I read a fascinating book this week; A.J. Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically. In it, A.J. sets out to obey the 700+ laws of The Bible as literally as possible. His quest tangents, however, on numerous contemporary issues such as gay rights and abortion. And polygamy.
He discovered a small contingent of Christian polygamists, hoping to have their lifestyle recognized and legalized. This got me thinking, and when I get thinking, I get writing. For starters, we need a working definition of Polygamy. The dictionary defines polygamy as " the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time." Entymologically, the word comes from the French polygamie, via the Latin polugamos, meaning ‘often marrying.’ Entymologically, it technically refers to one who simply has married often. I have an uncle who has been married thrice, but I wouldn't consider him a polygamist by any stretch. The polygamy described in the book is actually polygyny, where a man has more than one wife. Polyandry is when a woman has more than one husband.
The gay marriage debate saw a number of absurd statements made on both sides, but perhaps most absurd was the assertation that gay marriage would lead the way to legal polygamy. Legally, sure, it could. The United States Libertarian Party opposes the government regulating marriage at all, so polygamy would be allowed legally, as would gay marriage, as dictated by whatever governing body designates people as married or marry-able. But something being legal (or in the Libertarian model, simply not an area of government regulation) doesn't mean it's feesable or practical.
The workings of polygamy (be it polgyny or polyandry) are rather complex. Intense emotions are at play, and even if it were legal, it still presents logistical obstacles that keep it a pretty seldom seen activity. First off, there's the question of aspiring to be one. You'd have to be fairly open with your aspirations when playing the field. I sincerely doubt that someone decides to become a polygamist after marrying someone else. That's a pretty major thing to just announce after marriage. I'm sure some social anthropologists would point to this as being a cause of affairs; the impulse to have two wives, but unwilling to suddenly become a polygamist, they simply cheat. Numerous people have suggested that polyamoury is the natural state of humanity (monogamy is a minority position in the animal kingdom), so polygamy is the matrimonial (albeit paradoxical) equivelant.
But again, logistics. To some people, being told by their spouse-to-be that they aspire to have a second spouse is on par with being told by their spouse-to-be that they plan on having an affair during their relationship. The likelihood of such a confession being accepted and understood is astonishingly slim. While transparency and openness are admirable qualities in a mate, similar views on monogamy are absolutely essential if a relationship is to survive. Monogamy is the norm, and polygamists and polyamourists are in a very small minority.
But assuming two people get involved, fully aware that their eventual state will be polygyny or polyandry. Unlikely as it may be, it gets more unlikely. For argument's sake, they begin married life in monogamy. At some point, one would start looking for a second spouse. Forget paranoia about someone being unfaithful, this is far more. And unlike a traditional monogamous relationship (be it straight or gay), there's no promise of being eachother's one and only. They're their one of many. Would they double their spousal efforts to try and lead them to monogamy? This level of suspicion, dread, and general anxiety make marrying someone with aspirations of polygamy seem just plain uncomfortable.
Assuming further, let's say that both partners are totally comfortable with having the other start looking for a second spouse. Do they have a set time they'll start looking? Would there be an arrangement of remaining monogamous if a suitable second spouse does not reveal him or her self by a certain milestone? And then you have the incredibly low probability of finding a third person to participate. Finding two people willing to be polygamists was hard enough. Now you need to find a third. And not just some random person. They have to be of the appropriate appearance, personality, and temperment.
Great beard of zeus.
So you see, there's probably nothing to fear about polygamy. We have to make several large assumptions just to get to the point where a couple considers adding a third party. This likely explains why polygamy is much more common outside the western world, or in. Monogamy is such an incredibly established thing in north america and europe that polygamy seems incredibly alien and selfish. As such, it's about as likely to happen in mainstream society as a revolt of the US Navy's highly trained attack porpises, legal or not.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
It Can Happen to You!
Part One: Male Pattern Baldness
Before a performance of Home in Alfalfa, while applying makeup, I noticed something odd about my appearance. Odder than how I look in makeup. My hairline looked... different. I decided to pay it no mind, rationalising that when dressed up as a pig, my hair was likely not the focus of attention. And even if it was, it's long enough that only I know about it. Besides, it's probably nothing since I'm only 23. It wasn't nothing.
My father is a man of thinned hair and recessed hairlines. I showed him and asked his opinion. His reply was one of resignation, poorly muffled laughter, and pride in passing on his genes. My father has been sporting a hairline that reaches back for about as long as I've known him. It's even present in my baby pictures (which are, believe it or not, in black and white). It never once occurred to me that this would be passed on to me. The math involved in it eluded me, even; My father was a little under two months past his 28th birthday when I was born, and his hairline hasn't really moved since. He then confided in me that his hair loss began at around the same age.
The way I see it, I have quite a few options. The first is one of vanity: stock up on Rogaine and hope for the best. Known medically as Minoxodil, rogaine is a topical medication that claims to stimulate the scalp and prevent further hair loss. Sounds great, right? Sure. Why abandon my mighty locks when science has found a way for me to keep them naturally? Well, there's the side effects for one: acne on the scalp, headaches, very low blood pressure, irregular/rapid heartbeat, blurred vision, and chest pain. Pass.
Another option is slightly more invasive, but definitely a surefire way to keep my hair is hair plugs. Great. But it costs between $6,000 and $15,000. Also, infection is a risk. And to top it all off, it's not even a guarantee. Bald patches are common, which could nullify the procedure, making the cure worse than the ailment.
This takes us out of the medical options and into social options. The first being the most obvious: hiding it. A toupee, wig, or hairpiece will certainly do the job, and many famous (and infamous) persons throughout history have made liberal use of them. Julius Caesar, for example. Frank Sinatra, Jimmy Stewart, and John Wayne all wore toupees. So I have real men's men behind me on this. Sean Connery has been long rumoured to have worn a toupee when playing James Bond, and William Shatner is also rumoured to wear one. Combovers are not an option, however. I'm not even sure I can advocate it anyway, as the combover is actually patented.
So my only logical conclusion is to embrace it. And why not? The list of great men with a less than full head of hair is long and robust. Patrick Stewart, Bruce Willis, John Cleese, C.S Lewis, and according to the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, The Apostle Paul.
So why do so many men shudder at the thought of losing their hair? For every man who decided to embrace the hairline God blessed them with, there are others who would rather lose their thumbs than their flowing locks. The hair loss industry is worth over $1 billion annually.
"But Scott," you surely plead, "what does The Bible say about bald men?" I'm glad you asked. First, I would direct you to II Kings 2:23-24: "From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." I'm not a theologian, but I think the message of this passage is incredibly clear: mock the bald, and bears will kill you. I suppose you could argue that the two events (Elisha calling down a curse and the bears attacking) are unrelated, but it should serve at least as a grave warning.
Before a performance of Home in Alfalfa, while applying makeup, I noticed something odd about my appearance. Odder than how I look in makeup. My hairline looked... different. I decided to pay it no mind, rationalising that when dressed up as a pig, my hair was likely not the focus of attention. And even if it was, it's long enough that only I know about it. Besides, it's probably nothing since I'm only 23. It wasn't nothing.
My father is a man of thinned hair and recessed hairlines. I showed him and asked his opinion. His reply was one of resignation, poorly muffled laughter, and pride in passing on his genes. My father has been sporting a hairline that reaches back for about as long as I've known him. It's even present in my baby pictures (which are, believe it or not, in black and white). It never once occurred to me that this would be passed on to me. The math involved in it eluded me, even; My father was a little under two months past his 28th birthday when I was born, and his hairline hasn't really moved since. He then confided in me that his hair loss began at around the same age.
The way I see it, I have quite a few options. The first is one of vanity: stock up on Rogaine and hope for the best. Known medically as Minoxodil, rogaine is a topical medication that claims to stimulate the scalp and prevent further hair loss. Sounds great, right? Sure. Why abandon my mighty locks when science has found a way for me to keep them naturally? Well, there's the side effects for one: acne on the scalp, headaches, very low blood pressure, irregular/rapid heartbeat, blurred vision, and chest pain. Pass.
Another option is slightly more invasive, but definitely a surefire way to keep my hair is hair plugs. Great. But it costs between $6,000 and $15,000. Also, infection is a risk. And to top it all off, it's not even a guarantee. Bald patches are common, which could nullify the procedure, making the cure worse than the ailment.
This takes us out of the medical options and into social options. The first being the most obvious: hiding it. A toupee, wig, or hairpiece will certainly do the job, and many famous (and infamous) persons throughout history have made liberal use of them. Julius Caesar, for example. Frank Sinatra, Jimmy Stewart, and John Wayne all wore toupees. So I have real men's men behind me on this. Sean Connery has been long rumoured to have worn a toupee when playing James Bond, and William Shatner is also rumoured to wear one. Combovers are not an option, however. I'm not even sure I can advocate it anyway, as the combover is actually patented.
So my only logical conclusion is to embrace it. And why not? The list of great men with a less than full head of hair is long and robust. Patrick Stewart, Bruce Willis, John Cleese, C.S Lewis, and according to the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, The Apostle Paul.
So why do so many men shudder at the thought of losing their hair? For every man who decided to embrace the hairline God blessed them with, there are others who would rather lose their thumbs than their flowing locks. The hair loss industry is worth over $1 billion annually.
"But Scott," you surely plead, "what does The Bible say about bald men?" I'm glad you asked. First, I would direct you to II Kings 2:23-24: "From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." I'm not a theologian, but I think the message of this passage is incredibly clear: mock the bald, and bears will kill you. I suppose you could argue that the two events (Elisha calling down a curse and the bears attacking) are unrelated, but it should serve at least as a grave warning.
Monday, December 3, 2007
How to: Survive prying relatives at Christmas
Christmas holidays are the only time my family sees each other together, generally speaking. There's usually cordial and even unexpected visits throughout the year, of course, but full-blown family events are a rarity for both the Martin and Fairley clans. It's a little dysfunctional, but so am I. But it generally makes for a more cordial and pleasant affair for all involved, as a year of silence means there's no shortage of topics for conversation. However, the topic generally shifts into territory that I would rather not discuss: my love life and my post-university plans. And I know I'm not alone in this. However, having been both single and in university for the bulk of my university career, I've learned a few tricks to keep conversation out of those areas, or at least how to make the conversation more interesting than torturous.
1. Distraction
This it a pretty easy tactic, and technically all of these tactics are a distraction in some way, but a straight distraction is category unto itself. The ease of use of a straight distraction comes with the price of it not always working, however. Countering "So, do you have a girlfriend yet?" with "nice weather we're having" doesn't really work regardless of how you word it, but answering "did I tell you about this movie I saw last week? It was fantastic" provides more wiggle room and could lead into a healthy discourse on modern cinema. Any subject will do as a distraction, but the more finely tuned the distraction is to the interests of the interrogating relative will help make it more successful. It's also polite to discuss the interests of someone else and draw the topic away from yourself. Distraction is less effective when dodging the "what are you going to do after you graduate?" question, however. But it can be done. Of course, the perfect distraction for either question is the other question, but you and I both know that's an option.
2. Sarcasm
If done properly, dry sarcasm can both distract effectively and be a lot of fun. Answering either question with a deadpan, nonsensical response is a little risky, but your worst case scenario is generally getting a good laugh from the inquiring relative. Ideally, it will be interpreted as an honest response and they will be satisfied with it, and you satisfied with your sharp wit. But the middle ground here could include hurt feelings, so tread carefully. A nonsensical response is the least likely to offend and most likely to entertain. For example, responding to the career question with something like "I'd like to be an usher at the Air Canada Centre" adds a levity that an embittered "oh, wouldn't you just love to know" cannot. And I think I can speak for everyone when I say that I've always wanted to tell someone I want to be a performance artist.
3. Wordplay
If you own a dictionary or a thesaurus, this becomes a very easy way to answer the career question. Even the most mundane of job titles can sound exciting with the right words. I once worked as a mover. But why call myself a mover when I can call myself a personal capital migration technician? Use your own imagination, but suffice to say, a career as a professional textual anthropomorphic engineer certainly sounds exciting.
4. Make something up
It's technically lying, yes, but it need not be malicious. For example, if you don't know what you want to do with yourself professionally, just think of something spectacularly reasonable. Professional wrestler is a good choice if you're athletic, and music critic is pretty interesting (not to mention easy). My personal favourite is Trophy Husband, as it covers both the dating and career questions in one shot. If my career goal is to marry someone independently wealthy and pursue my (generally low-paying or non-paying) hobbies with significant financial freedom, I would be well advised to keep my romantic options as open as possible, not to mention career options. It's also good for a laugh and unlikely to be taken seriously, which will satisfy their curiosity enough for the remainder of the day.
5. Just grin and bear it
Let's face it. These questions aren't asked with malicious intent, and as uncomfortable as they may make you, objectively, you know darn well that they only want what's best for you and are genuinely curious about what's going on in your life. But accepting this must be a last resort only. Prying with good intentions is still prying. Only cave in when you've exhausted your remaining options.
Of course, the career question becomes easier with age. Once you have a real career, you'll probably want to flaunt it, even if you have to bust out your thesaurus to make it sound more exciting. But the only way to bring the love life questions to an end is to bring someone home to meet the family, explored in greater depth in Jay Roach's 2000 documentary Meet the Parents and perhaps in a future entry.
Until then, have a pleasant Christmas break and a happy new year.
1. Distraction
This it a pretty easy tactic, and technically all of these tactics are a distraction in some way, but a straight distraction is category unto itself. The ease of use of a straight distraction comes with the price of it not always working, however. Countering "So, do you have a girlfriend yet?" with "nice weather we're having" doesn't really work regardless of how you word it, but answering "did I tell you about this movie I saw last week? It was fantastic" provides more wiggle room and could lead into a healthy discourse on modern cinema. Any subject will do as a distraction, but the more finely tuned the distraction is to the interests of the interrogating relative will help make it more successful. It's also polite to discuss the interests of someone else and draw the topic away from yourself. Distraction is less effective when dodging the "what are you going to do after you graduate?" question, however. But it can be done. Of course, the perfect distraction for either question is the other question, but you and I both know that's an option.
2. Sarcasm
If done properly, dry sarcasm can both distract effectively and be a lot of fun. Answering either question with a deadpan, nonsensical response is a little risky, but your worst case scenario is generally getting a good laugh from the inquiring relative. Ideally, it will be interpreted as an honest response and they will be satisfied with it, and you satisfied with your sharp wit. But the middle ground here could include hurt feelings, so tread carefully. A nonsensical response is the least likely to offend and most likely to entertain. For example, responding to the career question with something like "I'd like to be an usher at the Air Canada Centre" adds a levity that an embittered "oh, wouldn't you just love to know" cannot. And I think I can speak for everyone when I say that I've always wanted to tell someone I want to be a performance artist.
3. Wordplay
If you own a dictionary or a thesaurus, this becomes a very easy way to answer the career question. Even the most mundane of job titles can sound exciting with the right words. I once worked as a mover. But why call myself a mover when I can call myself a personal capital migration technician? Use your own imagination, but suffice to say, a career as a professional textual anthropomorphic engineer certainly sounds exciting.
4. Make something up
It's technically lying, yes, but it need not be malicious. For example, if you don't know what you want to do with yourself professionally, just think of something spectacularly reasonable. Professional wrestler is a good choice if you're athletic, and music critic is pretty interesting (not to mention easy). My personal favourite is Trophy Husband, as it covers both the dating and career questions in one shot. If my career goal is to marry someone independently wealthy and pursue my (generally low-paying or non-paying) hobbies with significant financial freedom, I would be well advised to keep my romantic options as open as possible, not to mention career options. It's also good for a laugh and unlikely to be taken seriously, which will satisfy their curiosity enough for the remainder of the day.
5. Just grin and bear it
Let's face it. These questions aren't asked with malicious intent, and as uncomfortable as they may make you, objectively, you know darn well that they only want what's best for you and are genuinely curious about what's going on in your life. But accepting this must be a last resort only. Prying with good intentions is still prying. Only cave in when you've exhausted your remaining options.
Of course, the career question becomes easier with age. Once you have a real career, you'll probably want to flaunt it, even if you have to bust out your thesaurus to make it sound more exciting. But the only way to bring the love life questions to an end is to bring someone home to meet the family, explored in greater depth in Jay Roach's 2000 documentary Meet the Parents and perhaps in a future entry.
Until then, have a pleasant Christmas break and a happy new year.
Monday, November 5, 2007
My contingency plan for the WGA strike
As many of you know, the television and film writers have gone on strike over money, of all things. This will result in many unpleasant things, such as premature cancellations for some shows, improper and likely hastily organized season/series finales, and generally a lot of boredom. But I have discovered that there are ways to entertain myself in remarkably similar ways. Here's my contingency plan for each series:
- Scrubs: Scrubs is in it's last season, but only 12 of the 18 episodes are written so far. This means a proper season finale may not happen come this april. However, instead, I can go to the nearest hospital and imagine what all the doctors are thinking and which ones are sleeping with each other. Depending on my mood, this will cover Scrubs, Grey's Anatomy, House, and ER all in one shot.
- The Office: The Office will survive the strike, so I'm not too worried. To compensate though, I'll follow my roommate to work because the 9-5 office world is the exact same as The Office anyways.
- Chuck: Chuck might not survive the strike, so instead, I will simply do my Redeemer Security rounds as though the fate of the free world depends on it and have an awkward pseudo-romantic relationship with one of the kitchen staff.
- Weeds: Find a local, inexplicably attractive marijuana dealer to job shadow.
- Dexter: Find a local vigilante to job shadow.
- How I Met Your Mother: Start saying "legendary" and "awesome" more; become a third wheel to a married couple and move in with them. Have Bob Saget narrate afterwards.
So that covers a good amount of my watching schedule. Another thing I plan on doing is reading more. If you, loyal reader, haven't read The Eyre Affair by Jasper Fforde yet, you ought to. If you already have, read it again.
And turn off your TV's, because there won't be fuck-all to watch until the strike ends.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Science is serious business
Ladies and gentleman, I present you three evolutionary theories. One of these theories is proposed by a comic book writer. Another, by a scientist, with the remaining one created by yours truly off the top of my head.
1. Future evolutionary variants of humans will be stronger, smarter, more adaptable, and will be forced to deal with persecution and misunderstanding by differently evolved, or unevolved, members of humanity.
2. Future evolutionary variants of humans will be smarter, but in lesser numbers, and no longer the dominant species on the planet. They will have adapted into continentally-specific sub-races, and reverted from nations to smaller tribes.
3. Future evolutionary variants of humans will be of two variants. One will be smarter, taller, more physically attractive, with men having larger penises and women possessing more appealing breasts and hairless skin. The other class will be short, slow-witted, goblin-like race who will likely be subservient to the attractive and intelligent race.
If you can guess which is which, please do so. As far as I'm concerned, all three are science fiction. Evolution is nearly universally accepted in the scientific community, but science is based on empirical evidence. Speculation is merely that. Educated as it may be, it's just a guess. Fiction is great. I majored in it. I love it. But seriously, my BA in English doesn't make me a hell of a lot less qualified to predict the next evolutionary stages of humanity.
Since these things are more or less just spitballing ideas, why not let me get in on the action? If you can't guess which of the three theories is from an actual scientist, then clearly you have nothing to lose. Just send me a research grant, and I'll tell you what humans will be like 10,000 years from now with the exact same degree of certainty as the last theory you invested in. I'll even do it for less than your average scientist.
1. Future evolutionary variants of humans will be stronger, smarter, more adaptable, and will be forced to deal with persecution and misunderstanding by differently evolved, or unevolved, members of humanity.
2. Future evolutionary variants of humans will be smarter, but in lesser numbers, and no longer the dominant species on the planet. They will have adapted into continentally-specific sub-races, and reverted from nations to smaller tribes.
3. Future evolutionary variants of humans will be of two variants. One will be smarter, taller, more physically attractive, with men having larger penises and women possessing more appealing breasts and hairless skin. The other class will be short, slow-witted, goblin-like race who will likely be subservient to the attractive and intelligent race.
If you can guess which is which, please do so. As far as I'm concerned, all three are science fiction. Evolution is nearly universally accepted in the scientific community, but science is based on empirical evidence. Speculation is merely that. Educated as it may be, it's just a guess. Fiction is great. I majored in it. I love it. But seriously, my BA in English doesn't make me a hell of a lot less qualified to predict the next evolutionary stages of humanity.
Since these things are more or less just spitballing ideas, why not let me get in on the action? If you can't guess which of the three theories is from an actual scientist, then clearly you have nothing to lose. Just send me a research grant, and I'll tell you what humans will be like 10,000 years from now with the exact same degree of certainty as the last theory you invested in. I'll even do it for less than your average scientist.
Stop protesting, nobody cares
I'm a somewhat politically aware person. Moreso than the average person, but I'm not the type who will recoil in horror when I find out someone voted differently than I did. That's not my game, and anyone who considers political affiliation an important part of deciding who to be friends with is taking it way too seriously. Firstly, the majority of political parties are pretty close to eachother on 90% of the issues, especially in Canada. Universal Healthcare is, well, universal. Balanced budgets are always promised (and sometimes delivered), and the question is never "should we" but "how do we" when it comes to social programs.
Fine by me. It's not perfect, but it gives ample wiggle room, and making a difference without the government's assistance is both practical and feesable.
However, that doesn't stop the occasional dissenters, and it certainly doesn't keep them quiet. Frankly, it just bores me. Watching the news and seeing protests over this issue and that is just getting boring, and only fuels my growing apathy.
Let's get the main issue out of the way. Protests over the Iraq War. I'm with those protesting in terms of disagreeing with the invasion and occupation, but guys, we need to talk.
Firstly, tone it down a notch. Effigy burning looks pretty cool, but it's a far cry from civil debate, which I don't think the Iraq war (as handled by Bush and his team) stands up to anyways. Effigy burning, posters of Bush with a hitler-stache, and flag burning are visually arresting to be sure, but they don't sway opinions. If anything, they distract and make it easy to brush people off as just radicals, even if the cause is supported by the majority.
Second, take a look at the impact of protests and demonstrations. The Iraq war was protested by literally millions before it even happened. But it still happened. Protests continue. It's still happening. Do the math. Protesting doesn't work because people who make the decisions don't feel compelled to listen to protesters. There's exceptions to this, but nothing at the G8 conference changes because of the anarchists outside.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying protesting shouldn't be allowed. It absolutely should be allowed. It just needs to be seen for what it is: sound and fury signifying nothing. I'm also all for political dissent. It's absolutely essential in a democracy, but there's a better way to dissent than to rally in the streets. If your ideas don't stand up to civil debate, they must be discarded. This goes for those who think the Dixie Chicks are unpatriotic as well as those who think they're martyrs.
Fine by me. It's not perfect, but it gives ample wiggle room, and making a difference without the government's assistance is both practical and feesable.
However, that doesn't stop the occasional dissenters, and it certainly doesn't keep them quiet. Frankly, it just bores me. Watching the news and seeing protests over this issue and that is just getting boring, and only fuels my growing apathy.
Let's get the main issue out of the way. Protests over the Iraq War. I'm with those protesting in terms of disagreeing with the invasion and occupation, but guys, we need to talk.
Firstly, tone it down a notch. Effigy burning looks pretty cool, but it's a far cry from civil debate, which I don't think the Iraq war (as handled by Bush and his team) stands up to anyways. Effigy burning, posters of Bush with a hitler-stache, and flag burning are visually arresting to be sure, but they don't sway opinions. If anything, they distract and make it easy to brush people off as just radicals, even if the cause is supported by the majority.
Second, take a look at the impact of protests and demonstrations. The Iraq war was protested by literally millions before it even happened. But it still happened. Protests continue. It's still happening. Do the math. Protesting doesn't work because people who make the decisions don't feel compelled to listen to protesters. There's exceptions to this, but nothing at the G8 conference changes because of the anarchists outside.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying protesting shouldn't be allowed. It absolutely should be allowed. It just needs to be seen for what it is: sound and fury signifying nothing. I'm also all for political dissent. It's absolutely essential in a democracy, but there's a better way to dissent than to rally in the streets. If your ideas don't stand up to civil debate, they must be discarded. This goes for those who think the Dixie Chicks are unpatriotic as well as those who think they're martyrs.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Rationality is for suckers
At Redeemer, students are forced to take a number of core classes, such as history, philosophy, political science, psychology etc..
One recurrent theme in the liberal arts is reason and rationality. It seems as though since the greeks, every single movement in every single discipline has been to further the cause of reason and rationality. Think about it: The enlightenment. Causality. Democracy. Realism. Plato. Apologetics. The scientific revolution. Darwinism. Building a more reasonable and rational world is the cornerstone of western thought, at least as far as I can tell. Those two r's are basically the building blocks of the last 3000 years of thought and action.
I'm not much of a philosopher, but I think we're about as rational as we'll ever get. Seriously. After well over 3000 years of reason and rationalism being promoted by the leading thinkers of the last three millenniums, I think it's fair to say that the concept has either run it's course or escaped us. There's been absolutely no shortage of time to let it sink in or to let it define our society. Either it doesn't work, or we just don't get it.
Of all the philosophical concepts, reason has probably been around the longest. Academia is founded on it. Compared to other philosophical and political movements, it's the elder statesman. Communism is, comparably, fairly new, and save a few holdouts, has run it's course. The Soviet juggernaut collapsed less than 20 years ago and just over 200 years after Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. As a form of government, it only had roughly a century in practice, and assuming Cuba and China go democratic in the next decade, exactly a century. I'm not holding out hope for either, but communism is generally speaking considered a failed concept at this point.
So why can't we let reason go? Even if we assume the french revolution to be the start of reason in society, it's fairly obvious that it's been less successful than Marxism in terms of cultural adoption. Don't believe me? Take a look at cultural trends. We clearly don't care for reason, otherwise we wouldn't be living in a world where people put profit before humanity. In a truly reasoned and rational world, Canada wouldn't be the kind of place where you can walk into Toronto and see someone living on the streets and someone who pays six figures for an apartment standing next to each other. There's nothing reasonable about people who appear on TV shows where they compete for the affections of a man with the intellect of a bag of hammers for millions to see.
The way I see it, we've given reason a shot, and we've decided we don't care for it. Simple as that. We've heard about it all our lives, and we've chosen another way to live. Deal with it. I, for one, embrace it. I'm certainly not a reasonable person. I act on emotion. I act on impluse. I go with my gut. I have faith in things unseen. And I'm in the majority, even outside religious folk.
So give it a rest. Reason has had it's chance time and time again, and we simply don't care. This is as good as it's going to get, so we may as well just sit back and embrace it.
One recurrent theme in the liberal arts is reason and rationality. It seems as though since the greeks, every single movement in every single discipline has been to further the cause of reason and rationality. Think about it: The enlightenment. Causality. Democracy. Realism. Plato. Apologetics. The scientific revolution. Darwinism. Building a more reasonable and rational world is the cornerstone of western thought, at least as far as I can tell. Those two r's are basically the building blocks of the last 3000 years of thought and action.
I'm not much of a philosopher, but I think we're about as rational as we'll ever get. Seriously. After well over 3000 years of reason and rationalism being promoted by the leading thinkers of the last three millenniums, I think it's fair to say that the concept has either run it's course or escaped us. There's been absolutely no shortage of time to let it sink in or to let it define our society. Either it doesn't work, or we just don't get it.
Of all the philosophical concepts, reason has probably been around the longest. Academia is founded on it. Compared to other philosophical and political movements, it's the elder statesman. Communism is, comparably, fairly new, and save a few holdouts, has run it's course. The Soviet juggernaut collapsed less than 20 years ago and just over 200 years after Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. As a form of government, it only had roughly a century in practice, and assuming Cuba and China go democratic in the next decade, exactly a century. I'm not holding out hope for either, but communism is generally speaking considered a failed concept at this point.
So why can't we let reason go? Even if we assume the french revolution to be the start of reason in society, it's fairly obvious that it's been less successful than Marxism in terms of cultural adoption. Don't believe me? Take a look at cultural trends. We clearly don't care for reason, otherwise we wouldn't be living in a world where people put profit before humanity. In a truly reasoned and rational world, Canada wouldn't be the kind of place where you can walk into Toronto and see someone living on the streets and someone who pays six figures for an apartment standing next to each other. There's nothing reasonable about people who appear on TV shows where they compete for the affections of a man with the intellect of a bag of hammers for millions to see.
The way I see it, we've given reason a shot, and we've decided we don't care for it. Simple as that. We've heard about it all our lives, and we've chosen another way to live. Deal with it. I, for one, embrace it. I'm certainly not a reasonable person. I act on emotion. I act on impluse. I go with my gut. I have faith in things unseen. And I'm in the majority, even outside religious folk.
So give it a rest. Reason has had it's chance time and time again, and we simply don't care. This is as good as it's going to get, so we may as well just sit back and embrace it.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Is sci-fi dead?
During the promotional tour for the long awaited Blade Runner: Final Cut DVD release, Director Ridley Scott said something that has been stewing in this brain of mine for a few months now. I merely lacked the time to really think about the implications of it. Scott said that sci-fi has gone the way of the western; a niche genre with as many duds as classics, but ultimately a relic of the past at this point. The latter being my own commentary on the statement.
Mr. Scott, I respectfully disagree.
When it comes to sci-fi filmmaking, Ridley Scott has only a handful of rivals. Spielberg (when he dabbles in the genre, anyways), Lucas (before he made the prequels. Imagination, not vision, is his strong suit), and James Cameron. It's no coincidence that James Cameron was the one who tackled the sequel to Scott's 1979 Aliens. The Alien series, at first anyways, set the bar higher on cinematic sci-fi.
But where has it gone in the last 25 years? Obviously, you have a handful of masterful sci-fi pieces released since Blade Runner, including Aliens. But there's also been no shortage of sci-fi mistakes. But is the same not true for every other genre? Take romantic comedies. How many unremarkable and downright forgettable romantic comedies have there been in the last 25 years? There's only been a handful of them that have been worth remembering, and only one I would dare call a good movie (Love, Actually).
Dead also implies that it's, well, no longer functioning. Sci-fi has always been something of a fringe genre, but take a look at what TV shows are big these days: Lost isn't pure sci-fi, but it definitely has enough supernatural elements to be considered sci-fi. Heroes is a huge hit and it's fanbase has been growing steadily. The reinvisioned Battlestar Galactica has a devoted following. There's a new Star Trek in the works. The Firefly series has an incredibly devout flock, and there's even talk of a sequel to Serenity in the works.
I suppose one could argue that sci-fi movies are no longer a box office draw. There's some validity to that. Except for the massive box-office draw of Transformers. Hardly a shining example of sci-fi brilliance, but it's sci-fi, and it made a huge amount of money. But again, sci-fi is mostly underground and only rarely a cultural juggernaut. Star Wars and Star Trek are the exception, not the rule. As one of the most influential sci-fi filmmakers, you would think he would pay more attention to the genre he helped cultivate. It's probably healthier than it ever has been, both in terms of quality and quantity.
Mr. Scott, I respectfully disagree.
When it comes to sci-fi filmmaking, Ridley Scott has only a handful of rivals. Spielberg (when he dabbles in the genre, anyways), Lucas (before he made the prequels. Imagination, not vision, is his strong suit), and James Cameron. It's no coincidence that James Cameron was the one who tackled the sequel to Scott's 1979 Aliens. The Alien series, at first anyways, set the bar higher on cinematic sci-fi.
But where has it gone in the last 25 years? Obviously, you have a handful of masterful sci-fi pieces released since Blade Runner, including Aliens. But there's also been no shortage of sci-fi mistakes. But is the same not true for every other genre? Take romantic comedies. How many unremarkable and downright forgettable romantic comedies have there been in the last 25 years? There's only been a handful of them that have been worth remembering, and only one I would dare call a good movie (Love, Actually).
Dead also implies that it's, well, no longer functioning. Sci-fi has always been something of a fringe genre, but take a look at what TV shows are big these days: Lost isn't pure sci-fi, but it definitely has enough supernatural elements to be considered sci-fi. Heroes is a huge hit and it's fanbase has been growing steadily. The reinvisioned Battlestar Galactica has a devoted following. There's a new Star Trek in the works. The Firefly series has an incredibly devout flock, and there's even talk of a sequel to Serenity in the works.
I suppose one could argue that sci-fi movies are no longer a box office draw. There's some validity to that. Except for the massive box-office draw of Transformers. Hardly a shining example of sci-fi brilliance, but it's sci-fi, and it made a huge amount of money. But again, sci-fi is mostly underground and only rarely a cultural juggernaut. Star Wars and Star Trek are the exception, not the rule. As one of the most influential sci-fi filmmakers, you would think he would pay more attention to the genre he helped cultivate. It's probably healthier than it ever has been, both in terms of quality and quantity.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Outline
This blog will fulfill a handful of duties. First and foremost, it's a place for my essays. Some of these have/will been handed in as papers, some have been published in The Crown, Redeemer's student newspaper, some are political pieces, some are cultural commentary, some satire, and some humourous ones.
Actually, that's all it's a place for. My essays.
The title, Curses and Prayers, is taken from Hey, Nostradamus! a novel by the wonderful Douglas Coupland. A character in purgatory states that the noises in heaven are only prayers and curses. I've found that to be both challenging and comforting, so it seems like an apt title for a blog. And both prayers and curses will grace this blog, to be sure.
Cheers,
Scott William Fairley
Actually, that's all it's a place for. My essays.
The title, Curses and Prayers, is taken from Hey, Nostradamus! a novel by the wonderful Douglas Coupland. A character in purgatory states that the noises in heaven are only prayers and curses. I've found that to be both challenging and comforting, so it seems like an apt title for a blog. And both prayers and curses will grace this blog, to be sure.
Cheers,
Scott William Fairley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
