evolve any view into childish fantasy and result in evil, rather than misinformed bad arguments.
We believe anything and nothing
Paper lies
When you kill the truth
You can make a killing
You might just make losing look like winning - Marillion (1994)
Despite Trump's assertion that he invented the word fake, it actually has been in use a long time (since at least the 18 century). And the idea of fiction, falsity and bias in news reporting has been around for a long while as well (someone even mentioned it in a song in 1994). Trump's statement is a fascinating example of irony that displays what it is attacking. We used to even have a more-than-one-syllable word for it: propaganda. As such, propaganda attempts to close any open, unresolved elements to ensure a complete, monologic transmission of thought. That is, to force a conclusion without question. It is a mode of ideology in operation.
The problem isn't news that's fake, it's use of the term itself. Fake news is a term that is used to shut down a debate and enforce ideology over facts. And it's used by, and to describe, people who don't want to think for themselves. Other than the noise created by negative chaos of social media and deliberate lying manipulation by memes, and organizations so deprived, evil and so ridiculously stupid that only a true moron would follow them [1], which aren't news at all, but lies meant to incite: psychological warfare, there isn't much fakeness. The news reported is based on real events, it's the presented fields of interpretation that add There is a responsibility on the part of the receiver to understand these fields and discern some levels of relevancy and accuracy. In this information age, it is easier than ever to fact check on one's own an d to stay current.
As American landscape has changed over the last 10 years, there has been a lot of blame put onto the media, lamenting the loss of objective reporting and accusing the of inserting bias. But this is just a surface reaction. To understand the real issue requires a look at the subject of what is being reported. It isn't the media that has changed -fundamentally - but the political landscape itself. Changes in the media are only a response, a a reaction to that.
As Fareed Zakaria has noted "Politics is about tribal affiliation. It's not about issues anymore. In the old days is was about issues, it was really about economic issues, and economic issues you can comprise on . . . When you get into these cultural,social issues which are really more about core identity, how do you compromise? . . . These have become issues on which people see the world differently. we have become Sunnis and Shiites . . . for the last ten years there has been no compromise"
The culture has become so split that no news report could be completely objective in the perspective of both parallax views. But, that does not mean both sides are equivalent. Not all forces of persuasive discourse are equal. Power systems must be factored in and the existing dominant structures recognized. Reporting that challenges the power structure is not the inverse of reporting that promotes it. Challenges still leave an open space for understanding. But, reports that mimic what leadership wants one to believe closes space for debate and argumentation.
In the case of Fox vs CNN there is a difference. First Fox is very monologic, with talking heads spouting ideology to force conclusions inline with their desired power structure. When the head of power is on the left, they attach to figures on the right that form an opposition. In the case of CNN, first there is active debate. Panels made up of three to three on the left/right are common, sometimes 2 on the left against 3 on the right . The balance of left/right on CNN is even more distorted to the right than it was to the left during Obama's term, with the placement of panelists who have been paid members of the Trump team. With panelists like Lewandowski, Jeffrey Lord, Kayleigh, Ed Martin, Andre Bauer, there is a direct defense of Trump's establishment and hence, CNN cannot be monologic. The debate raises issues that the viewer can contemplate. Secondly, while the channel does challenge Republican administrations, it also heavily criticizes Democratic ones as well. For instance, Erin Burnett would at times lead with three stories attacking the Obama administration.
With each swing of the pendulum, the challengers in the social discussion adopt tactics that the former side used and there is further escalation. What is needed is not a draining of the swamp, but a return to the establishment, when policy makers were professionals and worked in terms of policy primarily rather than cultural ideology. When the debates become once again anchored on facts and not judgment, then the competing arguments can be presented and evaluated in objective and comparable terms.
[1] Pure non-sense like Info-wars and Alex Jones which de-evolve any view into childish fantasy and result in evil, rather than misinformed bad arguments.
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Jeremiah Blues 2017.10 Part 2
After listening to more mental gymnastics by the right today, I have to revisit yesterday's controversy. First, the backlash against the CBS lawyer who was unsympathetic to the shooting victims is being framed to make her into some kind of liberal poster child while calling for her perpetual firing (and probably worse if many conservatives had their way). She is no spokesperson for the left. And second, they have tried to tie her disrespectful attitude into some larger view coextensive with the mainstream media. She isn't a representative of the popular view either. But in this new paradigm it's their fault. And hers. And ours. But never theirs.
I would urge conservatives who think that media reporting has become uncivilized, and yearn for some long lost detachment from the public sphere, to look back at where this started. One only needs to look back to the 1990s to see the fragmentation of public discourse into uncivilized confrontation. with the start of Fox News and the rise of Rush ( and a demeaning attitude toward the presidency). The right started this de-evolution. Anyone who finds Geftman-Gold's posts distasteful better check that they have not supported all of the vile things spewed nightly on Fox from Hannity, O'Reilly or Coulter, who have said things just as bad.
Even worse, I have to again refer to an advisor to our very own president, Mr Scumbag Alex Jones who has said things far worse. But yet, I never heard calls for his immediate firing or exile from the American community. No, he got promoted to presidential advisor. His disgusting fake accusations against the children of Sandy Hook should have got him excommunicated from the human race. So, before I hear one more word of bitching from conservatives, they better take at look at their own closet of past sins and denounce those which they have been complicit with.
Furthermore, it is amazing how the right has twisted and distorted events to make themselves look good. It is what they do well, and they are far better at preemptive psychological warfare than liberals. Now, in their perverse narrative, the left has become the Fascists, inciting violence and waging war on: whites (dafuq?). To illustrate, they cite Charlottesville. So although one of their Neo-Nazis killed an innocent person, the left are (now) the totalitarian aggressors. The cognitive dissidence is strong. But this is the danger, that their outrageous lies will become the recognized narrative. Conservatives are the masters of fake news, and they are becoming masters of identity politics, driving a wedge between traditional Christian whites and everybody else, and trying to divide liberals into white/non-white conflict as they make the idea of a white liberal a contradiction (although I imagine that numerically whites are still a significant majority of the left).
This outrage on the right is just a mask to cover the monstrosities currently emerging, but it may take down the entire country.
I would urge conservatives who think that media reporting has become uncivilized, and yearn for some long lost detachment from the public sphere, to look back at where this started. One only needs to look back to the 1990s to see the fragmentation of public discourse into uncivilized confrontation. with the start of Fox News and the rise of Rush ( and a demeaning attitude toward the presidency). The right started this de-evolution. Anyone who finds Geftman-Gold's posts distasteful better check that they have not supported all of the vile things spewed nightly on Fox from Hannity, O'Reilly or Coulter, who have said things just as bad.
Even worse, I have to again refer to an advisor to our very own president, Mr Scumbag Alex Jones who has said things far worse. But yet, I never heard calls for his immediate firing or exile from the American community. No, he got promoted to presidential advisor. His disgusting fake accusations against the children of Sandy Hook should have got him excommunicated from the human race. So, before I hear one more word of bitching from conservatives, they better take at look at their own closet of past sins and denounce those which they have been complicit with.
Furthermore, it is amazing how the right has twisted and distorted events to make themselves look good. It is what they do well, and they are far better at preemptive psychological warfare than liberals. Now, in their perverse narrative, the left has become the Fascists, inciting violence and waging war on: whites (dafuq?). To illustrate, they cite Charlottesville. So although one of their Neo-Nazis killed an innocent person, the left are (now) the totalitarian aggressors. The cognitive dissidence is strong. But this is the danger, that their outrageous lies will become the recognized narrative. Conservatives are the masters of fake news, and they are becoming masters of identity politics, driving a wedge between traditional Christian whites and everybody else, and trying to divide liberals into white/non-white conflict as they make the idea of a white liberal a contradiction (although I imagine that numerically whites are still a significant majority of the left).
This outrage on the right is just a mask to cover the monstrosities currently emerging, but it may take down the entire country.
Monday, October 02, 2017
Jeremiah Blues 2017.10
So, here we are once more. From the unlikely hyper-real world of Las Vegas, a land of entertainment and escape, we are once again confronted with the definition of terrorism. With no "other" here, we are left with only one of us, as definitively us as one can be, with no clear political motive. Response to the 2016 St Cloud "attack" was a strong assertion of "terrorism," even though this individual had no explicit ideological motive. The result was no fatalities and only minor injuries, although people expressed that they would not go to the mall anymore. This would have clearly been just a crime, perpetrated by a lone-wolf deranged individual, if not for the otherness of his being. So now, without otherness, we are, predictably, hearing about a mass-shooting, but not the T word. It seems, however, that the scale of an action, even without ideological or political motive, can elevate an event into terrorism. If a non-fatal knife attack can be terrorism, this certainly is. The fact that someone could shoot 600 people, in an expectably innocent location, was unthinkable. Now it's not and we have to recognize how far gone we are before the next one happens - and it's bigger.
The responses today were completely predictable, from "Hillary's attack of the 2nd Amendment is wrong," (without any reasons given), "there's nothing you can do to stop this," to "it's the price of freedom." Well, that's some great freedom we have. We are clearly paying too much. Not all rights are equal: when they come into conflict the right to life must come first, it is a higher right, without prominence no other rights can even be sustained. Furthermore, there are, of course, things that can be done. It is indeed the job of government, the very reason for its existence, to provide reasonable protection. That is why we have everything from local police to the military. [1] Certainly, you can't stop all crime (although we still take proactive measures), but there has to be attention to protection, and mitigation, of mass public events. As Robert Reich stated: "This is a crisis of public health and safety." This event clearly refutes the pro-gun arguments, or myth, that you only need good guys with guns to shoot back. There was no possibility of that helping here (and the band even had guns). Even police were not equipped to fire back, it would have required a sniper of supreme skill. Only preventative measures pertaining directly to firearms can help mitigate such future events. The hypocrisy of the right is astounding. No expense is too great to protect us from them, you know, the real terrorists, no matter how small the event. Walls, travel bans, trillions of dollars on wars that cost millions of lives (theirs, not ours) - it's all necessary. We can lock ourselves in, but none of that makes us safer, because the danger is already here - in us.
It's time the government does its job serving the people. And stops being a hostage to that portion of Americans who worships guns as a religion, as they place their empty, mythical, "rights" above actual reasons, debates, and practicalities. If the country is serious about protecting us from terrorism, then gun regulation has to be a part of that. Otherwise this whole elaborate structure of keeping America safe is just a sham.
Regarding the CBS executive and her inappropriate post, she's probably not a person one wants to defend. However [2], her classless response reminds one of another high-profile tweeter. But, in this case CBS fired her, so there is thankfully a system to compensate. Despite the poor sentiment, deliberately unsympathetic and not retaining the humanitarian position she would apparently hope to hold, an interesting consideration emerges. One is responsible for the world they create, even if they become victims of their own negative effects. These terror events are not precisely equal, there are degrees of difference. As horrific it as this one has been, the Sandy Hook event contained a further dimension that I don't think needs explanation. And, this event may be a layer removed from a concert filled with teenage girls. It seems likely that the majority of attendees do support extensive, or unlimited, gun rights, it is a view consistent with the country subculture. I would seriously be interested in statistical information on that. Additionally, we have an extreme example of white on white violence here. What if this concert was a rap one where a gang shootout result in similar deaths? Would anyone on the right care? Or would they say that the moral decadence of that subculture was to blame? What if it was an NRA convention? Surely the dominant views of the participants play a role when they are directly relevant to the outcome.
In terms of other obnoxious responses, Alex Jones has once again called this a false-flag event. At least he's consistent. But, it's odd that before he made such ridiculous accusations as an attack on the president (as head of the deep state). Now he seems to be ranting against the deep state because of its detachment from the presidency (and his savior) But, Scumbag Jones can't have it both ways. Either the president has control of government, or he doesn't. That doesn't change because one approves of one and not the other. However, I think he might be somewhat right even in his ludicrous delusion. If the deep state perpetrates events to manipulate the population, it will certainly happen during conservative administrations as much as liberal ones. And, I would wager any draconian moves would really happen in a conservative era. The smoke and mirrors show is enacted to place the blame on the left (look at how well the gun industry did under Obama, for instance, as opposed to now). If Jones wants to fight the deep state, he's on the wrong side. But, he doesn't. He just wants to promote his own brand of authoritarianism.
[1] Of course, that's only a minor function of their existence. Preserving power structures, it could be argued, are their rai·son d'ê·tre. However, we should still try to get these entities to provide service to the citizenry that maintains them.
[2] After hearing the mental contortions of conservatives trying to defend Mnuchin's use of taxpayer money when their own party and current administration are (in theory) built upon ending such corruption, as well as Trump's "very fine people" remarks, it seems that everyone is defend-able these days.
The responses today were completely predictable, from "Hillary's attack of the 2nd Amendment is wrong," (without any reasons given), "there's nothing you can do to stop this," to "it's the price of freedom." Well, that's some great freedom we have. We are clearly paying too much. Not all rights are equal: when they come into conflict the right to life must come first, it is a higher right, without prominence no other rights can even be sustained. Furthermore, there are, of course, things that can be done. It is indeed the job of government, the very reason for its existence, to provide reasonable protection. That is why we have everything from local police to the military. [1] Certainly, you can't stop all crime (although we still take proactive measures), but there has to be attention to protection, and mitigation, of mass public events. As Robert Reich stated: "This is a crisis of public health and safety." This event clearly refutes the pro-gun arguments, or myth, that you only need good guys with guns to shoot back. There was no possibility of that helping here (and the band even had guns). Even police were not equipped to fire back, it would have required a sniper of supreme skill. Only preventative measures pertaining directly to firearms can help mitigate such future events. The hypocrisy of the right is astounding. No expense is too great to protect us from them, you know, the real terrorists, no matter how small the event. Walls, travel bans, trillions of dollars on wars that cost millions of lives (theirs, not ours) - it's all necessary. We can lock ourselves in, but none of that makes us safer, because the danger is already here - in us.
It's time the government does its job serving the people. And stops being a hostage to that portion of Americans who worships guns as a religion, as they place their empty, mythical, "rights" above actual reasons, debates, and practicalities. If the country is serious about protecting us from terrorism, then gun regulation has to be a part of that. Otherwise this whole elaborate structure of keeping America safe is just a sham.
Regarding the CBS executive and her inappropriate post, she's probably not a person one wants to defend. However [2], her classless response reminds one of another high-profile tweeter. But, in this case CBS fired her, so there is thankfully a system to compensate. Despite the poor sentiment, deliberately unsympathetic and not retaining the humanitarian position she would apparently hope to hold, an interesting consideration emerges. One is responsible for the world they create, even if they become victims of their own negative effects. These terror events are not precisely equal, there are degrees of difference. As horrific it as this one has been, the Sandy Hook event contained a further dimension that I don't think needs explanation. And, this event may be a layer removed from a concert filled with teenage girls. It seems likely that the majority of attendees do support extensive, or unlimited, gun rights, it is a view consistent with the country subculture. I would seriously be interested in statistical information on that. Additionally, we have an extreme example of white on white violence here. What if this concert was a rap one where a gang shootout result in similar deaths? Would anyone on the right care? Or would they say that the moral decadence of that subculture was to blame? What if it was an NRA convention? Surely the dominant views of the participants play a role when they are directly relevant to the outcome.
In terms of other obnoxious responses, Alex Jones has once again called this a false-flag event. At least he's consistent. But, it's odd that before he made such ridiculous accusations as an attack on the president (as head of the deep state). Now he seems to be ranting against the deep state because of its detachment from the presidency (and his savior) But, Scumbag Jones can't have it both ways. Either the president has control of government, or he doesn't. That doesn't change because one approves of one and not the other. However, I think he might be somewhat right even in his ludicrous delusion. If the deep state perpetrates events to manipulate the population, it will certainly happen during conservative administrations as much as liberal ones. And, I would wager any draconian moves would really happen in a conservative era. The smoke and mirrors show is enacted to place the blame on the left (look at how well the gun industry did under Obama, for instance, as opposed to now). If Jones wants to fight the deep state, he's on the wrong side. But, he doesn't. He just wants to promote his own brand of authoritarianism.
[1] Of course, that's only a minor function of their existence. Preserving power structures, it could be argued, are their rai·son d'ê·tre. However, we should still try to get these entities to provide service to the citizenry that maintains them.
[2] After hearing the mental contortions of conservatives trying to defend Mnuchin's use of taxpayer money when their own party and current administration are (in theory) built upon ending such corruption, as well as Trump's "very fine people" remarks, it seems that everyone is defend-able these days.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Jeremiah Blues 8-17
So, how are we doing now that in 2017 the New Guy is leading us to "winning?"
Perhaps the most disturbing trend I see this year is the conservative idea that "you lost, get over it. We won." This is immensely stupid on many levels. We don't vote people in to be dictators, or to have carte blanche to do whatever they want. Policy still needs public debate, this is why they hold town meetings and have public phone lines. Just because some people supported their opinions doesn't mean they are automatically instituted. Legislators are still servants of the their constituents and are beholden to their opinions. I didn't hear conservatives keeping their mouths shut for eight years of a democratic president. So, now they have to deal with liberal views challenging conservative policy makers. Tough. Grow up and get over it. This is how public policy works. In addition to this childish notion, there is the fabricated idea used for propaganda that Trump won 90% of the US. To demonstrate this they show a glorious Red map. Guess what conservatives- the electorate is not made up of empty land. Land doesn't f******g vote! People do. This is simply a desperate attempt to compensate for the fact that they could not even get a majority of the electorate. What is the opposite of a mandate? This is how pathetic this current administration and its supporters are.
Another interesting tactic now in use is taking all of the accusations leveled against President Obama (which were not true) and actually doing them with impunity. The racial conflict which arose during the Obama term, and was blamed specifically on him, is now actually being executed (somewhat by design through the White House's alt-right). But any blame is now shifted away from the presidency to the liberal mass and Democratic congress members. Just one more double standard.
This has culminated in the events of Charlottesville. A clear cut case of white terrorism. (ISIS) Hopefully the murderer will not only get first degree charges, but hate crime charges as well. This will be any interesting case, with a white victim the result of white hate. The argument that a crime is a crime regardless of race, and hate crime charges are a social view which should not be injected into the legal system has some validity. When one perpetrates a crime against society in the name of ideology, it should be classified as terrorism, negating the need for hate crime charges. Despite the pathetic and complicit assertions of Trump, Pence, and Bossert, some cabinet members, notably Sessions and McMaster, correctly labeled this terrorism.
The ridiculous notion that the left's paranoid aversion to Nazi-ism is similar to the right's view of communism doesn't hold any validity. First it is an attempt to uphold the views of the right while dismissing the extremist problems within the conservative circles. Since when is resistance to Nazi-sim just a leftist position. Surely conservatives fought against Germany at least as strongly as liberals. This just shows how far right American conservatives have swung. Moreover, the comparison to communism is absurd. Democrats accused of this position never identified as such. More importantly their actions have no correlation, as administration such as Obama's have strengthened the capitalist system. If there were actual communists in the government, like the early twentieth century, this would not ensure the presence of an enemy. Communism is not a specific party any more than capitalism, it is merely an economic system which may very well extend the rights of the individual. The communist powers which we fought were enemies due to their authoritarian political systems. As for American Nazi-ism, the new movement of White Nationalists denounce the term as derogatory only because of its negative history. They embrace the same ideals, incorporate the same symbols, methodology, and rituals. If a group calls themselves Renamed-substitute-Nazis (while some still adhere to Neo-Nazi), then it is not paranoid to label them as such. It is simply reality. Something the right has a very hard time understanding.
The fractures within the conservative movement are fascinating. Trump was elected to drain DC, presumably of all the old guard including traditional Republicans, and party members with a professional approach are being labeled RINOs even as they uphold their party's tradition. Meanwhile it is clear that Trump is not a Republican and could much more accurately be labeled RINO. A more sensible approach for the nihilist burn-it-down Trumpers would be to form a new party and detach from Republicans, as they perceive that party of falling to their left. But they use the built-in base for their own power by deceiving the Republican electorate rather than building a new voter base through reasonable positions (which they don't have).
BETA
Finally, the current backlash against transgender issues provides an interesting test case. The right [1] complains that transgender rights are a part of the snowflake liberal movement. In reality, this is much closer to a conservative stance, as it embraces individual rights. It is a clear example of how libertarianism should work (and doesn't); they should be advocates of it just as much as liberals. But, they aren't. Once again they are still attached to the this giant morass of conservatism, and it shows that libertarianism is a scam, an appearance of liberty on the surface - one that only exists as long as it embodies conservative values.
[1] In this case libertarians as much as the socially conservative right.
Perhaps the most disturbing trend I see this year is the conservative idea that "you lost, get over it. We won." This is immensely stupid on many levels. We don't vote people in to be dictators, or to have carte blanche to do whatever they want. Policy still needs public debate, this is why they hold town meetings and have public phone lines. Just because some people supported their opinions doesn't mean they are automatically instituted. Legislators are still servants of the their constituents and are beholden to their opinions. I didn't hear conservatives keeping their mouths shut for eight years of a democratic president. So, now they have to deal with liberal views challenging conservative policy makers. Tough. Grow up and get over it. This is how public policy works. In addition to this childish notion, there is the fabricated idea used for propaganda that Trump won 90% of the US. To demonstrate this they show a glorious Red map. Guess what conservatives- the electorate is not made up of empty land. Land doesn't f******g vote! People do. This is simply a desperate attempt to compensate for the fact that they could not even get a majority of the electorate. What is the opposite of a mandate? This is how pathetic this current administration and its supporters are.
Another interesting tactic now in use is taking all of the accusations leveled against President Obama (which were not true) and actually doing them with impunity. The racial conflict which arose during the Obama term, and was blamed specifically on him, is now actually being executed (somewhat by design through the White House's alt-right). But any blame is now shifted away from the presidency to the liberal mass and Democratic congress members. Just one more double standard.
This has culminated in the events of Charlottesville. A clear cut case of white terrorism. (ISIS) Hopefully the murderer will not only get first degree charges, but hate crime charges as well. This will be any interesting case, with a white victim the result of white hate. The argument that a crime is a crime regardless of race, and hate crime charges are a social view which should not be injected into the legal system has some validity. When one perpetrates a crime against society in the name of ideology, it should be classified as terrorism, negating the need for hate crime charges. Despite the pathetic and complicit assertions of Trump, Pence, and Bossert, some cabinet members, notably Sessions and McMaster, correctly labeled this terrorism.
The ridiculous notion that the left's paranoid aversion to Nazi-ism is similar to the right's view of communism doesn't hold any validity. First it is an attempt to uphold the views of the right while dismissing the extremist problems within the conservative circles. Since when is resistance to Nazi-sim just a leftist position. Surely conservatives fought against Germany at least as strongly as liberals. This just shows how far right American conservatives have swung. Moreover, the comparison to communism is absurd. Democrats accused of this position never identified as such. More importantly their actions have no correlation, as administration such as Obama's have strengthened the capitalist system. If there were actual communists in the government, like the early twentieth century, this would not ensure the presence of an enemy. Communism is not a specific party any more than capitalism, it is merely an economic system which may very well extend the rights of the individual. The communist powers which we fought were enemies due to their authoritarian political systems. As for American Nazi-ism, the new movement of White Nationalists denounce the term as derogatory only because of its negative history. They embrace the same ideals, incorporate the same symbols, methodology, and rituals. If a group calls themselves Renamed-substitute-Nazis (while some still adhere to Neo-Nazi), then it is not paranoid to label them as such. It is simply reality. Something the right has a very hard time understanding.
The fractures within the conservative movement are fascinating. Trump was elected to drain DC, presumably of all the old guard including traditional Republicans, and party members with a professional approach are being labeled RINOs even as they uphold their party's tradition. Meanwhile it is clear that Trump is not a Republican and could much more accurately be labeled RINO. A more sensible approach for the nihilist burn-it-down Trumpers would be to form a new party and detach from Republicans, as they perceive that party of falling to their left. But they use the built-in base for their own power by deceiving the Republican electorate rather than building a new voter base through reasonable positions (which they don't have).
BETA
Finally, the current backlash against transgender issues provides an interesting test case. The right [1] complains that transgender rights are a part of the snowflake liberal movement. In reality, this is much closer to a conservative stance, as it embraces individual rights. It is a clear example of how libertarianism should work (and doesn't); they should be advocates of it just as much as liberals. But, they aren't. Once again they are still attached to the this giant morass of conservatism, and it shows that libertarianism is a scam, an appearance of liberty on the surface - one that only exists as long as it embodies conservative values.
[1] In this case libertarians as much as the socially conservative right.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Misplaced Childhood
The first of Deluxe Marillion releases, Misplaced Childhood, is out. What is there to say about it? Not much in terms of content that hasn't been said before (as Steve Wilson remarked, there isn't much to be changed on the original recording). It is essentially the 1998 Remaster with the second disc of B-sides and demos, with the newly released Live in Utrecht 1986 concert, which is a nice addition to the under-represented live catalog of the Fish years. Additionally, there is the Wilson 5.1 mix (album along with Lady Nina, (as the Freaks original tape is lost)) and a making-of discussion video with Fish and the band on Blu-ray.
What this series of the EMI years showcases is the physical, tangible, manifestation of music as a historical artifact. There wouldn't be much gained by getting a download version of this. It is the packaging, book sized with 60 color pages of Misplaced history (and here signed by the band), that makes this the definitive release. The visuals, the history, and the legacy are all here, with the immersive acoustic expansion of the 5.1 here, not much more can likely be said in the future.
One note on this series: I only wish This Strange Engine was included (the first non-EMI release),or released as this seems like the final record of the 1.0/2.0 years, a bit of an epilogue Everything after 1998 was different. Although the making of album has already been done, it would be great to hear a 5.1 mix. [1] Racket has done some 5.1 mixes for later works and could do more, but, again, it would be nice to have one definitive package to totalize the work.
[1] There are still many gaps - .com and Somewhere Else would be great candidates for 5.1, as well as the often requested Marbles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![The Brothers Karamazov [Norton Critical Edition]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1560399295l/49899120._SX50_SY75_.jpg)
