Anyone who spends any times here knows I spend lots of time reading on the internet and that I do so from a wide variety of sources. I do not pull my news from "conservative" sources or "liberal" sources" or blah blah blah. I read across the spectrum. If I find something of interest from a source I know has a definite slant or that I know others strongly believe has a definite slant, I will go find other sources to confirm the details (unless I'm commenting on the article itself and not on the news in the article, of course). I read sources with which I definitely do not agree because I believe in the maxim Know Thy Enemy. Because of this, I come across all kinds of goofiness and strange stuff.
Two things I've been seeing large doses of lately are misuse of or pointless arguments about the words "liberal" and "libertarian". Much of this comes from idiots who are just trying to make an ideological statement. Some, however, comes, from people who are trying to "prove" how educated they are by quoting classic French Libertarian philosophers (as though philosophies never change or a modern political movement would be 100% based in a single classic philosophy) or by pointing that that America's Founding Fathers were "liberal" (as though using the same label equals standing for the same things). Because I do believe that both of these are important words, allow me to take a few minutes to clear up some misconceptions.
We'll start with "liberal" because that, in this case, will be the easier one. For one thing, you'll rarely see me use the word. Unlike most commenters, I fully understand that it is a highly-charged word that has multiple meanings. Put simply, it potentially means so much that it practically means nothing. You cannot say "liberal" and have anyone actually understand you unless you also apply various other conditions to clearly present context. Yes, the Founding Fathers were quite liberal for their time (that accented phrase is quite important here) but that does not, in and of itself, mean that they would agree with or support someone who was liberal for another time. The term "liberal", in this usage, is entirely context dependent. Without a statement of when and where, it has no meaning and differing points of when and where can give it very different meanings. Yes, Classic Liberalism is the foundation of the concepts of equal and civil rights (going all the way back to the ancient Greeks) and yes the Left often (though far from always) gets a better scorecard in this area. Yes, it has been the modern Left who have spearheaded the civil rights and equal rights movements (and they do deserve praise for this), but it has also been the modern Left who have hijacked the civil and equal rights movements to turn them into an Animal Farm "some are more equal than others" agenda (and they deserve condemnation for this). In addition to this, Classical Liberalism has nothing to do with environmentalism, socialism, welfare, or any number of other ideas that define the modern Left. This is why you will rarely see me use the word "liberal" when speaking of the Left and this is why making comparisons between the modern Left and the Founding fathers - comparisons based solely on the fact that both can be called "liberal" - is just plain silly.
Libertarian is a bit more tricky because it is a loaded term with which few people are truly even familiar. I've seen people - including some of those smarties quoting French philosophers - who equate Libertarianism with anarchy. While this may or may not be true in that French philosophy class (I don't think it is, but I haven't studied enough French philosophy to say for certain - I can say that the French Libertarian philosophers I have studied certainly did not equate their philosophy with anarchy) it is adamantly not true in the modern political movement that calls itself Libertarian. It is a centerpiece of the political Libertarian platform that there is a legitimate role for limited government. While the stress there should be on "limited" (as in, as tiny as you can get away with), accepting a legitimate role for even a minuscule government is miles away from anarchy. In fact, it is worth noting that, when Libertarians and Anarchists have to make common cause with other political groups, you can almost depend on self-professed Libertarians lining up with the Right and self-professed Anarchists lining up with the Left. You do the math.
There are those who laugh at Libertarians saying such things as, "How can you believe government is too inefficient to handle welfare but is more efficient at warfare?" Well, you kind of missing the point. Government inefficiencies are not the reason for the belief in limited government. They are simply one point that even non-limited-government types can grasp and go along with. Government may or may not actually be more efficient at warfare (though governments as a whole have certainly had plenty of practice) but warfare is one of government's only legitimate roles. Those classical and neoclassical philosophers who espoused the ideals of liberty and equality upon which the Libertarian movement is based all taught and demonstrated that one of the only reasons that free people accept a government is defense of the people. Defending from threats both external (military) and internal (police) fits squarely within the Libertarian definition of limited government, not for reasons of efficiency or inefficiency, but because it is a legitimate function of government.
I had to laugh when I read one of those smarties who was equating Libertarian with anarchy ask another commenter, "Have you even read Ayn Rand?" First of all, Rand was not the founder of modern American Libertarianism. She was the founder of Objectivism. There is a big difference. While the two share many points in common (and some of the principles of Objectivism, as stated in Rand's novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, were the starting points of Libertarianism), the former is a political philosophy that seeks to define the limited and legitimate function of government while the latter is a moral and ethical philosophy that seeks to define proper behavior for all thinking people. You might notice a difference in goals there. However, in answer to the question (which wasn't asked of me, but I'll answer anyway), yes I have read the books, numerous times. Have you? Rand stated repeatedly that the military, the courts, and the police were the only legitimate functions of government. Not, apparently, an anarchist.
To use one of Ayn Rand's favorite phrases (it seems appropriate here), words have meaning. If you use them without knowing their meaning or use them incorrectly despite knowing their meaning then you are a fool who hurts not only your own cause but all other causes around you as well. There are many of things for the Left and Right to argue about but, since neither side seems very skilled with the use of a dictionary, I would suggest that labels not be one of them.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Some Important Gun Control Myths
I was reading yet another gun control article in the online edition of the New York Times this morning and, of course, I read through the comments section as well. It was rather disturbing. The amount of false information and just plain dumb ideas out there is staggering.
Full disclosure: I do not personally own a gun and never have. I have often considered getting one but I have a finite amount of money and there was always something else I would rather buy. However, I grew up around lots of guns, learned the shoot at a young age, and was taught a healthy respect for guns at around the same time I learned to walk. I have also worked in both the U.S. Army and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and I was armed (and trained) in both jobs. I have a large amount of gun experience from hunting, military, and law enforcement angles.
I am an avid supporter of the right to bear arms and there are a number of critical myths that must be discussed and dismissed if there is ever to be a rational answer to this constant argument.
MYTH: Probably the most pervasive myth on this subject is the idea that the 2nd amendment only pertains to people in the militia (which is currently translated as military and police, a translation that, itself, does not hold up to scrutinization). Even if we ignore proper grammar (please note the comma placement) or definitions of the time (look up the 17th century meaning of "regulated"), this myth does not hold for a simple reason: The same Congress that put the 2nd amendment before the states also passed a law that defined the word militia for legal purposes. That law stated that the militia was all citizens who were otherwise of a legal age and allowed to vote. Restricting gun ownership to members of the militia would not then be much of a restriction, would it?
MYTH: The second most pervasive myth in the gun control story is that gun control laws are even worth writing. The majority of gun-related crimes committed in America are already committed with illegal guns or by people who illegally possess guns. Existing laws do nothing to slow down criminals. New ones will not do any better.
MYTH: It is commonly believed that we have a high rate of gun-related crimes because we have a high number of guns. Allow me to direct your attention to Switzerland where there is a gun in almost every home and no corresponding high rate of gun crimes. Do the math.
MYTH: Countries with strict gun laws have lower violent crime rates. This is a simply ridiculous claim. Mexico and most of South America have extremely restrictive gun laws but they are riddled with violent gun issues. And no, most of those guns do not come from America. The ATF's own report on the subject states that only about 17%-19% of those guns are from here and most of those were stolen from legitimate shipments to military forces. If we look at places like Great Britain and Canada, they actually do have a lower gun crime rate, but they have equal or higher rates in other violent crimes and those rates have gone up since their gun laws became more restrictive. I fail to see how trading one set of violent crimes for another is really helping anyone.
MYTH: Hand guns have no purpose other than killing people. This one just makes me laugh. It only gets stated by people who know nothing about guns. Even if we discount such things as competitive target shooting and plain collecting (two points that, arguably at least, don't actually address the myth), you have obviously never been out in the country if you believe this statement. I'll give you a simple example. When I was growing up, we had a small ranch in the south Texas brush country. My dad was out walking the brush one day [I believe he had been hunting - at any rate, he had both his rifle (which was properly slung for walking) and his pistol (which was holstered on his hip)] when he came within a dangerous distance of stepping on a rattlesnake. There was no way, in the close reach and time allowed, that he could unsling his rifle and bring it to bear fast enough to keep from being bit. He could, however, draw and use his pistol in the time and space allowed. I am personally grateful to report that this is exactly what he did and, because of that pistol, the snake died and my dad did not. In response to one of the commenters on that article, this is exactly why you often see cowboys wearing sidearms when they are in the field. It has nothing to do with romanticized dreams of the Old West.
MYTH: One of my favorite myths from the gun control lobby comes from those who actually acknowledge the true intent of the 2nd amendment. The admit that the point was to have an armed citizenry to defend against government abuses but claim that the point is moot now that the government has such things as tanks, bombs, and fighter jets. I have a one-word answer to this claim: Afghanistan. Using almost nothing but infantry-style and homemade weapons of the type that virtually any fool could make with spare parts, this country has fended off not one but two superpowers armed with the most advanced modern military hardware. Modern technology means nothing if you cannot fit it where you are using it or if you are not willing to use it in a given location. Take a look at Ireland during the height of the NRA conflict. How many tanks or fighter jets did you see England deploying?
MYTH: The final myth I want to cover here is the most ironic and the most disgusting - the myth that you do not need to defend yourself because that is why we have police. My instinctive response to this myth is laughter. It's quickly followed, however, by the urge to cry and then by anger. This myth is ironic because it is usually being spewed by people who are, in every other case, anti-police. It is disgusting because it is antithetical to everything a free society is supposed to mean. Dependence does not promote freedom. You are, in fact, not free in the exact degree to which you are dependent. Furthermore, the courts have upheld numerous times that the police are not obligated to protect you. Not only are they not obligated to protect you, more often than not they can't. The most common job of the police is to investigate and apprehend after the fact. Brings to mind the old adage, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by eight. The only person directly responsible for your safety is you. Abdicate that responsibility at your peril.
I'll illustrate my disgust with this last myth (and a common flaw with the gun control mentality) with a quote from one of the commenters: "Liberty is the freedom to make the choice to let someone else (like the police) carry the guns to protect you." We'll ignore, for the moment, the Orwellian implications in this sentence and pretend it is a serious statement that deserves a serious answer. Freedom is indeed a choice, but the freedom to choose one thing must also include the freedom to not choose that thing. Without both sides of the choice, you don't actually have a choice, let alone freedom. The commenter defeats his own position by making it a choice.
This is, at its root, the biggest problem with the gun control lobby. They want everything to be one sided and they want to call that one side a choice and freedom. Gun control advocates maintain that, if gun control can save one, it's worth it. By that same token, however, if responsibly armed citizens can save one life, isn't that worth it? Since these two statements must be equally valid yet cancel each other out, there is obviously a problem here. Emotional hand-wringing is not going to help anyone. Many claim to want "reasonable" restrictions. If you want to be reasonable, throw out the myths. Then we can talk.
Full disclosure: I do not personally own a gun and never have. I have often considered getting one but I have a finite amount of money and there was always something else I would rather buy. However, I grew up around lots of guns, learned the shoot at a young age, and was taught a healthy respect for guns at around the same time I learned to walk. I have also worked in both the U.S. Army and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and I was armed (and trained) in both jobs. I have a large amount of gun experience from hunting, military, and law enforcement angles.
I am an avid supporter of the right to bear arms and there are a number of critical myths that must be discussed and dismissed if there is ever to be a rational answer to this constant argument.
MYTH: Probably the most pervasive myth on this subject is the idea that the 2nd amendment only pertains to people in the militia (which is currently translated as military and police, a translation that, itself, does not hold up to scrutinization). Even if we ignore proper grammar (please note the comma placement) or definitions of the time (look up the 17th century meaning of "regulated"), this myth does not hold for a simple reason: The same Congress that put the 2nd amendment before the states also passed a law that defined the word militia for legal purposes. That law stated that the militia was all citizens who were otherwise of a legal age and allowed to vote. Restricting gun ownership to members of the militia would not then be much of a restriction, would it?
MYTH: The second most pervasive myth in the gun control story is that gun control laws are even worth writing. The majority of gun-related crimes committed in America are already committed with illegal guns or by people who illegally possess guns. Existing laws do nothing to slow down criminals. New ones will not do any better.
MYTH: It is commonly believed that we have a high rate of gun-related crimes because we have a high number of guns. Allow me to direct your attention to Switzerland where there is a gun in almost every home and no corresponding high rate of gun crimes. Do the math.
MYTH: Countries with strict gun laws have lower violent crime rates. This is a simply ridiculous claim. Mexico and most of South America have extremely restrictive gun laws but they are riddled with violent gun issues. And no, most of those guns do not come from America. The ATF's own report on the subject states that only about 17%-19% of those guns are from here and most of those were stolen from legitimate shipments to military forces. If we look at places like Great Britain and Canada, they actually do have a lower gun crime rate, but they have equal or higher rates in other violent crimes and those rates have gone up since their gun laws became more restrictive. I fail to see how trading one set of violent crimes for another is really helping anyone.
MYTH: Hand guns have no purpose other than killing people. This one just makes me laugh. It only gets stated by people who know nothing about guns. Even if we discount such things as competitive target shooting and plain collecting (two points that, arguably at least, don't actually address the myth), you have obviously never been out in the country if you believe this statement. I'll give you a simple example. When I was growing up, we had a small ranch in the south Texas brush country. My dad was out walking the brush one day [I believe he had been hunting - at any rate, he had both his rifle (which was properly slung for walking) and his pistol (which was holstered on his hip)] when he came within a dangerous distance of stepping on a rattlesnake. There was no way, in the close reach and time allowed, that he could unsling his rifle and bring it to bear fast enough to keep from being bit. He could, however, draw and use his pistol in the time and space allowed. I am personally grateful to report that this is exactly what he did and, because of that pistol, the snake died and my dad did not. In response to one of the commenters on that article, this is exactly why you often see cowboys wearing sidearms when they are in the field. It has nothing to do with romanticized dreams of the Old West.
MYTH: One of my favorite myths from the gun control lobby comes from those who actually acknowledge the true intent of the 2nd amendment. The admit that the point was to have an armed citizenry to defend against government abuses but claim that the point is moot now that the government has such things as tanks, bombs, and fighter jets. I have a one-word answer to this claim: Afghanistan. Using almost nothing but infantry-style and homemade weapons of the type that virtually any fool could make with spare parts, this country has fended off not one but two superpowers armed with the most advanced modern military hardware. Modern technology means nothing if you cannot fit it where you are using it or if you are not willing to use it in a given location. Take a look at Ireland during the height of the NRA conflict. How many tanks or fighter jets did you see England deploying?
MYTH: The final myth I want to cover here is the most ironic and the most disgusting - the myth that you do not need to defend yourself because that is why we have police. My instinctive response to this myth is laughter. It's quickly followed, however, by the urge to cry and then by anger. This myth is ironic because it is usually being spewed by people who are, in every other case, anti-police. It is disgusting because it is antithetical to everything a free society is supposed to mean. Dependence does not promote freedom. You are, in fact, not free in the exact degree to which you are dependent. Furthermore, the courts have upheld numerous times that the police are not obligated to protect you. Not only are they not obligated to protect you, more often than not they can't. The most common job of the police is to investigate and apprehend after the fact. Brings to mind the old adage, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by eight. The only person directly responsible for your safety is you. Abdicate that responsibility at your peril.
I'll illustrate my disgust with this last myth (and a common flaw with the gun control mentality) with a quote from one of the commenters: "Liberty is the freedom to make the choice to let someone else (like the police) carry the guns to protect you." We'll ignore, for the moment, the Orwellian implications in this sentence and pretend it is a serious statement that deserves a serious answer. Freedom is indeed a choice, but the freedom to choose one thing must also include the freedom to not choose that thing. Without both sides of the choice, you don't actually have a choice, let alone freedom. The commenter defeats his own position by making it a choice.
This is, at its root, the biggest problem with the gun control lobby. They want everything to be one sided and they want to call that one side a choice and freedom. Gun control advocates maintain that, if gun control can save one, it's worth it. By that same token, however, if responsibly armed citizens can save one life, isn't that worth it? Since these two statements must be equally valid yet cancel each other out, there is obviously a problem here. Emotional hand-wringing is not going to help anyone. Many claim to want "reasonable" restrictions. If you want to be reasonable, throw out the myths. Then we can talk.
Friday, March 20, 2009
This Intractable Flu
It's flu season again. What fun.
There is a long laundry list of things I want to write about this week - you only have to barely watch the news to know there is no shortage of subjects - but every time I sit down to think out the right words, I get interrupted by a coughing fit that just laughs at all cough suppressants on the market. I'm not even, strictly speaking, sick at the moment. Not by my standards, anyway. I picked up this nasty bug nearly a month ago and was laid out for about four days (which is pretty close to a world record for me). Since then, however, this militant virus has charged through everyone in my house, burning the houses, salting the fields, and taking no prisoners. Now it is looking back over conquered territory and thinking that a little extra mayhem may be in order.
The short - and less illustrative - version is that I'm fighting against getting sick again. It's a tough battle and I have not lost yet, but the odds are not in my favor. I think I'll be spending the weekend with a lot of hot tea, some chicken soup, and a few good movies. I'll get back to you on the recent flood of absurdity as soon as I feel better. I doubt it will be old news by then.
There is a long laundry list of things I want to write about this week - you only have to barely watch the news to know there is no shortage of subjects - but every time I sit down to think out the right words, I get interrupted by a coughing fit that just laughs at all cough suppressants on the market. I'm not even, strictly speaking, sick at the moment. Not by my standards, anyway. I picked up this nasty bug nearly a month ago and was laid out for about four days (which is pretty close to a world record for me). Since then, however, this militant virus has charged through everyone in my house, burning the houses, salting the fields, and taking no prisoners. Now it is looking back over conquered territory and thinking that a little extra mayhem may be in order.
The short - and less illustrative - version is that I'm fighting against getting sick again. It's a tough battle and I have not lost yet, but the odds are not in my favor. I think I'll be spending the weekend with a lot of hot tea, some chicken soup, and a few good movies. I'll get back to you on the recent flood of absurdity as soon as I feel better. I doubt it will be old news by then.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Betrayal Of Service
The Obama administration announced today that it was dropping plans for a proposal it should never have been pursuing in the first place. Actually, in an ironic note, no one in the administration even had the nerve to make the announcement so they had House Speaker Nancy Pelosi make it instead. I say this is ironic because the House was not pursuing this plan - in fact, the heads of the appropriate committees in both chambers, both Democrats amusingly enough, flat refused to even consider it - so why was this a House Speaker announcement? My guess is that no one in Obama's posse relished the idea of getting his or her nose rubbed in yet another monumental mistake.
What was this monumental mistake? Obama wanted to go after private insurance companies to pay for service-related treatment for our military personnel. Supposedly this plan would save the federal government more than $500 million and, after all, the insurance companies are getting a free ride. Obama said it, so it must be true. He even had the gall to tell veteran's groups that, if they didn't like his plan, they needed to come up with something else.
[This whole current philosophy of "you're not allowed to say no unless you have your own plan" is really starting to get on my nerves, but that's a post for another day.]
I have an idea, Mr. President. It's rather revolutionary, and I know how much you like anything revolutionary, so stop me if you've heard this one before. It's a really simple plan: Honor your commitments and don't spend billions of dollars you don't have, preventing you from honoring your commitments.
Insurance companies are not getting a free ride on service-related treatment because they have nothing to do with service-related treatment! They didn't put our soldiers in harms way, we did. We owe them! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this president, who believes so strongly in "spreading the wealth", should have such a low understanding of paying an honest debt, but this is a new low.
I have not been a rabid anti-Obama writer. I dislike him and I certainly didn't vote for him. I believe he is unqualified for his job and is going to make a huge mess that the rest of us will have to find a way to clean. However, I believe we have had very few qualified presidents in the last 200 years, so I didn't see Obama as anything too remarkable, even in that. Now, though, I am beginning to wonder if I have been too forgiving.
We are the first nation in the history of the world who have acted like we truly believe that we can spit on our own military and get away with it. If any other military at any other time in history were treated the way we have treated ours there would have been a military coup long ago. Either that or they would have simply walked away and left us to defend ourselves. How much arrogance does it take to torment and abuse the most powerful fighting force the world has ever seen? Have we really become this stupid?
Mr. Obama, your behavior this week has been truly disgusting. Not only are you too arrogant to realize the foolishness of your actions, you lack the honor to recognize the shame of them. These people deserve your respect and your gratitude, not another one of your spur-of-the-moment, half-thought-out pipe dreams.
To those who have served this country and stuck to your guns in opposition to this scheme, thank you. Thank you for your service and thank you for your continued dedication. I promise you, there are those who have not forgotten.
What was this monumental mistake? Obama wanted to go after private insurance companies to pay for service-related treatment for our military personnel. Supposedly this plan would save the federal government more than $500 million and, after all, the insurance companies are getting a free ride. Obama said it, so it must be true. He even had the gall to tell veteran's groups that, if they didn't like his plan, they needed to come up with something else.
[This whole current philosophy of "you're not allowed to say no unless you have your own plan" is really starting to get on my nerves, but that's a post for another day.]
I have an idea, Mr. President. It's rather revolutionary, and I know how much you like anything revolutionary, so stop me if you've heard this one before. It's a really simple plan: Honor your commitments and don't spend billions of dollars you don't have, preventing you from honoring your commitments.
Insurance companies are not getting a free ride on service-related treatment because they have nothing to do with service-related treatment! They didn't put our soldiers in harms way, we did. We owe them! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this president, who believes so strongly in "spreading the wealth", should have such a low understanding of paying an honest debt, but this is a new low.
I have not been a rabid anti-Obama writer. I dislike him and I certainly didn't vote for him. I believe he is unqualified for his job and is going to make a huge mess that the rest of us will have to find a way to clean. However, I believe we have had very few qualified presidents in the last 200 years, so I didn't see Obama as anything too remarkable, even in that. Now, though, I am beginning to wonder if I have been too forgiving.
We are the first nation in the history of the world who have acted like we truly believe that we can spit on our own military and get away with it. If any other military at any other time in history were treated the way we have treated ours there would have been a military coup long ago. Either that or they would have simply walked away and left us to defend ourselves. How much arrogance does it take to torment and abuse the most powerful fighting force the world has ever seen? Have we really become this stupid?
Mr. Obama, your behavior this week has been truly disgusting. Not only are you too arrogant to realize the foolishness of your actions, you lack the honor to recognize the shame of them. These people deserve your respect and your gratitude, not another one of your spur-of-the-moment, half-thought-out pipe dreams.
To those who have served this country and stuck to your guns in opposition to this scheme, thank you. Thank you for your service and thank you for your continued dedication. I promise you, there are those who have not forgotten.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Breaking The Language Barrier
One of the biggest international news stories of the last few days was the incident of the U.S.N.S. Impeccable being harassed by Chinese ships in international waters. It is a known fact that Chinese officials do not comprehend the language of international boundaries but, from what I have discovered, neither apparently does most of the mainstream media. The sentence I just gave contained the extent of the location details given in most MSM articles on this story. In order to find out exactly where this confrontation happened, I had to go to a blog that is so far left the writer and many of the commenters actually consider the New York Times to be a Republican mouthpiece.
I'll give you a moment to settle the laughter from that last sentence.
Ready to continue now?
So, where did the confrontation take place? (Amusingly enough, I return to that blog for my notes and it seems that all reference to the exact location has been removed. Glad I have a good memory, but this does mean that I won't be giving exact numbers.) The Impeccable was operating about 75 miles off the southern coast of China. My knowledge of international law is sketchy at best but, last time I checked, international waters begin about seven miles off coast. Even if my memory on this is not precise, you do the math. There is absolutely no way to claim that the Impeccable was not in international waters and there is absolutely no way to claim that the actions of the Chinese vessels (approaching to within 25 feet and even stopping directly in the path of the moving Impeccable, forcing an emergency stop) were not a violation of Maritime law. Take a guess at how many mainstream media outlets are actually calling China out on this blatant violation. If you guessed any number higher than zero, you need to be paying more attention to current affairs.
China has been trying for years to claim territory that does not belong to them and this behavior is just another example of that attitude. By not denouncing these actions loudly and without reservation, the international community is letting them get away with it.
I'll give you a moment to settle the laughter from that last sentence.
Ready to continue now?
So, where did the confrontation take place? (Amusingly enough, I return to that blog for my notes and it seems that all reference to the exact location has been removed. Glad I have a good memory, but this does mean that I won't be giving exact numbers.) The Impeccable was operating about 75 miles off the southern coast of China. My knowledge of international law is sketchy at best but, last time I checked, international waters begin about seven miles off coast. Even if my memory on this is not precise, you do the math. There is absolutely no way to claim that the Impeccable was not in international waters and there is absolutely no way to claim that the actions of the Chinese vessels (approaching to within 25 feet and even stopping directly in the path of the moving Impeccable, forcing an emergency stop) were not a violation of Maritime law. Take a guess at how many mainstream media outlets are actually calling China out on this blatant violation. If you guessed any number higher than zero, you need to be paying more attention to current affairs.
China has been trying for years to claim territory that does not belong to them and this behavior is just another example of that attitude. By not denouncing these actions loudly and without reservation, the international community is letting them get away with it.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Wanted: Offensively Stupid
I am a huge movie fan. That is hardly a secret or a surprise to most people who know me. I am also very picky about my movies though, as a comics geek and an avid book reader, my pickiness is actually different than what might be expected. I do not rant and rave if a movie does not slavishly follow the source material. I do understand the difference between print material and a movie and realize that changes are mandatory. No, my pickiness stems from the expectations of a rationalist who loves the imagination. I expect the plot to work. I expect the internal reality to be consistent. I expect characters to display personality and I expect character actions to follow from those personalities. I don't think I'm asking too much, though it's hard to tell based on what passes for filmed entertainment most of the time.
I won't watch most of what is pawned off as comedy these days because I won't support the encouragement of stupidity. I avoid modern dramas like the plague because they are inevitably centered around some political or social issue that will cause me to twitch. I love a good sci-fi flick, but it is rather difficult to get Hollywood to be remotely respectful to that source material. You might think that a simple action movie would be safe. Good guy pummels bad guy, gets the girl, and saves the day. It's a simple formula and the internal rules are usually too easy for even a hack director to forget. You'd be surprised.
While there are many movies I won't watch, I do not generally find them to be offensive. They are what they are and don't claim to be anything else. I just finished watching the movie Wanted, however, and now I am offended.
Warning, if you have not seen this movie and are worried about spoilers, do not continue reading. There won't be many, but they'll be big.
The movie begins with an irritating, whining accountant. Not a big deal. It is fairly common that the One Who Is Meant For Great Things begins the story as something less than stellar. It turns out that this less than stellar individual is the son of one of the greatest assassins on the planet, a member of a secret "Fraternity" of assassins that stretches back a thousand years. They are the Warriors of Fate, making the world a better place through surgical pruning ...
... Except that they're not. The movie wasn't great before the big reveal, but it was something I could live with. Then we're told that these assassins take their orders from a "secret code" written - supposedly by fate itself - into the flaws of a massive weaving project that I suppose we are suppose to believe has been going on for a thousand years. The villain we are given is said to be a man who has broken with the code and only our hero can stop him.
So we have a secret society of assassins who take their orders from a rug and the villain is a villain because he stopped obeying the rug. Everyone with it so far?
Of course you know that the villains are actually inside the Fraternity and the "villain" our hero is being sent after is actually the good guy. Anyone who didn't see that one coming a mile away, please leave the room now. While predictable, I was actually hoping this would be a redeeming factor. It would turn out that the outcast had gone rogue because it dawned on him that killing people because a rug said so was just plain stupid and he was trying to bring things around to something that actually resembled a sensible plan.
(Every now and then I get my hopes up to high and it really hurts when I fall down.)
What actually happened was that the leader of the Fraternity (played enjoyably by Morgan Freeman) got a message from the rug that he himself was the next target and he decided that he didn't much care for this idea and started picking targets on his own rather than listening to the demands of a bunch of thread. The outcast was mad because Freeman had broken the code and our hero was suppose to return things to their state of slavishly following the dictates of an overgrown carpet.
Basically, we're supposed to be offended because Freeman's character didn't commit suicide when a rug told him to and we are apparently suppose to see it as noble or something when Angelina Jolie's character does commit suicide on the whims of the rug. I'm confused. Is blind obedience to a pile of cloth really something we should feel warm and fuzzy about?
The movie is based on the comic book mini-series of the same name by Mark Millar. I haven't read that particular series but I have read much of Millar's work and am usually a fan. He is something of a wizard at superhero deconstruction and is famous for writing comics with a more mature theme. His work on The Authority (DC) and virtually any title that begins with the word Ultimate (Marvel) is some of the best modern comics writing available. I certainly hope that the flaws in this movie didn't come from Millar's source material but I suppose I'll have to get my hands on a copy of the graphic novel to find out. I recommend you do the same. Go read Millar's works and avoid this movie if at all possible.
I won't watch most of what is pawned off as comedy these days because I won't support the encouragement of stupidity. I avoid modern dramas like the plague because they are inevitably centered around some political or social issue that will cause me to twitch. I love a good sci-fi flick, but it is rather difficult to get Hollywood to be remotely respectful to that source material. You might think that a simple action movie would be safe. Good guy pummels bad guy, gets the girl, and saves the day. It's a simple formula and the internal rules are usually too easy for even a hack director to forget. You'd be surprised.
While there are many movies I won't watch, I do not generally find them to be offensive. They are what they are and don't claim to be anything else. I just finished watching the movie Wanted, however, and now I am offended.
Warning, if you have not seen this movie and are worried about spoilers, do not continue reading. There won't be many, but they'll be big.
The movie begins with an irritating, whining accountant. Not a big deal. It is fairly common that the One Who Is Meant For Great Things begins the story as something less than stellar. It turns out that this less than stellar individual is the son of one of the greatest assassins on the planet, a member of a secret "Fraternity" of assassins that stretches back a thousand years. They are the Warriors of Fate, making the world a better place through surgical pruning ...
... Except that they're not. The movie wasn't great before the big reveal, but it was something I could live with. Then we're told that these assassins take their orders from a "secret code" written - supposedly by fate itself - into the flaws of a massive weaving project that I suppose we are suppose to believe has been going on for a thousand years. The villain we are given is said to be a man who has broken with the code and only our hero can stop him.
So we have a secret society of assassins who take their orders from a rug and the villain is a villain because he stopped obeying the rug. Everyone with it so far?
Of course you know that the villains are actually inside the Fraternity and the "villain" our hero is being sent after is actually the good guy. Anyone who didn't see that one coming a mile away, please leave the room now. While predictable, I was actually hoping this would be a redeeming factor. It would turn out that the outcast had gone rogue because it dawned on him that killing people because a rug said so was just plain stupid and he was trying to bring things around to something that actually resembled a sensible plan.
(Every now and then I get my hopes up to high and it really hurts when I fall down.)
What actually happened was that the leader of the Fraternity (played enjoyably by Morgan Freeman) got a message from the rug that he himself was the next target and he decided that he didn't much care for this idea and started picking targets on his own rather than listening to the demands of a bunch of thread. The outcast was mad because Freeman had broken the code and our hero was suppose to return things to their state of slavishly following the dictates of an overgrown carpet.
Basically, we're supposed to be offended because Freeman's character didn't commit suicide when a rug told him to and we are apparently suppose to see it as noble or something when Angelina Jolie's character does commit suicide on the whims of the rug. I'm confused. Is blind obedience to a pile of cloth really something we should feel warm and fuzzy about?
The movie is based on the comic book mini-series of the same name by Mark Millar. I haven't read that particular series but I have read much of Millar's work and am usually a fan. He is something of a wizard at superhero deconstruction and is famous for writing comics with a more mature theme. His work on The Authority (DC) and virtually any title that begins with the word Ultimate (Marvel) is some of the best modern comics writing available. I certainly hope that the flaws in this movie didn't come from Millar's source material but I suppose I'll have to get my hands on a copy of the graphic novel to find out. I recommend you do the same. Go read Millar's works and avoid this movie if at all possible.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
An Omnibus Of Absurdity
Sorry I haven't been around much - the paying job has been rather consuming lately - but, in honor of the Omnibus Pork Bill currently squabbling its way through Congress, here is an omnibus post on the absurd headlines and talking points in the news lately.
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against a sitting head of state for the first time. They have accused Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur and officials from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah have stepped up to defend and endorse al-Bashir. A gaggle of known criminals is endorsing another criminal and they're not even smart enough to realize what this means.
The U.S. Postal Service is losing revenue yet again and is now threatening to remove Saturday deliveries in order to save money. Face it folks. If any real business were run the way this agency is run it would have gone bankrupt and disappeared long ago. The USPS is the only "business" in the world that gets away with raising rates because no one wants there service.
A middle school in Southern California is spending $10000 a year to teach Advanced Placement Spanish classes to native Spanish speakers and they don't understand why everyone else is giving them funny looks. School officials claim to be just taking advantage of a natural resource but I'd say artificially inflating your "success" numbers by giving classes to students who are known to have no need of the class is more accurately described as cheating. It's kind of like putting the math nerds in the Checkbooks for Dummies classes and then claiming to have done something wonderful when they all achieve perfect scores.
Southwest has a new plane on the runway that has some passengers seeing red. It has other passengers seeing a beautiful woman in a bikini but it's all in the eye of the beholder, right? The new plane is a flying advertisement for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and features Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli lounging in a bikini. Uptight passengers are complaining that it is "pornography". Ordinarily I scoff at European opinions of America, but this one makes sense. One of the reasons they often look down on us is because we have so many loud people who do not know how to use a dictionary. Look up "pornography", people. You will not find "woman lounging in a bikini" anywhere in the definition.
And, of course, the hoorah about comments from Rush Limbaugh continues to defy imagination. Everywhere you look you'll find Lefties crying "treason!" because a man who is known to oppose liberal policies has stated that he hopes those policies fail. When did criticising a sitting president become treasonous? It certainly wasn't treasonous for the last eight years when the Left was non-stop slamming and ridiculing Bush. Of course, we're talking about the same people who dismiss Limbaugh as a "drug addict" because he became hooked on pain medication after surgery but apparently have no problem with Obama's admitted recreational drug use. Amazing how that works, isn't it?
Speaking of that particular controversy, Federal Union Thug ... I mean Boss Colleen M. Kelley recently weighed in on the controversy by lambasting Limbaugh and claiming that "If he [Obamna] fails, our country fails." Really? In a country of more than 300 Million people our only possibility of solving this economic crisis resides with one man of middling political experience? And Kelley wonders why she didn't get invited to the White House for the last eight years.
I could keep going but I think I've skewered enough absurdities for one day. Maybe I'll do another omnibus tomorrow. There will certainly be the headlines for it. It seems certain now that one thing I can count on from the current political circus is plenty of absurdities. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so frightening.
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against a sitting head of state for the first time. They have accused Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur and officials from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah have stepped up to defend and endorse al-Bashir. A gaggle of known criminals is endorsing another criminal and they're not even smart enough to realize what this means.
The U.S. Postal Service is losing revenue yet again and is now threatening to remove Saturday deliveries in order to save money. Face it folks. If any real business were run the way this agency is run it would have gone bankrupt and disappeared long ago. The USPS is the only "business" in the world that gets away with raising rates because no one wants there service.
A middle school in Southern California is spending $10000 a year to teach Advanced Placement Spanish classes to native Spanish speakers and they don't understand why everyone else is giving them funny looks. School officials claim to be just taking advantage of a natural resource but I'd say artificially inflating your "success" numbers by giving classes to students who are known to have no need of the class is more accurately described as cheating. It's kind of like putting the math nerds in the Checkbooks for Dummies classes and then claiming to have done something wonderful when they all achieve perfect scores.
Southwest has a new plane on the runway that has some passengers seeing red. It has other passengers seeing a beautiful woman in a bikini but it's all in the eye of the beholder, right? The new plane is a flying advertisement for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and features Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli lounging in a bikini. Uptight passengers are complaining that it is "pornography". Ordinarily I scoff at European opinions of America, but this one makes sense. One of the reasons they often look down on us is because we have so many loud people who do not know how to use a dictionary. Look up "pornography", people. You will not find "woman lounging in a bikini" anywhere in the definition.
And, of course, the hoorah about comments from Rush Limbaugh continues to defy imagination. Everywhere you look you'll find Lefties crying "treason!" because a man who is known to oppose liberal policies has stated that he hopes those policies fail. When did criticising a sitting president become treasonous? It certainly wasn't treasonous for the last eight years when the Left was non-stop slamming and ridiculing Bush. Of course, we're talking about the same people who dismiss Limbaugh as a "drug addict" because he became hooked on pain medication after surgery but apparently have no problem with Obama's admitted recreational drug use. Amazing how that works, isn't it?
Speaking of that particular controversy, Federal Union Thug ... I mean Boss Colleen M. Kelley recently weighed in on the controversy by lambasting Limbaugh and claiming that "If he [Obamna] fails, our country fails." Really? In a country of more than 300 Million people our only possibility of solving this economic crisis resides with one man of middling political experience? And Kelley wonders why she didn't get invited to the White House for the last eight years.
I could keep going but I think I've skewered enough absurdities for one day. Maybe I'll do another omnibus tomorrow. There will certainly be the headlines for it. It seems certain now that one thing I can count on from the current political circus is plenty of absurdities. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so frightening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)