Posts Tagged star wars

Why I Hate Star Wars

jack black

Maybe “hate” is too strong a word here. Maybe “strongly dislike” would be more appropriate. Or “highly annoyed by it”  Whatever it is, I am likely one of the few who think it is highly overrated and just plain dumb.

For the record, I am a sci-fi fan through and through. There is nothing I love more than science fiction but Star Wars never truly struck me as one to begin with. In fact, if you think about it, it is really not sci-fi, more like a fairy tale set in space with some flashy, glitzy technology that is never explored beyond its optics.  I mean sure, they use technology, but the stories do not revolve around the effects that these technologies have on these ,what I am thinking are, humans (they never really say – are they humans? ). Therefore, for all intent and purposes, light sabers and hyperdives may as well be Excalibur and chariots.

See, science fiction is a “what if” story or scenario whereby the effects of a technology or various technologies that currently do not exist are explored. Like, “what would the world look like if we could travel at the speed of light?” or “if we could teleport from one location to an other within seconds”  or “replicate matter from energy in fancy little ‘replicators’ “. Thus, it is “fiction” that revolves around “science.”

But none of that is present in Star Wars. The light saber is just this fancy looking laser sword that looks really cool and has a special appeal when you are a 9 year old. But we do not know more about it really or how it affects the people and societies in it.  Same thing with their hyperdrives. We dont know what it is, how it affects them, how it works, how it has affected the various worlds in their system. It is just a means to an end. In this case, traveling through space and Chewy just beating up on it every now and then when it needs repairing.

In fact, the only aspect of the story which drives the tale as a whole is the Force, which is just this magical, supernatural element that  defines their universe,  not a technological one (even with the unbelievably hackneyed addition of “midichlorians” to the mix). You’re born with it or you aren’t and unlike a technology,  you can’t pick it up as you go or refine it or improve or it or learn it. And whether  you have it or not is not based on having had the smarts to build it or know-how on how to acquire it, but just a result of sheer dumb luck.

How exciting is that?

I find Sci-Fi more engaging than Fantasy because it is more relateable.  I’ll very likely never ride a dragon, nor rescue a princess or be a chosen one. But I use technology all the time, and I’ve personally witnessed “what if” scenarios with respect to changing technologies and their effects on humanity.

Star Wars also does not have any real people in it, more like archetypes. It had one real person in it. Han Solo. Everyone else was a guru, a princess, a chosen one, a villainy villain, or a wooly mammoth. Most of its “characters” do not have a story arc or motivations which grew and shifted over time, or even realistic interests  and a satisfying growth. They are just not real, well-rounded characters or persons.  Instead they are these one-note clichees that got destinies. They are archetypes. They aren’t real people with flaws, hopes, dreams, setbacks, and strengths. I’ve never been a chosen one, or a mysitcal monk, or a giant furry mercenary. It just does not hold any interest for me.

Star Wars is devoid of intellect. It is like a steady diet of dessert but eventually you’ll long for some meat and potatoes. For something with more substance. It is for kids and adolescent boys, really. It is like walking into a candy shop – all nauseatingly saccharine and just frosting and nutritionally deficient crap.  It isn’t even really nerdy because at least that implies something of intellectual value worthy of dissecting. Fantasy is not nerdy, that would be Star Trek, which I am a huge fan of.

As a kid I loved Star Wars (the operative word here being  kid) because it satisfied my limited intellect at that age. But as an adult, the same old tired and recycled “good vs evil” and “magical force” story elements do not hold any interest for me and just strike me as dumb.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Quote of the Day

1924912_757914127572811_37264404750008979_n

 

I have always said that the concept of eternal heaven, or anything without parole and a way out, really, whereby one spends eternity just being happy with ones loved ones – no drive, no seeking out truth or knowledge, wonder or laughter, no challenges to the way we view the world and ourselves – just being happy forever and ever with loved ones, seems more like hell and punishment than bliss. Who wants that?

Who wants to spend eternity like that? It sounds boring to me and lazy and simple-minded and as I would imagine hell, actually, not a state of contentedness.

Existing in absolute bliss with everyone for eternity while being forced to worship a narcissistic egotist that creates you one way and sets the rules at the exact opposite to see if you fuck up so he can punish you,  is not enticing

In fact, anything that involves eternal anything without parole or a way out seems more like hell – metaphorically speaking – than a blissful paradise.

Taking away someone’s choice and with it autonomy is just about the worst thing that can happen to anyone as it is just another form of control, in which case, then, heaven becomes nothing but a gilded cage.

Most importantly, however, the concept of a paradise – as pertaining to human existence – seems unreal.  The good cannot exist without the bad. In fact, goodness or heaven or bliss do not make much sense without their counterparts.

In paradise, there is no passion, no drive, no ambition, no hope, no imagination, no creativity…because those things are borne not out of paradise and bliss, but out of the growing pains of existence. There is no passion, hope or imagination in paradise  because  there doesn’t have to be. All is good – there is no reason to invoke anything else or strive for anything else. It is like having everything in life and nothing left to hope for or strive for. That seems like a pretty boring, if not torturous, existence to me.

Not that i wish for evil to happen but human existence or existence itself is tragic. Death and the end of all things conditioned (at least by what we understand as existence to mean) play a powerful role in that. Imagine how fundamentally different our existence would be if there was no death.

Furthermore, the concept of heaven and earth – much like good and evil, light and dark  – seems too simplistic. Like Star Wars, where everyone – with the exception of Han Solo – is an archetype of some sort: a guru, a princess, a chosen one, an evil emperor, or a woolly mammoth.

Real people, however,  and their lives have trajectories, a motivation which grows and shifts over time, realistic interests and ambitions, a satisfying or dissatisfying growth and so on. Real people have real flaws, hopes, dreams, setbacks, and strengths. People in a perfect heaven don’t.

The concept of heaven and earth is very childlike and simplistic. Everything is expressed, assessed and viewed in very simple, child-like terms: good guy versus bad guy, good cop vs bad cop, light versus dark…heaven and cotton candy and bliss versus the dark underground, fire and burning in hell. It is just too easy.

Eternal bliss is one of things people always dream of or think they want, but if you really think about it, it is just boring. It doesn’t feed the soul or imagination. On the contrary, it leads to its degeneration.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Review: Star Trek: Into Boredom Darkness

Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zach Quinto). Yes, what you see is correct, these two have absolutely nothing in common.

Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zach Quinto). Yes, what you see is correct, these two have absolutely nothing in common.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a boring, unintelligent throw up ride filled with lens flares and flashy, at-lightening-speed action scenes with handsome, sexy, two dimensional characters flashing their sexiness in front of said lens flares, reciting Star Trek jargon.

This movie was a complete piece of trash as Star Trek.. It was an even worse dumbing down of a great sci-fi franchise to fit the attention span of the Jersey Shore generation than the first one by Abrams. The sheer fact of plagiarizing a past story devoid of all the emotional weight and resonance is probably enough to relegate it there.

J.J. Abrams is obviously a Star Wars fan – everything in this movie (and the one before it) indicates that.

The distinction between the two began to collapse altogether with J. J. Abrams’s first Star Trek film in 2009, and its demise was rendered official with the news early this year that the director would also be taking over future installments of the Star Wars franchise. Abrams’s latest outing, Star Trek Into Darkness represents a final burial.

Let’s face it, the man is not hired to produce quality movies, he is hired to produce marketable junk. And that he did. So much budget and money and all they could come up with was this boring junk of a tourist trinket that absolutely did not add anything to the world of Star Trek. Seriously. Absolutely nothing.

Kirk (Chris Pine) and Pike (Brice Greenwood). Memo to Abrams: Kirk is running out of dads. Time to come up with something else besides revenge and retribution by a frat boy.

Kirk (Chris Pine) and Pike (Brice Greenwood). Memo to Abrams: Kirk is running out of dads. Time to come up with something else besides revenge and retribution by a frat boy.

The movie ruminates loudly, if never very coherently, about the typical fight of good vs evil that is so central to the theme of Star Wars; about war and peace, vengeance and justice, preemptive attack and negotiated settlement; Kirk and Spock having a destiny to be friends – as if the fabric of the universe as we know it would collapse if these two did not become friends or as if their friendship – among billions out there – was the one that had to transcend time and space. As if their friendship was the Jedi of friendships without which there can never be good in the universe. Completely absurd.

Star Trek never cared for creating messiahs, destinies or holy men and the only time they did (Sisko as the Emissary of the Prophets) turns out that those Prophets the Bajorans prayed to were beings existing on a different plane of existence.  No magic was in place.  No destiny and messiah.

Why these two need to be friends eludes me. To bring the “force” and balance to the universe? So much so that the one message the old Spock had for humanity in this alternate timeline was not about how to prevent wars and genocides and numerous atrocities but how these two need to remain friends no matter what timeline they are in? So, it is o.k and does not violate the “Prime Directive” to not divulge information regarding other events because that would be interfering with the “destinies” of everyone in the universe, as the old Spock put it, but it is ok to give young Spock and Kirk  in this timeline pointers about their friendship that just must transcend time and space?

Star Trek has always been about real people, however, not archetypes fulfilling destinies. Unlike Star Wars,Star Trek is not a fairy tale of good vs evil, heroes vs. villains. In Star Wars everyone is either a guru, a princess,  a chosen one but none of them – with the exception of Han Solo – was a real person. They were archetypes fighting the typical fight of good vs evil. Chosen prince vs dark emperor. We never find out what the force really is, what creates it and drives it. It is juts there and the story is about how to make the “force” work for you. That is entering a multitude of fairy tale territories, not science fiction.

Star-Wars-star-wars-characters-3339922-1280-1024

Note that science fiction is a “what if” scenario in which the effects of technology or technologies that currently do not exist are explored. Thus, it is “fiction” that revolves around such “science”.

In Star Wars, we do not have any of that. It is neither about humans (since there are no humans in Star Wars, just people called such) nor about the effects of science. In this case, the light saber and  hyperdrive may as well be Excalibur and chariots.

Star Trek has never had to rely on magical tricks and such to make the stories work. It’s characters were real. Real people with real problems; with hopes, dreams, goals and careers – not abstract heroes fighting the good fight for the sake of fighting the good fight or taking revenge.

All that has changed ever since Abrams has added his Star Wars flair and preference to the Trek world.

images

The action sequences are plentiful and characterized by a certain gee-whiz exuberance. This being an Abrams/Lindelof venture, there are multiple sets of Daddy Issues to resolve. And we are subjected to an escalating experiment in the human tolerance for lens flare.

The entire realization and reimagination of the Trek universe is just an insult to Gene Roddenberry and the Star Trek he had imagined starting with The Original Series to all the subsequent shows and movies under Roddenberry’s and then his co-creator Rick Berman‘s supervision. And I am not talking about setup and scenery, I am talking about the themes inherent in Star Trek. This movie does not honor Roddenberry’s vision at all.  It is not intelligent or thought provoking. It is not about space exploration and asking the tough questions, it does not truly establish and explore its characters and their relationships with one another, there is no attempt at science, philosophy, morality and in understanding other cultures.

Even the Kirk-dying/Spock-crying scene that was shamelessly stolen from the only Trek movie the writers Kurtzman and Orci seem to have ever seen, The Wrath of Khan, seemed stagey and insincere, not evoking the emotional resonance intended mainly because unlike in the real Trek universe, in this one here, no friendship between Kirk and Spock has ever been established.  We don’t see any evidence of that on screen hence Kirk’s apparent death and Spock’s tears seem phony and staged, they don’t affect us.

into darkness 10

If it was not for the Star Trek lingo and names of familiar characters, I would not believe that this is a Star Trek production. The plot holes are gaping and the internal consistencies – regardless of past productions – are staggering and too much to ignore. Here are just a few:

1) Apparently orders are purely optional in this here Abrams’ Star Trek. No one follows anyone’s orders. If you don’t wanna follow an order, just resign your commission and hang out in a bar and wait to be reinstated. Don’t worry about a court martial or any kind of consequences. Abrams and his writers have completely failed to understand how military hierarchies work. No wonder Kirk is such a brat and doesn’t follow orders himself, he knows there are no consequences. In fact, everyone, without exception, regularly questions their superior’s orders and decisions, especially Spock who seems to have been programmed with dialog and responses aimed at either reciting some Vulcan life mantra cliches or countering every single thing Kirk says. Frankly, him walking around sounding like a walking dictionary did not help the situation. It did not add to his character or make him more endearing and likable, it just made him look like the ass he is.

spock

2) Mr. Quinto’s idea of being a Vulcan is apparently just having no facial expression. That’s all. Other than that, he’s pretty emotional. Even with a bad script, Nimoy could add just a little something to indicate the depths of his character. Quinto adds nothing. He is mechanical when Spock is logical, and a blubbering tool when Spock is emotional. There’s no middle ground, no subtlety, no mystery. Quinto did not get Spock right at all. He does not inhabit the role.  Logic is an attitude, a way of life – you breathe, live, think and walk logic. It’s not just lack of facial expression and pointy ears. Quinto’s Spock with its fake, stagey references to logic and over usage of Star Trek lingo was beyond annoying and obviously placed in there not by people who actually understand, know and care about Star Trek but by people who’ve done their research and are strategically employing the lingo into the script and dialog to make it “Star Trek”.

3) As mentioned above, Kirk and Spock have absolutely no chemistry, and thus no camaraderie, between them. Or maybe it is Pine and Quinto. I don’t know. Something is amiss. There is no basis for their friendship. In fact, there is nothing to indicate in the behavior of either that they even like each other, much less view each other as friends willing to sacrifice themselves for the other – as they did in the end. Nothing in the story indicates that, except for a script that expects us to just fill in the blanks in that regard.

If I had only seen this and the previous movie, I would be absolutely clueless as to why these two are friends. In order for Kirk’s sacrifice to evoke emotional resonance and make us want to care as the audience, it has to have meaning – which is to be found in the friendship. Here, no friendship has been established, only animosity. That was the case in the first movie and it is the case now as well.

into darkness 15

In The Wrath of Khan, even if you had seen nothing else from Trek, it was established in several scenes on screen that these guys are life long friends who care a great deal for each other. There are birthday presents, meaningful conversations about life and mortality, there are bonding moments between Kirk and Spock that make their friendship meaningful and give both characters depth and nuances.  This, in turn, allows the viewer to put the death scene in context.

Here, there are fistfights explosions and insults. That’s it. This is their “friendship.” So when Kirk sacrifices himself for Spock you cannot help but feel  a little lost. It is still unclear to me how Kurtzman and Orci get paid millions to come up with such lousy stories. This is not even about Star Trek or anything, this is just pure story telling – or lack thereof. Characters need to behave in ways that make sense and naturally follow from the story and actions of the characters – not just be implanted there because it is convenient.

Spock neither seems to like nor respect Kirk, is always on his case, always questions him and eventually costs him his commission and the Enterprise (but only temporarily because Pike promotes him back after 10 minutes). Yet, Kirk somehow feels this deep sense of loyalty towards Spock and keeps acting like Spock was his best friend in the world, a man he always could count on to have his back as opposed to a backstabbing bastard who constantly recites regulations and the Dictates of Poetics and what have you to him. At the same time, Kirk constantly dismisses Spock at every turn, and certainly without the humor and camaraderie that infused the original relationship.

Kirk and Spock Number 2

Kirk and Spock Number 2

When Kirk said “I want you to know why I saved you on the planet,” I thought to myself: “Yeah! Me, too!”

Spock yelling “Khan!!!!” belied the characterization of Spock, as well as being an expression of emotion that was unearned. But more importantly: KHAN WASN’T RESPONSIBLE for the malfunction on the ship that Kirk “sacrificed” himself to rectify. If anything, Spock should have been yelling “MARCUSSSSS!!”

4)  I still fail to understand Scotty’s little creature friend who never utters a word and looks as realistic of an engineer as Chewbacca did on Star Wars. The aliens in this new Trek resemble more “creatures” than humanoids brought together under the umbrella of the Federation. The aliens in Star Trek are three dimensional and realistic – the ones in “Wars” are background fillers and clichees – just like all aliens in “Into Darkness”. In fact, except for the obligatory Spock character and the occasional comical strange looking alien in the backdrop, there was not one single alien “character” on here – also very untypical of Trek.

5) Star Trek, unlike Star Wars, is not driven by special effects and CGI. Special effects can’t make you laugh, or cry, or care about anything or anyone. If nearly every scene consists of numbing space battles and CGI monster battles, it just gets tiring. The cacophony of action sequences just got boring after a while and it just felt gratuitous and pointless.

6) Star Trek didn’t have the benefit of metric tons of money to blow on effects (Well, real Star Trek doesn’t, anyway). Instead, it had to make us care about characters, cultures, and organizations. I cared more about Captain Kirk dodging a foam rock than I ever cared about Obi-Wan McGregor fighting General Grievously Stupid. And I also don’t care about Kirk going after the sociopath Khan in this movie either – because I was never given the chance to care about Kirk in the first place.

into darkness 6

Watching scene after scene of “pew-pew-pew-KABOOM!” just is not appealing to me. And that is the problem: nothing intelligent happens in this movie. There are battles and wars every once in a while in Star Trek, but mostly, there are science fiction stories that describe the universe and its societies, instead of blowing them all up.

7) The Klingons and Kronos: the former looked nothing like the Klingons we have ever seen in any Trek version and Kronos looked like a freaking sound stage. The bridge of the Enterprise still looks like a Bloomingdale’s make up counter and more technologically advanced than the slip stream drive ships of 2378 in Star Trek: Voyager. Dialog and “character” development consist of “Bones” making a weird face and cracking lame jokes, putting a newbie in charge of engineering because the chief engineer decided to not follow orders and Uhura making the brilliant observation and complaint about Spock having no feelings and not showing them to her. Well, no NO KIDDING GENIUS. When did that occur to you? When he said he was VULCAN and on his way to embrace only logic?

8) Overall, the aliens, the action scenes and overall demeanor of the show resembled more a Star Wars meets Transformers meets Jack Bourne production than Star Trek. The story did not revolve around the effects that these technologies, such as eugenics in this case, have or had on Humans and their society. In fact, they did not explore, comment on or critique the Eugenics wars at all – something which is a central theme for the Khan arc and especially central to the concept of Star Trek – which is all about how technology and science affect humans/humanoid civilization and life as opposed to just chasing down archetypes of bad guys while rewarding the “good guys.”

into darkness 8

9) Most of the movie does not even take place on space. In fact, space just seems to be the incidental backdrop. There is nothing in this movie, other than the Trek jargon borrowed from previous movies  – but out of context –  to make us think this is a Trek production or in any shape or form even remotely related to Gene Roddenberry’s and later Rick Berman’s vision. This is Star Trek the way only the Jersey shore generation could imagine it: dumb, superficial, cheeky and devoid of substance.

10) Boy the directors must have studied Memory Alpha since their new favorite word used was the Prime Directive. And don’t even get me started on the Section 31 garbage stolen from DS9 and misplaced in this universe. And then that “permission to come on the bridge” garbage by a stowaway bimbo in a short skirt whose principle role in the film is to appear briefly in her underwear, thus achieving the dual purposes of supplying Kirk with a romantic interest for the next installment and also being an expert in weapons of mass destruction? WTF? Asking for permission to enter the bridge during an emergency/red alert situation is also especially rich coming from an intruder and a movie and writers who treat orders given by commanding officers as merely optional for the characters to follow.

11) One of my expectations, which is apparently a foolish one, was that the iconic Khan Noonian Singh, a Sikh character, would not be whitewashed and played by a white, British guy, Benedict Cumberbatch, but by someone of East Indian descent or maybe at least someone resembling someone from such a background. With his casting choice of a Caucasian man in the form of Cumberbatch, J.J. Abrams has proven that he doesn’t even humor us anymore. He didn’t even attempt to make the character at least resemble  someone with East Indian origins. He just went straight for the white guy. If I had not seen The Wrath of Khan or known anything about the Khan character pre this movie I would be seriously dumbfounded watching this and wondering why a guy named “Khan Noonian Singh” is being played by a 100% white guy.

into darkness

Roddenberry’s vision, I think not.

Now before people jump my throat saying that the original Khan wasn’t played by an East Indian either, consider this: back in the 60s, when Ricardo Montalbán was cast to play Khan (a character explicitly described in the episode script of “Space Seed” as being Sikh, from the Northern regions of India), he had huge racial barriers and bigotry to overcome in a society where racism and segregation were institutionalized. The pressures Roddenberry faced from the television networks to cast “sensibly” as he put it were immense and serious and are well documented. Therefore, for the 60s and the times he was in, having a brown-skinned man (Montalbaná) play a brown character was a hard-won victory.

Fast forward some 40+ years later where apparently despite all our changes as a society supposedly embracing diversity, inclusion and otherness, we see that not only has nothing changed with respect to executive demands for “sensible” casting, but we see that said producers and film makers are not even trying to hide their attempts at bigotry.

Just this week Abercrombie and Fitch was under fire (as they have been for years now) for portraying their brand and image towards the run-of-the-mill homogenous blonde, blue eyed, chiseled-ab folks. Yet here we got a movie that does exactly the same thing, and people think it’s a hit and brilliant and supposedly so very true to Gene Roddenberry’s vision.

Really?

Khan. Yeah right.

Khan. Yeah right.

It’s disappointing and demoralizing that with the commercial power of Star Trek in his hands, JJ Abrams chose not to honor the original spirit of the show, or the symbolic heft of the Khan character, but to wield the whitewash brush for … what? The hopes that casting Benedict Cumberbatch would draw in a few more box office returns?

12) The characterization of Khan in this movie was just plain wrong and reduced Khan just to the archetypal villain as opposed to a complex, brilliant character.  The Khan from Space Seed was ruthless, but he wasn’t cruel for cruelty sake. He was a tyrant, not a sociopath, and there’s a big difference. He marooned the crew of the Reliant, he didn’t kill them. in cold blood. Khan in this movie, on the other hand, crashing the ship and, in particular, the -violence on the bridge of the Vengeance was really awful and depicted Khan as nothing but the archetypal villain rather than the intelligent, brilliant, and ferocious man that he was.

Overall I think that as a story about revenge and anger (if you don’t care about anything else and are a teenager, that is) it’s pretty OK. Khan is a maniac terrorist. Boo, we hate terrorists. Check. Kirk hates this particular terrorist because he gunned down his surrogate daddy. Yay, we like revenge! Check. Love story between the withholding man and hot woman who is crazy about him. We love love stories. Check. Obligatory blonde model-slash-actor superfluous character to add a young and sexy “edge” to the show plus a possible love interest for Pine, Yaay! We all want to see him shirtless and hooking up with a blonde bimbette/model -slash -actor, yaay! Check.

bimbo

They must be giving doctorates away in the future because this lolipop apparently has one…

I guess it works on a very broad scale. But the question now is, how many more vengeance and anger stories can be told? How many more times can Kurtzman and Orci watch the Wrath of Khan to extract another absurd plot line out of it? Kirk is running out of daddies, and now death can be cured with a handy injection, whatdo’ya know. Isn’t that nifty?

Since this was a reboot of the franchise and conveniently taking place in an alternate timeline, the writers were given a white canvas to work with and come up with new ideas and ways to imagine the Trek Universe and take our heroes on journeys they have not gone on yet, not rehash the past and redo something, such as The Wrath of Khan, that was brilliantly done to begin with and did not need redoing.

Alas, there are strange alien monsters to be chased, fugitive baddies to capture, Klingons to stare down, and special effects budgets to be spent. Therefore, enter the openly dizzy way that is Star Trek as only a Star Wars business-man fan-boy can imagine it, namely as a more recognizable heir to George Lucas than to Gene Roddenberry.

(As a side note: I am tired of hearing people excuse all the crap writing and lousy inconsistencies as “well it is the parallel universe.” So what? You don’t need to create engaging characters we care about, internal consistency, great story telling and a great script because it is the parallel universe? Or alternate timeline?)

In the end when Khan had his torpedoes or whatever directed at “Enterprise” I was really hoping he kills all these losers and puts an end to this terrible reimagination of the Star Trek franchise by a Star Wars fan. 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Only a Sith Deals in Absolutes

Palpatine

Palpatine

Unscrupulous entities and opportunists deal in absolutes. For them, intention and effect do not matter, everything is viewed in terms of black and white instead of in shades of gray. Theirs is a worldview in which the desire to control one’s environment for personal power and security and forming temporary alliances only for the purpose of gaining greater personal advantage, takes precedence over seeking and fostering the good in everyone, cooperation and risking and sacrificing personal safety and reputation to benefit the whole.

Those who operate in absolutes cannot ever change their minds, admit wrong doing or their mistakes and then apologize because a person operating in absolutes cannot afford to be inconsistent for fear of losing credibility. Any change in allegiance must be framed and propagandized to appear as part of the plan all along.

When you deal in absolutes, it is all about appearances rather than what is actually taking place because the real world is never black and white even though he who thinks in absolutes, pretends it is.

Note that even progressives can deal in absolutes. It’s just that their motivations are vastly different than the motivation of the unscrupulous entities and opportunists of above.

Human rights, civil rights, freedom and autonomy, social justice and equity and the like are enduring values for progressives and like minded people. But unlike the unscrupulous entities of above, the absolute principles of progressives do not have detrimental and adverse effects on  others or society as such.

Their absolutes are aimed at preserving life and diversity, respecting autonomy and agency, fostering understanding, compassion and agency.

They also understand that the universe is morally neutral, that often one value is pitted against another by the unscrupulous, and that sometimes the best that can be done is a moral compromise.

Why this long, seemingly unrelated, intro you ask? Because everytime Wayne LaPierre, the executive director of the National Rifle Association and vile douchebag liar of epic proportions opens his mouth, a ton of unfounded, ignorant excrement is spewed out and this here is no different:

I urge our president to use caution when attacking clearly defined absolutes in favor of his principles. When absolutes are abandoned for principles, the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone’s graffiti“, LaPierre said of Obama’s Inaugural Address last month when the president said Americans should not “mistake absolutism for principle.”

LaPierre critsized the President because he believes that the statement was as an attack on the N.R.A. and gun owners who believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution provides an absolute right to bear arms.

First of all, it does not. The Constitution does not provide an absolute right to bear arms. The Second Amendment clearly states that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words and today’s language that means ‘in order to maintain a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’

sith 2

If, therefore, absolute interpretation of the Second Amendment is the NRA’s  contention, here it is. The Supreme Court, in its 2008 decision, has decided to place guns into the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry outside of the well regulated militia because they did not interpret the Second Amendment in absolute terms. If they had, they would not have ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

Second, the President, in his Address, was reminding people that the Constitution of this nation is based on a certain spirit, certain principles rooted in the Declaration of Independence instead of on absolutism (read: tyranny).

LaPierre, in all his ignorance and zeal, was mistaking the term absolutism – which means a form of government in which an autark or monarch wields unrestricted political power over the sovereign state and its people with universalism.

And finally, I would like to point out LaPierre’s usage of the term graffiti when addressing and criticizing the President because I do wonder how many white presidents who have either introduced new legislation or challenged aspects of the Constitution – not that Obama was even doing that –  have been accused of spraying graffiti on the Constitution.  It is no coincidence that La Pierre is using this particular image when referring and speaking to a black President.  

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Atheist FAQ: What if There Is a Heaven and Hell?

heaven and hell 2

The idea of infinite torture for any trespass on earth just does not seem very wise, benevolent and god like to me (if one were to, in fact, imagine god to be an inherently good god as there is the possibility that there may be a god or gods who are not inherently benevolent. It is interesting to note that most people  if not all, start from the assumption that this god or whatever it is that is the higher power allegedly is automatically a benevolent god. But that is another discussion).

The idea of heaven – as imagined and depicted in Christianity, for example, does not seem very appealing. Flying around without a corporeal body sitting on fluffy clouds with milk and honey flowing around for eternity is just not appealing. Any version of it, including all the dead waking up, is not appealing. Not to me.

Existing in absolute bliss with everyone for eternity is also not enticing  In fact, anything that involves eternal anything without parole or a way out seems more like hell – metaphorically speaking – than a blissful paradise.

In that case, being in heaven seems like some kind of an endpoint from which there is no escape because once you land in heaven, you’ll be there forever.

Taking away someone’s choice and with it autonomy is just about the worst thing that can happen to anyone as it is just another form of control, in which case, then, heaven becomes nothing but a gilded cage.

Most importantly, however, the concept of a paradise – as pertaining to human existence – seems unreal.  The good cannot exist without the bad. In fact, goodness or heaven or bliss do not make much sense without their counterparts. In paradise, there is no passion, no drive, no ambition, no hope, no imagination, no creativity…because those things are born not out of paradise but out of the growing pains of existence. There is no passion, hope or imagination in paradise  because  there doesn’t have to be. All is good – there is no reason to invoke anything else or strive for anything else. It is like having everything in life and nothing left to hope for or strive for. That seems like a pretty boring, if not torturous, existence to me.

Not that i wish for evil to happen but human existence or existence itself is tragic. Death and the end of all things conditioned (at least by what we understand as existence to mean) play a powerful role in that. Imagine how fundamentally different our existence would be if there was no death.

Furthermore, the concept of heaven and earth – much like good and evil, light and dark seems too simplistic. Like Star Wars, where everyone – with the exception of Han Solo. was an archetype: a guru, a princess, a chosen one, an evil emperor, or a woolly mammoth.

Real people have a story arc, a motivation which grows and shifts over time, realistic interests and ambitions, a satisfying or dissatisfying growth and so on. Real people have Real flaws, hopes, dreams, setbacks, and strengths. People in a perfect heaven don’t. And that is boring, bordering at mythical. To be clear, I love Star Wars,  but it is fantasy. Life is not fantasy.

final star wars

The concept of heaven and earth, therefore, is very childlike and simplistic where things are – through and through  – expressed in very simple, child-like terms: good guy versus bad guy, light versus dark…heaven and cotton candy and bliss versus the dark underground, fire and burning in hell. It is just too easy.

Real life doesn’t work that way because real life and real people are more complex. I would hate to spend eternity where things did, in fact, worked that way. Again, imagine if life was as paradise is depicted: we wouldn’t have great literature and paintings, sonatas and monuments born out of discontent, tragic and the yearning for all things passed.

Eternal bliss is one of things people always dream of or think they want, but if you really think about it, it is just boring. It doesn’t feed the soul or imagination.

Finally, when it comes to the question of a rewarding heaven and a torturous hell, one has to ask what sadistic being creates humans one way, sets the rules at the exact opposite and then waits for them to break it so that they then can be punished for fucking eternity? Who is this excellent decision maker and why should anyone sign up? I don’t want to honor someone like that, no one should. That is just fucked up.

heaven and hell 4

If god is beyond all petty earthly human things, then why does he have an ego the size of cathedrals? Why be petty? Why punish someone for the sole reason of inflicting pain as opposed to punishment in order to teach a lesson? Why does he want to be worshiped, honored, loved in the first place?

Allegiance under blackmail and fear is not love. And that is what heaven and hell really tell you: do this or that or else…it’s like kissing your boss’s ass because you are afraid of him or obeying your parents because disobedience would land you in the basement forever.

Bottom Line: the existence of heaven and hell, other than the heaven and hell we create for ourselves,  is logically flawed and for an atheist just as plausible as the existence of the Easter bunny, Santi Clause, the Loch Ness monster or pink flying saucers orbiting Earth,

, , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Comments

Poll: Star Trek or Star Wars?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment