Bloop. We’re Completely Screwed.

July 22, 2009

This post’s soundtrack is: Call of Cthulhu.

This blog isn’t defunct.  I’ve just placed frequent updates on hiatus until I’m completely finished with my classes and can devote more of my brain to creative thinking.  A big thanks to all of you, by the way, for the intense and rigorous debates you have all been having over at the Snarkbate forum.  Is it broken on your ends?

H.P. Lovecraft

H.P. Lovecraft

Nevermind that.  Today we are going to engage in a little fun with H.P. Lovecraft.  And by “fun” I mean pant-crapping insanity and horror.

Howard Phillips Lovecraft was a somewhat odd man.  For starters, he bore at least a passing resemblance to the science teacher from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.  His father died from general paresis of the insane, most likely caused by syphilis.  Lovecraft is also considered by modern standards to be something of a racist.  Putting all of that aside, however, the oddest aspect of the man laid within the stories he wrote.  He wrote of themes which continue in popularity even today.

One of his main themes was the concept of “That Which Should Not Be” - forbidden knowledge which lies far beyond the realm of that which the human mind can grasp.  His protagonists were often worldly folks who, for at least a brief moment, had the veil of human conceptions stripped away from ultimate reality, leaving them to observe the world “as it is”, in all its horror.  This invariably led to insanity, as a return to the comforting illusions of ignorance is nigh impossible upon confronting such knowledge.

This was coupled with another common theme in his writings, that incomprehensible alien forces exert their influence over humanity.  Direct contact with the beings behind this influence is a particularly notorious way to have one’s mind destroyed.  This is best illustrated in Lovecraft’s most well-known story, The Call of Cthulhu.

Cthulhu

Cthulhu

To state that Cthulhu is the worst sort of news would be on par with saying that Hitler made life slightly uncomfortable for the Jews.  In terms of size and power, he dwarves Godzilla.  There is much debate over the Internet regarding who would win in a fight between the two, but the very premise of that debate is, quite frankly, retarded.  Godzilla, while scary, has power and abilities comprehensible to the human mind.  Cthulhu, by his very nature, is incomprehensible and beyond the ability of the human mind to even slightly understand.  Human beings are to Cthulhu even less than individual ants are to us.

In addition, Cthulhu has telepathic powers and magic.  He operates on levels of existence of which human beings are unaware.  Even more chilling is the fact that he’s not even close to being the most powerful being existing in the Lovecraftian mythos.  All the same, he has a powerful worldwide cult dedicated to his awakening and the subsequent destruction of the world.

It’s easy to shrug this all off as fiction.  After all, Lovecraft’s stories were fictional, inspired by his dreams and whatnot.  It’s only incidental that another key aspect to his stories was the idea that beings such as Cthulhu communicate through the dreams of sensitive individuals, subtlety alerting humanity to their impending doom …

That line that we construct between fantasy and reality has to be more than a simple evolutionary mental safeguard to prevent us from going insane, right?

Incidentally, beings from the Cthulhu mythos are invoked in various rites performed by practicioners of chaos magick.  And Jack Chick himself,  shortly after his possible apostasy from crazed fundamentalist Christianity, may or may not have penned the following tract:

Okay, he probably didnt. But we can pretend.

Okay, so he probably didn't write this. But we can pretend, dammit.

All of this, of course, is silly speculation and entirely irrelevant to anything of importance.  Its significance, however, takes new heights in light of events which occurred in 1997 - CNN: Tuning in to a deep sea monster.

Apparently, back in the summer of 1997, scientists heard a giant “bloop” sound under the ocean.  It was detected by sensors three thousand miles apart, making it a “very loud sound.”  In addition, the sound is sped up 16x in order to be audible to the human ear, indicating an enormity of size.  Scientists speculate that the sound indicates the patterns of a sound made by a living being, and that the creature in question would have to be much larger than a blue whale.  Something on the scale, perhaps, of…

Oh shit.

Oh shit.

It’s most likely nothing, of course.  But, just for entertainment purposes, let’s compare the estimated location of this underwater event to the location where Cthulhu supposedly resides.

Scientists indicate that the sound originated somewhere in the area of 50oS, 100oW.  Cthulhu resides at 47°9′ S , 103°43′ W.  Those can’t be as close to one another as they sound initially, right?

This... cant be anywhere near...

This can't be anywhere near...

Oh dear God.

Oh sweet mother of God.

Fortunately, one would imagine that Cthulhu would be more than content to continue in his eternal slumber, barring some grand cosmic event like a galactic alignment… right?

Special thanks goes to Cracked.com and BloopWatch.org for inspiring this post.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in: Cthulhu – 5 Comments

My Critique of the Single Payer Government Health Plan

June 23, 2009

I will likely take some flak for this, but today’s presidential press conference raised a few questions in my mind which led me to feel a bit critical about President Obama’s Health Care plan.

Quite frankly, I believe that Obama’s rhetoric is a bit overreaching and misrepresents fears about the effect of his policies on private insurers.

At one point, President Obama mockingly claimed that free market advocates shouldn’t be alarmed about this because we believe private alternatives are more efficient and should be able to outdo his government program if what we say is true.

I personally believe that what is being overlooked is the fact that a government health plan would not be limited by resources like private health insurance. The government does not have to operate according to the market - they have the power of taxation and deficit spending to make up for mismanagement. The result is that government health care can dramatically undercut private insurance, regardless of mismanagement or actual costs. Market viability isn’t necessary in the ways which it would be were we talking about private insurance.

The result is that government can set prices artificially low. In addition, government has advantages of scale not available to private companies. The result is that private insurance companies won’t be able to compete and will be driven under.  Many individuals will choose cheaper government insurance with wide coverage over relatively more expensive private plans.

Private insurance companies will be pushed out of business by the Obama plan. People WILL lose their existing policies and it will be the government’s fault. It is blatantly dishonest for the president to claim otherwise. The new “system” will have no market-related reasons to operate efficiently and all Americans will suffer as a result.  Taxes of all forms will have to be raised across the board.

Frankly, the idea of government being control of health care for most of the country scares me.  It gives the government a vested interest in telling us how to live.  It could potentially become a “patriotic duty” to live healthy and have all sorts of regulations put on what we do and what we eat - after all, taxpayers will have to foot the bill for our poor decisions!  Meanwhile, our healthcare system will decline, as it will have no market incentives to use its resources in the most efficient ways possible.  History has shown time and again that only free markets provide those incentives.  If we pursue single payer health care, prices to buy into insurance will no longer reflect costs.  Government programs have shown time and again that such relationships are the first to go when it puts its hands into ANYTHING.

The alternative being suggested for single payer health care is NOT “doing nothing”, as the president insinuated.  Everyone agrees that reform is absolutely essential in this area.  The most popular alternatives involve changing the degree to which the insurance “middle man” is necessary in the first place.  Some suggest eliminating the insurance middleman entirely by creating personal medical savings accounts.  I personally do not have the answers to this very complicated issue… but I think it is entirely necessary that we have a debate about all the alternatives before we allow our government to bully through legislation which will dramatically change our relationship with that government.

Discuss it here or debate it at Snarkbate!

Tags: , ,
Posted in: Health Care, Politics – 1 Comment

“Images” by Tyrone Green

June 6, 2009

One of my all time favorite poems was written by a man named Tyrone Green (well, as portrayed by Eddie Murphy on Saturday Night Live):

Images
by Tyrone Green

Dark and lonely on a summer’s night.
Kill my landlord. Kill my landlord.
Watchdog barking. Do he bite?
Kill my landlord. Kill my landlord.
Slip in his window. Break his neck.
Then his house I start to wreck.
Got no reason. What the heck?
Kill my landlord. Kill my landlord.

C-I-L my land lord!
——————————-
Now, I strongly suggest we sit and meditate upon the deep metaphorical meaning behind this fascinating bit of prose.

“Dark and lonely on a summer’s night.”

Summer nights are normally warm and pleasant, yet obviously the author of the poem was lonely on this dark night.  This is apparently a metaphor for the loneliness we encounter at times in life, when the world that should otherwise be pleasant instead seems dark, lonely, and scary.

“Kill my landlord.  Kill my landlord.”

The author finds the solution to his loneliness by finding a purpose in his life.  His “landlord” is a metaphor for the darkness, meaninglessness, oppression, and lack of enlightenment in his existence.  He must kill his “landlord” to be free.

“Watchdog barking.  Do he bite?”

Thus is reflected the uncertainty in this endeavor of “killing one’s landlord” and finding peace and enlightenment.  One’s fears often stand in the way of the greatest and most purposeful of endeavors.  Indeed, we all often wonder whether the barking watchdog bites.

“Kill my landlord.  Kill my landlord.”

The metaphoric goal is repeated.  Our enlightened author realized that he must push on without fear of the repercussions, as such is life.

“Slip in his window. Break his neck.
Then his house I start to wreck.”

Our archetypal hero accomplishes his goal, “breaking” the ties that have bound him to ignorance.  The “house” is symbolic of the world created by this “demiurge” who has bound him to this state - through his enlightened and free mindset, he proceeds to “wreck” his house.

“Got no reason. What the heck?”

Life had no reason prior to his discovery of the Purpose driving his True Will, and thus he had nothing to lose.  Indeed, “What the heck?” ought to be the motto of us all.

“Kill my landlord. Kill my landlord.”

The sign of an artist, repeating the purpose once again so as to emphasize his point.  Truly brilliant.

“C-I-L my land lord!”

At first sign, the author appears to be misspelling the word “kill”.  But as we have seen, our friend Tyrone Green is a true genius, and this is but a bit of “misdirection” meant only to perfect the poetry.  He obviously meant only for intelligent minds to understand his purpose.

It turns out that the poem is transcribed wrong at this point.  Tyrone Green obviously intended the following:

“C.I.L. my land lord!”

C.I.L. obviously stands for the Latin phrase, “Cessat Ipsa Lex,” meaning “The Law itself Ceases”.  It is more notably a part of the phrase, “Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex,”- “When the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases.”

Our friend is thus truly free, even as he serves a life incarceration for the brutal murders of his real life landlord, his landlord’s wife, and their two children.

Posted in: Uncategorized – 5 Comments

Thoughts on Law and Higher Principles

May 22, 2009

This post is actually taken from a thread on my forum.  I’ll link to the thread at the end.

I think one of the biggest problems currently facing our nation is that we are very quick to assume the worst of intentions on behalf of those on the other side of the aisle. President Bush and Vice President Cheney dealt with unprecedented problems relating to terrorism. 9/11 involved a loss of life greater than Pearl Harbor. The financial consequences of the attack are probably still reverberating through our economy.

I do believe Bush and Cheney operated with good intentions and did what they felt was necessary to protect the nation and nothing more. I also think that they inappropriately politicized our anti-terror and war efforts… but I give them the benefit of the doubt because I believe they were sincerely convinced that the Democrats wanted to see them fail for political purposes.

Darthbater wrote:

There is a misconception that the law cannot be broken and no person is above the law, the truth is: if the act is for a greater good then the law does not apply. The Constitution was never written to tie our hands because of principles, the preservation of America must be protected by any means possible otherwise there would be no ruling law.

I disagree with the premise but ultimately agree with the conclusion. The fundamental basis of our nation is that we are a land of laws. Monarchies are defined and ruled by kings, dictatorships by dictators, theocracies by religious leaders, and democracies by a vague “will of the people” determined by majority of the vote. We are a Republic. A Republic is defined and ruled by the law itself - nothing is higher. The U.S. Constitution, which is the highest principle of Law in our country, spells out a government which is ultimately defined in relation to the law. We have a Legislative Branch which exists solely to create law. We have an Executive Branch which, as we so often forget, exists merely to enforce law. We have a Judicial branch which was created solely to interpret law. I would argue that when a branch of our government violates its relationship to the law by acting as though it is above the law, it undermines its own legitimacy.

There is something we tend to overlook, however, and it is in this that I believe you make a valid point. The Law, in its pure sense, is supposed to be a thing of Higher Principle. The beauty of the Constitution, for example, is that it is supposed to reflect and protect God-given rights. In its most pure sense, Law is not something created by men, but rather something created by God and, again, Higher Principles. Our laws do not always reflect that, and even the Constitution, being a document of man, is an imperfect reflection.

Much of this goes back to classical Western thinking. Plato spoke of Forms and Aristotle spoke of Essence. There is a thing, as we see it in the world around us, and then there is that thing’s fundamental nature which is core to its existence. An example of the idea is that had man never existed and even had three sticks or whatever never fallen in a closed shape with three sides and three vertices, the essence of a “Triangle” would still exist on some higher level. Another example is the fact that two plus two would still be four, even if no one were around to articulate it. Of course, philosophers such as David Hume ultimately came about and discredited concepts such as this, but it still reflects a core idea upon which our nation was founded.

In a Republic such as ours, Legislators are meant to create laws. Being human beings, and considering that nothing can be higher than its source, our laws are limited to greater and lesser degrees. Being human beings, however, we are capable of articulating principles which are higher than ourselves. We are not really the source of those ideas. No man invented two plus two being four, nor did a man invent the shape of a square - we’ve merely discovered such things.

Insofar as our laws reflect higher principles, we are bound by them. Were all our laws framed so perfectly, no man could be above them. This is the ideal of the Republic. Considering that we live in reality, however, and not the world of ideals, our laws often are not reflections of higher principles. Were Congress to create a law tomorrow ordering that everyone upon their 30th birthday must be put to death, we would not be bound by such a law because it would be in direct violation of higher principle and, by extension, True Law.

The principles and rights reflected in the Constitution are perpetual because they are granted to us by Nature and by God. As far as this is true, no man is at liberty to strip other men of these rights. I would argue, however, that the “Law”, as determined by higher principle, as well as the Constitution so far as it reflects that “Law”, does not extend these rights to all men. Those whom actively seek to undermine the rule of Law in our Nation are, by definition, not protected by that Law. We don’t have to “play nice” with terrorists that seek to destroy us.

That which is ideal is stable, eternal, and unchanging. That which reflects reality is dialectic, fluid, ever changing, and is not necessarily always suited for what is ideal. The higher principles which apply to normal times are not the same as the higher principles which apply to times of grave danger and difficulty. In normal times, it is not acceptable to shoot a man under any circumstances. In times where that man has a gun, however, and intends to do you or your loved ones grave harm, it is fully acceptable to shoot to kill. The principles themselves have not changed, merely the principles which apply due to the change in circumstance. 9/11 and its wake was a massive change of circumstance and President Bush and Vice President Cheney had to react according to principles which applied in that situation. They did a magnificent job in ensuring that they did not undermine normal principle. They had an unprecedented opportunity to seize perpetual power for themselves - the fact that they made no effort to do so stands as a testimony to their good efforts and to the fact that these are men who truly did “get it” and who do love this country.

Things have slowed down a bit, though, and we find ourselves returning to the normal higher principles which ought to apply in normal times. With this in mind, President Obama returns us, at least to some degree, back to the status quo. I think Cheney makes a very valid point in stating that Obama has no right to criticize the actions taken by the previous administration, however - unprecedented circumstances require unprecedented approaches determined by an unprecedented Higher Law. As far as President Bush and Vice President Cheney were acting according to the highest principles pertinent to their situation, I would argue that they did not violate the Law but rather acted in accordance with it. No man is above the Law, but what is lawful is not a stagnant thing.

Discuss it here or debate it at Snarkbate!

Posted in: Uncategorized – No Comments

The Reasons Behind the Rhetoric, pt. 2

May 21, 2009

I had promised in my last post to explain my point of view as to why the Right is currently acting the way it does.  I could have very easily thrown it in the last post but chose not to do so.  Let’s face it, it would have been rather anti-climatic.

I’m not going to recap my last post.  It’s right under this one, for heaven’s sake.

All of the screaming coming from the Republicans and Conservatives right now is out of frustration for the way they feel that they have been mistreated over the course of the past eight years.  It is as simple as that.

Republicans are currently doing exactly what I did with my, “Idiots to Protest President Obama at Notre Dame” post.  They are angry at a lot of the name calling which was aimed at President Bush and the Republican Party while Republicans were in power.  Republicans and conservatives, being ordinary human beings, are simply lashing out at what they considered to be unfairness coming from the Left.

I admit, that isn’t any major revelation.  I don’t claim to be a great commentator - this is only my fourth blog posting, after all.  I suppose, however, that the result of this reflection is that I feel empathy for the Right at this moment.  They are acting exactly as they believe the Left acted back in 2001.

I am not going to go and post a lot of links to show examples of this.  It would involve digging up events from eight years ago and I admittedly lack the time to do so at the moment.  I think it would be pointless to do so.  I ultimately believe that much of the criticism levied against Bush was quite valid.  Sadly, when it comes to the Conservative view of these events, there is a perception where these valid criticisms which were levied en masse are mixed up with name-calling visciousness which came from the Far-Left.  Case in point - even before 9/11 and the wars which occurred in its wake, there were those who labeled Bush a Nazi, called him a murder, labelled him a racist, and directed all sorts of hateful anger towards both the man and his political party.

These attacks weren’t mainstream.  They came from the Extreme Left, which can be ugly just like the Extreme Right.  A problem, however, lies in the fact that Conservative media has shown a tendency to pull examples from the Extreme Left and present them as mainstream liberal opinion.  Back when I was more conservative, I fell for it hook, line, and sinker.  The fact is that these elements make excellent bogeymen and lead to great sensationalist stories which stir up the conservative base.  The downside, unfortunately, is that what is lost in the process is an understanding that many on the Left reject these fringe elements every bit as much as Conservatives do.

So conservatives came away from the past eight years feeling as though they were accused of being fascists.  They aren’t fascists.  In their hearts, they very much believe that dependency on government programs equates to slavery to those same programs.  I find myself inclined to agree.  They very much view the Bush Administration’s expanded security policies as being a necessary prerequisite to the lack of an attack on American soil since 9/11/2001.  A lot of good, intelligent people with natural misgivings about government power feel this way.  In fairness, and as a means of reaching out to these people, I do believe that the Left really ought to take a step back and consider how many of its cries of “abuses” are really just political rhetoric intended to make the previous administration look bad.  After all, BOTH sides have been known to do this.

Those on the Left really ought to be willing to take a step back and consider how much they villify the Right in this country.  Those on the Right should very much do the same.  We’re all Americans and it behooves us very little to believe that the other side wants to undermine the core of this country: The U.S. Constitution.  Both sides have shown themselves to be masterful in setting up the ugliest of strawmen regarding their fellow Americans, strawmen which only serve to divide us as a people in the face of major issues with which we, as a nation, must wrestle.

I admit, there hasn’t been any great “revelation” in this posting, but it is all something I feel must be said, having personally tasted the fruits of both sides.  I am a registered Republican.  I have no plans to change that, yet I admit it rather upsets me to see my party calling both myself and those with whom I agree, “RINOs” (Republicans-In-Name-Only).  I believe that the future of my party isn’t in the conservative purists who have been running the show of late, but rather in a combined coalition of the more liberal elements of the party, found more especially in the libertarian elements and those whom could best be described as “Rockefeller Republicans.”  I believe one should not have to apologize for being both Republican and pro-choice, and I strongly feel that groups such as the Log Cabin Republicans ought to be permitted to have a more active voice.  I also feel that being a Republican should not mean that one must constantly oppose a sitting president simply because he is a Democrat.  Insofar as we are all Americans, and insofar as we all love our nation and its great institutions, we should always be able to find common ground for compromises and policies which will lead to a better tomorrow for us all.

Discuss it here or debate it at Snarkbate!

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in: Politics – No Comments

The Reasons Behind the Rhetoric, pt. 1

May 17, 2009

It was pointed out to me yesterday by someone I respect that my last post might have unnecessarily demonized groups of people whom are otherwise acting out of honest motivations, however wrongheaded I might think those motivations to be.

Now, I admittedly was attempting to be inflammatory with my post.  I don’t hide the fact that some of what I do here is done with duel purposes - I am simultaneously trying to express myself while stir up controversy for my Snarkbate forums.  Setting up strawmen is generally useful when you want to push certain buttons for the sake of getting a response and I am not above doing so to stir up business.

A good point was raised, however.  If I consider myself to be a rational individual, what is the point of utilizing the same rhetorical devices and attitudes I see the other side using?  Sure, I might stir up a debate… but defending a position whose presentation was ultimately founded upon rhetoric most certainly limits the opportunity to actually win that debate.  The worst part is when such strawmen actually offend those whom are being mischaracterized.

This made me think.  I usually do not like to offend people.  There are usually much more effective ways to make a point.  Furthermore, reasonable points tend to draw reasoned debate as well, which is actually what I desire on Snarkbate.  What, then, actually inspired me to make an over-the-top characterization of those with whom I am admittedly frustrated?

Then it struck me.  I wanted to give certain Conservatives a taste of what I felt to be their own medicine.  I have been tired of seeing Liberals, both prominent and ordinary, being characterized in certain ways and wanted to put Conservatives in those same shoes.

There has been an enormous amount of vitriolic rhetoric from the Right aimed at President Obama, Democrats, and the Democratic Leadership in the House and Senate.  We have Randell Terry, for example, who, on Fox News, commented that allowing Obama to speak at Notre Dame is like giving Nazi leaders a podium after the war.  Randell Terry, by the way, was responsible for the Terry Schiavo story being brought to the limelight and runs a website called www.stopobamanotredame.com.  We have Alan Keyes, the man who ran against Obama for Illinois’s Senate Seat, being arrested during a protest he informed would violate the school’s protest policies.  This is a man who, on his personal blog, has accused the president of enforcing godlessness, of wanting despotism, of being a Communist, of showing contempt for the Constitution,  and of being “the living incarnation of the glamorization of evil.”  It turns out that he knew full well he would be trespassing should he carry out his protest but did it anyway, obviously desiring to portray himself as a martyr on par with Martin Luther King, Jr.  These are two of the loudest voices and figureheads for the protests I wrote about.

I could outline numerous other cases of vile rhetoric coming from some Conservatives, but I am sidetracking from the point I want to make.

I wanted to lash out against mischaracterizations from the Right.  Yet, in making these reflections, I invariably have to ask myself how much the current antipathy I have observed in Conservative ranks has really been borne out of a desire to lash out against certain mischaracterizations they have perceived as coming from the Left over the past eight years.

I have been struggling to understand some of the actions of the Republican Party after losing the White House last year.  After Rush Limbaugh tore Michael Steele a new one for calling Limbaugh an “entertainer”, Steele kowtowed in apology not wanting to insult Limbaugh’s leadership.  This same Rush Limbaugh insists that Republicans ought to replace their listening tour with a teaching tour, affirming that Republicans need to stick to the same values which ended up costing them the Executive and Legislative branches of the American government.  The organizers ended up changing the tone from listening to what Americans want to teaching them what conservatism is all about.  Meanwhile, the GOP is calling an extrodinary special session to approve of a resolution to rebrand the Democratic Party as, “The Democrat Socialist Party.”

This all seems very self-defeating.

I also think I understand why they do it.  But I will cover that in my next post. *wink*

Discuss it here or debate it at Snarkbate!

Tags: , ,
Posted in: Politics – No Comments

Idiots to Protest President Obama at Notre Dame

May 16, 2009

I have to say, I am growing increasingly frustrated over the brouhaha that has been stirred up here in the U.S. over arrangements for President Barack Obama to give the commencement speech at one of our country’s top universities.

Before I go any further, I would like to ask those of you from outside the US a question. I am particularly addressing those of you from countries with strong democratic traditions, where you actually elect your leaders. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but it is usually an honor to have the individual who you elected to lead your country to give a speech at a function, right? I mean, you might disagree with this or that issue of the individual’s policies, but generally speaking… you’d be glad to have them, correct? Especially if the speaking engagement has absolutely nothing to do with your issue of disagreement and your president/prime minister is EXTREMELY unlikely to even mention it because it would be inappropriate?

Yeah, I thought so. But apparently this isn’t the case here in the United States, particularly at Notre Dame.

These people have labeled President Obama to be a godless Muslim socialist who advocates for abortion. I’m well aware that is idiotic and an oxymoron on many levels… please don’t shoot the messenger. It does not matter to these people that Obama is a professed Christian. To be a Christian to these people you have to believe like they do. It does not matter that “godless” and “Muslim” are mutually exclusive. It does not matter that, apart from the fact that socialism has been shown to do good things in democratic societies, Obama is decidedly a capitalist trying to save capitalist economic structures in a similar manner as Franklin Roosevelt had done before him.  In fact, it does not even matter that none of these tags are in fact bad when properly understood.

No, what matters is that far-right wing in this country has convinced a lot of people that this is true. Now, please keep in mind, most Americans, Republican and Democratic, do not believe this way. That fringe does exist, however… and the scary part is that it actually currently considered the base of the Republican Party.

So they are going to protest the President speaking at Notre Dame because he does not represent “good Catholic/Christian principles” and is an “Obamanation”, as they refer to him. What, you say he seems like a good enough fellow to you? Oh, well, what you don’t understand is that he has come out in favor of women having sovereignty over their own bodies when they are pregnant. That means he necessarily supports abortion and, by extension, killing little babies. Killing babies is evil. Therefore, we can’t have him speak at a university run by the Roman Catholic Church, which has never done an evil thing in its thousand years of existence and which has NEVER lent support or a podium to evil killers at any point in the past.

Yes. There is a significant segment of people in the modern United States of America who think in this very way. And they are still very influential.

Discuss it here or debate it at Snarkbate!

Tags: , , ,
Posted in: Politics – 1 Comment

House Season Finale: My Thoughts

May 15, 2009

Warning: This post contains major spoilers.

After reading tons of comments related to the season finale, I worry that a lot of people are missing the mark in terms of their analysis of these last two episodes of House.

A recap for those whom were not paying attention - in the past few episodes, House has been hallucinating Wilson’s dead girlfriend Amber.  Amber, as a figment of House’s subconscious, has been guiding House to do Bad Things such as make dangerous diagnoses and kill Chase.  It also does not help that, in general, she has been DAMN CREEPY, particularly when she unexpectedly appeared singing “Enjoy Yourself.”

Naturally, House wishes to be rid of Amber, the processes of which supposedly culminated in sexual relations with Cuddy.

Only it didn’t happen.  In reality, House’s hallucinations took a turn for the worst and he confabulated the whole thing.  His brain tricked his conscious mind so that he could go on a Vicodin binge.

A great many people have complained that this was a dream-sequence bait-and-switch used to exploit and ultimately deprive fans of the “Huddy” angle to the show.  They feel as though the hallucination aspect was merely a rehash of the “dream sequence” plot device which is often used to make it as though events never happened so that the status quo within the program can be continued.

While I think most people “get it”, I worry that some people are missing the larger point.

The hallucinations weren’t used to explain away House and Cuddy being together. House and Cuddy being together was used to impact us with the emotional depths of House’s madness.

This wasn’t a mere dream sequence. That’s been done, overplayed, and really would have been the cheating cop-out people say it was had “Under My Skin” been the finale and the device from “Both Sides Now” been used in the Season Six premiere.

Such was not the case. “Huddy” was just a red herring. Whether House and Cuddy should be together in the end is quite irrelevant - the fact that House currently has major psychological problems is a far more interesting development in the plot. To repeat, the writers did not merely throw in the “Huddy” angle to appease the fans just to cop out with a bait-and-switch. Instead, they used these highly anticipated events to deepen the impact of the devastating revelation of House’s mental illness.

House has not been “alright” since the accident that resulted in Amber’s death. The entire season has been foreshadowing what we have seen in this finale. Many of House’s patients have had ailments which reflected his own. House accompanied Wilson to the psych ward to see his brother. House has been increasingly sloppy in his diagnoses. Events in this season have been building to precisely this outcome, not to the happily-ever-after that “Huddy” fans so desired.

That latter result would have been tacked on and, most likely, ultimately unsatisfying. I think that what we saw on Monday will lead to something more satisfying, as it will bring a psychological angle to the show we rarely see on American television.

I am personally looking forward to Season Six.

Feel free to discuss it here or debate it on Snarkbate!

Tags: , ,
Posted in: House – 4 Comments