Obviously, this is chock full of spoilers. Also, it's a reaction, not a review. If you haven't seen the movie, it probably won't make a lot of sense. So go see it if you haven't.
Let's be real, any time a movie has a character announce "I'm the spy" has problems. Any movie that has a character do that, and then kills them almost immediately has serious issues.
I really liked The Rise of Skywalker. It's a lot of fun to watch. But also, "I am all the Sith" and "I am all the Jedi" is stupid banter. And Rey kills The Emperor anyway, so why doesn't she... absorb all the souls(?) of the Sith, like he said. Why can Ben bring back Rey but Rey not bring back Ben? Wouldn't it be great to have them each revive each other for like 5 minutes, until finally Luke's voice is like OK FINE MAYBE SOMETIMES SOMEONE REALLY IS GONE!
In a universe with spaceships, why even have watercraft at all?
My main issue must be laid at the feet of productions. Abrams and Johnson obviously had different plans for the series, and didn't work hard enough to iron them out. Nothing in the previous two movies hints at Palpatine surviving, much less having a child (Who is the mother??) who survived long enough to have another child. What was interesting about Rey was that she could be anyone. Nope, turns out she's powerful because she has the right blood.
Canto Bight showed us people were profiting off the galaxy's war, which was an interesting look into the politics of war. But also Palpatine has a secret fleet of planet busting Star Destroyers. A) Who's funding him? It can't be that 1%, then the fleet is no longer secret (No billionare is going to bankroll a secret fleet that will blow up planets. Where's the ROI in that?) B) What is Palpatine's plan? If he blows everybody up, who will he rule over, and why? I mean, he's evil I guess, but still.
I wish I knew more about the Knights of Ren. I wish I knew anything about them, actually. When Ben fought them they didn't even have their lightsabers handy.
I wish Rey had out and out killed the Emperor, and then something like this had happened:
*Rey, sits on throne*
Emperor's voice: Aah, yes. All the Sith. Do you feel them?
Rey: I feel their fear of losing.
Emperor: Fear leads to anger
Rey: I am angry at my destiny
Emperor: Anger leads to hate
Rey: I hate that my friends are dying.
Emperor: Hate, leads to suffering.
Rey: I will not suffer the Sith to endure.
Then she does something awesome. I don't know, maybe a cool backflip. Or she fights all of the Emperor's cultists. I'm thrilled Rey almost went dark, and I wish they had let her get closer to the point of no return.
Chewie should have died. C-3P0's memory wipe should have been for real. Those stakes that felt on first watching will not be there again. It isn't like Gandalf dying where at least he stays dead the rest of that movie. Chewie's barely "dead" 20 minutes. And holy shit what an awesome moment for Rey to be like "Oh God my power killed my friend." I don't think this movie was very brave.
JJ Abrams doesn't seem to like Rose. Leia had more lines than she did, and she dies and is played by someone who is dead. Pippin is in this movie, but I couldn't tell you his name or rank or anything besides "warrior". I know the actor's name isn't Pippin.
The Emperor's fleet is staffed by real people. What have they been doing for the last 30 years on that planet? What do you do when you're a secret fleet? Do they run drills? Where do they get their food from? Why do ships always work despite being abandoned and/or underwater for decades.
I understand this would be a totally different movie, but I wish we had followed Chewie and Lando through the galaxy, rounding up supporters. I know what hopeless space battles look like. Show me recruitment!
Why do Star Destroyers need guidance lifting off a planet? That seems like a terrible design flaw. Even worse is when you're worried the enemy will blow up your signal tower, so you just turn it off before they even land, allowing them to switch course easily.
I think I was supposed to know the imperial who took over for Hux. I did not. I miss Hux. He was the only character in the First Order willing to call Kylo Ren out on his bullshit. He was also, apparently, an exceedingly bad spy. Why didn't he just leave with the others? #FuxHux.
I wish there were more drums in the celebration scene. The drums at the end of Return of the Jedi are superb.
I wish there had been a Duel of Fates appearance.
What is Rey going to do now? Will she become a moisture farmer? Also, has no one moved into the Lars' estate? Moisture farms seem like THE MOST important kind of property on Tatooine. How is it almost untouched? Also, if Rey is now a Skywalker, does that mean she kissed her cousin? Star Wars has too much incest.
This movie was fun for me in a way The Last Jedi was not. I've been nitpicking this movie all post, but I do it out of love and not frustration. I've been grinning all evening. What an enjoyable way to wrap up such a saga.
Poor Rose. She just runs around and says some lines. SHE PREVIOUSLY KISSED FINN AND IMPLIED THAT SHE LOVED HIM! And now...
What is spice in Star Wars? Drugs? The only Star Wars drug I recognize is "death sticks". I wish Poe was a Death Sticks runner. He also turns to Finn and says "You were a Stormtrooper" as if Finn chose that job and then he says "You were a scavenger" to Rey as if that's even something bad. I wish Poe had turned to 3P0 and said "YOU WERE MADE BY DARTH VADER AND HAVE STUPID PROGRAMMING!!" Imagine having a computer that wouldn't open Mein Kampf. I understand the reasoning, but reading it also helps us fight future (AND CURRENT) Hitlers.
I guess we'll never know why C-3P0 had a red arm.
"Excellent decision, sir. *Explosion* Terrible decision, sir."
Imagine being the emperor and being so worried about your second-in-commands kids, and then also having a kid of your own and not, I dunno, doing anything about it. Seriously when does the emperor have time to bang someone?
AND WHAT IS THAT KID'S LIFE LIKE! Imagine being the secret son of an evil emperor, but also knowing enough to know he's evil and that his powers are being passed down to you and you will pass them down to your children AND YOU DECIDE TO HAVE CHILDREN ANYWAY like whoever Rey's dad is now THAT is a Star Wars Story movie I want to see.
I'm glad Rey healed that serpent. That was great. Rey's a fantastic character who wrestles with dangerous emotions because she wants to be good but is inclined to be bad.
When Rey kissed Ben someone shouted "No!" in the theater and it was hilarious.
Remember when Maz said she wanted to date Chewie? I wish they had followed through on that.
In 100 years some kid is gonna find those lightsabers while digging in the sand and it is going to just RUIN that day of space-kindergarten.
Thursday, December 19, 2019
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Chronicle of Human Sacrifice
Human sacrifice is one of the most misunderstood cultural activities. It seems inherently evil, and socially awful. How is anyone benefited because someone else is murdered, even with that person's consent? How is murder ever OK, at all?
Now, to be clear, I don't mean to discuss mass killings or revenge killings or purge killings. Just human sacrifice. And to discuss this properly, we need to change our point of view. Because, in the modern world, human sacrifice is indeed a ludicrous thing. Not just awful, but senseless. It begs the question, "Wait, why was this ever acceptable?" But it was. So here's what we need to do:
Imagine...
While not usually engaging in human sacrifice, ancient Greek culture at least had this mentality of glory VS life. It is seen as impossible to have both. In The Odyssey, when in the realm of the dead, Odysseus finds Achilles, who died gloriously at Troy. He says,
But this isn't all bad. There are benefits. War is a sacrifice. It humbles everyone involved. The bravest get themselves killed, and everyone else begins to understand the risk of too much boldness. And for those that survive, they return home, and find that a steady job and some leisurely weekends is comparatively blissful. The bravest get recognition, and everyone else get's a long life.
It is little wonder we send relatively young people to war. They still express boldness, sometimes in idiotic ways. This is because their brains are still developing. In a sense, they are exploited for this loophole: the bodies of adults, but not quite the brains. The military get the best tools. That's why you never see a 30 year old private. By then, they've left or become an officer, away from the front line. We feed civilians the myth of the soldier, who will do great things and, if they die, they'll be remembered well forever. Names of memorials, read at community events, recalled on Memorial Day. For their sacrifice.
And, those that return, they can laugh at how recklessly brave they were, and maybe envy that time, but they are not so brave now. But this is not because they are lesser people, but in fact they are greater, and find that life is worth living, and not something to throw away easily for praise or for country.
This isn't just for the US military, either. All militaries do this, and all nations venerate their fallen in similar ways.
I don't mean to fully tarnish the military. A society needs defense, and defense can be dangerous, and so we need a story to tell ourselves so we feel better about the danger. That isn't the military's fault, or even society's fault. That's just how humans operate best. We don't send kids to college because college is inherently good. College is necessary for most jobs, and also provides a lot of opportunities for personal growth. We don't emphasize the hard parts (And when we do, there's always a "...but it will be worth it"). Same with love, same with saving money, same with everything. Same with healthy food (It will make you healthier), same with junk food (You've worked hard, you deserve it). All things derive their value because of the story we tell about it. And, in many ways, we don't even debate the story. It just is. It is beyond true. Like gravity.
These stories help us construct meaning from a chaotic world, and we find purpose in celebration and suffering. And that's fine. It's fine. We need them. I am writing this post because I have decided to derive value from the work, and value from feedback I receive. I'm not endorsing chaos. But I am suggesting that we look at our myths, and our stories, and while usually they are invisible, we should occasionally notice them, and we should not be oblivious to them.
Human sacrifice is terrible and awful and has no justification. Except the justification we have given it, from pre-history to today.
Now, to be clear, I don't mean to discuss mass killings or revenge killings or purge killings. Just human sacrifice. And to discuss this properly, we need to change our point of view. Because, in the modern world, human sacrifice is indeed a ludicrous thing. Not just awful, but senseless. It begs the question, "Wait, why was this ever acceptable?" But it was. So here's what we need to do:
Imagine...
- ...living in a much smaller community
- ...having a religion you and your whole community believe in
- ...not even understanding the word 'religion.' What we call religion, you just call "very obvious." It isn't even "obviously true," because that implies it could be false. It just "is."
- ...there is very little law-and-order structure, and the two pillars of power are religion and civic life, and the head of government is in charge of both.
- ...that life is generally always brutal.
OK, got it? Now, what is preventing an inspiring strongman from overthrowing society? From just coming in and saying, "I am great, I am in charge, who's gonna stop me?" There is really nothing. There are very few institutions that prevent someone from just taking over by exciting the crowd against those in power. There's no police, and bodyguards may save the leader's life but can't ensure they remain in power. I suppose people could stand with those in power, but even failed power struggles are bloody. How do you prevent power struggles from happening at all?
Control everyone's ego. That's the main thing. But how in the world does one do this?
"Another intriguing paradox of !Kung life is the way men act and are treated after they have
gone hunting. In a strange ritual known as insulting the meat (Emphasis mine), when a
man hunts and kills an animal, especially a large one, he is expected to act extremely modest
and to minimize the importance of his contribution to the tribe. In addition, the other tribe members
insult his kill by proclaiming how small and worthless it is... Lee explains that the
goal of all the joking and insults is to prevent the hunters from becoming
arrogant. It is a leveling mechanism that promotes an egalitarian society."
(source)
That's it. Just a good deal of humbling. And remember, the people 'insulting the meat' is everyone you know. Very few people will become megalomaniacs with all that constant downplaying of their accomplishments. In such a way, the kind of hostile take over of the community described above is less likely.
But greatness will happen. And greatness can be good. But how to limit it? Murder those who achieve greatness. And make them desire it.
Again, remember, religion is true - it is beyond true, it just "is." So whatever your afterlife, that's for real. There's no debate here.
But like, that isn't it, is it? I mean, is it? I mean, kind of. Here's how it would play out:
Sacrifice is a way to give to the Divine. The Divine wants something great, wants something valuable. You don't sacrifice any animal, you sacrifice your best. You sacrifice your best, you receive the best.
Humans are better than animals (Because animals can't worship the Divine), so sacrificing humans ensures an even better outcome. And you don't just sacrifice any human. You sacrifice the best. See where we're going?
Humans are better than animals (Because animals can't worship the Divine), so sacrificing humans ensures an even better outcome. And you don't just sacrifice any human. You sacrifice the best. See where we're going?
So when you have someone who rises to greatness, someone who genuinely has done good for the community, how do you prevent it from going to their head? You sacrifice them. And you make it an honor. You make it something they are proud of. And in doing so you teach the people, "Greatness brings you glory, recognition, and a life among the Divine." And then they die, and life resumes to normal, until another Great One arrives, and plays their part in this cycle of glory and death. The underlying message: Greatness brings you glory, but mundaneness brings you a partner and children. The Great Ones live for society. Only common people ever feel the love of family.
While not usually engaging in human sacrifice, ancient Greek culture at least had this mentality of glory VS life. It is seen as impossible to have both. In The Odyssey, when in the realm of the dead, Odysseus finds Achilles, who died gloriously at Troy. He says,
“But you, Achilles,/ There is not a man in the world more blest than you--
There never has been, never will be one./ Time was, when you were alive, we Argives/
honored you as a god, and now down here, I see/ You Lord it over the dead in all your power./
So grieve no more at dying, great Achilles.’
[Odysseus] reassured the ghost, but [Achilles] broke out protesting,/
‘No winning words about death to me, shining Odysseus!
By gods, I’d rather slave on earth for another man--/
Some dirt-poor tenant farmer who scrapes to keep alive—than rule
down here over all the breathless dead.”
You can live on Earth, or die a hero. It's impossible to do both. Or, to quote Harvey Dent, "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Back to Greece, in The Histories, Herodotus recounts the lives of many Greeks who perform heroics, only to sully their own reputation later in life. The only Greek hero in the Histories who dies with his reputation in tact is Leonidas, of the 300 Spartans. Why is only his reputation preserved? Because he dies as a result of his heroics. That's the point. If you want to be a hero, you have to die.
Throughout Greek history, no one has a bad thing to say about Leonidas. Precisely because he died, his reputation is preserved forever. Those who die in sacrifice are considered pure.
down here over all the breathless dead.”
You can live on Earth, or die a hero. It's impossible to do both. Or, to quote Harvey Dent, "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Back to Greece, in The Histories, Herodotus recounts the lives of many Greeks who perform heroics, only to sully their own reputation later in life. The only Greek hero in the Histories who dies with his reputation in tact is Leonidas, of the 300 Spartans. Why is only his reputation preserved? Because he dies as a result of his heroics. That's the point. If you want to be a hero, you have to die.
Throughout Greek history, no one has a bad thing to say about Leonidas. Precisely because he died, his reputation is preserved forever. Those who die in sacrifice are considered pure.
Throughout Greek history, no one has a bad thing to say about Leonidas. Precisely because he died, his reputation is preserved forever. Those who die in sacrifice are considered pure.
But sometimes a human sacrifice was done not for glory, but for penance. In Celtic culture, if a King ruled over a bad time, he might be sacrificed by the people in a last ditch effort to atone for his rule. In this way, the kings can rarely be spoken of poorly, because those who rule well are remembered well (of course), while those whose rule was mired in tragedy (Unsuccessful war, famine, violent weather, etc) can be said to have ultimately given their life for the people (which is the most anyone can possibly do). This also prevents selfish people from too actively seeking kingship. If your rule goes poorly, you are expected to die as a result. You, literally, are dedicating your life to the nation. Structurally, it is selfless.
Human sacrifice also came in the form of honor. Mesoamerican cultures had human sacrifice, famously the Aztecs. But they didn't sacrifice people they didn't desire. Again, it was an honor. Sacrificing captured warriors was a way to honor them (And, of course, dispose of them). You don't eat their heart out of spite, you eat it "to gain their courage." This implies their heart has courage, which means the enemy had courage. Thus, to do the sacrifice correctly, you must acknowledge them as worthy warriors (Otherwise, why would you need their courage?).
Sacrificing one's own people served a variety of purposes, but in the Americas (Aztecs and Maya) we see sacrifice attributed to sports. It's unclear whether winners or losers of the sport were sacrificed. It seems to me (this is my speculation), that it was both. Let's say there are two leagues, the Big League and the National League. The Big League is made up of teams from all other the area (but all teams are part of your culture). The team that wins is the best team. That team, or at least a few members, are then sacrificed on their behalf for the benefit of all the people. The gods love sports.
Nowadays it isn't entirely clear if the gods (or God or Goddess) love sports, but back then (in nearly all cultures I'm aware of) gods absolutely loved sports and sports players. (And remember, if you live in this world, your religion is true. There is no doubt. It is as real as gravity) This is why the Olympics began - as a ceremony to the gods. So you sacrifice the best sports players to the gods, and the gods shower the people with goodness for this pleasing sacrifice. Pleasing sacrifice because, of course, the player is not dead, but up with the gods, to play for their eternal entertainment.
Nowadays it isn't entirely clear if the gods (or God or Goddess) love sports, but back then (in nearly all cultures I'm aware of) gods absolutely loved sports and sports players. (And remember, if you live in this world, your religion is true. There is no doubt. It is as real as gravity) This is why the Olympics began - as a ceremony to the gods. So you sacrifice the best sports players to the gods, and the gods shower the people with goodness for this pleasing sacrifice. Pleasing sacrifice because, of course, the player is not dead, but up with the gods, to play for their eternal entertainment.
Alternatively, in the National League, there is one team. They will win. They are strong players, and people and gods enjoy watching them play. There is another team, sort of. Captives who were not warriors. These are people who won't be released. Feeding them takes too many resources. They don't have any courage worth sacrificing them for. But letting them starve is an unceremonious way to die (And a bummer to watch). So, you allow them one chance at glory. You let them play the National League. They are the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters. You want them to lose. They *will* lose. But maybe they'll play alright. The gods love sports. Maybe they'll bring some honor to their name. So they play, they lose and, now that they are more worthy, they are sacrificed. And maybe someone from the National League team is killed, as well, just to ensure the gods get one good sports player out of the deal.
It sounds brutal. It is. But also...
When someone is sacrificed, their family receives great honor. Their name is remembered throughout that generation, maybe more. "Your child plays like so-and-so, who was sacrificed during the days of my grandfather." That would be the ultimate compliment.
(Quick aside, child sacrifice was seen as a sacrifice of the parents. Obviously, the child is too young to agree or understand. And obviously child sacrifice is pretty terrible. But, again, this was the family giving something to the community. The family, thus, receives the honor.)
But we live in the 21st century. We understand that human sacrifice is just state-sanctioned murder. "Honor" and "glory to the gods" are not enough to justify murdering someone, right? I mean, right?!
You know where I'm taking this. We still have it.
You know where I'm taking this. We still have it.
Most terrorists engage in their attacks knowing they will not survive. They expect not to. We've all heard the 77 virgin trope for Muslim terrorists. You only receive those by dying - of course. And maybe it's a false doctrine (I only say maybe because I have no source I can possibly cite, for obvious reasons). So why do terrorists keep signing up to be suicide attackers? Are they all just sexually frustrated men who want a line of 'pure' women all to themselves? Don't their families try to stop them?
No. Because the families see this as an a honor. NOT EVEN MOST MUSLIM FAMILIES OF COURSE. I wrote that in all caps and a larger font just to be clear. But some do. And if not families, then communities. Sometimes suicide attackers are taught as role models. (I realize Palestinian Media Watch is an incredibly bias group, but it is very difficult to find any information about suicide attackers being glorified. Either you end up on actual terrorist websites (which Google rightfully buries and hides), or on websites that report on the evils of terrorism. This PMW report is the only one I could find that has actual quotes from those glorifying terrorism). They bring honor to their name, their neighborhoods, and their families. Sometimes suicide attackers' families are paid as recompense for losing their child (though, of course, the phrase they'd use would be something like "giving their child's life for the glory of God and the community".) This kind of fame is not limited to Muslim terrorists.
Is this brutal? It is. As is all human sacrifice.
What about honor killings? They're easier to explain, and also harder. The main thing to know here is that honor is a family issue, not an individual issue. In cultures with honor killings, the things you do honor or dishonor your family. Everything you do reflects on them, regardless if you want it to.
Ideally, an honor killing (if anything about honor killings is ideal) is a form of assisted suicide. Suicide is looked down upon in many societies (though, of course, there are cultures with honor suicide), but sometimes a person commits a wrong so heinous they can only repay with their life. Just like the Celtic kings above, it is a final attempt to right a wrong. The ultimate price. It shows, in essence, "I did something wrong, I have dishonored my family, I give my life to restore their honor."
It sounds and is heinous, but there is logic to it. In these cultures, the family is more important than the individual. Therefore, the individual is expected to give themselves up for the family. Not usually suicide - usually a smaller kind of sacrifice (Marry for non-romantic reasons, work in the family business regardless of personal desire, care for parents and children) - but suicide is the ultimate way to say "I give myself to the family."
It sounds and is heinous, but there is logic to it. In these cultures, the family is more important than the individual. Therefore, the individual is expected to give themselves up for the family. Not usually suicide - usually a smaller kind of sacrifice (Marry for non-romantic reasons, work in the family business regardless of personal desire, care for parents and children) - but suicide is the ultimate way to say "I give myself to the family."
I said honor killings are ideally a form of assisted suicide, but more often than not in the modern world there's nothing about it that's suicidal, it's usually murder, and almost always females who die. I'm not going to justify that. There is no explanation. But that's the reason behind honor killings in the first place. They are a way to attone, to give yourself up in glory for the others. You don't get to live a normal life, but instead are venerated for years and generations to come. You're a role model, at least to those who matter to you.
Let's take a look at our progression:
Let's take a look at our progression:
- Early humans took great people and sacrificed them. They did this to protect the community from their ego. Greatness is venerated, but comes at a cost. You are denied a normal life.
- The Greeks believed heroes were worth venerating (Leonidas died for his people, and his reputation is pure). They did, however, entertain the idea that dying a heroic death perhaps wasn't such a great thing (Achilles).
- Celts believed being a king meant dedicating your life to the people, which meant dying if things went poorly. There are some cultures that killed their kings regularly, regardless of how well they did. Being king involves great power, but - again - there is a cost.
- Mesoamerican cultures practiced human sacrifice as a way to honor friend and foe alike. It was seen as a reward, or at least a natural consequence of greatness.
- A society teaches that suicide attackers are worthy of honor, naming town squares after them. Their sacrifice is remembered. Families are paid for offering their child, and families receive continual honor after the sacrifice.
- An individual represents the family. When they offend the family name, they give their life to redeem it. Of course, it is important to mention that sometimes when they offend the family name, other members of the family murder them to redeem it. Very important difference. However, the function of the death is the same. Sacrifice is a path to redemption and honor.
But we live in a much more civilized time (and culture). We know all forms of murder is wrong. Life is for living, not for dying. Who would willingly give their life up? Who would die to make the lives of their fellows better? Who would want someone to die to make their life better? We wouldn't participate in a system glorifying sacrifice, would we? That's barbaric.
That's the military.
Sort of. I'm not anti-military, nor even anti-war. However, it is critical to deconstruct the cultural myths we have around the military, the citizens who serve in it, and the sacrifices they make. Those myths are powerful to have and important to know. But we need to look behind them, too.
Support the troops is a very common phrase. Even those who are against war. Support the troops, end the war. We understand it isn't the troops strategy. They're just the instruments. If we want to get really cynical, we can say "They just follow orders." But we're usually more nuanced. But still, support the troops. Honor the troops.
As Donald Trump recently found out, you especially honor dead troops. In our culture it is rare to speak any ill of the dead. But soldiers who died in war? Never. You do not such thing. And you also don't insult their families. Their families and their name is honored forever. Next time you're in your local town center, keep an eye out for signs saying such and such bench or park or tree is dedicated to a fallen solider. They are there. We honor our dead. But why did they die? This wasn't some happenstance. They were sent to a dangerous place, and we knew some of them would die. And we did it anyway. It isn't the same as throwing a sports hero on the altar and cutting their heart out, but it isn't as different as we'd like.
Support the troops is a very common phrase. Even those who are against war. Support the troops, end the war. We understand it isn't the troops strategy. They're just the instruments. If we want to get really cynical, we can say "They just follow orders." But we're usually more nuanced. But still, support the troops. Honor the troops.
As Donald Trump recently found out, you especially honor dead troops. In our culture it is rare to speak any ill of the dead. But soldiers who died in war? Never. You do not such thing. And you also don't insult their families. Their families and their name is honored forever. Next time you're in your local town center, keep an eye out for signs saying such and such bench or park or tree is dedicated to a fallen solider. They are there. We honor our dead. But why did they die? This wasn't some happenstance. They were sent to a dangerous place, and we knew some of them would die. And we did it anyway. It isn't the same as throwing a sports hero on the altar and cutting their heart out, but it isn't as different as we'd like.
But this isn't all bad. There are benefits. War is a sacrifice. It humbles everyone involved. The bravest get themselves killed, and everyone else begins to understand the risk of too much boldness. And for those that survive, they return home, and find that a steady job and some leisurely weekends is comparatively blissful. The bravest get recognition, and everyone else get's a long life.
It is little wonder we send relatively young people to war. They still express boldness, sometimes in idiotic ways. This is because their brains are still developing. In a sense, they are exploited for this loophole: the bodies of adults, but not quite the brains. The military get the best tools. That's why you never see a 30 year old private. By then, they've left or become an officer, away from the front line. We feed civilians the myth of the soldier, who will do great things and, if they die, they'll be remembered well forever. Names of memorials, read at community events, recalled on Memorial Day. For their sacrifice.
And, those that return, they can laugh at how recklessly brave they were, and maybe envy that time, but they are not so brave now. But this is not because they are lesser people, but in fact they are greater, and find that life is worth living, and not something to throw away easily for praise or for country.
This isn't just for the US military, either. All militaries do this, and all nations venerate their fallen in similar ways.
I don't mean to fully tarnish the military. A society needs defense, and defense can be dangerous, and so we need a story to tell ourselves so we feel better about the danger. That isn't the military's fault, or even society's fault. That's just how humans operate best. We don't send kids to college because college is inherently good. College is necessary for most jobs, and also provides a lot of opportunities for personal growth. We don't emphasize the hard parts (And when we do, there's always a "...but it will be worth it"). Same with love, same with saving money, same with everything. Same with healthy food (It will make you healthier), same with junk food (You've worked hard, you deserve it). All things derive their value because of the story we tell about it. And, in many ways, we don't even debate the story. It just is. It is beyond true. Like gravity.
These stories help us construct meaning from a chaotic world, and we find purpose in celebration and suffering. And that's fine. It's fine. We need them. I am writing this post because I have decided to derive value from the work, and value from feedback I receive. I'm not endorsing chaos. But I am suggesting that we look at our myths, and our stories, and while usually they are invisible, we should occasionally notice them, and we should not be oblivious to them.
Human sacrifice is terrible and awful and has no justification. Except the justification we have given it, from pre-history to today.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
Interviews with Election Justice USA
On Friday night, I saw on Facebook a news story that a group called Election Justice USA had released a report that claimed that the Democratic Primary had been stolen from Bernie Sanders, and that without this fraud he would have won the primary "by a landslide." These are big accusations.
But I've never heard of Election Justice USA before. So I looked into it. The website was not very comprehensive (It has actually since been substantially updated, which is alluded to in the interviews to follow). Here is how they describe themselves, in part:
Seems like a top-notch organization. Also, how old are they? The website doesn't say. Their Facebook and Twitter goes back only to April 2016. Seems less top-notch. Any organization can claim to be anything, all the moreso a new organization. What do they do?
I notice on Twitter they've retweeted Green Party Presumptive Nominee Jill Stein naming her VP. Seems like a weird choice - if they're an election watchdog, why promote any one candidate's news. I quickly check, anything about the Republican or Democratic VP? Nope. But Jill Stein is retweeted a few times. Doesn't seem so non-partisan any more. I check and see who they follow. Jill Stein. The Green Party. Gary Johnson. Ralph Nader. Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders. Definitely not a diverse group of politicians. But they also follow Russia Today, which is Russian state propaganda, Wikileaks, which similarly is accusing the DNC of corruption, a bunch of people who describe themselves as Bernie or Bust, and also quite a few socialist Twitter feeds. This place is looking a lot less nonpartisan. I should ask around. So I do. What follows is my extensive interview with Election Justice USA's Facebook account. The account controller would not give their name, and at some point alluded to the possibility I had been talking to several different people. I also later email them about their Twitter account.
First, the Facebook conversation (Which spans several days, as you'll see). My side is blue. Then the emails.
Here are the "two reports" they refer to
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein Apr 21
On Mon, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Alex Maslow <armaslow@gmail.com> wrote:
To whom it may concern,
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein Apr 21
I will update this post when I get another email response from them.
But I've never heard of Election Justice USA before. So I looked into it. The website was not very comprehensive (It has actually since been substantially updated, which is alluded to in the interviews to follow). Here is how they describe themselves, in part:
"We are a non-partisan organization advocating for voters'
rights and standing against election fraud and voter suppression
in all forms. Throughout the 2016 Presidential Primaries, Election Justice
has been working to combat unprecedented levels of fraud and voter suppression
through legal battles in several states and at the federal level. We are also
striving to educate the public about voter rights and election integrity issues."
Seems like a top-notch organization. Also, how old are they? The website doesn't say. Their Facebook and Twitter goes back only to April 2016. Seems less top-notch. Any organization can claim to be anything, all the moreso a new organization. What do they do?
I notice on Twitter they've retweeted Green Party Presumptive Nominee Jill Stein naming her VP. Seems like a weird choice - if they're an election watchdog, why promote any one candidate's news. I quickly check, anything about the Republican or Democratic VP? Nope. But Jill Stein is retweeted a few times. Doesn't seem so non-partisan any more. I check and see who they follow. Jill Stein. The Green Party. Gary Johnson. Ralph Nader. Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders. Definitely not a diverse group of politicians. But they also follow Russia Today, which is Russian state propaganda, Wikileaks, which similarly is accusing the DNC of corruption, a bunch of people who describe themselves as Bernie or Bust, and also quite a few socialist Twitter feeds. This place is looking a lot less nonpartisan. I should ask around. So I do. What follows is my extensive interview with Election Justice USA's Facebook account. The account controller would not give their name, and at some point alluded to the possibility I had been talking to several different people. I also later email them about their Twitter account.
First, the Facebook conversation (Which spans several days, as you'll see). My side is blue. Then the emails.
Here are the "two reports" they refer to
 |
And here is the email exchange I had I refer to at the end:
Hi there, my name is Alex Maslow. I had an extensive and productive conversation with whoever runs your FB group. I have some questions about EJUSA's Twitter feed, though, that s/he was unable to answer. So I've decided to ask them here. Please respond at your convenience:
1. Elect Justice USA states it is a non-partisan organization. However, it only follows left-of-center politicians. Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren. Jill Stein. The only exception I see is Gary Johnson. You follow many socialist feeds, Anonymous, and the Green Party. Why don't you also follow President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, etc? Why don't you follow US Congress, The White House, and the Democratic & Republican Parties. Why not the Libertarian Party?
2. You recently retweeted that Jill Stein announced her VP pick. Why didn't you retweet Clinton or Trump's or Johnson's announcement? You once retweeted Jill Stein when she said:
In 2012, I was arrested for trying to enter the @debates & held in a dark site with 16 guards. That's how scared they are of our message.
Clearly that is an egregious thing. I wonder what evidence you have to back her accusation up? I've been unable to find much information about this event.
Thank you for your time, I hope to hear from you soon.
-Alex
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Election Justice USA <electionjusticeusa@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Alex for reaching out to us. EJUSA is a nonpartisan organization because it is solely dedicated to restoring complete integrity and access to all voters to our election system. This favors no party or candidate, unless the party and candidate want to subvert election integrity.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Alex Maslow <armaslow@gmail.com> wrote:
To whom it may concern,
What you wrote answers neither of my questions. I did not ask why EJUSA is non-partisan. I acknowledged that it was. Then I asked why does it only follow a narrow group of politicians? That is at odds with a non-partisan mission. Unless you mean the DNC, Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, the US Congress, the White House, the RNC, and Donald Trump each "want to subvert election integrity." If that is the case, please explain why this is so for each.
Also, since I sent my email your Twitter now follows Julian Assange, but none of the other politicians/organizations I mentioned across the political spectrum. Why did you add Assange, and yet no American politicians?
My original questions are below. Your answers will help me, and others, better understand your organization.
Thank you,
-Alex
1. Elect Justice USA states it is a non-partisan organization. However, it only follows left-of-center politicians. Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren. Jill Stein. The only exception I see is Gary Johnson. You follow many socialist feeds, Anonymous, and the Green Party. Why don't you also follow President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, etc? Why don't you follow US Congress, The White House, and the Democratic & Republican Parties. Why not the Libertarian Party?
2. You recently retweeted that Jill Stein announced her VP pick. Why didn't you retweet Clinton or Trump's or Johnson's announcement? You once retweeted Jill Stein when she said:
In 2012, I was arrested for trying to enter the @debates & held in a dark site with 16 guards. That's how scared they are of our message.
Clearly that is an egregious thing. I wonder what evidence you have to back her accusation up? I've been unable to find much information about this event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)