Eliminating someone who sees and won't forget

Trying to unwind before bed last night called up Netflix and noticed “New Episodes” of Doctor Who. Woohoo! It was the episode about the “Silents” who have been among us for thousands of years but no human can ever remember them. That’s one of their powers.

This is a theme in Doctor Who episodes. There’s some alien or group of aliens up to no good – maybe cannibalize human beings to make themselves immortal – and nobody realizes it. Although often there is a point in the episode when suddenly everyone realizes what’s going on. In fact in many episodes it’s important to the alien/s that no one knows that they’re even there let alone knows what they are doing.

I think the last 3 weeks may have opened my eyes. There is something going on. I guess you could call it a conspiracy. And it’s been going on for a long time. I’ve been vaguely and occasionally aware of it. Again like Doctor Who. “Wait – what was that? Did I see something? Must be my imagination. There’s no aliens who want to suck our brains and enslave us. How silly!” But now I’m pretty sure. Because the ones in on the conspiracy are increasingly out of the shadows and in the open. Why? Because we have reached a point where victory is at hand because no one can stop them. Or because the population is waking up to what’s going on and there’s a real danger they can rise up and resist them and turn the tide. Or both.

What is this conspiracy? And who is on it? And what are they like – the conspirators and their knowing/unknowing agents?

See this is part of why I haven’t really recognized what’s going on. I see one movement over here. A group of people over there. And yet another push somewhere else toward some goal. And there doesn’t appear to be any clear connection between them. And maybe there isn’t. These different people and groups and movements might not be directly related. But I am beginning to recognize that they are connected.

Wright’s First Principle of Epistemology = In any given set of data, the anomalous elements contain the key to understanding the whole.

(In other words, it’s those things that don’t make sense and seem unrelated – they are the key to understanding what’s going on.)

Right now my best effort to describe the conspiracy is the effort to create a socialist utopia. A heaven on earth. Without God.

Let’s rewind a little shall we?

Anomalous element 1 = a podcast by Clark Carlton who is a professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech University on “Orthodoxy and Progressive Politics”. There’s a lot to summarize but he argues that “progressivism” (around 2:15) is:

The doctrine that humanity is moving ever onward toward some future goal… Ultimately the goal toward which progressivism is moving is equalitarianism… Now this goal of near universal human equality has considerable public policy implications since human beings are quite obviously not equal. This is where the progressive state comes in. Its overriding function is to help make people equal… Even nature herself can be overcome with the right amount of effort and technology.

I define the progressive this way. The progressive believes as a matter of doctrine that humanity is evolving culturally as well as physically. That this progress is an inherent good.    And that the telltale markers of human progress signify our liberation from natural distinctions and limitations. And that given the inherent goodness of progress man is fully justified in using political power to eradicate any and all obstacles blocking his path to utopia.

I think those two paragraphs just might explain the vast majority of what we see happening in the social, cultural, and especially political arenas.

Let me try to summarize the above into a few succinct points:

1. Humanity is progressing toward a goal.
2. That goal is equalitarianism. This means in part no differences or distinctions between human beings – including between male and female.
3. The state will help achieve this goal.
4. Nothing – and I cannot emphasize this point enough – absolutely nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of this goal.

What opened my eyes? What made me connect that shadow with this fleeting image with that strange breeze with this faint sound?

The Health and Human Services mandate to require all businesses and organizations to provide medical insurance plans that include free contraception including abortifacients. And that this applies to religious institutions and organizations for whom paying for contraception especially abortifacients is a violation of their conscience and convictions.

There is nothing else I can think of that the Obama administration has said or done that so openly proclaims what the ultimate goal is. Because this isn’t really about birth control. Birth control just happens to be a key lynch pin in advancing the greater agenda.

More on this anon. I have work to do. And teenagers to pick up from school.

Okay – so some of us think that charge of raaaaacism has been abused in order to silence or intimidate political opponents.

That does not mean it doesn’t exist.

Last night “Last Comic Standing”. I understand the humor is not always going to be Safe for Baptists(tm). And Rachel Feinstein was not using the N-word. But I thought the way she portrayed African-Americans crossed the line. I don’t think she is necessarily a racist but rather is trying to be funny. But I was offended. And a little surprised some of the other people on the show did not have looks of horror on their faces after she finished.

Maybe I completely misjudge her material. It begins around 17:55.

“Glee” is the only television show my entirely family enjoys watching together. We had been looking forward to the season opener on Monday. There was a “Sarah Palin is stupid” joke. My family did not care about that but thought the episode depressing. After gently disagreeing with conservative criticism of the show I did send a note to Fox saying “that was strike one”.

Gay Patriot makes the interesting comment that they feel more comfortable being gay at a Tea Party gathering than being conservative at a gay community gathering.

In another post they ask:

So, why, I wonder, can’t White House officials, Democratic Congressman and Senators and left-of-center opinion-makers show the same respect for the Tea Party movement? To be sure, many do, but they appear drowned out by a narrow-minded multitude.*

We’ve got reports of Democratic officials in one state bending over backwards to deploy Tea Party Crashers.*   And we’ve got one guy boasting of his efforts to do the same.  Should they succeed, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that some in the MSM will report the left-wingers’ masquerade as genuine tea party hatred.** (emphasis added)

*What was that about defining by extremes?

**You find that difficult to believe? Let me tell you a story.

For 3 years was president of the “pro-life” group Cornell Coalition for Life. There was no “pro-choice” group until 1988. They kicked off with a big Rally for Choice on the arts quad with speakers and a band. Fair enough. People should be free to advocate for what they think is just and against what they think is unjust.

I organized a counter-march. 20 against 200. Just carry “pro-life” signs and walk quietly around the quad. We ran into another group carrying signs against abortion and women who seek abortions. The signs were inflammatory and offensive. I recognized some of these people as active in far left causes. One brave woman from our group confronted them. They said they were taking a stand for women’s reproductive freedom. Oh.

Later that year we put up fliers for a “pro-life” presentation. The next day they were gone and replaced by fake fliers that were similar in design. “Life” was replaced by “Obey”. Nazi salutes were added.

Just as the presentation began these fake “pro-life” activists burst into the room singing patriotic songs and carrying American flags. Announced they were from the Coalition for Life. I said no you’re not. They made some offensive and inflammatory remarks against abortion and finally left.

In my 1989 Cornell yearbook is a picture of the Rally for Choice. There is a picture of these fake “pro-life” activists with their offensive signs. Beneath the picture is a caption. “Members of the Coalition for Life stage protest”.

Update 04/20/2010: Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney spent time at a Tea Party rally and found that even though he disagrees with Tea Party activists on 95% of the issues they are not angry racist violent people.

Finally something the entire Wright family enjoys.

Yes I admit it. I am addicted to “Glee”.

First heard on the radio about this weird quirky show about a show choir at a fictional high school in Ohio. Did not grab my attention. Then my wife and daughters rented first season DVD of “Gee” from Blockbusters. Watched an episode with them. Then two. Three. And four.

I was hooked.

It is quite funny. Despite the painful awkward situations. Overbearing wife tries to keep her husband’s attention by faking pregnancy. Cheerleader and active member of the “Abstinence Club” is pregnant. Tells her boyfriend he is the father. Which he isn’t. Choir director and Spanish teacher with overbearing wife attracted to guidance counselor. Coach of national championship winning cheerleading squad resents school resources going to show choir and sets out to undermine and destroy it by any means necessary. And so on and so on.

To a large extent the show is about misfits. Everyone is different. But some of us are considered hip and cool (cheerleaders and football players) while others are at the bottom of the social totem pole. But they find their place in show choir. Including a few cheerleaders and football players. In show choir the misfits rejects and outcasts along with the cool kids are accepted for who they are.

But even within show choir there are still misfits. The boy in the wheelchair. The African-American girl. Sure enough Mr Schuster finds ways to include and celebrate them. An entire wheelchair number. More “chocolate” numbers. There is one deeply moving scene when the show choir from the school for the deaf comes by for a scrimmage. At first the hearing students squirm with discomfort. But soon they walk up and stand next to these deaf students to sing and sign with them.

The writers may not have this in mind but is that not what the kingdom of God is all about?

After this I looked, and there was a multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages [including sign language? and all different abilities?], standing before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands. They cried out in a loud voice, saying,

“Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

One small thing I have had difficulty is the student who insists he’s not gay but finally comes out. Not that he is gay. But man is he flamboyant and effeminate. He can even sing an F whatever that means. Surely there are plenty of gay men who wear flannel and jeans and sneakers rather than angora sweaters with “sensible” shoes.

But then that would defeat the whole purpose of his presence in the show. The issue is not that he is gay. The issue is that he is different. A misfit. But he finds his place in show choir. For dramatic reasons he has to be flaming gay and dress ten times above his mechanic dad’s income. So his character does make sense.

But I think our whole family enjoys the show because the visual and performing arts run strong in the Wright family.

Mom’s side:

• Mom did music and art and got her degree in art and art history
• Aunt did art and won a national competition
• Uncle did music and his teachers wanted him to go to music school but he wanted to be an engineer
• Other uncle – well okay not everyone got the genes but two of his kids are artists

Dad’s side:

• Dad did acting and music and played in a band for years
• His dad sang and played guitar and called dances
• Aunt – no idea

My immediate family:

• Brother did drama and music and still plays with local bands
• Sister did music drama and dance and majored in dance and teaches dance and is an increasingly well known choreographer and producer in the Twin Cities
• Other sister did music drama singing and dance and majored in dance but is working on becoming a zoologist
• I did music drama and art and my teacher wanted me to go to art school

My own family:

• Wife studied dance for years
• Both daughters went to McKinley Middle Magnet School for the Visual and Performing Arts
• First daughter does dance and singing but now is in talented art program
• Second daughter does dance singing and drama but now is in talented drama program

So while we enjoy the show as a whole what really moves us is the numbers. When the kids break into dance and song.

My wife and I watched “Stargate SG-1″ religiously.

Religiously?!?

I sorta kinda got into “Stargate Atlantis” after a while.

Now we have “Stargate Universe”. Great concept. And some friends said to check it out it’s pretty good.

This weekend I watched all the episodes of “Stargate Universe” available online.

Sorry but I was disappointed. It has some good points. Concept. Special effects. Creative story devices. Some of the characters are interesting. But the end result is dreary depressing and most importantly boring. Found that after the first 10 minutes or so I would be looking at something else while the episode continued to play. Part of what made “Stargate SG-1″ work so well was the moments of humor. Oh sure plenty of drama and action anger and sadness. But even the most miserable “oh man we are so gonna die horribly at the hands of the Goa’uld” episodes had some humor to lighten the emotional load. “Stargate Universe” so far as I can tell does not. And no Eli the uber-geek does not quite cut it.

Although I have to admit now that Rush has been marooned on a desert planet…

Sorry. As loyal as I am to the “Stargate” brand just cannot stay with this one.

This will be a short post.

The script for “V” was written during the Bush administration.

So those who think it is about the Obama administration are mistaken. That includes those who think “yeah! sock it to them!” and those who think “what is this paranoid right-wing extremist nonsense?” And there have been many of both.

That does not mean it might not apply. I think it applies rather well.

My wife and I watched it Saturday evening on the computer and it was excellent. Tense. Disturbing. Creepy.

I thought it interesting to note there were two actors who had been in the short lived but excellent science-fiction series “Firefly” – although by the end of the pilot one of them was thoroughly dead. Nice to have you in town.

We look forward to more.

(I have been wanting to write this for the last few months but have not sat down and taken the time.)

There is a polite debate among those of a more conservative political and/or religious persuasion.

Let me first establish the context for this debate. The premise? assumption? conviction? that popular culture is dominated by voices hostile to those of a more conservative persuasion. Or to put it another way by voices of a more liberal (using that term loosely) political and/or religious persuasion.

By popular culture I mean the popular music industry or television or movies or even the news. What point of view dominates? The point of view that favors the state/collectivism over individual responsibility/liberty. That prefers a “believe what you want (sort of) and do what you want (sort of)” approach to religion and morality. (The “sort of” alludes to that curious tension within liberalism. Believe what you want except these things and do what you want except these things. Frankly liberalism ultimately is much more restrictive.)

And what point of view is consistently attacked? With regard to religion the point of view that some religious convictions are more true/valid/correct than others. This includes traditional/orthodox/evangelical Christianity. With regard to politics the point of view that favors individual responsibility/liberty over the state/collectivism. (And one must concede this reflects a corresponding tension within conservatism. Government should be as small as possible but must prohibit those behaviors and promote these behaviors. But I submit that in general conservatism is much less restrictive.)

(Of course there is a problem with the above schema. Politics and religion are not so one dimensional as “liberal versus conservative”. At the very least there are two dimensions – The Political Compass offers “left versus right” but also “authoritarian versus libertarian”. Some “liberals” are libertarians and therefore against statism/collectivism. Some “conservatives” are authoritarian and therefore have no problems with using the power of the state to enforce their views on personal morality.

I suggest that the dominant ideology one finds in popular culture is generally more left than right and more authoritarian than libertarian. With regard to religion either atheist/agnostic or “pretty much all religions are equal except those who do not think they are equal”.)

Let me give a few brief examples of how this plays out:

• America is bad and the rest of the world is good
• Democratic party very good and Republican party very bad
• George Bush very bad and Barack Obama unqualifiedly good
• Elective abortion is necessary or even good
• Same-sex relations are morally and/or socially neutral
• Free market capitalism is bad – especially small businesses
• Government control of economic activity is good
• White people are bad and other ethnicities are good
• The American military is bad
• Conservative/traditional/orthodox/evangelical Christianity is bad and other forms of religion are good
• Wealth and property should be redistributed from those who have to those who do not have
• Equality of outcomes is better than equality of opportunity
• Good intentions are more important than good results
• Human is bad and non-human is good
• Sexual fidelity within marriage is not important

(I know the above items may appear simplistic. I am trying to be succinct. Oh and I do not necessarily agree with the “conservative” position on all of the above.)

I submit that one can find one or more of these themes in nearly every song every television show every movie every newspaper article every news program every play every art exhibition/performance. And 2008 was a significant watershed year in which popular culture/Mainstream Media more or less declared openly what they support and what they oppose and frankly do not care.

So how do we (those of the more conservative political and/or religious persuasion) respond?

Some believe that no matter how biased or hostile the media/cultural outlet – we must engage. So if Jon Stewart invites you onto “The Daily Show” and you know full well he is going to do everything in his power to hammer and humiliate you – you still go and do your best. If “Saturday Night Live” has been doing everything in their power to mock misrepresent and satirize you and then invite you onto the show – you agree to appear.

(By the way – I remember when Terri Gross interviewed a “Saturday Night Live” writer about this on “Fresh Air”. The writer threw Gross visibly off stride when he said that conservative/Republicans are usually much more pleasant and cooperative.)

You get the idea.

Andrew Breitbart made this case strongly after he appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher”. Was it ugly – from Maher and from the audience and some of the other guests? Sure. But Breitbart did his best. He argued for engagement/participation on these grounds:

• we often gain the admiration/respect of people who disagree with our politics (assuming we present ourselves and our views with intelligence and grace)
• we “plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the groupthink liberals in our dumbed-down and activist media culture” and by extension
• we might actually get someone to (re)consider their views

He argued against withdrawal on these grounds:

• we “[cede] the popular culture debate to the other side”
• we “[allow] them to define us into a very distorted and ugly caricature”

Read the whole thing at the Washington Times. You do not have to register.

Without denying that Breitbart makes a compelling case I favor the opposite approach.

They are the enemy (or “opposition” to be more polite). Starve them.

Do not watch their shows. Do not buy their songs. Do not pay to see their movies. Do not purchase their magazines and newspapers. Do not attend their performances. Do not appear on their shows. Do not provide any information or interviews to their magazines and newspapers. Do not support or cooperate with them in any way shape or form.

I recall an article on a conservative website that warned against such wholesale boycott tactics. (Unfortunately I cannot remember and therefore link to it.) Do we really want to punish everyone for their political and religious views? A fair question.

But I am not talking about boycotting a grocery store because the manager is an Episcopalian or voted for Barack Obama.

I am talking about those who consistently and very publicly use their power/influence/platform to:

• promote a liberal-statist ideology – and more importantly to
• mock denigrate insult and ridicule the convictions and values of a significant plurality if not majority of the people

If a particular Hollywood actor is liberal – so what? But if said actor tells sixty percent of Americans that they are “narrow minded bigots” during an Oscar acceptance speech – that is rather different.

One key reason I resist the approach Breitbart advocates is I am concerned that any engagement or participation reinforces the status and credibility of that particular outlet. If Sarah Palin agrees to that interview with Katie Couric then guess what? People watch that interview. Ratings go up. Couric reinforces her image as a respectable “journalist”.

Another reason is that there is too much opportunity for the host/outlet to “stack the deck”. Jon Stewart talks with Jim Cramer for about half an hour – and Cramer makes several excellent points – but only the five minutes where Cramer looks weak and apologetic make it past the editing process and into the broadcast. Charles Gibson asks Sarah Palin an absurd question about the “Bush Doctrine” (which one? there are at least three) and there is nothing Palin can do except look silly. (That might not be the best example.) You get the idea. When they control the end result to such an extent that no matter how well you present yourself and your views – they can make you look as foolish as they wish.

Perhaps this is why Breitbart agreed to appear on “Real Time with Bill Maher”. If that show is broadcast more or less as is with less opportunity for you to be misrepresented through selective editing. But should one agree to appear on “The Daily Show” when Jon Stewart controls pretty much the whole thing?

One last option.

To create an alternative.

Andy Crouch in his book Creating Culture and during his presentation at Catalyst 2008 said that Christians historically have responded to our surrounding culture in different ways:

• copy culture
• critique culture
• condemn culture

But this is to misunderstand culture as well as our creational vocation as culture makers (particularly as one reads in the opening chapters of Genesis – this may be one of his book’s great unexpected contributions). Instead of complaining about evil nasty immoral anti-Christian liberal “Star Trek: Voyager-loving” whatevah culture – we should be creating culture.

Write books. Plays. Movies. Television shows. Paint. Sculpt. Draw. Compose. Perform. Invent. Organize. And so on. Create.

Andrew Klavan has published a significant piece entitled “Toward a New American Culture”. He offers the usual (and correct) conservative critique of current popular culture and mainstream media. And then addresses the question “so now what?”

So all right, now we know. The media are the enemies of the people and they are protecting the culture for the proponents of the state. And now that we do know, it’s time for us to fight back. By us, I mean artists, journalists, thinkers, foundations, investors—anyone who tells stories, makes music or pictures or reacts to them with criticism, ideas, money and praise.

We need to build a New American Culture, and turn our backs on the culture of the state. We need to stop according respect or credence to reviews and awards that are used as social engineering tools to force the culture into anti-American state worship. We need to build an infra-structure of funding, review attention and awards to give praise, purpose and prestige to those artists who stand outside the MSM’s climate of opinion.

Read the whole thing here at Pajamas Media. You do not have to register.

Now this is not entirely the same as what I think Crouch proposes. (Andy Crouch by the way is more politically liberal than I am. He was the only person to make a pro-Obama remark at Catalyst 2008. Which is fine and if anything to his credit given the audience.) Klavan seems to be saying “in a sense we do withdraw from current popular culture and mainstream media (?) – but in order to create our own (parallel/competing) structures”:

We need to build a New American Culture, and turn our backs on the culture of the state. We need to stop according respect or credence to reviews and awards that are used as social engineering tools to force the culture into anti-American state worship. We need to build an infra-structure of funding, review attention and awards to give praise, purpose and prestige to those artists who stand outside the MSM’s climate of opinion. …

If artists guided by this principle begin to create, if reviewers guided by it write reviews, if foundations give us grants and awards, if investors give us the funding we need, then the cultural infra-structure of the left will collapse of the rot and corruption of its bad ideas. We will take back the culture and if we take back the culture, we will take back the country too.

I could be wrong but Klavan seems to advocate a hybrid between Crouch’s “create culture” and my own(?) “starve bad culture”. There is no question in my mind that Andy Crouch is correct. At the very least we who are not happy with the surrounding popular culture (and mainstream media) must create our own. What is less clear to me is whether we should agree to appear on “Real Time with Bill Maher” or not.

What do you think?

I get home around 10:30 p.m. on Friday nights because of English Conversation. Watch “Clone Wars” then “Battlestar Galactica” which I had recorded. Then I flip channels for a few minutes to see if anything interesting is on as midnight approaches.

Hmm. “Saturday Night Live” rerun. Steve Carrell hosting. Not bad. Give that a whirl.

One of the sketches features ah yes another (now former then current) President Bush impersonation. It is clear by this point the original episode was broadcast shortly after Hurricane Katrina. President Bush appears at a White House news conference and attempts to explain and defend his response (or lack thereof) to the devastation in the Gulf. Fair enough.

He asks for questions. One reporter stands and notes that the president has asked Congress to approve $400 billion both for reconstruction efforts and for the continued war in Iraq. He then asks (although I cannot recall the exact wording):

“How are you going to pay for that? Where is that $400 billion going to come from?”

The audience laughs. President Bush squirms and rambles something like “the money is going to come from… wherever it is that money comes from, that’s a stupid question”. And we all laugh.

Already you see the irony. A few years ago comedians and comedy shows picked on then President Bush for wanting the federal government to spend $400 billion without any clear answer for where that would come from or how to pay for it. Silly president. You can’t spend what you don’t have.

Fast forward to February 2009.

I am unaware of any sketches or comedy sets where someone picks on President Obama and/or the Pelosi-Reid Congress for wanting to spend at least $800 billion… and I am unaware if anyone is even asking “how will we pay for this? where will that money come from?” let alone whether our political leaders have a coherent answer.

It continues to fascinate me how the rules have apparently changed.

My goodness!

My head is still spinning. Hm – how many bombshells did they drop in the episode “Sometimes a Great Notion” of “Battlestar Galactica” last Friday evening?

*SPOILER ALERT!
READ NO FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED!
SPOILER ALERT!*

• We now realize what did not happen to Kara Thrace aka Starbuck when she supposedly died disappeared for two months then suddenly showed up again. (Which still leaves a huge mystery. So what exactly happened when her fighter apparently imploded in the depths of a gas giant?)
• We now know something mind-shatteringly significant about the Thirteenth Tribe that journeyed to Earth.
• Which in turn tells us something about the remaining five (not four! see below) Cylon models and where they come from.
• We now know who the fifth “unknown” Cylon is. (And we thought she was dead.)
• Lt Dualla – gut wrenching.