SciFi Weekend: Doctor Who News Including the 50th Anniversary; Dexter; Joss Whedon and the Marvel Universe; Carl Sagan’s Message For Mars; Revolution Trailer; Amy Pond Action Figure

August 12, 2012 — Ron Chusid

Matt Smith has  told The Sun he will remain on Doctor Who at least through the 2014 season:

Show boss Steven Moffat has convinced him to stay by creating a “brilliant” series.

Matt already working on shows for the 2013 series, said: “His first episode sounds great.

“It hasn’t been written yet but the idea is as brilliant and as mental as you’d expect from Steven. So there’s a lot to look forward to.

“When Steven was going to pitch the next season to me not long ago, he said, ‘Are you ready to cry?’ ”

Matt, back as the Time Lord later this autumn, added that he couldn’t wait to get stuck into the Doctor’s 50th anniversary celebrations next year. He said: “We want to do 50 years — and everyone that’s been associated with the show — justice. We want to go, ‘Look, world, here is Doctor Who. It’s 50 years old, a science-fiction show, still going and going from strength to strength’.

We’ve now learned about one thing planned for the fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who. Mark Gatiss is writing a ninety minute television movie to be aired in 2013 on the creation of Doctor Who: “This is the story of how an unlikely set of brilliant people created a true Television original. And how an actor – William Hartnell – stereotyped in hard-man roles became a hero to millions of children. I’ve wanted to tell this story this for more years than I can remember! To make it happen for Doctor Who‘s 50th birthday is quite simply a dream come true.”

The show will be produced by Steven Moffat, who added “The story of Doctor Who is the story of television – so it’s fitting in the anniversary year that we make our most important journey back in time to see how the TARDIS was launched.”

David Tennant has expressed interest in returning for the 50th Anniversary episode of Doctor Who, saying say his costume is on standby: “I have it in a very secure location… I have one of everything that I wore. I hope moths haven’t got it!” He also mentioned the Doctor Who sequence which was cut from the opening ceremony of the Olympics. Christopher Eccleston has indicated he is not willing to do so. Some fans are seeing these comments about Eccleston as a hopeful sign that he might reconsider:

I was at the National Theatre yesterday where Chris Eccleston was doing a Q and A session (he’s currently playing Creon in Antigone at the National).

There is no mention of Who in the blurb for the session nor in the play programme so I was wondering if anyone would be brave enough to ask him about it. Of course they did! Prior to the subject of Doctor Who he had spoken quite candidly about the role of writers and directors and how production should be a collaboration between directors and actors. He clearly stated that he thinks the writer has the most important job to do.

There was palpable tension when the first Who question came up but he had absolutely nothing negative to say. He didn’t directly criticise any aspect of the production.

I was surprised how easily he took the questions and he very graciously thanked people who complimented him on his performance in Doctor Who. He also spoke with real warmth and enthusiasm about the character of the Doctor and what a real joy of a character it is to play. In response to a question about whether he felt he’d taken the character as far as he could he (very tellingly) said he felt that one series isn’t enough to get under the skin of the character and that if he’d had two or three series he’d have developed the role considerably. He said that if you looked at the other Doctors (with the exception of Tom Baker) you can see them working out how to play the character through their first series because it’s such a complex and challenging role. He said several times that there was more for him to do with the character….

50th anniversary multi-doctor episode anyone?

I know, I know-not going to happen but I was heartened by how warmly he talked about the character.

A new poster for Dexter has been released. What happens now that Deb knows? The new season takes up right after the last season left off. We know that Dexter won’t give up killing, regardless of what happens initially.

It was no surprise to find that Joss Whedon (seen above with Scarlett Johansson) officially named to direct The Avengers 2, but Disney has also made Whedon the God of the Marvel Universe. Whedon has a contract going to June 2015 which gives him influence over all of their Marvel movies as well as the planned television show. The release says Whedon will “contribute creatively to the next phase of Marvel’s cinematic universe.” It does make sense that Whedon will at very least have a hand in the individual movies of characters in The Avengers to ensure that their stories take the characters where they need to be for their next joint adventure. With the contract going until June 2015 there is speculation that this means the next Avengers movie will be released around May 2015. Here are the release dates announced so far:

  • Iron Man 3 – May 3, 2013
  • Thor: The Dark World – November 8, 2013
  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier – April 4, 2014
  • Guardians of the Galaxy – August 1, 2014

IO9 has posted the text of Carl Sagan’s message for the first men to reach Mars (video above).

Hi, I’m Carl Sagan. This is a place where I often work in Ithaca, New York near Cornell University. Maybe you can hear, in the background, a 200-foot waterfall right nearby, which is probably — I would guess — a rarity on Mars, even in times of high technology.

Science and science fiction have done a kind of dance over the last century, particularly with respect to Mars. The scientists make a finding. It inspires science fiction writers to write about it, and a host of young people read the science fiction and are excited, and inspired to become scientists to find out more about Mars, which they do, which then feeds again into another generation of science fiction and science; and that sequence has played major role in our present ability to get to Mars. It certainly was an important factor in the life of Robert Goddard, the American rocketry pioneer who, I think more than anyone else, paved the way for our actual ability to go to Mars. And it certainly played a role in my scientific development.

I don’t know why you’re on Mars. Maybe you’re there because we’ve recognized we have to carefully move small asteroids around to avert the possibility of one impacting the Earth with catastrophic consequences, and, while we’re up in near-Earth space, it’s only a hop, skip and a jump to Mars. Or, maybe we’re on Mars because we recognize that if there are human communities on many worlds, the chances of us being rendered extinct by some catastrophe on one world is much less. Or maybe we’re on Mars because of the magnificent science that can be done there – the gates of the wonder world are opening in our time. Maybe we’re on Mars because we have to be, because there’s a deep nomadic impulse built into us by the evolutionary process, we come after all, from hunter gatherers, and for 99.9% of our tenure on Earth we’ve been wanderers. And, the next place to wander to, is Mars. But whatever the reason you’re on Mars is, I’m glad you’re there. And I wish I was with you.

NBC has aired an extended preview for Revolution, J.J. Abram’s new show in which we must live without electricity. Video above.

I know some fans are hoping for a blow up doll version of Amy Pond, but for now they will have to settle on this twelve inch action figure. Topless Robot has more information which you can read as I wait to see how many hits this post gets due to including both “topless” and Karen Gillan’s character.

Posted in Science, Science Fiction, Television. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

Quote of the Day

August 4, 2012 — Ron Chusid

You know, Republicans have created this completely fictional president. His name is Barack X and he’s an Islamo-socialist revolutionary who’s coming for your guns, raising your taxes, slashing the military, apologizing to other countries, and taking his cues from Europe or worse yet, Saul Alinsky. And this is how politics has changed; you used to have to run against an actual candidate, but now you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate.

That’s how Bush won in 2004, by running against John Kerry, a French war criminal. And speaking of Bush, I know conservatives are saying oh Bill, come on Democrats did the same thing to him. No. Say what you will about the left’s hatred of Bush, at least we were hating on the real guy. We didn’t invent a boogeyman who tanked the economy, took us to war on false pretenses, and tortured prisoners. That was the actual guy.

But run down the list of complaints about fantasy Obama. He wants to raise your taxes, even though he’s lowered them. Confiscate your guns, even though he’s never mentioned it, and read terrorists their rights, yeah, like he did Tuesday in Somalia. And look what Gingrich said about him this month. (Video of Gingrich claiming Obama is against work). Yes, Obama is anti-work. You remember the bill he championed, The Grab A Corona And Call In Sick Act.

You see, the difference is the Republicans hatred of Obama is based on a paranoid feeling about what he might do. What’s he’s thinking. What he secretly wants to change. Anger with Bush was based on what he actually did. What Bush was thinking didn’t matter, because he wasn’t.

I’ve mentioned many times that there is little relationship between the real Barack Obama and the Barack Obama which Mitt Romney and other Republians talk about. Bill Maher broadcast this back in January, but I’ve just seen the above graphic being spread on Facebook this week. Transcript and links via Politicus USA. Here’s the video:

Posted in Barack Obama, George Bush, Humor and Satire, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Television. Tags: , , , , , , . 27 Comments »

Three Strikes Against Romney’s Lie About Obama And Small Business

July 24, 2012 — Ron Chusid

Lacking legitimate arguments against Obama from the right, Mitt Romney and other conservatives have concentrated on fabricating attacks against Obama for views he does not actually hold. The latest attacks, based upon twisting a comment from Obama to give it a quite different meaning, is beginning to backfire against Romney. While Obama  spoke about the benefits to businessmen from government infrastructure they did not build, such as the roads and bridges, Republicans twisted this into a ridiculous statement that businessmen did not build the businesses which they created. Conservatives, who believe a Randian fantasy about the economy and are often ignorant of how a market economy actually works, have been easily fooled into believing the claims from the right.

Obama’s statement should actually not be controversial at all. It is such common sense that people receive some benefits from others that even Mitt Romney expressed a similar view talking to Olympians in 2002:

“You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power,” said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year’s Summer Olympics. “For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].”

This no more reduces respect for the accomplishments of the Olympians than Obama’s statement shows any lack of respect for the accomplishments of creators of small businesses.

The second embarrassment for Romney is that the businessman in an ad promoting the attack on Obama turned out to have received government assistance even beyond government roads and bridges:

HE GOT HELP. In the Mitt Romney campaign web and television ads that received national attention last week, a blunt Jack Gilchrist of Gilchrist Metal Fabricating in Hudson tells President Barack Obama that he, his father and his son _ and not the government _ built his company.

But as it turns out, Gilchrist did receive some government help for his business, albeit a long time ago.

In 1999, Gilchrist Metal received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority “to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment,” according to a New Hampshire Union Leader report at the time.

The federal government allocates to each state a certain amount of tax-exempt bonding capacity each year for business and housing loans.

Because the bond buyers do not pay federal taxes on the interest, the interest rate for the borrower is typically lower than that of standard bank financing.

Last year, Gilchrist Metal also received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008, according to a government web site that tracks spending.

The Romney camp released a web ad featuring Jack Gilchrist last Thursday after Obama had said a week earlier that “if you were successful, you didn’t get there on your own” and added, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”

Finally, even Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, who has previously taken the Romney line even when his own newspaper showed that he was wrong, has finally done some fact checking on this Romney lie:

The biggest problem with Romney’s ad is that it leaves out just enough chunks of Obama’s words — such as a reference to “roads and bridges”— so that it sounds like Obama is attacking individual initiative. The ad deceivingly cuts away from Obama speaking in order to make it seem as if the sentences follow one another, when in fact eight sentences are snipped away.

Suddenly, the word “that” appears as if it is referring to a business, rather than (apparently) to roads and bridges…

Romney, however, descends into silly season when he extrapolates Obama’s quote and says that means Obama believes Steve Jobs did not build Apple Computers.

Here’s what Obama said when Jobs passed away earlier this year: “By building one of the planet’s most successful companies from his garage, he exemplified the spirit of American ingenuity. By making computers personal and putting the Internet in our pockets, he made the information revolution not only accessible, but intuitive and fun.”

That sounds like Obama believes that Jobs really did build his company. He did not mention the roads to Cupertino.

Posted in Barack Obama, Economy, Mitt Romney, Sports and Games. Tags: , , , , . 9 Comments »

In America, Even Most Of The Left Does Not See Socialism As The Answer

May 6, 2012 — Ron Chusid

Conservatives have been claiming that Barack Obama is a socialist despite his centrist, pro-business economic policies. I’ve often wondered how they would react to actual socialists. Of course they would have a hard time finding many actual socialists any more among those with any degree of influence in the United States government. Robert Reich is pretty far left by American standards but even he argues that The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution.

Francois Hollande’s victory doesn’t and shouldn’t mean a movement toward socialism in Europe or elsewhere. Socialism isn’t the answer to the basic problem haunting all rich nations.

The answer is to reform capitalism. The world’s productivity revolution is outpacing the political will of rich societies to fairly distribute its benefits. The result is widening inequality coupled with slow growth and stubbornly high unemployment….

Those on the right who see no role for government in the economy would find much to object to in Reich’s views, and perhaps, if they are  honest, would see the difference between his views and Obama’s more moderate economic views. This would provide a framework for a far more meaningful debate than the current right wing arguments that Obama is a socialist.

 

Posted in Barack Obama, Economy. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Rick Santorum Has Become Obsessed With The Guillotine

February 9, 2012 — Ron Chusid

With the GOP primary battle changing, instead of the insanity of Newt Gingrich, we now get to hear more of the insane views of Rick Santorum. We already knew about his desire to use government to regulate the sex lives of Americans and nationalize each woman’s womb, but it goes much further than this. Santorum now has a thing for guillotines–which should be very scary to those who realize how often conservative attacks on liberals are actually cases of conservatives projecting their own faults on liberals, such as the conservative propensity for big government and irresponsible government spending when in power.

Another important distinction between Obama and his Republican opponents is that Obama supports separation of church and state and freedom of religion (the two are inseparable) while the Republicans do not. (So much for their false claims from conservatives of supporting the views of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.) Sticking with the generally valid premise that conservatives generally attack liberals over matters that conservatives are actually guilty of, the Republicans have fabricated an imaginary war on religious freedom. Santorum has even tied this into health care reform. I guess he thinks that God wants insurance companies to be allowed to deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions and terminate coverage for the sick.

First there was this statement from Santorum yesterday:

They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.

Today Santorum suggested that the left wants public decapitations and that the Affordable Care Act is the first step:

It was a secular revolution on which we relied on the goodness of eacother. This is the left’s view of where America should go. And of course where did France go? To the guillotine. To tyranny. If there are no rights that government needs to respect, then what we see with ObamaCare is just the beginning of what government will do to you.

Beyond all the obvious insanity in Santorum’s statements, he ignores the fact that the Founding Fathers created the United States as the world’s first secular state. We have far too many examples of how the religious fanaticism of people like Rick Santorum leads to the destruction of liberty.

Posted in Health Care, Rick Santorum, Separation of Church and State. Tags: , , , , . 9 Comments »

Topless Protestors Outside World Economic Forum in Davos

January 30, 2012 — Ron Chusid

I have not been terribly interested in the Occupy Wall Street movement since the concentration changed from issues to the protests themselves. I certainly have no interest in the Tea Party movement, with their members being totally ignorant about the issues they stress, and as they take symbols from the American Revolution while holding views which are quite contrary to the liberties fought for by the Founding Fathers. A group of protestors in Davos Davos did manage to find a way to get my attention, as seen in the video above and the picture of the demonstrators below:

They are protesting topless outside the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland calling for more female participation in the meetings and in politics, claiming they are “Poor Because of You.”

Think Progress has more on this protest.

Related Story: Strippers Hold Counter Protest Against Ohio Church; Nudists In Great Britain Raise Money For Cancer

Posted in Economy, International. Tags: , , . 5 Comments »

Once Again, Ron Paul’s Views Would Promote Conservatism and Even Authoritarianism, Not Liberty

January 1, 2012 — Ron Chusid

Ron Paul’s opposition to virtually any action by the federal government means that he is on the right side of issues where government is wrong, including infringements upon civil liberties and waging unjust wars. His extreme support for states’ rights should not be mistaken as a philosophy which would increase liberty. Paul opposes the extension of the Bill of Rights to the states in the Fourteenth Amendment and has on many occasions indicated that he would find infringements upon civil liberties by the sates to be acceptable. He does make an exception to this usual support of states’ rights by treating abortion as murder nationwide.

While many libertarians and civil libertarians have seen through Paul’s faux-libertariansm, especially since his relationship to white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups were exposed during the 2008 campaign, some remained deceived by Paul’s rhetoric. Glenn Grenwald is the latest to write in favor of Paul without really understanding his views, while continuing with his pattern of exaggerating  and distorting Obama’s faults.

The issues regarding Paul were discussed at length in 2007 in the lead up to the 2008 campaign. In early 2008, while substituting for Steve Benen at his former blog, The Carpetbagger Report, I cross-posted a summary of my previous posts to show it would be a mistake for liberals to support Ron Paul. (Steve has since moved on to The Washington Monthly.) The previous post remains relevant and I will repeat the bulk of it below:

Seeing Ron Paul debate his fellow Republicans on Iraq, and even criticize their lack of respect for civil liberties, brought Paul justifiably favorable attention. This has included the support of some liberals who have not looked carefully at Paul’s views beyond these issues. Paul has lost a considerable amount of respect the last few days after an article in The New Republic reported on the racist writings in his newsletter, but there were reasons for both liberals and libertarians to question Paul even before these revelations.

To bring those up to speed who might not have followed the events of past week, The New Republic‘s exposure of racist writings in Ron Paul’s newsletter was the final straw after which many libertarians who had previously ignored Paul’s past realized they must disassociate themselves from Paul if they wished to retain any credibility. I have quoted the responses of several libertarians here and here. Paul’s defense was that the articles were ghost written by others and that he had not read the articles. He also claimed that he disagreed with the views expressed.

Back in November I discussed how libertarians were beginning to dissociate themselves from Ron Paul, and even half jokingly suggested that Reason would eventually do so on its cover to differentiate themselves from Paul’s markedly non-libertarian views. This week Reason clearly did realize the danger to their reputation in being linked to Paul. This led to Reason doing investigative work to debunk Paul’s defense.

Reason has reviewed public statements from Paul over the years which are quite incriminating. At times Paul defended the writings, and the context of the news reports suggests Paul was aware of them even if a ghost writer assisted him. For example, the May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News contains this (emphasis mine): “Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.”

This hardly sounds like someone who is either denying that he wrote the articles or denying that he agrees with what is published. My post on this topic yesterday includes another quote from a libertarian, Megan McArdle, which further debunks the arguments of many of Paul’s supporters, as well as dismissing the question of whether it matters if Paul is personally a racist or enabling racism.

I’ve been following Ron Paul at Liberal Values for quite a while. Initially, despite some disagreements, I found aspects of his campaign to be of interest. Besides his views on Iraq and civil liberties, I saw Paul’s campaign as a sign of the general anti-government sentiment in the country, which liberals would be wise not to ignore. As I continued to follow Paul, and reviewed his writings well before The New Republic did, I found many disturbing aspects beyond the questions of racism.

One policy I generally followed in my criticism of Paul’s views was to hold him to a standard of supporting freedom, but generally ignored disagreements based upon basic libertarian views. We might disagree with Paul over issues such as eliminating certain government programs, but in discussing libertarians that goes with the territory. Such disagreements with liberals are to be expected. Objections are much more interesting when they pertain to areas in which the so-called libertarian’s views are contrary to principles of individual liberty.

Paul’s views are far better characterized as social conservatism with extreme support for states’ rights as opposed to libertarianism. Despite his reputation as a libertarian, Paul is actually hostile towards First Amendment rights where they conflict with his religious views. Besides the Iraq war, and related abuses in the “war on terror,” the greatest threat we now face to civil liberties comes from the religious right.

As I’ve previously noted, Paul has incorrectly claimed that, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” He has also supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. Paul has both criticized secularism and claimed that the founding fathers envisioned a Christian America. Paul has supported the Sanctity of Life Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Marriage Protection Act.

Paul’s views on abortion show both his lack of respect for the rights of the individual as well as how he is willing to ignore his principles on federalism to promote his personal views. Besides supporting the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions, Paul has supported federal legislation to over ride state law which differentiates between a zygote and a fully developed human. I would expect someone with training in Obstetrics to be concerned about such scientific nonsense, but this is less surprising after hearing his views on creationism versus evolution.

Ron Paul supports a Constitution which is quite different from that envisioned by the framers. Besides failing to understand the intent to form a secular state, Paul’s views on federalism stem from a lack of understanding of the plan to have over-lapping sources of authority with blurred jurisdiction between federal and state power. Paul ignores the reasons why the framers supported a stronger federal government following the failings of the original Articles of Confederation.

The fight for liberty is an on going process, with the American Revolution and later establishment of our democracy being steps along the way. Few would return to the conditions of our early days when slavery was allowed and women were denied the right to vote. While some of the founding fathers wished to have the Bill of Rights extended to the states, this was a battle which had to be left for a later date. The Fourteenth Amendment ultimately extended such rights, but this view is rejected by Paul and many of his supporters.

The consequences of these views are of tremendous consequence. While traditional views of liberalism and libertarianism deal with rights as being inherent in the individual, Paul’s view of states’ rights leads in practice to a situation where state governments trump the rights of the individual. I discussed this a couple of weeks ago from the context of Paul’s view that state governments have the right to ban flag burning. Similarly, Paul’s views would have prevented the federal government from taking action against Jim Crow laws. With the Bill of Rights not being seen as applying to the states, any violation of our Constitutional liberties might be justified if coming from a source other than the federal government.

This also explains why extremist groups such as the white supremacist Stormfront have endorsed Ron Paul. They understand that, even if their views might differ from Paul’s personal views, Ron Paul’s philosophy of government would allow them the chance to impose their views upon others. It is far easier for extremist groups to receive a majority vote in a local area, or even an entire state, than nationally. A campaign which started with well-deserved opposition to the Iraq war has turned into one where the main freedom they are defending is the freedom to discriminate and oppress. Paul’s refusal to return a contribution from Stormfront founder Don Black was the point when many first recognized that there is something seriously wrong with Paul and his supporters who defend this. In addition, to see that he shares the xenophobia exhibited by his fellow Republicans, check out this ad which he ran on illegal aliens and those people from “terrorist nations.”

I’ve been criticizing Paul on these issues for several months. Thanks to all the talk around the blogosphere among libertarians following the story in The New Republic I find that some libertarian sites (such as here and here) have raised very similar objections.

Since this was posted additional contradictory statements from Paul have been publicized, further demonstrating the lack of credibility of his denials of involvement with the racist and homophobic material published under his name.  More material has been posted here under the Ron Paul tag. Also see the rebuttal to Greenwood written at Lawyers, Gun$ and Money, including this accurate assessment of the consequences of Paul’s beliefs, tying in his racism and extreme view of states’ rights:

It’s wrong to think of Ron Paul’s racism and his libertarianism as two distinct parts of his political persona, when in fact they are deeply tied together. White supremacists understand what Glenn, apparently, does not; the absence of Federal authority makes it easier for private actors and local governments to repress the civil and political rights of minorities. Paul’s libertarianism emerged in a regional and cultural context that was deeply hostile to Federal efforts at integration. The newsletters give strong indication that none of this is lost on Ron Paul. A notional President Paul is just as likely to use the powers of the office to gut Federal enforcement of a wide range of civil liberties protections as he is to do any of the things that Glenn would like him to do.

Posted in Blogs & Social Media, Civil Liberties, Libertarianism, Ron Paul, Separation of Church and State, Social Issues. Tags: , , , . 19 Comments »

Tea Party Group Calls On Bachmann To Leave Presidential Race

October 27, 2011 — Ron Chusid

While the Tea Party supporters show an astounding degree of ignorance regarding public policy matters, they are not total fools regarding politics. They realize that Michele Bachmann is an embarrassment to their cause and some want her to drop out of the presidential race. Following is from a statement posted at Liberty Rising (a poorly named site from a group with so many members who support the agenda of the authoritarian right, but is expected from the Tea Party movement which takes a symbol of the American Revolution while opposing the principles promoted by that revolution):

It’s time for Michele Bachmann to go.  For the last two years, I’ve been cautioning about the dangers of individuals or organizations trying to present themselves as leaders of the Tea Party movement.  An individual personality or organization purporting to be a “leader” of what is truly a grassroots movement can hurt the tea party brand by creating false impressions about its core beliefs.  Bachmann, the leader of the so-called tea party caucus in the House and the most vocal about her affiliation with the Tea Party than any other Presidential candidate, has consistently presented herself as a champion of the movement and its values.  Bachmann has ridden her tea party credentials from obscurity to a national platform like no other.

Reading further, I find their attempt to distance themselves from the religious right to be somewhat admirable, but also quite disingenuous considering the views held by a majority of Tea Party supporters. To say that the Tea Party is purely about matters such as fiscal responsibility and ignore all their other baggage is like saying Fascism was only about getting the trains to run on time.  (Not to mention that their bizarre concept of fiscal responsibility was advocate default on bills previously run up by Republicans, leading S&P to lower the nation’s credit rating.)

CNN reported further comments from the Executive Director of the misnamed American Majority:

“I think it’s pretty obvious that Michele Bachmann is about Michele Bachmann,” American Majority Executive Director Matt Robbins said.

“Anyone who knows the congresswoman, and knows her record, we appreciate a national figure standing up for the tea party types,” Robbins added.

Robbins said the statement is not about the group favoring one candidate over Bachmann.

“We are equal opportunity hecklers.” Robbins said. “We point out the foibles and the flaws in each one of the candidates. And we don’t care which one of the personalities wins, as long as they’re conservative.”

“Let’s face it: she’s a back-bencher and has been a back bencher congressperson for years,” Robbins added. “This is not a serious presidential campaign.”

Despite all my other disagreements, I do agree with this last line from Robbins.

Posted in Economy, Michele Bachmann, Social Issues. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Not-Romney Continues To Lead GOP Race

October 12, 2011 — Ron Chusid

The Republican base remains desperate for a not-Romney candidate and Herman Cain remains the top not-Romney following the collapse of the brief leads held by Michele Bachmann and then Rick Perry. Cain has even moved to a lead nationally in the latest Public Policy Survey, leading Romney 30 percent to 22 percent. Newt Gingrich has managed to  move ahead of Perry.

National polls have their limitations in evaluating primary battles. The real question is whether the far right can deny Romney victories in the early contests. A Romney victory in New Hampshire would not help if the right wing can keep him from winning elsewhere. David Frum discussed why the far right does not want Romney to win:

Why is it that the GOP base seems not to care a whit about Mitt? Perhaps it’s because he is the anti-Tea Party, anti-talk-radio, anti-anti-government candidate.

Romney will never be able to appeal to those who want “limited government.” He fundamentally cannot; he is, at bottom, a center-right candidate who believes that government, when run effectively and efficiently, can produce the best results for the most people. It’s a noble view—one that the GOP base seemingly hates him for.

Anti-Romney sentiment is clearly connected to the idea that if Romney wins, the Reagan Revolution somehow loses. A Romney presidency could actually restore the average American’s faith in the competency of Washington—a notion that GOP base voters find intolerable.

Conservatives and Tea Partiers were supposed to put an end to people like Romney. They had convinced themselves that the era of the Bush 41-style Republican was over and done with, and that the GOP would now and forever be controlled by the purebred conservatives, the ideological offspring of Reagan and Goldwater, the true believers who would finally cut Washington down to size and starve the statist beast until you could see its ribcage.

If Romney becomes the GOP nominee, it will prove that the Tea Party project was an abject failure, and that the momentum of 2010 was only temporary.

Romney doesn’t represent “taking the country back.” To the contrary, he represents taking the country forward, and recognizing government’s appropriate role in doing so.

It is tough enough for the Tea Party now that they are being eclipsed by the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has a major advantage over the Tea Party in at least recognizing were the problems are. The Tea Party, which is made up of ignorant pawns of the top one percent which seeks to replace American democracy and capitalism with plutocracy, would be seen as especially meaningless if they cannot prevent Romney from winning the nomination.

At this point it looks like the primary race will play out one of two ways. Most likely, without credible opposition, Romney will gradually accumulate delegates until he is unstoppable. The second most likely alternative is that one not-Romney candidate will peak early in the primary battle and, with the support of the GOP base, manage to defeat Romney. The manner in which different conservatives have peaked at different times raises a third possibility. Perhaps different conservatives will win at different times and in different states, preventing Romney from getting enough delegates to win, leaving an open convention battle between a large Romney delegation and multiple conservatives whose total delegates outnumber Romney’s. While unlikely, it is possible that it will be left to the Republican convention to choose  the not-Romney candidate.

Posted in Barry Goldwater, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Politics, Polls, Rick Perry, Ronald Reagan. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Michele Bachmann Thinks Americans Fear “Rise of the Soviet Union”

August 19, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Michele Bachmann said on a conservative talk show that Americans “fear the rise of the Soviet Union.” As the report pointed out, “The Soviet Union broke up into 15 separate republics 20 years ago.”

I wonder if Bachmann also fears the Roman Empire. Perhaps she even fears fictitious empires, such as the Romulan Star Empire (who will be at war with earth from 2156 to 2160 according to Star Trek.)

USA Today also notes this isn’t the first historical error by Bachmann:

The GOP presidential candidate has flubbed some facts in history before, such as when she mistakenly said that the Revolutionary War battles of Lexington and Concord occurred in New Hampshire. This week, she mistakenly wished Elvis Presley a “happy birthday” on the anniversary of his death.

 

Posted in Michele Bachmann, Republicans. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

What The Founding Fathers Really Believed

July 4, 2011 — Ron Chusid

I’ve frequently pointed out that the right wing, including Ron Paul and the Tea Party supporters, promote a version of the Constitution which exists in their heads but which has little to do with the actual document. Independence Day is a good time to point out that the American Revolution had little to do with the themes promoted by the right wing. E. J. Dionne used his column today to explain What Our Declaration Really Said.

We need to recognize the deep flaws in this vision of our present and our past. A reading of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our forebears were not revolting against taxes as such — and most certainly not against government as such.

In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.

Dionne also discussed the misconceptions about the Constitution and the formation of a government to promote the common good:

This misunderstanding of our founding document is paralleled by a misunderstanding of our Constitution. “The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states, not the other way around,” Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said recently.

No, our Constitution begins with the words “We the People” not “We the States.” The Constitution’s Preamble speaks of promoting “a more perfect Union,” “Justice,” “the common defense,” “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty.” These were national goals.

I know states’ rights advocates revere the 10th Amendment. But when the word “states” appears in the Constitution, it typically is part of a compound word, “United States,” or refers to how the states and their people will be represented in the national government. We learned it in elementary school: The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation to create a stronger federal government, not a weak confederate government. Perry’s view was rejected in 1787 and again in 1865.

We praise our Founders annually for revolting against royal rule and for creating an exceptionally durable system of self-government. We can wreck that system if we forget our Founders’ purpose of creating a representative form of national authority robust enough to secure the public good. It is still perfectly capable of doing that. But if we pretend we are living in Boston in 1773, we will draw all the wrong conclusions and make some remarkably foolish choices.

Posted in Op-eds, Ron Paul. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Obama Attempts To Reframe Budget Debate Based Upon Reality

April 13, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Republicans, who ran up the deficit while claiming that deficits do not matter, have not been very serious about solving the problem they created. Paul Ryan’s proposal should be called the Banana Republican Budget as this is what it would turn the United States into. The Republican proposal primarily shifts wealth even more to the ultra-wealthy, does far less to reduce the deficit than claimed, and takes Draconian steps, including eliminating Medicare as a meaningful program. Barack Obama’s response lacked detail but was important for making an attempt to reframe the debate.

It is hard to do anything about the deficit is that the people who speak out the most against the deficit (such as those in the Tea Party movement) are totally ignorant about the actual causes of the deficit, blaming Obama rather than Bush, and are the ones who are also the most opposed to ending tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. It shows the effect of Fox and the right wing noise machine that it was necessary for Obama to explain simple concepts like why we need to keep government functions going for the common good in his budget address:

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

But there’s always been another thread running through our history -– a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.

And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire new industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we’re a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we’re all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities. We’re a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further. We would not be a great country without those commitments.

In past years this has been  a great nation, as been able to accomplish great things. Now reckless Republican policies have created the current crisis. George Bush fought two wars off the books while Republicans practiced Voodoo Economics, claiming that tax cuts would increase rather than decrease tax revenue. He threatened to fire the chief Medicare actuary if he testified before Congress about the actual cost of his Medicare Plan, which was primarily designed to transfer money from Medicare to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Bush structured the tax cuts so that they would have the greatest impact on the deficit in the later years, attempting to transfer the blame to whoever his successor might be. The stimulus money spent by Obama, which kept the country out of a depression, represents a small amount of the deficit compared to these other factors. Obama pointed out who is really to blame:

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program -– but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts -– tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

Obama presented a view which is consistent with the values held by most Americans since the days of the founding of this nation, presenting a contrast to the Republican policies of destroying the economy and safety-net for the poor and elderly for the sake of transferring yet more of the nation’s wealth to the ultra-wealthy. He countered the pundits which have called Paul Ryan’s insane budget plan serious and courageous:

This vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don’t think there’s anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. That’s not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate. It’s a land of opportunity and optimism. Yes, we take responsibility for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the future that we share. We’re a nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI Bill and we saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives. That’s who we are. This is the America that I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit our investment in our people and our country.

To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

Obama vowed not to allow the destruction of Medicare as proposed by the Republicans, along with preserving Social Security. He proposed a framework for restoring fiscal sanity which is quite different from the GOP proposals, perhaps finally giving the Democrats a message to carry into the next election. Democrats need the courage to counter the Republican philosophy that tax cuts for the wealthy are always good and government action is always bad.

Of course neither party has a monopoly on being right, even if the Republicans have been wrong far more often since being taken over by far right-wing extremists. While health care costs must be reduced, Obama is relying too much on the Medicare Payment Board, which does present a very real risk of having non-elected individuals concentrate too much on cost at the expense of quality. While it does make sense to take Medicare partially out of the political process, the final say on any recommendations should be left to our elected representatives in a democracy. I am also disappointed that, when speaking of reducing health care costs, Obama said nothing about malpractice reform. While the current legal system accounts for a small smaller percentage of overall health care costs than Republicans claim, these remain very real costs which we should recover. Of course Obama did initiate a process rather than provide definitive solutions, and this might be a bargaining chip to be played in the future.

 

Posted in Barack Obama, Economy, George Bush, Paul Ryan, Republicans. Tags: , , , , , . 2 Comments »

SciFi Weekend: Doctor Who and Torchwood– News And Interviews On Their Upcoming Seasons

April 9, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Matt Smith and Karen Gillan discuss the upcoming season of Doctor Who in the above video. More from Matt Smith here and Karen Gillan here. Here are some of Karen’s comments:

“There were clues planted in the last series that are going to become major storylines in this one,” divulges a conspiratorial Karen Gillan; a revelation which is bound to have all Whovians avidly watching Series 5 to spot what the Inverness born actress is referring to.

“There’s a really interesting arc in this series that involves all of the major characters and it’s evident from the first episode that everyone on the TARDIS is withholding secrets from one another,” continues Karen.“It makes for a fascinating dynamic between the characters and it’s incredibly important to the overall series.”

Karen also believes that Amy has more respect for her new husband Rory after his recent adventures.“I think Rory has perhaps developed the most out of all the characters,” explains Karen.“By the end of last series he became a Roman Centurion hero and he had changed a lot; it felt like he had earned his place in the TARDIS. In fact, it’s hard for me to imagine the TARDIS without him now!”

But has married life changed Amy Pond? Karen quickly sweeps that concern out of the way exclaiming “if anything she is even more Amy Pondish! I don’t think it would work for Amy to completely change now that she’s a married woman and I certainly don’t think she should become a subdued version of herself. However, I do think being married has helped to define the Doctor and Amy’s relationship and I can reveal thatsomething takes place this series which makes Amy see Rory in a new light…,” teases the actress.

More from Matt Smith and Karen Gillan here. Karen Gillan will also be a guest on Craig Ferguson’s show on April 13. Perhaps she will show him how to operate the TARDIS on his desk. The picture above is from the third episode.

Steven Moffat had these comments on the upcoming season:

How has this series evolved from last year?

Steven Moffat: Well we’ve moved through the funfair a bit – we’ve done the rollercoaster, now we’re on the ghost train. Last year, in a way, was all about saying, don’t worry, it’s still him, it’s still the same show, nothing’s really been lost. Losing a leading man like David Tennant is seismic – unless you gain a leading man like Matt Smith. It’s been the biggest joy to see him stride in and just claim that TARDIS for his own. But now he’s really here, and the part is his, and the bow tie is cool, he’s ready to lead us places we didn’t know existed. Last year we reassured you – this year, to hell with that, we’re going to worry the hell out of you. How well do we really know that man, or what he’s capable of? We’re putting the Who? back in the Doctor.

Is there a major story arc to look out for?

Oh, there’s a big story being told this year, and major mysteries from the very off. As ever, in this show, the stories all stand alone, and every episode is a perfect jumping-on point for a new viewer. But at the same time the over-arching plot will be a bigger player this year. More than hints and whispers – we’re barely ten minutes into episode one before our heroes face a dilemma that they’ll be staring at months from now. And there will be no easy answers.

Will there be new monsters?

They’re … scary. Very scary. And, ohh, I don’t want to say more – there’s the Silence in 1 & 2, the Siren, in episode 3, the Gangers in 5 & 6, all these are more than just freaky costumes and masks; there are SCARY ideas here. And just wait till you meet Idris in episode 4.

Is this series scarier than the last one?

See above. Yes, I think so. But it’s not JUST scary – it’s funny and moving and revelling in its own insanity too.

How have the characters evolved?

The big difference, I suppose, is how long the Doctor is hanging around in the lives of his Companions. His normal MO is get them while they’re young, and leave them while they’re young too. He’s careful to put them back where he found them, before he screws up their lives. But here he is, married couple on board – and much as he loves them both, he does wonder if it isn’t time he got out of the way. Before something really BAD happens.

What can you tell us about the cliff-hanger at the end of episode 7?

Normally our cliff-hangers are lives being threatened. With this one, three live are changed FOREVER.

The poster for The Impossible Astronaut (above) is available for pre-order. Here’s  the synopses of the first two episodes:

Episode 1: The Impossible Astronaut

Four envelopes, numbered 2, 3 and 4, each containing a date, time and map reference, unsigned, but TARDIS blue. Who sent them? And who received the missing number one? This strange summons reunites the Doctor, Amy, Rory and River Song in the middle of the Utah desert and unveils a terrible secret the Doctor’s friends must never reveal to him.

Placing his life entirely in their hands, the Doctor agrees to search for the recipient of the fourth envelope – just who is Canton Everett Delaware the Third? And what is the relevance of their only other clue: ‘Space 1969′? Their quest lands them – quite literally – in the Oval Office, where they are enlisted by President Nixon himself to assist enigmatic former-FBI agent Canton, in saving a terrified little girl from a mysterious spaceman.

Episode 2: Day of the Moon

The Doctor is locked in the perfect prison. Amy, Rory and River Song are being hunted down across America by the FBI. With the help of new friend and FBI-insider, Canton Everett Delaware the Third, our heroes are reunited to share their discoveries, if not their memories. For the world is occupied by an alien force who control humanity through post-hypnotic suggestion and no one can be trusted. Aided by President Nixon and Neil Armstrong’s foot, the Doctor must mount a revolution to drive out the enemy and rescue the missing little girl. No-one knows why they took her. Or why they have kidnapped Amy Pond..

Beyond the two-part story opening the season in the United States, an episode written by Neil Gaiman entitled The Doctor’s Wife is attracting considerable attention. Newsarama interviewed Gaiman:

“Getting to write a Doctor Who episode, for me anyway, was probably the nearest to being God that I have ever been or will ever get,” Gaiman told Newsarama. “I remember a similar feeling of megalomaniac power for about fifteen minutes in 1988 when I got to write my first Batman line. I got to bring on Batman and write dialogue for Batman and, I’m making Batman talk.  But making Batman talk does not actually compare to the feeling of glorious power you get the moment you type, ‘Interior TARDIS.’”

…Gaiman isn’t exactly sure why Doctor Who is making such a big splash in the U.S. finally, but he did venture a guess. “I think partly, it’s probably broken at the States because there isn’t anything like it and I think it probably took it five years to break in because nobody was really promoting it. It was something that has been driven by fans,” he said. “If I can say this without being taken outside and beaten up by the BBC, it was probably in many ways, driven by people downloading it and torrenting it. It was being driven by people falling in love with it one person at a time and then telling somebody else, ‘Look, you have to watch this. Here’s ‘Blink,’ watch this. Here’s ‘The Girl In The Fireplace,’ watch this. Here’s ‘Dalek,’ watch this,’ and I think that’s what drove it.”

“But I also think the lovely thing about having a new Doctor is, it gave everybody a nice place to jump on. You didn’t have to feel that you were in this five episode…you know, Russel’s [T. Davies] arc was this five year run and now we’re into the new one,” continued Gaiman. “But also, I think the worst thing about Doctor Who is also the best thing about Doctor Who, which is you’ve got 47 years of mythos and it’s unfortunate, but people think that they need to know or understand that 47 years of mythos rather than the simplicity of Doctor Who which is, there’s this wonderful man, in this blue box, that can travel through space and time and it can turn up anywhere and it will turn up somewhere where there’s a problem and he will sort it out.”

Gaiman didn’t reveal too much about the episode, providing this summary:

Although he was reluctant to give too many details, Gaiman also mentioned a few actors he was excited to write for in his episode, “The Doctor’s Wife,” and what we can expect. “It stars Suranne Jones playing a character named Idris who may turn out to be an old acquaintance of the Doctor’s with a new face. It co-stars Michael Sheen as a mysterious baddie called The House,” he revealed to Newsarama. “It begins on a junkyard planet out on the very edge of the universe and I thought it would be fun to start in a junkyard just because Doctor Who started in a junkyard, so this does.”

Thirteen minutes were cut from the final version (which hopefully will be included on the DVD) and Gaiman had to settle with less CGI than he initially wrote into the story:

The other thing Gaiman had to get used to, was writing for a show that doesn’t necessarily have the biggest budget in television. “There’s a lot of CGI. I remember handing in the first draft to them and having a dinner afterwards at Steven Moffat’s place where they said, ‘Look Neil, we love the first draft. It’s brilliant, it’s funny, it’s clever, it’s wonderful. Just so you know, each episode of Doctor Who has,’ I forget what the exact numbers were, I think they basically said 100 man-hours of CGI, ‘You have 640.’  So there was a level on which lots of things went away,” he said, “They still wound up essentially taking other episodes out around the back of the bike sheds, beating them up and taking their lunch money and giving it to me. All I know is the finished episode looks beautiful and it has, like I say, it has everything I would have wanted and it takes you places you’ve never been before.”

Interview with John Borrowman and Bill Pullman on Torchwood: Miracle Day at Cannes in the video above.

Posted in Science Fiction, Television. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

SciFi Weekend: Fringe & Other TV Shows; Scientology; Lisbeth Salander As Libertarian & Leftist Heroine; The Ultimate “Leftist” Novel

March 13, 2011 — Ron Chusid

This week’s episode of Fringe appeared to be a stand-alone story until late in the episode. I was surprised to find that it tied into the ongoing mythology of the show by having the results of Alan Ruck’s experiments, which never should have worked, become successful in making people lighter than air due to the laws of physics breaking down as a result of the rift between the universes.

The story also featured Walter obsessing about bringing William Bell back to live, along with getting high with Jorge Garcia of Lost, at Massive Dynamic. There was a lot of Peter and Olivia. Somehow seeing our Olivia smiling this much just didn’t look right. It looked more natural in Fauxlivia. The episode ended with another surprise as Anna Torv now has a  third charter to play–William Bell possessing the poor Olivia’s body. One can just imagine what that would do should Peter get Olivia into bed again. There’s no doubt that this will lead to the return of William Bell’s physical body with Leonard Nimoy confirming on Twitter that he has already come out of retirement.

BBC America has announced that the upcoming season of Doctor Who will premier April 23 at 9:00 p.m. There’s no official date from the BBC, but there are rumors that they are also airing the first episode on April 23 and the second of the two-parter on April 24. If true, hopefully BBC America will also air both parts the first week and not fall a week behind.

Among last week’s television shows, V appears to be ending the season with more enjoyable shows, despite the numerous plot holes which persist. The Event returned, but it remains questionable as to how long they can drag out this storyline. The Cape’s final unaired episode has been  posted on line. Terra Nova, a Steven Spielberg produced show about people escaping to the prehistoric past, has been moved back from May until next fall.

Michael Crowley has an article at Slate noting L. Ron Hubbard’s 100th birthday, noting “how truly strange Scientology is.” If we were going to have a science fiction writer devise a religion which has as many followers as Scientology, why couldn’t it be one more along the lines of the freer religions devised in novels by Robert A. Heinlein?

Benjamin Kerstein at Pajamas Media questions how a leftist such as Stieg Larsson managed “to create a libertarian parable for the ages” with Lisbeth Salander in his Millennium Trilogy:

Lisbeth Salander explodes like a grenade tossed into an ammunition dump. Ferociously individualist, incorruptible, disdainful, and suspicious of all forms of social organization, and dedicated to her own personal moral code, Salander often seems to have stepped into Larsson’s world from out of an Ayn Rand novel. She despises all institutions, whether they are business corporations, government agencies, or the Stockholm police. Rejecting all forms of ideology, she is dedicated only to her own individual sense of justice. Relentlessly cerebral, she trusts only what she can ascertain with her own mind and her own formidable talents. She considers Blomquist a naïve fool because of his belief that social conditions cause people to commit the horrible crimes he investigates. At one point, as Blomquist ponders the motivations of a brutal serial killer, Salander erupts, “He’s just a pig who hates women!” Salander believes there are no excuses, everyone is responsible for their own actions, including herself, and must answer for them accordingly.

In short, Salander is as close to an avenging angel libertarianism is ever likely to get, and her presence in the novels throws the books’ politics into a bizarre contradiction. Far from the left-wing bromide in favor of democratic socialism it appears to be, the Millennium trilogy, as Ian MacDougall has pointed out in the leftist journal n+1, often appears on second glance like a calculated and relentless evisceration of the Swedish welfare state. Indeed, not only is Salander a walking rebuke to the myths of Scandinavian socialism, but she  is usually portrayed by Larsson as being absolutely correct in her attitude toward it. “In this Sweden,” MacDougall writes:

The country’s well-polished façade belies a broken apparatus of government whose rusty flywheels are little more than the playthings of crooks. The doctors are crooked. The bureaucrats are crooked. The newspapermen are crooked. The industrialists and businessmen, laid bare by merciless transparency laws, are nevertheless crooked. The police and the prosecutors are crooked.

In Larsson’s world, it is only the individual — usually Salander — with their own personal sense of right and wrong and the courage to act on it, who can save the day.

It is, perhaps, telling that millions of readers around the world, whatever their political orientation, have become fans of the Millennium series and especially of Lisbeth Salander. Indeed, it appears that Steig Larsson, though he himself might have been horrified at the prospect, gave birth to one of the great literary ironies of our time: for reasons that will likely forever remain unknown, a Scandinavian leftist managed to create a libertarian parable for the ages.

I find this far less ironic than Kerstein, who sees far too much of the right wing stereotype of the left as opposed to the actual views of those on the left. The left actually contains people of a variety of view points, and many do not support the big-government stereotype which the right commonly uses. Many on us on the left are far closer to individualist anarchists at heart, opposing the right wing as the actual supporters of big government and authoritarianism.

While I don’t know terribly much about Stieg Larsson, from what I have read about him, Larsson’s “leftism” appeared to have concentrated on opposing the authoritarian threat from the far right. As sometimes happens, Larsson also appears to have bee to quick to see his enemy’s enemies as his friends, which has led to far too many people on the left to become overly sympathetic to aspects to the left which are better off avoided.

To see Lisbeth Salander as supporting libertarianism is overly simplistic (analogous to how libertarianism itself is an overly simplistic view of the world). Salander appeals to both libertarians and to those on the left who I referred to above as are far closer to individualist anarchists at heart. Such people on the left are attracted to such anarchism and disrespect for authority but also see the limitations to such a philosophy in the real world which libertarians do not.

Larrson both made Salander an appealing character on one level while also showing as the trilogy progressed how her attitudes were shaped by her troubled youth. Salander’s world view is appealing to part of us, but most people have grown up to understand the limitations in such a world view. Libertarians, along with Lisbeth Salander, have ideas and attitudes we can respect, but ultimately both libertarians and Salander are flawed people who have not grown up to understand the real world.

At Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen was asked to name the ultimate left wing novel. His answer is quite different from mine, showing the differences in views and emphasis on the left which I noted above. Cowen’s answer:

What jumps to mind is Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, but if you read the request carefully it does not qualify.  Here is a list of thirty famous left-wing novels, heavy on the mid- to late nineteenth century.  There is Bronte, Dickens, Hugo, Sinclair, Zola, Gorky, Jack London, and Edward Bellamy.  None of these books is as analytically or philosophically comprehensive as the novels of Ayn Rand.

I would say that the story per se is usually left-wing, in both good and bad ways.  It elevates the seen over the unseen, can easily portray a struggle for justice, focuses on the anecdote, and encourages us to judge social institutions by the intentions of the people who work in them, rather than looking at their deeper and longer-term outcomes.  Precisely because the story is itself so left-wing, there won’t be a definitive example of the left-wing novel.  Story-telling encourages context-dependent thinking, although not necessarily in an accurate manner.  One notable feature of Atlas Shrugged is how frequently the story-telling stops for a long speech or an extended dialogue, in order to explain some first principles to the reader.

Grapes of Wrath was an excellent work, and is one which I might expect from the branch of the left more concerned with economics. With my concerns more centered around opposing right wing encroachments on civil liberties, my answer would be quite different. Three books immediately came to mind, with only one book making the list in the link above–It Can’t Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis.

The other two which I immediately thought of were both by George Orwell: 1984 and Animal Farm. I’d pick 1984 as the answer to the question of picking the one ultimate book. Besides the messages of the book it remains even better known than Atlas Shrugged, and also stopped the story-telling for extended periods to make political points.

1984, while always an excellent choice for its opposition to totalitarianism, is even more significant today in light of the Orwellian distortions commonly used by the right wing. “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” One might almost think that Orwell was aware of the current American right wing in writing this.

To the  right wing freedom often means the “freedom” to impose their views upon others. Their support for the perpetual warfare state has clear parallels to Orwell’s work. Most disturbing of all is the manner in which the right wing supports Sarah Palin/Tea Party style ignorance as it opposes science, reason, and factual sources of information which do not follow the distortions they spread.

Posted in Libertarianism, Religion, Science Fiction, Television. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Bob Woodward Accuses Donald Rumsfeld of Distorting History on Iraq

March 1, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Bob Woodward has often been frustrating in recent years as he repeats the establishment line far too often for someone who once helped force a corrupt president from office. If he had investigated the Bush administration as vigorously as he investigated Richard Nixon, perhaps recent history might be different. The lies of Donald Rumsfeld in his new book are too much even for Woodward, who has a column at Foreign Policy exposing many of them. Before getting to the specifics, Woodward wrote:

Rumsfeld’s memoir is one big clean-up job, a brazen effort to shift blame to others — including President Bush — distort history, ignore the record or simply avoid discussing matters that cannot be airbrushed away. It is a travesty, and I think the rewrite job won’t wash.

The Iraq War is essential to the understanding of the Bush presidency and the Rumsfeld era at the Pentagon. In the book, Rumsfeld tries to push so much off on Bush. That is fair because Bush made the ultimate decisions. But the record shows that it was Rumsfeld stoking the Iraq fires — facts he has completely left out of his memoir.

What a shock–Rumsfeld lied. It looks like both Bush and Rumsfeld (along with Cheney) are responsible for what is one of the most vile acts imaginable by a government–going to war unnecessarily based upon lies. I still don’t understand why the Tea Party people weren’t out on the street protesting this one. (Oh yeah, its because they are a far right wing movement which has absolutely nothing to do with the ideals of the American Revolution.)

I am glad to see Woodward exposing several of Rumsfeld’s lies. It is a shame that his lies, along with those of Bush and Cheney, cannot be investigated more thoroughly by a war crimes tribunal.

Posted in George Bush, Iraq, Richard Nixon. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts «
»