the daily snivel
The rag-tag fleet of terror
Brad Reed writes a fantastic article in the American Prospect about the new cognitive dissonance facing conservatives who formerly embraced the new Battlestar Galactica series when they were able to interpret it as a metaphor for the war on terror: you have the innocent humans attacked by genocidal cylons that will stop at nothing to prosecute their religious crusade, even relying on suicide bombing to sow terror and discord through the fleet.
The problem is that, in this season (season 3), the humans have become the terrorists. Brad writes:
I think the main reason Battlestar Galactica has been such a huge success is that the characters behave in very flawed, often irrational and, frankly, human ways. There is a constant tension between conflicting goals, resulting in noble characters doing selfish and even reprehensible things -- or even in the "bad guys" being more than cartoonishly evil villains, being portrayed instead as fraught with internal discord and disagreement over what is right and what is necessary. Faced with a repressive occupation, what choice would humans seeking freedom have than to begin to resist, even violently if necessary? As Saul Tigh (former second-in-command aboard Galactica and present resistance leader) very aptly states in one episode, "I've sent men on suicide missions in two wars now, and let me tell you something. It don't make a godsdamn bit of difference whether they're riding in a Viper or walking out onto a parade ground. In the end they're just as dead. So, take your piety, and your moralizing, and your high-minded principles, and stick 'em somewhere safe until you're off the rock and sitting in your nice, cushy chair on Colonial One again. I've got a war to fight."
Violence is rarely justifiable, but there's an old adage about terrorists versus freedom fighters that is often forgotten. Now, I don't think killing civilians for political aims is ever legitimate, of course, but then I hold that as true whether you're a zealot strapping bombs to your chest or a president authorizing dropping them in an airstrike.
But the world isn't black and white, even fictional worlds, if they're going to be believable, and that's why I find myself on the edge of my seat every time I watch Galactica. You don't really know who the good guys are sometimes. You don't really know who is going to win.
On the other hand, "conservative blogger" Jon Swift (think Jonathan Swift and A Modest Proposal here) writes an excellent analysis of the Galactica conundrum from his sensible conservative point of view:
Be sure to watch the series yourself and make up your own minds.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 The problem is that, in this season (season 3), the humans have become the terrorists. Brad writes:
National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who writes regularly about Galactica's politics on NRO's group blog, The Corner, also picked up on parallels between the show and the war on terror. Goldberg took particular glee in attacking Galactica's anti-war movement, which he said consisted of "radical peaceniks" and "peace-terrorists" who "are clearly a collection of whack jobs, fifth columnists and idiots." Goldberg also praised several characters for trying to rig a presidential election. "I liked that the good guys wanted to steal the election and, it turns out, they were right to want to," wrote Goldberg. Stolen elections, evil robots, crazed hippies ... what more could a socially inept right-winger want from a show?
But alas, this love affair between Galactica and the right was not to last: in its third season, the show has morphed into a stinging allegorical critique of America's three-year occupation of Iraq. The trouble started at the end of the second season, when humanity briefly escaped the Cylons and settled down on the tiny planet of New Caprica. The Cylons soon returned and quickly conquered the defenseless humans. But instead of slaughtering everyone, the Cylons decided to take a more enlightened path by "benevolently occupying" the planet and imposing their preferred way of life by gunpoint. The humans were predictably not enthused about their allegedly altruistic rulers, and they immediately launched an insurgency against them using improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers. Needless to say, this did not go over very well in the Galacticon camp.
I think the main reason Battlestar Galactica has been such a huge success is that the characters behave in very flawed, often irrational and, frankly, human ways. There is a constant tension between conflicting goals, resulting in noble characters doing selfish and even reprehensible things -- or even in the "bad guys" being more than cartoonishly evil villains, being portrayed instead as fraught with internal discord and disagreement over what is right and what is necessary. Faced with a repressive occupation, what choice would humans seeking freedom have than to begin to resist, even violently if necessary? As Saul Tigh (former second-in-command aboard Galactica and present resistance leader) very aptly states in one episode, "I've sent men on suicide missions in two wars now, and let me tell you something. It don't make a godsdamn bit of difference whether they're riding in a Viper or walking out onto a parade ground. In the end they're just as dead. So, take your piety, and your moralizing, and your high-minded principles, and stick 'em somewhere safe until you're off the rock and sitting in your nice, cushy chair on Colonial One again. I've got a war to fight."
Violence is rarely justifiable, but there's an old adage about terrorists versus freedom fighters that is often forgotten. Now, I don't think killing civilians for political aims is ever legitimate, of course, but then I hold that as true whether you're a zealot strapping bombs to your chest or a president authorizing dropping them in an airstrike.
But the world isn't black and white, even fictional worlds, if they're going to be believable, and that's why I find myself on the edge of my seat every time I watch Galactica. You don't really know who the good guys are sometimes. You don't really know who is going to win.
On the other hand, "conservative blogger" Jon Swift (think Jonathan Swift and A Modest Proposal here) writes an excellent analysis of the Galactica conundrum from his sensible conservative point of view:
The Sci Fi Channel show is a moving and haunting allegory about why we should stay the course in Iraq. The heroes are a deeply religious race, called the Cylons, who struggle to bring democratic ideals and Christian values to a planet called New Caprica (Iraq, of course) in the face of an increasingly violent insurgency. In a clever and ironic twist the Christian Cylons (Americans) are actually very human-like machines, while the villainous "humans" on New Caprica (al Qaeda) are brutal terrorists who follow a primitive polytheistic religion and behave like animals.
...
The terrorists are led by an unscrupulous man prone to violent rages named Admiral Adama (Edward James Olmos), who not only has a name that is clearly meant to evoke Osama Bin Laden, he also bears something of a resemblance to Saddam Hussein. He even has a lazy, playboy son like Saddam had. The insurgency is headed up by the unhinged Col. Saul Tigh (Michael Hogan), who is locked up in a Guantanamo-like prison at the beginning of the episode recovering from some Cylon alternate interrogation procedures (apparently New Caprica is free of nit-picking Geneva Conventions).
As soon as Col. Tigh is free he goes right back to lead the insurgents and decides to up the ante by launching a depraved suicide bombing campaign. The first attack takes out a group of idealistic young police recruits, which, of course, directly parallels terrorist attacks against Iraqi security forces taking place today. If I have any criticism of the show it's that the New Capricans are so unsympathetic and vile in contrast to the peace-loving Cylons, who are clearly just trying to help them, that at times it seems like a simplistic battle between good (the Cylons) and evil (the New Capricans). A few more shades of gray might make the show more interesting.
Be sure to watch the series yourself and make up your own minds.
CNN to Zune: Smell ya later.
Via Daring Fireball, a video segment from a CNN review of Microsoft's new "iPod-killer" the Zune, released today. Watch it to the end. You could not see three people more underwhelmed. I especially liked when one of the newscasters pulled out her tiny, brand new iPod Shuffle and everyone oohed and ahhed over it instead.
Catch the video here.
Catch the video here.
Kinda says it all
Watching a big fat hockey fan in a Senators jersey get off a bus from the Palladium Corel Centre Scotiabank Place, lurch a couple of feet, and puke three times all over a bench while his girlfriend looked on.
...
Hockey, municipal elections, boyfriends.
Ottawa, what are you doing to yourself?
Monday, November 13, 2006 ...
Hockey, municipal elections, boyfriends.
Ottawa, what are you doing to yourself?
Cats and naked people...
The two kinds of pictures without which the internet would not exist.
It's been a while since I'd done any cat blogging, and since Mel borrowed her sister's digital camera and took some great shot of the kitties, I thought I would share the wealth.
This fella right here is George, who you already know. Like many cats, George enjoys sleeping about 18 hours a day and exhibits no sympathy when you're trying to get your measly six or seven hours if it comes between him and his breakfast. George was caught in a very typically sleepy moment, awakened from his nap by the unholy whirring of a digital camera starting up and extending its lens and wearily looking up at the world just in time to catch the blinding flash.
On the bright side, my special little guy is feeling a whole lot better since his big expensive trip to the vet this summer, and his allergies have almost completely subsided. His tummy is a fuzzy pleasure to touch now, rather than that sort of damp, bald, icky red disaster it cost $800 to remedy. But one look at that face and it all comes back why he's worth every penny.
Egads, you say to yourself. Now there are two cats?
Yessir. This big boy is named Chopin. He's kind of a hard luck case, though you wouldn't know it to look at him. Chopin is a Maine Coon, which for the uninitiated is essentially an extremely furry behemoth about twice the length and weight of most other cats. He's a ward of the household due to the fact that his owner of twelve years moved out West with her boyfriend, and that boyfriend -- who is totally not a dick -- would not let Chopin accompany them. I mean, while only an utter cock would not let someone bring their beloved, elderly sweetie pop of a cat with them to a new home, I'm sure there are plenty of totally believable he's-really-not-a-dick reasons why the cat is here and not there.
But all that said, I feel very lucky to have him as our guest. Chopin is a beautiful, friendly, cuddly boy with a great disposition. Despite the fact that he spent his first few days in the house hiding under the guest bed in the office and hissing, he quickly came to accept his new home and now seems as happy as he's ever been. He and George had no problems at all getting to know one another -- after two weeks, we could hardly recognize Chopin as the spitting creature that once shunned all love and attention. Now, he purrs constantly -- even while he eats -- and he and George love play-fighting and curling up for naps together in the office while the humans putter and work. The only vestige of his crustier side is the fact that he walks away grumbling when he doesn't get his way like an old curmudgeon -- a trait after my own heart.
Yep, so I've definitely got the cat thing going for me.
But what about the naked people?
Friday, November 03, 2006 It's been a while since I'd done any cat blogging, and since Mel borrowed her sister's digital camera and took some great shot of the kitties, I thought I would share the wealth.
This fella right here is George, who you already know. Like many cats, George enjoys sleeping about 18 hours a day and exhibits no sympathy when you're trying to get your measly six or seven hours if it comes between him and his breakfast. George was caught in a very typically sleepy moment, awakened from his nap by the unholy whirring of a digital camera starting up and extending its lens and wearily looking up at the world just in time to catch the blinding flash.
On the bright side, my special little guy is feeling a whole lot better since his big expensive trip to the vet this summer, and his allergies have almost completely subsided. His tummy is a fuzzy pleasure to touch now, rather than that sort of damp, bald, icky red disaster it cost $800 to remedy. But one look at that face and it all comes back why he's worth every penny.
Egads, you say to yourself. Now there are two cats?
Yessir. This big boy is named Chopin. He's kind of a hard luck case, though you wouldn't know it to look at him. Chopin is a Maine Coon, which for the uninitiated is essentially an extremely furry behemoth about twice the length and weight of most other cats. He's a ward of the household due to the fact that his owner of twelve years moved out West with her boyfriend, and that boyfriend -- who is totally not a dick -- would not let Chopin accompany them. I mean, while only an utter cock would not let someone bring their beloved, elderly sweetie pop of a cat with them to a new home, I'm sure there are plenty of totally believable he's-really-not-a-dick reasons why the cat is here and not there.
But all that said, I feel very lucky to have him as our guest. Chopin is a beautiful, friendly, cuddly boy with a great disposition. Despite the fact that he spent his first few days in the house hiding under the guest bed in the office and hissing, he quickly came to accept his new home and now seems as happy as he's ever been. He and George had no problems at all getting to know one another -- after two weeks, we could hardly recognize Chopin as the spitting creature that once shunned all love and attention. Now, he purrs constantly -- even while he eats -- and he and George love play-fighting and curling up for naps together in the office while the humans putter and work. The only vestige of his crustier side is the fact that he walks away grumbling when he doesn't get his way like an old curmudgeon -- a trait after my own heart.
Yep, so I've definitely got the cat thing going for me.
But what about the naked people?
A Fishful of Dollars
Just as Futurama famously predicted, soon the day will come when mega-tycoons will be battling with their fortunes over the last precious can of anchovies on earth.
That's because a new study confirms that we're overfishing and polluting so spectacularly that in 40 years every seafood species will have collapsed below any commercially viable level. Here in Canada, the collapse of the East Coast Northwest Atlantic cod fishery and the subsequent moratorium on commercial fishing threw thousands of people out of work, and provided a vivid warning of what could happen to future fish stocks around the world if the outright plunder of the oceans continued.
I confess that, even if I ate meat, I would never eat fish. I cannot stand the fruits de mer in any form. There seems to be a missing gene in my family, since none of my siblings like it either. I've always found lobster-fests at pubs and restaurants to be a sickening display of visceral consumption as carapaces are cracked open and the flesh sucked out of bottom-feeding insects that not long ago even the poorest fisherman would be ashamed to eat in public. But it seems to me that the time to both cut back on fish consumption, and demand better management from our governments, is now. The oceans are a resource that belong to everyone, but ruthless overfishing and environmental destruction will result in untold human starvation starvation and the potential loss of vast realms of biodiversity as link after link in the aquatic food chain vanishes. We simply have no other choice.
So don't order the sea bass, you bastards.
UPDATE:
Fake Steve Jobs agrees with me.
Thursday, November 02, 2006 That's because a new study confirms that we're overfishing and polluting so spectacularly that in 40 years every seafood species will have collapsed below any commercially viable level. Here in Canada, the collapse of the East Coast Northwest Atlantic cod fishery and the subsequent moratorium on commercial fishing threw thousands of people out of work, and provided a vivid warning of what could happen to future fish stocks around the world if the outright plunder of the oceans continued.
I confess that, even if I ate meat, I would never eat fish. I cannot stand the fruits de mer in any form. There seems to be a missing gene in my family, since none of my siblings like it either. I've always found lobster-fests at pubs and restaurants to be a sickening display of visceral consumption as carapaces are cracked open and the flesh sucked out of bottom-feeding insects that not long ago even the poorest fisherman would be ashamed to eat in public. But it seems to me that the time to both cut back on fish consumption, and demand better management from our governments, is now. The oceans are a resource that belong to everyone, but ruthless overfishing and environmental destruction will result in untold human starvation starvation and the potential loss of vast realms of biodiversity as link after link in the aquatic food chain vanishes. We simply have no other choice.
So don't order the sea bass, you bastards.
UPDATE:
Fake Steve Jobs agrees with me.
Quality Assurance
Having a conversation last night with the ever lovely and enchanting Celeste, I was informed that both she and a friend of hers have problems loading this blog on their computers. Determined to get to the bottom of the problem, I've been testing the page on different web browsers and have come up empty-handed. So if anyone (including you, Celeste, if you read this) has any difficulty loading this page, whether in terms of layout or functionality (including the links on the right column), please let me know the following:
So far, I've checked the site out on the following browsers and found no problems:
Always at screen resolutions of 1024 x 768 or better. I'll keep digging at the problem in the CSS layout as I learn more.
- Your operating system
- Your current browser and version
- Your screen resolution
- The problem encountered
So far, I've checked the site out on the following browsers and found no problems:
- Internet Explorer 6.x (Windows 98 & XP)
- Apple Safari 1.2.x (Mac OS X 10.3.9)
- Internet Explorer 5 for Mac (Mac OS X 10.3.9)
- Mozilla Firefox Version 2.0 (Windows 98 & XP)
- Netscape Navigator 7.0 (Windows XP)
Always at screen resolutions of 1024 x 768 or better. I'll keep digging at the problem in the CSS layout as I learn more.
