This is a complex topic, with some strange twists. But first, let me quote a forecast that I made, way back in December 08, in my “ Suggestions for the Obama Administration.” This one really deserves a spot in any Predictions Registry.
“If I seemed to lean a little "left" in some of my earlier missives criticizing a worldwide drift toward crony-aristocratism, and then to the right in supporting a repair of the U.S. military, and then left again by pushing the vital importance of citizen-level resilience... then prepare for another of my patented sudden veers! Because I believe the Obama Administration can, should... and will... act swiftly to regain control over the borders of the United States. In fact, I will lay heavy odds that he does it very soon.”
Although many sneered with doubt, alas, nobody had the guts to meet my bet (and offer of odds!) with real cash. Too bad, because President Obama has given high priority -- and budgetary support -- to regaining control over the borders of the United States, exactly when and as I expected. Let’s go back to my prediction:
”This may sound surprising, but it shouldn't, if you had been paying attention to one of the great ironies of the last 16 years -- one that lay in plain sight, largely unnoticed. As one of his first acts upon entering office, Bill Clinton doubled the number of field agents in the Border Patrol. And one of George W. Bush’s first endeavors was to savagely undercut that service.
“It sounds counter-intuitive, of course, and neither political party ever spoke up about it much. But the reasons are simple. Democrats like legal immigration, which results in lots of new voters and new union workers, while illegals drain resources, get embroiled (against their will) into crime, and prevent domestic programs from achieving full effectiveness. On the other hand, Republicans -- well, not your neighbors, but some influential people near the top of the party -- like access to pools of cheap, undocumented labor that won’t talk back. Only when border state citizens began getting riled did the GOP start talking tough about immigration. And talk, for the most part, is all they ever did.”
The correlation is now perfect. Democrats boost border patrol and enforcement, but hate talking about it, because much of their base is made up of people for whom generosity is a zealous canon. Hence, Obama needed an excuse, something to distract from his real reasons for regaining control at the border (reversing emphasis from illegal to legal immigration.) He found his excuse with the ongoing drug gang violence in Mexico. Blaming much of that chaos on U.S.-originating weaponry, he can claim that the new agents will be there foremost to stanch the southward flow of guns.
Now, the right wing punditocracy and blogosphere has been derisive -- and this time with some cause! The purported “statistics,” proving that most Mexican gang-guns came from the U.S. , are very weak and show signs of being cludged. Anyway, if the cash-rich mobs want guns, there are countless places to get them. So it’s a rationalization, all right.
But while Dobbs and Limbaugh & co. eagerly pounced on this discrepancy with ridicule, they have to be very careful about is not letting their audiences dwell too long or think too deeply about any one matter. They must keep up the rapid armwaving, pointing rapidly thither and yon, in order to distract Red America from connecting the dots. For if rural or conservative whites ever realize which party is always pragmatically better at defending our borders... or maintaining military readiness, or strengthening alliances, or creating a good climate for small businesses, or nurturing a strong economy... then it will be all over for the neoconservative-GOP shell game.
Limbaugh et. al. have to keep it all about simplistic strawmen and ideological stereotypes (e.g. after the most corrupt and wastrel administration of all time pummeled US capitalism nearly flat, scream that the new one is “socialist!”) Because, if the natural anti-authoritarianism of the people living in heartland “red” counties can ever turn away from reflex hatred of bureaucrats, long enough to rediscover Americans’ traditional distrust of fatcat aristocratic thieves, then... well... Rush Limbaugh will have to get a real job.
Even more important, genuine classic conservatives and libertarians will have a chance - at long last - to rescue their movement from the freakshow denizens who have hijacked it.
If any of you do have a relationship with one of the obstinate global-warming-deniers, here is my usual recommendation. Never confront a dogmatist with sumo opposition. Letting them choose the battleground is silly. For example, trying to offer mountains of scientific evidence only validates them, by making it seem that their own position is about evidence at this point.
Consider how it workd, psychologically. Influenced by a million courtroom dramas, the deniers seem to be saying ”You must prove this beyond all reasonable doubt... and I can use any doubt, any doubt at all... to reject all of your evidence.” In other words, it will never be enough. It CAN never be enough.
So. Instead of sumo, try a jiu jitsu move on guys like this. For example:
"Despite there being a 99% consensus on the part of mainstream scientists, demonstrating that climate change is human generated, that it will be titanically costly and dangerous and that it can be at least partly remedied if we act soon... we will nevertheless and willingly admit there is always room for more research. More discussion.
“But that isn't the issue. The issue is - what should a wise civilization be doing right now?
"What reasonable people propose - and the deniers oppose - is simply that our nation and world give high priority to becoming more efficient and to try to foul our nest a little less.
“That is it. The “waste-not” wisdom of an older, truer conservatism. The thing the deniers are opposing is that we put some effort toward having a wealthy and happy civilization, on less oil and waste. Period! That’s it.
“And here’s the crux: even if (unlikely) it turns out that all the scientists and intellectuals and tree-huggers and pointy-headed liberals prove to be wrong -- even if it all turns out to be an exaggerated, chicken-little panic -- what’s the worst that could happen, if we put in a little work and investment and effort to become more efficient?
“The worst that would happen is that... we'll all be more efficient. (Guess who are the ONLY people who don’t want that! Who don’t want us to get free of dependence on forieign oil? Gee, I wonder.)
“On the other hand, if the deniers prove wrong (very likely), then their dogmatic, writhing, series of excuses for delay will prove extremely costly to us all. And they will be among the first demanding vast new government levee projects, to save their precious homes.
“But, oh, here is the one thing that proves how shortsighted and stupid they really are. They can expect civil lawsuits commensurate with their unscrupulous delaying tactics. Don’t think we’re joking! By comparison, the tobacco lawsuits will look like nothing. Exxon stockholders, take note."
- Mood:
thoughtful
I read this today comparing Star Trek and Star Wars and it sums up how I feel about Star Trek and why I like it better than SW.
THE MUTARA NEBULA IS EVERYWHERE*
David Brin
I would like to pay tribute to Star Trek by making a few comparisons between Trek and its chief competitor for the hearts of science fiction fandom -- Star Wars. A comparison that illuminates two very different views of fiction, civilization, and at the meaning of a hero.
Here's one way of looking at the underlying implications of these two sci-fi universes. Consider the choice of which kinds of ship are featured in each series. Let me invite you to ponder, for a moment, and contrast the Air Force metaphor vs. one that hearkens up images of the Navy.
In Star Wars, the ships that matter are little fighter planes. Series creator George Lucas made liberal use of filmed dogfight footage, from both world wars, in some cases borrowing maneuvers like banking slipstream turns, down to the last detail. The heroic image in this case is the solitary pilot, perhaps assisted by his loyal gunner -- or wookie or droid -- companion. It is the modern version of knight and squire. Symbols as old as Achilles.
In contrast, the federation starship in Trek is vastly bigger, more complex, a veritable city cruising through space. Its captain hero is not only a warrior-knight, but also part scientist and part diplomat, a plenipotentiary representative of his civilization and father figure to his crew... any one of whom may suddenly become an essential character, during the very next adventure. While the captain's brilliance and courage are always key elements, so will be the skill and pluck of one or more crewmen and women. People who are much closer to average - like you or me -- yet essential helpers, nonetheless. And possibly even -- when it is their turn -- heroes, themselves.
In any event, the ship -- Star Trek's Enterprise -- stands for something, every time we look at it. This traveling city is civilization. The Federation's culture and laws, industry and consensus values -- like the Prime Directive -- are all carried in this condensed vessel, along with the dramatic diversity of its crew. Every single time there is an adventure, the civilization of the United Federation of Planets is put to the test, through its proxy, the hero-ship. And when the Enterprise passes each test, often with flying colors, so too, by implication, does civilization itself.
A civilization that might even be worthy of our grandchildren.
Compare this to the role of the Old Republic, in the Lucasian universe. A hapless, hopeless, clueless melange of bickering futility whose political tiffs are as petty as they are incomprehensible. The Republic may be sweet, but it never perceives, never creates or solves anything. Not once do we see any of its institutions actually function well. How can they? The people, the Republic, decent institutions... these cannot be heroes, or even helpers.
There is no room, aboard an X Wing fighter, for civilization to ride along.
Only for a knight and squire.
All right, you may call this making too much of yet another superficial thing. It can certainly be argued that ship size doesn't really matter. On the other hand, recall how eager Yoda was, in Attack of the Clones, to destroy the "Federation Starship"? Interesting choice of words, there! Could it be that the director agrees with me?
In scifi, ships carry powerful symbolism. They convey contrary ways of viewing heroes, and their relationship to common women and men.
Anyway, I couldn't help it. This difference in the metaphor of the ship continued to nag at me as every problem with the Star Wars universe just seemed to grow and compound, with each newly released episode. These superficial things mounted up, one after another. Deliberate artistic choices bubbled to the foreground, like Darth Vader's Nazi-style helmet and use of the term "storm troopers", or the need to be a genetic "midi-chlorian" mutant, in order to use the Force.
Or take the difference in educational styles, between the university-like Starfleet Academy and that imperious, overbearing, secretive guru, Yoda. Two very different -- and iconic approaches to acquiring and passing on a skill, to acquiring power and then using it.
This is not just a difference in style of storytelling. It is about fundamentally different ways of viewing reality, life, justice, civilization… and even hope. In the fantasy world of Star Wars, we are invited to return to medieval ways, "long ago and far away."
In Star Trek, we are invited to explore a future, in which our children may become better than us… and their children better, still.
----------------------------------------
* Expanded from a portion of: Star Wars on Trial: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Debate the Most Popular Science Fiction Films of All Time (BenBella Books: Smart Pop series) by David Brin and two dozen wonderfully articulate authors "testifying" either for the prosecution or the defense. Is SW fantasy disguised as science fiction? Does the series spread doom-pessimism about democracy? Has it been a let-down since "The Empire Strikes Back"? Does it even make any sense?
- Mood:
geeky
( David Brin's New Year's Message )
...To boldly go where no one has gone before... ;)
- Mood: thoughtful
Syndicate
