Avatar, Enough Said

Lots of conservatives hate Avatar. It only reflects poorly on them.

My thoughts (taken from a written conversation):

I have seen it and it was an awesome time. The movie really is a spectacle for the eye. The 3d adds so much depth to just about any scene and made the actions scenes exhilarating. When I left I was so bummed out to walk into drab dreary grey slush. You really need to go see it 3d in theatres. Prob the 2nd best action film only to Dark Knight.

It does have a lot of environmentalism, feminism, etc and it's along those lines that people will be divided. The movie brings in a lot of issues and people should wonder why they are so offended by them. If they are then they should just sit through the bucolic crap of any Marvel blockbuster or R rated shootem up. Issues though are what make great cinema. It's true conflict. Even Dark Knight was a commentary on terrorism. See the Slate review. Tthe Dark Knight's critique was based in this world with a lunatic villain who we were never supposed to side with. In Avatar, the villain is us.

Avatar's issues are all issues we haven't dealt with. It focuses on natural resource and native cultural abuses that have been part of civilization for forever. If Americans think fair play and giving a hand are part of what it means to be an American than there is a conflict of interest in how we, today, and how the human characters in the movie conduct themselves. We go into countries, mostly with a smile and a knife behind our back, or if they doesn't work, with tanks and cruise missiles, and setup agreements or just plain take what we want. Avatar parallels what happened to the Sioux in the Black Hills, the Incas in the Andes, and is happening now to the Iraqis. These are big time open sores that make for great cinema and hurt as well.

I would question why they hate it. Cinema wise it's not the most unique script. There are plenty of movies that say the same thing but that's the same in any genre. Do you not like the downer human message? Then you prob don't like Schindler's list or any movie that showcases negative human behavior. Do you not like feminism or anti-Americanism? Then you're not comfortable with the reality of what America does in the real world and not a student of history. Only until civilization was created did women become unequal and cultures wipe out other cultures for resources. You end up looking like a fool or a bigot or a philistine. Your pick.

On a cinematic note, the Navi are the underdog which has a big place in American culture. We were UD's against the Brits but now that we are in charge do we not like that side of the bed. The humans in the film and in reality have the technology to basically kill or conquer anything they want which basically puts anything non-human as an underdog. Star Wars is an underdog story? The Empire could blow up planets in one shot so why is no one complaining about rebel humans blowing up the big bad Death Star?

I get worked up about this stuff.

More Conservative dislike on pantheism.

His piece is fatalist and skews the message of Avatar, Dances with Wolves, etc. His basic problem seems to be that humans love pantheism because they feel guilty about there relationship to nature and are jealous of the freedom that pantheism offers. He finally questions Nature as religion in purely human terms: can nature classify right and wrong. He complains that in nature there is death and ruthlessness and for this reason nature can never be a religion.

There is a saying that there is no right or wrong but thinking makes it so and this is the first step down the wrong path Douthat travels. He declares we "live in two worlds" and so therefore the religion nature could provide is not enough for us. We need to go beyond natural laws to create laws only applicable to human behavior. The problem is we already had laws to govern human behavior. Native Americans watched how animals and nature behaved are coordinated their lives by the same rules. Religion condones the human right to dominate the world by putting man at the center of the equation. If we followed a religion that focused more on nature we'd have think twice about mowing down forests, poisoning and choking off rivers, etc. The fact is we do live in both worlds and we have to respect both worlds because if we don't, Douthat will be right, there will go back to ashes along with everything else.

On a side note, the fact that pantheism is packaged to America in giant, expensive, blockbuster movies and is commercialised in the book racks is something that is not lost on me. I figured that if he mounted a legal campaign against a major polluter or bought up land for a reserve with that 500 million that it'd be a better example of pantheism than blue giant aliens fighting humans. But that's his talent and if it can help change some people maybe they will do the real work.

Climate-gate in Video!

I was waiting for these to come out. Peter Sinclair's outstanding "Climate Crock of the Week" has a two parter on those darned climate emails that came out a while back. I've posted on these videos before and Sinclair again delivers a very well produced, logical, and clear refutation of Climategate.

Part 1

Part 2


"He said "anus"".

Govt Fail #1,432

Krugman does my work for me. His post today on the problems of voting majority in the Senate says what I would say with just more Nobel prize gravitas.

It was, however, a close-run thing. And the fact that it was such a close thing shows that the Senate — and, therefore, the U.S. government as a whole — has become ominously dysfunctional.

Amen.

The Real Children's Fantasy

Here's one more children's' fantasy video. We already have Lion, Witch & the Wardrobe, Bridge to Terabithia, The Golden Compass, and all those other generic ones where the bummed out kid is befriended by a talking animal who tells them they are a prince/princess. This new one makes Where The Wild Things Are look like The Wizard of Oz. In this movie the animals don't talk but are instead all dying and the kids no longer wonder if they'll make the basketball team but if they'll even have food to eat or potable water by the time they're old.

The Right Move

Deglobalization is on. Commence the head-spinning of all mba's and biz students still wet behind the ears who have been chomping through theory after theory on the almighty-ness of globalization.

The basics:

There's also a greater appreciation on the part of Western firms that cheap labor isn't the be-all and end-all. Businesses have learned in the past two years that the longer the supply chain, the more possibilities there are for disruptions—from flu viruses, geopolitical disturbances, and spikes in energy prices. While China is still the world's factory, in an age of volatile demand, some companies have realized that manufacturing closer to home is more efficient, even if production costs are higher.

Cut out the 7000K production line that would make Alexander the Great blush and, voila, you have a local economy. Feels great to pay people who know, right?

1 Percent Doctrine

Friedman has lost a little luster in my eyes with his giant home in Maryland but he doesn't continue to provide spirited argument for massive, unconditional action to prevent climate change. His post today compares America's over the top, precautionary strategy on terrorism to it's terribly slack and unhurried pace to combat climate change.

The set-up:

“According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

I would say it's well over 1 percent.

And now for the prestige:

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

Yeah, a nuke attack would be bad but it'd be mostly regional in scope and it's negative effects could be mitigated over a time span more suited to the humans who have to live through it. Climate change has a good chance of being permanent and a 100 percent change of affecting every living thing on earth on a timeline longer than most humans can comprehend.

The Nail in the Coffin

I haven't posted about the "Climategate" email thingy because frankly "it's a non-starter." (Actually you should read that link because it discusses the story more in depth). I've decided to post on it via request by one of my readers, I do have one, and because I found a satisfactory response to "Climategate" that should be the one that our "news" outlets take considering the nature of how the emails came to light, a.k.a., theft.

Here's a piece in full (because it's short) from my favorite Russian doomer, Dmitry Orlov:

I have been trying not to write this blog post, but in the end I couldn't resist. I know full well that I should just ignore this Climategate nonsense, but since what I have to say is quite short, I'll just go ahead and say it.

Update: For the past hour or so I've been busy rejecting comments that attempt to draw a false analogy between Climategate and Watergate. Um, no, this one is about science. Unlike administration or politics, science is done in the open. Every significant finding is published and subject to peer review. By definition, then, there is never anything important to "leak." Incorrect results and invalid theories are disproved and invalidated as a matter of course, ideally prior to publication, because scientists are skeptics who jealously guard their reputations. You are supposed to already know all this, so if any of it is still unclear to you, then please be sure to read point 4 below, and, unless you also happen to be cute, furry and affectionate, there will be no cat food for you.

1. The UEA emails were stolen. Data theft is a criminal activity. Use of stolen data is a criminal activity as well. People who get paid for publishing articles that are based on stolen data are dealing in stolen goods. This is no different from selling a house that you built using stolen materials.

2. Smearing some one's reputation based on lies is called libel. To defend oneself against the charge of libel, one generally has to present evidence to prove that one's statements are in fact true. Stolen data is not admissible as evidence.

3. To avoid charges of complicity, we should all try to avoid aiding and abetting people who do such things. For instance, it seems like a bad idea to let them use public airwaves and to publish their materials. Barring them would not constitute censorship, since one has to have the legal right to do something before it can be censored. This is no different from barring stolen goods from a marketplace.

4. Finally, there are the people who listen to those who are making libelous claims based on stolen data, thinking that they are valid points. This is, of course, pretty stupid of them. But how tolerant we should be of stupidity is an individual choice. For instance, my cat has no concept of cause and effect, which makes her do some really stupid things, but on the other hand she is cute and furry and affectionate. But I am glad that she doesn't have an opinion on climate change, because that might have made things a bit awkward between us.

These reasons should just about kill "Climategate" as a news story or even more importantly, as a "great unearthing" of some devious scientific conspiracy. Ethically they details of the emails are not reportable and scientifically the claims inside the emails are of nothing that hasn't been discussed in greater depth and with better documentation elsewhere.