What my friends are saying — Part 3
Bookworm on Apr 19 2008 at 4:49 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
I’m picking up here where parts 1 and 2 left off:
Ocean Guy sees a big war coming, and has just the right thing to say about our continued refusal to face that reality:
The trouble is that the cessation of hostilities on one side does not equal peace. Blinded by an incredible myopia which keeps them from seeing the enemy before us, let alone understand them, we continue to hope we can eventually give them enough to make them friendly. We haven’t’ yet learned that money can’t buy you love.
Robert, writing at Seraphic Secret, has a beautiful post about Passover. It is true, as my nephew so eloquently said, that Passover is about freedom (it is, after all, the story of the first slave revolt), but it is also about the attempt to destroy a people, and the need to remember that effort to repel similar efforts that are still being made.
Not all Jewish interest groups are created equal. Soccer Dad has a fascinating post about an organization that entirely slipped under my radar: it’s called J-Street, and is setting itself up as the liberal Jewish answer to AIPAC. Just so you know where it’s coming from, George Soros was originally affiliated it, but withdrew, not because he agreed with its goals, but because he was afraid that his notoriety would reveal its real goals. Ick.
I well and truly dislike the Star Wars movies, especially the most recent ones. When the very first one came out, I was in high school, I loved the simple swashbuckling quality it had, but each successive movie was more of a turn off. I could never figure out why, other than that I found them boring. The more recent ones I found boring and stupid, especially the last, which had Anakin turning into a mass murderer because he was afraid of child birth. It doesn’t get dumber than that. Ymarsakar may have given me just one more reason to dislike these Lucas films, and that’s the subliminal liberal morality that permeates them.
“You had me at the phrase ‘Humpty Dumpty.’” Okay, what I mean is that ShrinkWrapped, by opening a post about Barack Obama’s use of language with a reference to Humpty Dumpty’s belief that he controls words’ meaning, instantly had me cheering for the post. It’s a great post and you should definitely read it. I think the post will resonate with all of you, since we’ve had some healthy debates here about what Obama actually says, versus what his accolytes think he means, or should mean.
Obama’s fiscal idiocies and Communist financial leanings are becoming increasingly worrisome. David, at Principalities and Powers, has a good summary about the real Obama, especially the economic one, who is starting to show up as more and more people peer behind the curtain.
America is, blessedly, a truly ecumenical land. With exceptions, of course, most Americans of faith are able to recognize the faith of others, and celebrate it without feeling threatened. Thomas’ post about the Pope’s visit is a perfect example of this ability to rejoice in another’s faith.
Speaking of the Pope, Patrick exposes Newsweak’s babbling idiocy when it comes to reporting on the music that the White House played to celebrate his visit. After reading Patrick’s words, I went around singing Amazing Grace just because I was free to do so!
In the turnabout is fair play category, Zomblog has a delightful photoessay about Marine Vets who staged a protest at Code Pink’s recruitment center. Did I mention how much I like Marines?
When I first read William Katz’s post about what was being taught in Korean schools, I misread it and thought he was talking about North, not South, Korean schools. Once I read it correctly, it went from being a banal news story to one that was frightening. Katz takes that appropriate fear and reminds us to be very, very wary of what’s going on in American public schools. Toss out the Zinn and in with the Bennett.
Zabrina celebrates the freedom of speech that we take so completely for granted here in America. As Brigitte Bardot is being harassed by her own government for voicing her feelings about the rise of Islam in France, and as Turkey debates whether its law making it a criminal act to insult “Turkishness” (whatever the heck that is), we are so blessed — and Zabrina knows it.
When challenged, Carter throws up his hands and says “I was just talking.” The News Walk exposes just how disingenuous that statement is in Carter’s case. (And, of course, it will be equally disingenuous and dangerous when Pres. Obama does the same thing with Iran and North Korea and Syria, etc.).
My children are blessed with two grandmothers. (Sadly, one grandfather died before they were born, and one not too long after.) At the Wide Awake Cafe, Laura has an illustrated post remembering her own grandmothers. It was a lovely read.
Th-th-th-hat’s all, folks! To those of you whom I didn’t catch in this grab bag, my apologies. You know that if you’re in my blogroll, I love what you do, and I can almost certainly promise that I’ll catch you next time.
Email This Post To A Friend
5 Responses to “What my friends are saying — Part 3”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t think I ever remember you saying that you had ever disliked Star Wars or George Lucas ; )
Thanks for the link, these posts must have taken awhile to compose.
I really and truly don’t get baseball, which I consider to be about as exciting as darts. I appreciate the skill it takes to throw and hit balls the way those guys do, but not all skilled activities are actually fun to watch.
Baseball is a deep strategist’ game. Or at least, it can be taken that way.
Since your entire team has to play both offense and defense, this kind of alleviates the 5 man star team in basketball or even football. Kind of, of course, doesn’t mean totally.
With the various communication between the umpires and the pitcher, you also get a sort of psychological duel between two people, the pitcher and the batter. Then there’s the various risks that can be taken for great benefits, such as trying to get to another base on the chance that the defense can’t get the ball and throw it correctly.
Basketball and football are both extremely tactical in nature once the action starts. Whatever strategy they would come up with, would shatter upon impact with the enemy. Baseball, like naval warfare, provides a little bit more time to plan strategically, even while the tactical action is going on.
I’m not a fan of baseball but these are the sort of elements that might intrigue people who prefer a deeper game or who prefer a game that would look overwhelmingly boring if you weren’t calculating the various potential choices that could be made in any particular situation. Both the coach, the players, and the audience have enough time, prototypically, to predict and create their own recommendations. (Such is unlikely in football where things are hectic and you have jack loads of people you have to pay attention to like in a real line battle, with the same thing in basketball where people move incredibly fast.) For example, many of the audience can decide for themselves what kind of pitch the pitcher needs to throw in certain situations. If there are 2 strikes and no balls, should the pitcher go for a fast ball or should he try to do something fancy by purposefully throwing it out of the strike zone?
In soccer, the coach or the audience can’t really make any strategic or tactical choices except in timeouts. Either they are too far removed from the players themselves, or they don’t know what the players are thinking, or they just can’t quite see the angle in which the ball is at to the goal to figure out the best way for the player to kick it or pass it.
Baseball is slow like naval engagements. Which means all that time is being used to craft strategy.
“Why yes, why do you ask?”
“Don’t you know the President is here?”
“President Bush is here?”
“No, President Clinton.”
“You mean Former President Clinton?”
You have to love, if not respect, the Leftist academia and bureaucracy’s desire for the demi-god President for life model for good government, Book. It is a clear look into the Leftist soul on what they mean when they say the “US Constitution”. Their US Constitution has nothing to do with the office of the Presidency and everything to do with their pre-selected cult of personalities.
Given that, why is the media so certain that Europe, if it could vote, would choose the far Left, appeasement oriented Obama, or the middle-Left, who knows what her orientation is, Hillary, over the middle-ish of the road McCain, whose politics are consistent with their own leaders of choice?
Because the media knows that the aristocrats and those born to rule in the bureaucracy will ensure that Europe’s votes are fixed, Book. That is how they are so certain and assured. When you look at the European Union of *pick your choice*, is there any doubt after that?
Not all Jewish interest groups are created equal. Soccer Dad has a fascinating post about an organization that entirely slipped under my radar: it’s called J-Street, and is setting itself up as the liberal Jewish answer to AIPAC. Just so you know where it’s coming from, George Soros was originally affiliated it, but withdrew, not because he agreed with its goals, but because he was afraid that his notoriety would reveal its real goals. Ick.
Another little incident that the counter-insurgency, anti-terrorism, and anti-organized crime methodologies learned and acquired in Iraq would be of use in fighting, if the chains were ever unlocked on such abilities by the President.
The more recent ones I found boring and stupid, especially the last, which had Anakin turning into a mass murderer because he was afraid of child birth.
For people, like me, that like tactics and actual logic and consistency in their fighting entertainment shows, like Naruto and Bleach, the kind of parlor tricks that the Jedi use in battle, totally inconsistent with how such powers would have been used by a tactician or a strategist, is also a positive reinforcement of Lucas’ image as being not in touch with reality.
For example, Force Speed is supposed to accelerate a Jedi’s mental thinking, reflexes, and physical speed. So how come Obi Wan tried to run past the force fields on normal speed, when he saw his Master in trouble? Can we say “idiot” and “would have failed tactical school and OCS”? And how come we never see Force Speed used in lightsaber battles? Is being able to think 10X faster than your opponent unfair or against the Jedi Code? Or is it cause if you sped up lightsaber battles any more, it would just look like a blur.
And another thing. Light saber battles have nothing to do with Kendo or the martial arts used by Japan on armored samurai or any war technique or medieval day swordfighting tricks. It’s just a bunch of people pretending that light has a mass that they can use to brute force overpower their opponents. The idea that a lightsaber requires a power source and a special crystal, instead of force abilities, is also another thing. What happens when the power runs out? And if you can put something that lethal in a little cylinder, why can’t you use this to arm your torpedoes, missiles, and bombs so that they slice through shields and the hull in order to blow up inside star destroyers? Or just make it into a grenade that can be launched from a grenalde launcher, with little thrusters that lets it spin around crazily, slicing up everything around it.
Lucas has no idea how to fight a war and he has no idea of what struggle means. Thus him directing and writing Star Wars, only really accomplishes one thing. It messes up the talent and actual ability of the other people working on Star Wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Republic_Commando
That game was pretty fun, since it provided a nice 4 man squad, which allowed you to switch control of any of the four members, in order to play as one fireteam battling enemies in the Clone Wars.
However, at the end, even though the 4 clones did everything in their power to help the Jedi and their cause, the Jedi still sold the team out. That was pretty much consistent with what my views towards Star Wars and the Jedi were tilting towards by then.
I recommend you follow the links and read David Brin’s 6 articles, if you haven’t already, Book, since those are far more entertaining than the little bits I quoted.
When challenged, Carter throws up his hands and says “I was just talking.”
No, No, Carter. That should be “I was just stealing oxygen”.
I enjoyed OceanGuy’s strong (and short) statement. Also, Y’s Star Wars post reminded me of my own dislike for Star Wars, which began with the Ewoks and reached full phase with the Phantom Menace. Book, since you dislike Star Wars, you may enjoy these satires on Star Wars that I posted for Y as well:
- A satirical list entitled “Star Pants”. http://www.michaelclark.name/jokes/starwars/star_pants.shtml
- An “abridged script” for The Phantom Menace
http://www.camworld.com/misc/starwars.txt
- A video: “The Emperor Gets A Job”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqIdLZQnb8o
Enjoy!
One of the best Star Wars story telling, in my view, came from Tie Fighter, which told the Empire’s side of things from the perspective of a common soldier.
The Imperials seem to advance by doing things. The Rebels advance by blowing other people’s stuff up in a sort of delaying action. This isn’t just for the Death Star I and 2, either, but it includes the Eclipse Star Destroyer. The rebels are always stealing designs and what not from the Imperials.
The thing is, if the rebels are the good guys, how come after all this time that they couldn’t produce much on their own? The X-Wing design was stolen.
You’d think in a totalitarian Empire, their research and development cycles would be about on par with the Islamic Caliphate and the European Union in terms of weapons design and innovation.
Also, another weird thing is that I don’t seem to remember any major rebel traitors. You’d think being on the run and always losing would make a couple of Rebels disillusioned and sympathetic to Imperial doctrine, if not Imperial credits. There are plenty of noteworthy Imperial traitors, like the spy that stole the construction blueprints for the Death Star 1, but I can’t seem to remember any notable Rebel traitors. If they are mentioned, they are only mentioned in a peripheral sort of fashion.
This suggests to me that Lucas is trying to say that for governments like Bush, who came to power using false flag missions and activating emergency powers like the Patriot Act, will naturally produce traitors as people inside the organization rebels against the tyranny of the Empire.
The Rebels, those leaking classified information inside Bush’s administration, are pure of heart and would never lie or betray the Rebellion because these are the superior humans.
Han Solo was betrayed, but by a capitalist if one recalls. Not a high command persona in the Rebellion.
Lucas doesn’t understand human nature, so his vision tends to produce a lot of inconsistencies and simply inhuman stories. Even a noble and worthwhile cause such as the American Revolution had their notable traitors that could have sent the war in Britain’s favor. But George Lucas values and promotes treason as a worthwhile cause. He who would have been eliminated from the human gene pool had treason succeeded against the United States.
Also, George here made Senator Palpatine be the instigator of the Trade Federation’s attacks on the Republic. This reflects Lucas’ view that Bush is in league with Haliburton and is using Al Qaeda in order to acquire more power via laws such as the Patriot Act.
Of course, Lucas’ fantasy world wouldn’t even be applicable to this one even if his fantasy world was a true representation of evil.