The Right Spin

Well, the revelations miniseries has ended... and it was completely predictable. I saw this thing coming a mile away. If the dude wanted to redo The Omen why didn't he? While it was mildly entertaining if you couldn't see the ending coming from a mile away you weren't watching. Of course they weren't going to kill the Antichrist. Now we're left with a bland "cliffhanger" and everything goes back to normal. Heck, no one of consequence even died except Dr. Masse's assistant but who gave a flip about him? Up until that moment I was hoping he was a Satanist plant but I guess I gave the writer too much credit. Oh, and Hawke, he's an idiot who needs to get his ass kicked. Grow up you whiny brat. But, I guess he's supposed to be a rebel because he owns a skateboard and scowls a lot. And I mean a lot.

So, let's summarize. Bland. Predictable. And nothing really gets resolved.

It could have been really, really cool. But from the first episode they threw the script the miniseries drew its name from away and tried to rehash a 30 year old film into a 6 hour version of a 30 year old crap-ass story.

I hate conspiracies. I hate 'em, I hate 'em, I hate 'em!

Once upon a time, in my youth, I thought conspiracies were real and happened. There were shadowy government organizations keeping obfuscated sinister plots or other information from the prying public eye. Holy good god, if you gave me some kind of UFO government cover-up story I was all over it.

Then I grew up.

Conspiracies happen but not on the scale politicians and pundits on one side or the other say. There is no neocon/right wing conspiracy. There is no Zionist conspiracy. There are no groups of wealthy white men in a dimly lit, smoke filled room exchanging secret handshakes, enacting ancient rituals at the opening of each meeting just before they get to the business of ruling the world.

Conspiracies are the crutch of those who need to blame something for things they don't like or the bad stuff that happens to them in their life. They don't blame someone because that someone can respond. They can defend themselves. But if you blame something, well then, who can respond? "Something" cannot answer for anything.

Additionally, conspiracies can never be disproven. It simply cannot happen. And liking science as I do I know this to be an irrational position to come from. If something cannot be disproven, according to science, then it cannot be true. That is, if something cannot be tested then it cannot be accepted by science. Conspiracies can never die no matter the evidence because there will always be someone who will not accept it and even accuse the attempt to disprove it as proof of the conspiracy's reality. How can you argue with someone who feels that any attempt to disprove their position is only further evidence that their position is correct? You can't!

What makes me talk about this topic is a book I picked up, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man. As you can probably tell by the none-too-subtle title is that it takes a fairly critical look at the man's work. I think anyone who takes a critical look at his work will have a hard time disagree with the premise of this book. Either way you come out on the topic you can't help but notice that instead of responding to criticism, Mr. Moore attacks those who criticize by implicating them in some sort of conspiracy. Criticize Roger & Me and you're a puppet of GM. Criticize Bowling For Columbine and you're an NRA patsy. Criticize Fahrenheit 9/11 and you're a tool of the right wing or the Bush Administration. And on and on it goes. What's interesting is that this is the exact approach Ralph Nader warned not to take when dealing with GM but it also applies here:

Nader's concept was that, rather than blaming impersonal firms for their harmful conduct, one should understand that the conduct was the product of specific human beings and their choices.

Moore cannot answer direct criticism of his works so, instead, he attack the motives of the one doing the criticizing. And his fans buy it. I don't know how many times I've heard, "Well, he may have gotten his fact wrong but he's still essentially correct." What the hell does that mean? How can the premise be correct when the facts supporting it are not?

It's easier to blame an impersonal something than it is specific individuals because when you do that your proofs come under scrutiny. Your proofs can be tested, researched and rebutted. But launch an accusation at some impersonal something and you don't need proof simply because you create a situation where it can never be disproven - at least to those who don't want to be.

When people try to blame things on phantom organizations or groups in front of me I don't allow the discussion to progress unless they can specifically give me a name of someone who had a hand in what they're trying to prove. If something did happen then, if follows, someone had a hand in it. Who? When? Where? Why? How? I want to know these things so that I can check it out for myself. The moon landing didn't happen and was filmed in the desert? Okay, who provided the equipment? Who filmed it? Where was the film developed? Who funded it? Who were the actors? Something other than a passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon? What else could have? Where did the jet wreckage we have come from? Who planted it? Why did they plant it? What are the qualifications of those who disagree from the government investigation? Why would the government cover it up? What happened, then, to the fourth plane?

And on and on I ask.

I ask the same of those who use the term "right wing conspiracy". Who is a member of this group? What is their agenda? How do you know these things? Where do you get your proofs?

If you have a problem with something then tell me who is behind it and why you don't like what they are doing. Don't get lazy and stop at blaming the effect - blame the cause and tell me their name.

Lo, I have seen it. And it was tasty.

I caught a 12:01 AM showing of it (remind me never to do that again) and holy crap was it sweet. Even walking out of the theater I caught bits of conversations stating, "At least it was better than the first two..."

The film moves fast but never too fast that you feel lost. Some of the old problems are still there (Padme and Anakin talking about "love" made me feel embarrassed for the screen) but most have been fixed. The movie is also surprisingly funny. And not funny in spite itself but genuinely funny when it's supposed to be. R2 is a badass! Don't believe me? See the film.

Additionally, the film is genuinely moving. Anyone who knows anything about Star Wars know that come Episode 4 all the Jedi are gone. I don't think it's a spoiler to say they all bite it in Episode 3 (if it is then you haven't been paying attention). Knowing this as I did going in I didn't expect to be as hurt as i was when I finally saw it before me. It broke my heart and I probably would have shed a tear or two if asses behind be weren't laughing at moments that weren't remotely funny (this is why I hate seeing movies opening day).

The music was incredible. Which, if you look a number of posts below where I talk about the soundtrack, surprised me. There were excellent queues that were not in the soundtrack. Queues that you'd expect to be like, I dunno, the montage of all the Jedi getting killed and Yoda and the Emperor fighting! That pissed me off.

The fight between Anakin and Obi-Wan was simply awesome. It's at the end of this fight you see how truly betrayed Obi-Wan feels by, now, Darth Vader. It gives more weight to their confrontation in Episode 4. And it also makes that same fight seem downright geriatric. Like two old guys swinging their walkers at one another. While funny at one level, it's very, very sad on another.

James Earl Jones did a good job here as the voice of Vader. To be honest, it was weird hearing Vader emote like he does but it makes sense.

Anyway, see this movie. If you like Star Wars you must see it. If you won't because of the first two, still see it. It's a lot better.

Oh, one last thing. Jar Jar is in it. But he has no lines.

Update:

Okay, I didn't want to say anything about this (lest people think I'm looking for a fight) but I've seen it noted in a few places and when Fox News mentions it I figure I have the go-ahead to do so myself. George Lucas' problem with the current Administration seems to come out here. "You're either with me or you're my enemy," Darth Vader says to Obi-Wan. "Only the Sith deal in absolutes!" Obi-Wan retorts (awfully absolutist of him I'd say). And there are other things being said and done by the Sith to support this supposition. Indeed the whole plot by Palpatine to have the Republic sacrifice liberties to him in order for increased security seems fairly familiar. And I think I caught a shot at the Patriot Act as well.

Indeed, I had planned to write a thought provoking post on liberty vs. security but I've not completed my research. It is a compelling topic nonetheless. For the safety of everyone liberty must be restrained. Freedom but be chained to a regard and this is something that is fairly simple to understand. But where does one draw the line?

While I do not think George Lucas was hoping to provoke these questions in Episode 3 (rather he was just taking shots at GWB) they are good questions that need debate.

But what really bugged me was the absolutist remark. First, that makes absolutely (heh, pun) no sense within the context of the films. George Lucas, with the original trilogy, sought out to make a black-and-white morality play in space. In every conceivable way it is absolutist. And now absolutism is the way of the Sith? That is completely retarded. Jedi good. Sith bad. Absolutist. What, are the Jedi ready to admit the Sith might be right - from a certain point of view? What the hell is that?

I also take offense to it as a Christian. The Christian faith is absolutist. Either you're with God or you're against Him. Now that's a bad thing? Screw you Lucas!

And Han f***ing shot first you revisionist prick!

It's been announced for a release in 2006 and boy is it purdy. Looks like Sony showed off it's impressive hardware with the Unreal Engine 3.0 a E3. Man, I hope this machine kicks the crap out of the Xbox 360.

Microsoft gets no link because they are the devil. Don't believe me? Bill Gates' full name in ASCII equates to 666. Really. Google it.

Okay... it doesn't... but it gets real close. Too close some may argue.

I'm scared... hold me.

What is a just war? What is an acceptable death toll for that war? How do you convince those who oppose that war otherwise?

There's a lot of talk today about post-war Iraq. Half the country is firmly against it and the other half is firmly in support of it. How does one half convince the other half they are correct?

Is war just under any specific conditions? Most people would agree what the Allied opposition against the Axis powers in World War 2 was a just cause. But what about those who opposed moving against Hitler? Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Britain 1937-1940, was known for his appeasement of Hitler while, at the time, Winston Churchill was a lone voice calling on Britain to strengthen itself and counter the belligerence of Germany.

History tells us Churchill was correct. But is position was unpopular amongst his colleagues and as a consequence isolated him politically.

So, what if Chamberlain acted against Hitler early and crippled him long before he invaded Poland (thus beginning World War 2)? We know, looking back, that he would have saved the lives of millions across the globe but at the cost of British, German and civilian deaths. Would this be worth the cost?

Churchill saw the growing menace but the liberal parliament (no jab here... read your history) wanted nothing of it. And Churchill was ostracized for his vision.

Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and other's all saw the threat Saddam Hussein presented. While the former two chose to treat the situation with soft gloves, George W. Bush felt stronger action needed to be taken. Who was right? Well, we all have our feelings. And really, they're nothing more than that. We've taken a look at the same evidence and walked away with differing conclusions. Some derived from ideology and others from rationality. I'm not going to say which of the two is superior. Our life experience shapes our views of what is rational and with is ideologically acceptable. There is no black-and-white table for us to work from.

So, I ask you, what if George W. Bush war right? What if the 25,000 deaths in Iraq now saved 5 million in 5 years should Saddam have stayed in power? Don't the numbers tell us that we struck a bargain? I suppose the problem is is that we cannot know an alternate future. So, what do we do?

Do we shake our head at the memory of Arthur Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler? Do we call Churchill a warmonger for demanding Britain act against Hitler?

Or, look at our own history. The British colonies that became our first 13 states were firmly divided about taking arms against England. Were those who opposed war wrong? What would the world look like if war wasn't eventually taken up by those colonies?

I suppose what I'm having a problem with are those people who, when confronted with evil (anyone who considers Saddam a good man, and says so, will have their IP banned), are willing to appease it and instead attack those who make a stand against it.

I ask those who opposed the war in Iraq, what do you need to see to gain your support of it? What needed to happen in pre-war Iraq to get you behind the war effort? Right now I'm talking about the U.S. effort against Iraq. Not the U.N. The president felt Iraq presented a threat to the United States - an actionable threat. Why wasn't it?

And, if it wasn't, what are your feelings about going to war to free an oppressed people? Were the people in Iraq oppressed? If so, was it to such a degree that is warranted out intervention? If not, what would you propose we do?

We praise Churchill now because his wise advice was not heeded and we know what would have been averted had we not done so. What if his advice had been heeded at the time? We would have no idea how many lives we saved because it had been and, indeed, I am sure there would be historians who would demonize him for attacking a nation that presented no threat to the world.

Funny, huh?

Newsweek falsely reported that a copy of the Koran was flushed down the toilet by American soldiers during the interrogation of captured Muslim terrorists. This resulted in a riot in Afghanistan that lead to the death of 15 people. Newsweek recently published a retraction stating that this part of their story was false. They had no evidence that this event ever occurred. They close with "Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst." They extend sympathies? That's it? Okay, let's see how sympathetic they really are. What monies do they intend to offer up to these victims? What do they intend to do to offer penance? A big bag 'o nothin'. You know it. I know it. But all is fair in love and bashing war, right?

Michelle Malkin has more.

Marc Landers also asks the poinent question "What does the media do when Muslims use the Bible for toilet paper?"

And, as always, thanks to Dean for giving me something to steal.

Update:

Dadahead makes a good point: Is the Right acting the hypocrite by blaming Newsweek more so than those who actually committed the crime? I'd have to say that the perception could be just that but I also think it's also the venting of frustration. The left-news media has been so virulently anti-Bush that the fact a fabricated piece of evidence (or, to give the left and Mr. Dadahead the benefit of the doubt, unverified evidence) was published, and that this evidence lit a powder keg leading to 15 deaths seems to give firm proof of what many in on the Right has felt all along - the media has swung so far to the left that it has now become dangerous. And that is doesn't care. So, I think this knee-jerk reaction will pass and people will out all blame where it belongs.

A commenter on Dada's site proves, however, that the left itself is more than capable of being a hypocrite too with:

"I'm going out on a limb here, but could the issue at hand have anything at all to do with Afghani frustration at having spent spent the last general under nearly constant warfare and/or foreign occupation and resentment over the continued American military and administrative presence in their country?"

So, it's not Newsweeks' fault, it's not the people who killed others' fault, it's America's fault? The Liberal Avenger, did you even read Dada's post?