I have a bad feeling about this....

First we discover that Newsweek lied to us about Koran flushing, now it seems Time has lied to us about Episode III being good. It's becoming so I'll have to read the Weekly World News to get my news: at least they're up-front about being liars. I'm beginning to feel a little like Anikin in the Revenge of the Sith; it seems everyone I've trusted has lied to me.

Spoilers exist in this review so be warned.

Okay, Ep III isn't a horrible film. It isn't a bad film. But it isn't a good film. It's a film with one big flaw, a flaw that we first discovered in the mid 80s and just got worse.

There are excellent fight scenes, especially light sabre duels and neat force powers (Obi-wan jumping from his damaged fighter to clear the bay before Anikin can get his seatbelt unfastened? AWESOME). The Jedi are at their full glory as compared to Star Wars (don't call it "A New Hope"), ESB or even RotJ, with Obi-wan showing wicked cool abilities against General Grievous (why was a robot leader wheezing?), Anikin taking on Duku with finesse and the fight between Yoda and Palpatine being beyond cool. The general plot was pretty good, up there with Empire almost and certainly better than Episodes 1 and 2 and RotJ. The movie kept me entertained and interested, for the most part. However, the acting was horrible (with the notable exception of Ewan McGregor as Obi Wan) with actors that should know better doing lackluster jobs. The writing was stiff, especially anytime Anikin and Padme shared screentime, to the point where I wanted to leave the theatre whenever love was in the air(let's hope the DVD will allow us to skip those parts). Most of all, however, the moral story was atrocious.

Ever since the appearance of Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back, the wise and ancient leader of the Jedis (assumed throughout to be the good guys), the Star Wars films have been morality plays to a great extent. We learn that fear and hatred can lead to the Dark Side, that good must strive to overcome evil with love, that redemption is possible even for the worst in us, and that we must keep ourselves focused on the Good to avoid the trap of Evil. Not too bad of a moral system, although the focus on feelings over reason is problematic. (This is different than allowing intuition to guide us at times, which can be okay, although Lucas seems to blend emotion and intuition into the general "feelings" category.) So amid all of the the action and special effects we got a morality lesson on how to be good Jedi, and therefore good people, which is fine until we get some major problems, especially with truth.

At the end of Empire we find (I told you there were spoilers) Vader telling Luke, "I am your father." This is, of course, in direct contradiction to what Obi-wan, the paragon of Jedi knighthood (and therefore the voice of goodness), had told Luke in the previous film: "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi knights. He betrayed and murdered your father." (All quotes are courtesy of IMDB and are only as accurate as they are there. Thanks IMDB!) Lots of speculation about this (and other things) flowed freely throughout the next three years as people waited for the big reveal in Return of the Jedi. The general consensus was that Vader was lying because (a) he is evil and evil will lie to further its own ends and (b) Obi-wan is good and good is about truth.

The general consensus was wrong: Obi-wan had lied.

How did he (in ghostly form) respond to this, with Yoda's full approval? He gave Luke line that suggests that Jedis believe that truth (and therefore morality) is relative: "Your father... Was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and BECAME Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was TRUE... from a certain point of view." What? You said he murdered him, not that he became him or something possibly ambiguous. Murdered. Obi-wan is a liar with Yoda's implicit approval.

So the Good Guys are liars.

Well, they were still cool, with those light sabres and neat powers. So sixteen years later we get the vomitous Episode I. Here we discover the Jedi Council in the height of their power and influence. Surely if they lie or are deceitful it is only when their backs are to the proverbial wall, right? Nope, the Good Guys are bad here too. And in Episode II. And they reach new heights of immorality in Episode III.

In fact, let's recap some of the moral lessons Lucas and company teach us through the course of the Star Wars films:

• Truth is relative. Good guys lie (or at least use the "From a certain point of view" answer when they should tell the truth). No wonder when confronted by Obi-wan and told that the Sith and Palpatine are evil Anikin replies, "From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil." Episodes III and VI (at the least).
• Being for life is not being for freedom. When given the opportunity to free those in slavery and right great injustice, Qui-Gon Jinn tells us that he didn't come to free slaves. So although they preach a "reverence for all life" it doesn't matter if that life is enslaved. Episode I.
• Trust your feelings, except when they are bad. Not "do what's right" or "follow your conscience" or "don't overthink; allow your intuition to guide you when fighting," but trust your feelings. Maybe that's why truth is relative, because you should trust your feelings rather than an objective "right or wrong." All episodes, except arguably, IV.
• You should follow a Code, except when you shouldn't. One of the things that drives Anikin in this film to question the Jedi is that they ask him to break the Jedi Code. Mace Windu, in a single scene, goes from placing Palpatine under arrest for trial before the senate to attempted murder when Palpatine is "defenseless." Episode III.
• Don't finish the job you're given. Episode III.

What was that last one? About not finishing? Obi-wan goes to the lava planet (why is it that every planet in Star Wars has a single environment: The ice planet, the desert planet, the ocean planet, the city planet, the forest moon, the lava planet?) to stop Anikin. He tells Anikin, "I will do what I must," and they proceed to have a (really cool) light sabre battle for the next ten minutes. During this time Obi-wan gets the upper hand on the bank of the lava river and tells Anikin to give up. Anikin, of course, doesn't listen and Obi-wan deprives him of his legs and an arm. Then, while Anikin lies helpless on the riverbank, sliding into the lava, what does Obi-wan do? He lectures Anikin and leaves (picking up Anikin's light sabre to give to Luke, of course). While he lectures Anikin, Anikin ignites from the heat of the lava and burns, screaming. Does Obi-wan slay his fallen friend, whom he loves and calls "brother"? Nope, he just walks away while his old friend and new enemy burns. Mercy? Nope. If that's in the Jedi Code it isn't in a part that Obi-wan follows. Does he pick up Anikin and take him to a hospital (or the Star Wars equivalent)? Nope, he walks away while Anikin writes in agony when we heard, just moments before, he lectures Anikin that, "It's reverence for all life, including yours," that he respects.

No wonder Anikin turned against the Jedi. The Sith are definitely worse but our hero's, the paragon of Goodness according to Lucas, are lying, shifty, moral relativists with neither mercy or reverence for life.

In other words, the morality play teaches us to be immoral for the cause of good (whatever that may be).

Ach.

The first Star Wars was cool because it was an enjoyable space opera for everyone, neatly combining cutting edge special effects with the best elements of the old westerns, samurai films, and sci-fi serials of cinema before it. Empire trumped it with not only great action but two fantastic acts of true heroism (Han risks his life to rescue Luke in the frozen wastes of Hoth and then risks his life with an experimental freezing procedure for his friends' lives) and a cool twist ending. Jedi was the beginning of the end, with cutesy Ewoks, moral relativity, a second Death Star destroyed almost exactly like the first, and one act of heroism that makes up for years of genocide (so tossing the Emporer into the pit excuses Vader for destroying Alderaan?) clouding the great stories of previous installments. The first two prequils were almost painful to watch with Obi-wan's exploration of the water world and discovering the clone army the only good part of either of them, in my opinion. This new "last" Star Wars film, whie entertaining, was still a massive disappointment.

I think I'll watch Empire again and dream of cool light sabre duels without the garbage.

Huffington?

Good to see you posting, Archie. I have some bad news though, it seems your favorite blog, the Huffington Post, will soon be the HR Puffington Post.

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

Wendy's Finger Owner Fingered

I hope the woman and her accomplices in this attempted larceny get the maximum sentence. I wish there was a way to force her to compensate Wendy's for the millions they've lost due to her stunt. At least the authorities have found the finger owner and can now proceed with their case.

I think I'll have a Classic Double, Frosty, and Chili for dinner tonight...

A Match Made in Heaven

It seems Monty Python's John Cleese is teaming up with Wallace and Grommit's Aardman Animations to make a feature length animated film. I highly doubt it could get better than this. According to the article, the film will be about the history of the relationship between England and France, although given many of Cleese's bits about the French, both with Monty Python and on Fawlty Towers, I'm thinking it will be a less-than-totally-objective film.

"It will be great comedy adventure about a pre-historic culture clash between two tribes, one comparatively evolved tribe, and one un-evolved tribe," [Aardman Animations' Peter Lord] said.
"Some might consider one tribe might be the English, and some might consider that the other to be the French, the Gauls.

"Let's just say it's the start of the Entente Cordial and it explains why the English Channel is there."

This will be one to watch!!

Real ID Real Bad

This whole Real ID thing that congress is pushing through (without any real debate) looks like a massively bad thing. Making it easier for the federal government to track your every move and for the Bad Guys to steal your identity and likely unconstitutional.

Ars Technica has an article on it. Security expert Bruce Schneier has also written on it from a different perspective. Be sure to read Schneier's other articles as they are interesting. And even Wired is getting in on the act.

Be sure to call your representative and senators. This is Real Bad.

Hey, Big Spender

Ryan Sager is claiming that "the Republican promise of smaller, less-intrusive government is getting harder and harder to believe." I agree wholeheartedly.

Furthermore, this points to the differences between Republicans, Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives. Generally speaking, Conservatives believe that a smaller federal government is desirable because problems are best solved closest to the source: in the family, community, municipality or even at the state (provence) level. For example, the solution for Bill losing his job is best handled locally and the solution might be different in Peoria than in Los Angeles. The so-called Neo-Conservatives,largely made of refugees from the Democratic party, tend to believe in less taxes but not necessarily less federal government involvement. The Republicans, that Grand Old Party, believes in whatever will get it the votes to keep members in office (or to get them there if the seat is held by another party).

Both Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives tend to hold a very specific set of beliefs. The major philosophical stance of Conservatives, for example, can be found in Russell Kirk's writings. Neo-Conservatives can point to an amalgam of Reagan and JFK. The Republicans, on the other hand, have held polar opposite beliefs as times have changed (they were isolationistic in the 30's but to day are not, for example) which speaks to no coherent philosophy, which makes sense as their goals tend to be more short term and pragmatic (to get politician X in to office or to keep Incumbent Y in office).

What we end up with is Conservatives and occasionally Neo-Conservatives complaining that the GOP is moving away from their principles when the Republicans (and the Democrats and Labour in the UK and whatnot) don't have principles in the same sense.

Science vs Religion

We've been hearing quite a bit about the tensions between science and religion recently, especially in the area of evolution vs Creationism in education. This post isn't about all that, although I have a lot I could say.

However, there is another tension rising that we haven't heard so much about and this is between Environmentalists and scientists. (I capitalise "Environmentalist" to call out the loose political movement as opposed to people who are merely for keeping things picked up and using resources wisely.) This tension is specifically about Global Warming, and is mentioned in this article in the Chicago Sun Times where we hear that "this summer will bring a barrage of misinformation about the Earth's ice structures provided by non-scientists who make casual observations and then claim they know what caused the situations they are observing."

Why do I call this a tension then between Science and Religion. The reason is that environmentalism is much like a religion as author Michael Crichton mentioned in this speech. Here is a debate between scientists who use rigorous methods to support theories or come up with new ones and political fanatics that ignore any evidence that doesn't further their cause, just like the religious fanatics who ignore all scientific evidence unless it supports their cause of Creationism.

So now we have tunnelvision religious zealots attacking science from two directions. Greeeat. What's next, are they going to lobby against quantum physics because the world must be certain?

London Calling

The wife and I went to London on a whirlwind weekend trip as a "last hurrah" for me leaving my job (I work for a major airline). Flew out Friday and back Sunday with Saturday taken up by siteseeing and more siteseeing. Very cool, and also very exhausting and not so cheap.

Pictures and more description will follow...

Cancer Screening Overkill

It seems to me that in our society we have this huge problem with illness and death. I've heard a number of reasons for it and have also been told that, although other cultures may seem to have a laissez-faire attitude towards illness and death, they really don't. I'd guess that the truth is somewhere inbetween the explanations I've been given.

That said, there seem to be an everflowing number of ways that we in the U.S. try to insulate themselves from the possibility of illness and death (antibacterial this and that, safety records for nearly everything, the Culture of Fear (a term which I use differently than many of my peers) in general) and inculcate in others the need to keep as safe and healthy as possible. We see this in the products on our shelves and the commercials on the television and other ways as well.

Once of the biggest fears is cancer. It's pretty obvious why this is feared. Cancer is a horrible thing to get and a terrible way to die (I've had two people very close to me die of cancer and they didn't think it was too hot, themselves). Many people live with the impression that it is the greatest killer in the US (it isn't) and that they can completely control it (they can't). One of the big things recently, from celebrity endorsements to multiple ad campaigns, is cancer screenings.

"Get screened and get cured quickly," the ads tell us. "It can never hurt to be screened and you could be saving your own life."

Well, it seems that isn't quite so accurate. A recent article in Wired tells us that cancer screening isn't the glory road to perfect health as it's made out to be by all of the marketing.

Of course, the ads worry people and fear increases and cancer screening companies will continue to make money off of people's fears rather than from genuine need and the true Culture of Fear, one that has nothing to do with Bush or terrorists, will continue to grow.

Helping the fat kids

According to this article, President Clinton is starting a ten-year initiative to combat childhood obesity. This is a Good Thing©, as fat kids are a Bad Thing and I think we need to address this problem.

The question is: What is the best way to reverse the trends of childhood obesity?

There are a number of possible solutions from big (Federal government sized) to small (individual sized) and the best solution is a mix of big and small.

For example, the kids at my wife's school get lunch catered since they don't have a cafeteria with a kitchen. Two days a week they get McDonald's (hamburger, McChicken, or the like), two days Buena Beef (so Italian Beef or a salad, maybe), and once a week Domino's pizza. So the problem can be addressed here (and at other schools) by enforcing better lunch habits. This would be a big solution as it would require federal changes to the school lunch codes, and a medium solution as it would require changes and enforcement at the state/district level.

Another example: Parents won't let their kids play outside because of fears (of skin cancer, bees, bad people, etc.) and the kids end up not getting the natural exercise they need (play time). This is aggravated of course by indoor entertainment, some good (reading, playing games), some bad (excessive television/computer time). This can only be taken care of at the small/individual level but can possibly be influenced at a larger level (e.g., PSAs telling parents to get their kids at least so much outdoor time or espousing the benefits of playing outdoors and getting sunshine).

I wonder what Clinton and company plan (the article does not tell and Clinton and co themselves may not know) and if they are going to espouse big solutions only, individual solutions only, or some combination.

Lightning on Demand

Just the thing for home security, this taser cannon can send a 110,000 volt charge up to 35 feet with darts and wires. Add a motion sensor and you're ready for bear.



Overkill? What's that?

Laser beams!!!!

This stuff is always cool. I was always a fan of SDI and can't wait for it to become a reality!



WOOT!!!

The Ownership Society

Ronald Brownstein has an interesting piece in the LA Times about the potential downside of an "Ownership society" as President Bush is proposing. In it we hear the story of Mark Winston Griffith who has done some amazing things with creating an ownership society in some of New York's most desperate neighborhoods. His Central Brooklyn Partnership sounds like a great organization that helps those around it purchase their homes and take responsibility for their finances.

So how is this "seeing the downside" of the ownership society? This seems more akin to a endorsement of the ownership society and a shining example of how it can transform lives and neighborhoods. Well, we discover the criticism in this quote:

"What America really needs," Griffith wrote, "is a policy vision which sparks community building and cooperation among its citizens rather than instructing them to simply spend their way into the American Dream."

In other words, we need to get people to work together to build their communities rather than buying their way to happiness. But how does this contradict the Ownership Society concept? It's pretty obvious that Mr Giffith's efforts have combined the ownership society ideal and community service to achieve the strengthening of those neighborhood his groups works in. It seems that he does endorse Bush's ownership society concept through his actions, if not his words.

The discontinuity lies in the idea that Bush's proposed Ownership Society is the end-all-be-all of his social policy.

Just like a doctor might prescribe a drug to treat a problem (say Zocor for high levels of cholesterol) that doesn't mean that that one thing will solve all problems nor does it mean that because that one thing is being addressed you should ignore others. Drugs aren't prescribed in isolation. You still should watch your diet and exercise and perhaps take different drugs for other maladies. Doing one thing does not preclude the other.

The same goes for our society: A prescription of an "ownership society" will treat some of the problems but it isn't intended to be done in isolation. It isn't a snakeoil "this will solve all of your problems" solution but part of a bigger solution that includes community involvement (remember the Faith Based and Community Initiatives program that Bush initiated in his first term?).

The assumption is that Bush and Co. are ignoring all other societal aids for this one thing. Not true. The Ownership Society concept is merely part of a bigger picture of general societal health.

Bring the noise

This little CD would have been great when I was in an apartment. We had some humdingers of jerks who didn't know how to keep it down. I have no problem with people playing their stereos loudly during the day (although you could use headphones) but at 2AM?!? Of course, one set of neighbors wouldn't just do that, they'd also fight in the hall, throwing shit and banging on doors to make their points. The cops were called a few times.

Rude people suck.

Support our chestless sisters!!!

Heh.
link

Eamus Catuli

For those not with it, Eamus Catuli is Latin for "Go Cubs".

His full sig should be Eamus Catuli AC 016097, if i have my NorthSide lingo correct. More silliness from the itchBay set.

Hitchhikers Guide review

The wife and I saw The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy this weekend. We both enjoyed it very much. The movie is not a direct translation of the novels and this is a good thing and a bad thing simultaneously. We miss a lot of explanations that are necessary for understanding what goes on (my wife kept asking me, "what's the deal with the towels?" because the towel entry wasn't shown) and a number of the jokes were pared to down to the "not funny" level. That said, much of the stuff that is hilarious to those accustomed to British humour just isn't funny at all to those who prefer American humour and the changes seem to reflect that. The special effects had the appropriate "WOW" factor and the production was in nearly all ways superior to the BBC televised version of the story ('nearly' because the guide entries of the BBC version are impossible to beat -- the film version is merely equal to them, which says a lot).

Goods:

• The spaceships. It's nice to see a space opera without the violence of constant space battles so we can sit and admire the cool technology and neat effects.
• The casting. Arthur and Trillian were perfectly cast. Mos Def does an alright job as Ford Prefect. The combination of Warwick Davis ("Willow") and Alan Rickman as Marvin the Paranoid Android was simply genius -- this is by far the best version of Marvin ever. Zaphod was merely ok, with the "how do we film a man with two heads" problem well taken care of, especially in relation to how it was handled in the BBC version.
• Jim Henson's Vogons. Okay, so it wasn't Jim Henson, RIP, who did them but the Vogons were well done by his company. Much better than the Dark Crystal and at the same level as Yoda.
• The old Marvin's cameo. Props to the source.
• The Special Effects. Actually quite special. Those surrounding the entire Improbability Drive were excellent. And the book animation was well done.

Bads:

• Missing a lot of jokes. No excuse for some of them.
• Missing a lot of guide explanations. This lead to confusion (especially about towels) and a great philosophical description of where the Earth fits in with all of the stuff in the galaxy (harmless). Disappointing.
• Ford Prefect went from a majorish character to a background character for no reason that I saw. Mos Def did an alright job with him but he just wasn't around that much.
• The directors/producers couldn't seem to decide if this was a romance, a space adventure, a comedy, an action flick, or what. This indecision left some of the pacing off and character explorations that seemed to go nowhere.
• Zaphod was merely OK. He should have been insanely great.

In the end H2G2 is a fun film. I was very satisfied and my wife enjoyed it and it could easily have been worse. I just hope the sequel (if there is one) works well too.

Verdict: Harmless

***

Edit: Another review here.