Mel-Anon

We interrupt your regularly scheduled queue to bring you...

Season Two of the best show on television, Battlestar Galactica!

The midpoint of the second season is a three-part arc in which the Galactica happens upon another battlestar, the Pegasus, which has been carrying out its own guerrilla war on the Cylon fleet.  The Pegasus is commanded by the biblically-named Admiral Cain, a stern, unflinching leader famous for coldly sacrificing civilian needs to ensure her ship's survival and brutally crushing any hint of dissent for her orders (including executing a former first officer herself in front of her crew.)  Cain sneers at Roslin and Adama for debating the finer points of law with a familiar refrain:  "Guess what?  We're at war!" 

Roslin realizes that Cain, who outranks Adama, will be a threat to the civilian fleet if she is allowed to take control of the military and convinces him to plot Cain's assassination.  He agrees, but as he is about to give Kara Thrace the signal to shoot Cain in the head, he has a change of heart, saying instead, "it isn't enough to survive.  You have to be worthy of surviving."  Cain got what she wanted.  She saved her ship, but she didn't pass Adama's test.  She wasn't worthy of surviving (and ultimately she doesn't) but that alone was not enough to justify unethical and unlawful behavior. 

It's certainly debatable how valuable it is for a work of fiction to parallel real-world events so obviously, and Ron Moore imagines his show as a kind of gadfly when it comes to current politics.  But the allegory here is unmistakable.  We are currently beseiged by a legion of fraidy-cats who will apparently sell their soul and any spare furniture they can get their hands on to save themselves from the furtive, monstrous terrorists.  If you don't support rollbacks of civil liberties and selling out international treaties on basic human rights, you aren't sufficiently wililng to protect Americans from those who would do them harm, the thinking goes.  At which point it needs to be said:  It isn't enough to survive, you have to be worthy of survival. 

The 700 club

Just rollin' along, just rollin' along. 

Whupped

It's been a downright delightful month if you enjoy watching American sports stars flop at the international level. 

Yesterday, the European team wrapped up the Ryder Cup for the eighth time in the last 11 times it's been contested, and , for the second straight time, by a lopsided 18.5 to 9.5 margin.  Back in olden times the USA dominated this event when it only had to play against players from the British Isles.  "No fair making us play someone our own size!" says our hypothetical "murican pundit. 

Is 11 million small enough for you, then?  That would be the population of Greece, which beat the American team in the men's basketball world championships last month.   That makes the third straight major tournament (following the 2002 worlds and the 2004 Olympics) where the US sent a team of top professional players only to falter against such basketball hotbeds like Lithuania and Argentina.  (Speaking of which, let's have a moment of silence for our favourite Baltic State, whose remarkable status as a world hoops leader appears to be in decline after another disappointing showing.) 

Even women's sports, the place where Americans have curiously been forced to turn for jingoist pride in the past decade, are beginning to slip away.  Following the shocking loss to Sweden in the Olympic hockey tournament in February, the US suffered a similar upset to their male counterparts at the world basketball championships, dropping a game to Russia in the semifinals.  "Well, at least they lost to someone with nukes!" our imaginary interlocuter consoles himself. 

Why I'm not a Democrat

Even though I often write about things that usually get thrown under the umbrella of "politics," I don't like the term.  "Politics" to me implies something partisan; the act of getting together your team and going up against the other team until you find some compromise so you can get on with the act of government.  That isn't particularly interesting to me.  I like philosophy, not electioneering.  But primarily, I'm not interested because, in American politics, there aren't enough teams. 

A couple of weeks ago a got a survey from the Democratic National Committee (on account of my subscribing to left-wing mags, I guess) claiming I'd been selected as the representative of my town for this particular survey.  Even if this were true, I wouldn't be of much use for them.  I'm about as representative of Democrats here as whales are of the mammal family. 

Take the case of our current Congressional race.  The seat is currently held by a fellow named John Hostettler, a psycho-theocrat with one peculiar footnote:  he voted against the infamous Iraq war resolution.  Despite being a multiple-term incumbent in a strong Republican district (which has been gerrymandered for him even further since he initially took the seat), Hostettler's outright battiness manages to make every election interesting.  Hostettler's opponent is a former sheriff and conservative Democrat (there isn't any other kind around here) named Brad Ellsworth. 

Like any other I-hate-the-politicians-in-my-town joker, I've watched this race play out mostly on the TV commericials.  Hostettler's campaign has tried to frame the argument that a vote for Ellsworth, regardless of his own views, is the same as a vote for coastal liberals who are coming to take away your Bibles and your husbands to marry another man.  Ellsworth's camp has responded with an ad affirming that their man is in fact pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights and tough on illegal immigration.*

Ow, my head hurts.  Where's that liberal party again?

Now, I'm sure a lot of loyal Democrats will say "Great!  We have a chance to take over Congress and here's another seat we can flip.  Plus, anybody's better than that zany zealot currently occupying it."  Well, I understand the desire to allow disagreements on some issues in order to make a bigger tent, and I've argued before in this space that religious and secular liberals need to get in a circle and sing campfire songs, but I'm supposed to get excited about a milquetoast boob who runs screaming away from some basic liberal issues? 

I know, I know; I also wrote that we need to bite our tongues for awhile; at least until we have a somewhat rational government back in place.  And even though freakin' Canada (with 1/1oth of our population!) has a real live democratic socialist party**, I would only get about five vot their candidate in this district.  Still, I think I'm allowed to pout about it. 

*There are also some who would say this is just shrewd politicking on their part.  This district is filled with What's-the-matter-with-Kansas types who base their vote solely on who the anti-abortion, anti-gay candidate is, and by trying to take those issues off the table, the Ellsworth campaign will keep them out of it.  I suppose this could be so, though if he's got substantive differences on economics I haven't seen those either.  Mostly Ellsworth seems to be playing the "outsider/fresh face in Washington/blahblahblah" card. 

**Speaking of "What's the Matter with Kansas?,"  I found it interesting reading the Wiki article that the two provinces in which the NDP has been the governing party are Manitoba and Saskatchewan--the rural provinces.  In that book, Tom Frank wonders how the American plains lost its progressive roots from the turn of the 20th century and turned into a reactionary, moralistic wasteland.  Apparently its Canadian neighbors have (so far :fingerscrossed:) failed to follow suit. 

Non-prophet

Genghis in the Washington Post last week sez:

President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation's struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as "a confrontation between good and evil."

"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."

Who knew that the next Great Awakening would be Zoroastrian? 

Via Slacktivist, who also points out Bush is a little behind in his Awakenings due in part to his Crusading advisor Marvin Olasky, is this excellent post from the Mahablog, making a similar point to something I thought a few months ago.  With these guys, it is not about Good and Evil, it is My Team against their team. 

The President’s assumption that “religious devotion” somehow depends on accepting Zoroastrian dualities is, IMO, a tad peculiar. It also reveals a deep and vast ignorance of the spectrum of human philosophies, experiences, and practices that might be considered “religious.” But that’s another post.

As near as I can figure, this view of good-evil duality sees Good and Evil as distinctive forces or powers, and people are said to be “good” or “evil” not because of what they do, but because of which side they root for.

With impeccable timing this month a consevative pundit named Dinesh D'Souza is publishing a book this month claiming that those radical fundamentalist Muslims have a point about our lascivious liberal culture. 

D’Souza shows that liberals—people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore—are responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. Their outspoken opposition to American foreign policy—including the way the Bush administration is conducting the war on terror—contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world. He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

D'Souza's reckless attempt at finding a way to blame liberals for everything has had a nice byproduct for us; it establishes the truth of what we've thought to be true all along. The conservative fundamentalists in the United States don't have much of a philosophical quarrel with their Muslim enemies, they just happen to play for the wrong team.  If we'd just turn America into a mirror theocracy, D'Souza claims, then we could all get along!

Who's appeasing whom here?

Cure for the common loneliness

Lauren Sandler makes a game attempt at wrapping around Mark Driscoll's Mars Hill Church in Seattle, part of what Sandler calls the Disciple Generation, and what others often refer to as emergent evangelicalis, a term which, in an unironically postmodern way, is delightfully meaningless.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, you might say. 

In this article, adapted from her book, Sandler is particularly interested in the allure of evangelicalism.  She meets Judy Abolafya, a former merch manager for various rock bands who gave up her successful career to become a child-bearing housewife. 

Abolafya's conversion was a total surprise to her. She was a nonbeliever who accompanied her husband, Ari, to a service at Mars Hill -- he was curious to check out the "tattooed punk-rock church" he had heard about. That Sunday, one of the church's worship bands was playing an electric version of "Amazing Grace" toward the end of the service, its loud and powerful sound filling the giant space. Suddenly Abolafya realized she was sobbing and couldn't stop. That night she gave her heart to Jesus. "It wasn't like I was looking for a solution, or that my life was a problem in any way," she explains. In fact, the problems were just beginning.

She admits her life is now more difficult since that conversion, but carries on saying her submissive wifely duties are now her responsibility to the church.  Such a waste of life based on a flimsy emotional experience*, but that is the way evangelicalism works.  It markets itself as a welcoming community in the lonely, confusing world, but like any good salesman it never reveals its hand; that your life has just been replaced by another hierarchical bureaucracy, only this time the men in charge can dispense with reason and appeal to the very Word of God as a means to keep you under their thumb.

It sucked me in, at least for awhile, on this premise.  I was vulnerable, and fascinated by the idea that an ugly and lonely guy like me could happen upon such a welcoming and seemingly egalitarian community.  Too good to be true, it turns out.  If you are astute, you find out eventually how cynical and impersonal the whole process is.  Once you are hooked by whatever emotional cajoling, you are handed off to the bureaucracy to be trained as a foot soldier.  At that point you are just a number, and the rest of the beast turns its attention back to find whomever else it can swallow.

Driscoll claims that Mars Hill is "not egalitarian," and, as many fundamentalists do, uses scripture to subsequently justify "traditonal" (i.e. patriarchal) gender roles.  I find myself disliking many of the men I knew in my evangelical days; one of their common conceits was that theological liberals were reading their own ideological desires into the Bible, apparently dim to the fact they were carrying on the much longer historical lineage of those who use the Bible to opporess.  The burning question is; why would women willingly sign up for such a raw deal? 

*I've thought the same about many people's "conversion experiences," and how much thought really went into them.  According to Sandler's article, Mars Hill cofounder Ted Dietz had his after a period of listening to fire-and-brimstone radio preachers.  I acquired my own primal fear of the Second Coming as a teenager listening to similar folks. Even now they have a mystifying ability to give me a combination of annoyance and lingering fear whenever I hear one even though I am convinced their spiel is bollocks. 

Start spreadin' the news

Why is television news in such a bad state?  Here's a good guess.

On the eve of Couric's debut, the Los Angeles Times was right to report her move from NBC to CBS "has been covered with the kind of intense scrutiny and speculation usually reserved for prospective presidential candidates." Left unsaid was the fact that the Times itself published nearly two dozen articles and columns mentioning Couric during the month surrounding her debut. There's no doubt CBS pushed Couric with a shameless zeal. The FishBowlNY blog noted that on Couric's first day, there were 40 separate mentions of her on CBSNews.com. The former Tiffany network reportedly spent $10 million marketing and promoting Couric's launch, which along with her annual salary of $15 million, meant CBS spent nearly $25 million this year in making its anchor switch. (Four days after her much-hyped debut, the CBS Evening News was back in third place in the ratings race.)

Imagine what might be different if all that dough had been poured into something more substantial, like international news.  The anchor-as-celebrity is a cancer unique to television, and it goes all the way from the national down to local stations, where it is likely even more damaging.  It is assumed that the all-knowing anchor is of such importance to the viewing audience that keeping one of which they approve is the overriding concern of the suits.  Consequently, he or she receives a disproportionate amount of the available capital compared to the other grunts in the newsroom--the producers, editors, etc--who make the overwhelming majority of the news happen. 

This is a problem of public comprehension, one that commerical broadcasters are happy to exploit.  People errantly assume the anchor is primarily responsible for the quality of the news they receive, and the networks and individual stations--who care nothing about news beyond how much money they can make from it--find it much easier to play the celebrity game they're more familiar with.  CBS even brought in frequent film scorer James Horner to compose new theme music for Couric's broadcast.

And Boehlert is correct in accusing the print publications of being complicit, although I suppose they are beholden to treat network news as just another form of callous entertainment.  At least it gave me a brief moment to rethink "Anchorman," which I still don't like, but it's something of a subtle commentary on the "anchor mythology." 

The Devil's Dictionary

By happenstance I've come upon Ambrose Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary" (available here from Project Gutenburg) and I immediately have a favorite.  (Keep in mind this is late 19th century here)

ACADEME, n.  An ancient school where morality and philosophy were
taught.

ACADEMY, n.  [from ACADEME]   A modern school where football is
taught.

Good prize!

IX

Andy Roddick's face may have been in every commercial break yesterday, but it was all Mr. Federer when it counted. 

Wake up America!  Your long national nightmare is here!

Belle of the ball II

Two final points.

On "self-confidence."  Everybody loves the guy who is self-assured and loves himself.  Conversely, no one is more ridiculed than the guy who is self-assured but is unaware that everyone else thinks he's a loser.  What does this mean?  "I like self-confident people" is doublespeak for "I like people who agree with my judgment of them." 

On compatibility.  Let's face it; people are more or less interchangeable, and the likelihood that you can manifest something which they can't extrapolate into someone whose appearance is more appealing to them is quite slim.  The "soulmate" is an absurd idea, but thinking of a small field of compatibles is only slightly less ridiculous.