After the hijackers either killed or disabled the airplane pilots, passengers learned from cell phone calls to loved ones that other targets had been hit: other hijackings had succeeded. They knew they were riding an airplane-turned-bomb, which must have some intended target: they were facing imminent death. They knew that their choice was to retake control of the flight or die.

Faced with their own imminent destruction, the passengers chose to fight. They organized and mounted a counterattack. The combat that ensued bore out the apparent intentions of the terrorist attackers: to maintain control of the airplane toward its destructive goal or else destroy themselves and the passengers.

The flight recorder captured the sounds of the conflict in which the passengers either closely approached retaking control of the cabin, or actually retook it. At that point, the hijackers, faced with the imminent failure of their mission, chose self-and-all-annihilation. On the flight recording is one of the hijackers issuing an order to end the flight, just before the time ground witnesses reported the plane crashed. It approached ground near upside-down at a steep angle, and impacted at about 500 miles per hour in a giant fireball, immediately killing all the hijackers and passengers.

The passengers succeeded in killing two hijackers and thwarting the remaining two. The terrorists succeeded in thwarting the passengers’ attempt to re-take the plane: by ending their own and all lives present.

Whether or not it was the passengers’ intentions to defend America as well as their own lives, they in fact did defend their country. What is more, they probably defended the Capitol; abundant evidence suggests the intended target of the flight was the White House or the Capitol building. At the cost of their own lives, the citizens-turned-soldiers of United flight 93 stopped a plot in action to destroy the housings of our liberty, and all of the life in them.

The survival battle and the sacrifices of the passengers of flight 93 are heroic.

These, and the other victims of the attacks of that day, left many survivors and survived, not only in the United States but globally. In some way we are all survived, but it is worst for those who had to confront this most personally and directly. To any of you, if you read this: To merely function after surviving a forced confrontation with such unspeakable evil is heroic. For all of us, but especially for you, I pray.

“..the Web browser has become one of the most critical and trusted relationships of our modern lives – with nearly perfect knowledge of everything we do.”

Um, no.

.. And I’m thankful for the Mozilla Foundation, and search engine optimization, and my search engine ranking, and Firefox plugins.. and please bless that Google will stop nagging me to opt-in to Google Wave..”

The ‘net is great (even arguably crucial), but this sounds like.. actual worship. Wrong god. Idol Fail.

(I actually am thankful for the Mozilla Foundation, though.)

Book Of Time 3D Screensaver – This screen saver is a philosophic approach to the process of time. The book, which has next moment on each of its pages. On the one page it has the past on the next the future comes. Where is the present then? Maybe somewhere between these two ones. This screen saver makes it possible to behold the enigma while the time is turning over on the shabby old book’s pages. Do you want to look through the book till the end?

Sorry, but my $14.95 can get me better passage of my time.  Thanks for the chuckles though, Chucky!

Also:

Skull and Bones 3D Screensaver – Guard your desktop with this awesome screen saver. Bet you have never seen such lovely skull on your screen. You will see rotating skull and crossbones – the symbol of real threat. Molten metal effects and cool sunglasses combine perfectly with sinister background. Impressive 3D graphics along with tense urban sound effects will really amaze you. Download this screen saver now – it not only saves your screen, but also the entire computer.

Ar!  But can it save me from Engrish?  Never mind.  I need the laughs.

I’ve spent more time reading, listening to and watching the advertisements and arguments of the movement I disagree with (No On 8 ) in order to grasp their point of view.

Items:

1. Disappointed “No on 8″ voters protest outside the walls of the Los Angeles Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or “Mormon”).

One thing at least the protesters aren’t happy about is that, leading up to the Ballot vote, the LDS Church had urged its members to contribute to the cause of the “Yes on 8″ campaign – and it worked.  Wikipedia cites mercurynews.com that about 45 percent of out-of-state donations to “Yes on 8″ came from citizens of the state of Utah (which is mostly populated by Mormons and where the LDS Church is headquartered).

The following YouTube video, about 10 minutes, is footage of the protesters shouting “Go back to Utah!” – “You wanted Armaggedon?” – “SHAME ON YOU!! SHAME ON YOU!!” – and “TAX THE MORMON CHURCH!! TAX THE MORMON CHURCH!” – or that’s everything I picked out.

Slanderous, hate-filled messages on signs (link – Flikr gallery) from protesters condemn Mormons and/or their Church.  The hypocrisy of these signs is well-described at this post at the One Thousand and One Parsecs blog, here.  I would only add that the Flikr gallery evidences vandalism on Temple walls, vandalism of sacred grounds, from people preaching “love” and “tolerance.”

The source of the protesters’ ire?  If, as they believe, they’ve lost a civil right, this is freedom fighting.  What is a slap in the face when you’ve lost your human, your civil rights?  That’s the morality of it, from their vantage.  But this has started to go beyond slaps.  Some apparently felt justified in physically attacking – beating to the ground – an onlooker who, out of pity for the sacred grounds, proceeded to remove the offensive signs – as reported at Meridian (link).

Granting what I think is a radically far stretch, that these beliefs justify such measures (the Democratic process is still very open! – I’m not out slugging Obama supporters because of my disappointment!) – how good are these protesters’ arguments?  Well, I think the aforementioned blog post also dismantles that.

2. There’s contradiction among “No on 8″ supporters in their condemnation of religious reasons for supporting Prop 8.  (There’s contradiction among Mormons, too, which is sad.  Your prophets make their occasional prophetic statement – in this case supporting something – you believe your prophets are prophets, you support it too.  That simple.  Unless you don’t believe they’re prophets.  Which admits complication.)  According to a KUTV report I saw, the “No on 8″ campaign does not support the infamous ad portraying LDS missionaries invading a lesbian couples’ home and shredding their marriage certificate.  However, that campaign has repeatedly singled out the Mormon church as antagonists to their campaign – their news section fairly frequently mentions the Mormon church and Utah, and scarcely mentions the wider religious coalition or other bodies opposed to their campaign.  Clearly the Mormon church is consistently in their sights – and meanwhile, many of thier associates, if not the “No on 8″ campaign itself – these protestors, and the producers of that vile commercial clearly condemn motives for supporting Prop. 8. that originate in religious motivations.  “SEPARATE CHURCH AND HATE!” reads a sign.  “Say NO to a church taking over your government”, says the ad.  Clearly many of these folks are opposed to the LDS church urging a yes vote. Confusing, in light of “No on 8″ often reporting that this or that religious institution urges you to vote no on Prop. 8.  Examples: [link 1]- [link 2] – [link 3, a video, clearly displaying the No on 8 campaign logo]. There was an ad from their campaign with a man clearly stating his church says to vote no – end of ad, final point (wish I remembered the link).  So how would it be not okay for the LDS church to religiously support the Proposition, while it would be okay for any other church to religiously oppose it?

Point to underscore: this is a moral question, often or usually founded in religious feeling. Religion is by definition irrational.  It explains the unexplained and cosmological.  (So does science, more often than we usually admit.)  Opponents to the proposition openly appeal to religion.  So do proponents.  Because, strictly, both are thinking irrationally – that is to say, religiously – they may never agree.  Therefore, appeal to religion has no effective place in discourse over state policy questions, which is what this question is. And we’re mixing those up.  Religion can have appeal to individual citizens’ right of conscience, and how the people collectively vote becomes law. Religion influences the State but is not the State. No religion’s reason dictates the law. That would impinge on the religious right, or right of conscience, of one religious group, while putting forward the other.  Which, as pointed out from my first link, has happened to churches. Won’t put kids up for adoption to gay couples?  Blam – you can’t put up any kids for adoption anymore.  Won’t marry gays?  Blam – out goes your tax-exempt status.  Meanwhile, gays in civil unions in California retain all the same legal rights as heterosexual marrieds.  Who is losing rights?  Whose religiously asserted right is impinging on the rights of others?

A very thought-provoking post at one blog got me, well, thinking:

“One post commented wondering if there was a way for both sides to get what they wanted. There probably is. It would be for the state to acknowledge that homesexuality [sic] is a faith based practice.”

I haven’t even begun to think through the implications of that.  But it made me stop.

Meanwhile, George Lucas.. disappoints me again.  As if the writing in Episodes I-II wasn’t bad enough (if largely redeemed in episodes III, IV and V), now Lucas buys the line that anybody is losing any moral-civil rights, and shells out $100,000 to keep the line going.

When did you not grasp the actual machinations that give rise to an Evil Galactic Empire?

I’ve got to end on a good note.  (That is, unless you disagree with me.) As a Mormon, I’d like to express a thank you to the people who said and created the following.

Hydralisk, having missed your intended irony in a post at your blog recently (and making a fool of myself – no one will see this; I requested he take down my mislead comment), I’m not sure what tone to read in your comment. But, thinking anyway that I might see some clear arguments and implications, and whether I’m really responding to your comments or not, here are my thoughts:

This is why I personally make a point of believing in everything everyone tells me about anything unless I can produce proof to the contrary.

Surely that’s irony. Everything is true until disproved? If you mean that seriously I’d have to call it a straw man, as nobody argued that.

One of the mormon Articles of Faith is “We believe all things..”; which I don’t believe is literal: rather it is a statement that we believe anything is possible. As Nephi put it: “If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them.” So whatever idea we hear, no matter how outlandish, it never does any harm to think: “That could be true, that could be possible.” (By the way, this is a very effective tactic to deflect criticism. If someone tells you that you are an infantile demagogue bent on world dominion, one appropriate response is “That could be true.”) This is neither belief nor disbelief: it is holding belief in abeyance, pending any further experience that would seem to either validate or invalidate the idea.

And happy not all the time – maybe not even a lot of the time? – I’m sorry if that is so. God knows (and I admit I’m saying this to an avowed atheist) that any person’s life can be that way – for a lot of people there isn’t ever even a glimmer. There have been times I wondered where the glimmer is. And I would never presume to tell anybody who suffers that they simply don’t have enough faith (the all too common, too abstract, trite solution of well-meaning but misguided mormons), or that they should simply throw out anything that seems to them to go contrary to religious belief.

All religions are true? But that’s an extension of the earlier identified ironic straw-man. Of course truth, assuming it were absolute, could not be both absolute and relative: the same absolute question being true for one person and false for another. (Although strictly, there are provisions of mercy in mormon belief that can make that effectively true for individuals who for whatever reason never heard, or were never able to cling to, The Truth, as mormonism preaches it.)

Expressions of certainty in belief could be called arrogant? It could be (you observe here the use of the aforementioned deflective tactic). But I see unfortunate implications there. It would be arrogant to claim a religious belief or experience to be true if that belief could not possibly be true; that would be arrogantly seeking to prove the unprovable. But how could it be arrogant to conclude that something is or could be so, if it is also not arrogant to conclude that something is not so or could not be so? Both positions operate outside of what can be proved or disproved, so they must both be either arrogant or not arrogant together; not one the one and the other the other. So much for that contradiction. If a religious claimant truly did state “Even if this is not provable, I still know it is true”, I might agree that is arrogant. But I’d have to say at the same time it may be arrogant to claim someone cannot know it is true. So how about dropping either question and simply focusing on experience – sensory memory, feeling, apparent cause and effect etc?

The experience I argue for is that certain religious practices will lead one to happiness, and that this experience of happiness can be seen as proof of a loving God allowing us to experience grace and joy in our lives. Such a claim cannot be rhetorically proven true or false.* Such a claim is not an attempt to give proof, rather, it is an invitation for others to run the same experiments which gave the person witnessing their basis of belief – their own feelings, what they have experienced, what they have felt, what it seems to them has been divinely given or communicated to them as a result of their sincere efforts to live in a way that tries out the proposed truths.

Mormonism has doubt built into it. Mormons (ideally) are completely capable of turning everything they believe on their head, pending further revelation. This is in the Article of Faith that “..we believe that He [God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” Contrary to what you conclude (and if you mean this as comic irony, I don’t see the utility of the punch line), nobody is about shifting any burden of proof (or disproof) onto anyone – Smith himself said he doesn’t blame anyone for not believing him; that he wouldn’t believe it himself if it hadn’t happened to him. To be rather blunt, it seems to me that atheists may usually be more concerned about proof or disproof than believers. I’ve started reading an article in this month’s Christianity Today claiming that the philosophy of verificationism (the burden of proof or disproof) was quite in vogue one generation ago, but that it died in part because its adherents realized verificationism itself could not be verified. Apparently the philosophy may be an undying favorite, as (CT also claims) it is the basis of a recent spate of best-selling books arguing for atheism.

This talk about being privy to proof that angels pass out golden books to farm boys**, this is rooted in more of the same straw man that anyone should believe anything without proof (or disproof). Of course nobody can prove Joseph Smith had any golden plates. That goes right back to what I began with: of course there isn’t proof. To say (as I have) that experience is the proof of religion, and that I know certain religious ideas to be true, this can only be to say: this is my experience. This is what I feel about this. I’m certain I’ve felt this (what I explain or believe to be the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost), and all the evidence seems to me to show that this religious explanation (the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) is the reason.

There have been times – and still are – where I ask exactly what started this whole discussion, the same question Dutcher reported asking himself in horror: “What if it all isn’t true?” I have only to think on my experiences to dispel that doubt. If everything I believe is wrong, this is still my experience: it all seems to be the foundation of all the genuine happiness I have ever known, and more than that, the foundation of overcoming every unhappiness that I so far have.

Nobody is proving or disproving mormonism. For all I know most or all of what I believe about my religion could be utter malarkey. I don’t care. It’s doing me good, and I’ll keep it, thanks. Amen.

Meanwhile, I still open the discussion on religion, so long as it focuses on experience – so long as nobody tries to steer the dialogue into any nonsense questions of proof or disproof. To be rather blunt, looking for signs – and I would call a quest for disproof a quest for sorts of anti-signs – it’s exactly the kind of nonsense the Bible itself (never mind the Book of Mormon) frequently throws down. Trying the experiments of religion, that is the point – and I’m not out to say the experiment has to work for everyone, either. Obviously, I’d like it to work for you. That’s my religious bias. But I don’t know enough about you yet to know whether I think I’d even suggest any specific experiments supposed to be tailored to your life, and I’d have to first prove, er, that is, substantially provide a basis for a belief in the probability of the truth, that I care enough to take seriously any and every thought you have for and against belief. Or unbelief.

*never mind that mormonism urges its adherents to avoid rhetorical, read contentious religious discussion, and instead focus on attempting to communicate in a way that invites the Spirit of God

**which, by the way, as stupid as the story may sound, is exactly what I love about it – the Lord works through the weak and simple, and by small, humble, and even absurd means brings about good – the God of all creation was born in a stable? Divine truth was given to a fourteen year old, uneducated farmer?

(No, this film still is from Brigham City.  It’s just a great still of The Sheriff.)

My thoughts:

First, I didn’t find FALLING to be “spiritually disquieting” (or causing unease or anxiety). It opened some very probing questions, which, personally, only led to very assuring answers for me. And the film as a whole moved me.

Second, I don’t buy the line that Mormons are embargoed from seeing R-rated films. Bleh. Can this myth please die?

And thirdly and waxing philosophical, as for this quote of Dutcher wondering “what if it’s not true?” -

That surprises me. I don’t expect religion to leave me doubt-free. It’s clear the Savior had his profound doubts just before enacting the atonement. In my book, doubt and questioning, looking for answers – that’s the soil for faith and belief. It was certainly where Joseph Smith began his journey. Proof isn’t the point. You can no more disprove any point of religion (for example the existence of God) than anyone can prove it.

The results of living your religion are the proof. Meetings, taking the sacrament, service, study, testing the word of God. You try the experiments; and do the results make you unhappy or happy?

If you’re not trying the word of God – if you aren’t going to church, if you isolate yourself from your religious community, for starters – you won’t get results. It’s easy to conjecture there’s no merit to a theory you aren’t testing.

And much of the test is what my service or involvement can contribute. As a Bishop put it to me, he never found any ward (Mormon congregation) he liked until he stopped focusing on what others were (or weren’t) doing for him, and started focusing on what he can give.

I see friends who begin expressing doubt, mere luke-warm feelings, or even disenfranchisement, with the church, the people in their ward and the things they believe and say, and this all happens at the same time they’ve stopped attending church. Guess what? What these misguided people around you need is for you to go to church and present your take on things in a positive, non-threatening way. (And I know these friends have good and enlightening things to say.)

If others may not be seeing the light, how about shedding some of your own? The Mormon church is designed to informally acquaint us with each other’s insights. If there sometimes isn’t much insight, there’s even less if people nonplussed with that fact keep on waiting for the situation to change – without realizing they can change it. Without realizing they can never know how they positively impact others. There are many people in the LDS religious community who have no idea how they’ve positively impacted me.

Did Jesus walk the streets during his ministry visiting the sick, the poor, the social outcasts, the odd ones, the unwanted, all the while asking himself “What am I getting from these weirdos, what’s in this for me?”

Religion may not be thrilling very often, ergo the command to “endure to the end”. I’ve found that any time I give up the endurance test, again, I feel empty.

Never mind I’d tell you like many a Mormon I know it’s all true. Which I do. My doubts are about what this religion can actually do for me (the acknowledged paradox being that I shouldn’t just be in it for me). I’ll always be figuring that out – and those doubts are exactly what lead me to keep trying things out.

Wow.  Bizarre twists on meaning become dominant and obliterate everything else.

(Except for one brilliant article pointed it out, and I’m posting about it, and you’re reading it.  Maybe it is always free or bound to be free.)

“Why are Mormons over represented among emerging Science Fiction and Fantasy writers?”

That phenomenon has relatively recently emerged in the history of Science Fiction and Fantasy writing – this has been going on long before Stephanie Meyer’s now great fame (and her work certainly counts as fantasy and science fiction). As an example, the Writers of the Future Contest is a blind contest (I’ve personally dreamed of entering since a teenager – and gee golly, I’m a Mormon! – but I’m still sitting on the seeds of ideas which are germinating) – none of the judges know the identities of entrants, and every year a disproportionate number of winners of the contest happen to be Mormons.

Card’s second address was entitled “Science Fiction as a Valid Literary Genre”. To introduce it he said that every year, articles come out in either Atlantic, or Harper’s, or New Yorker about, as he puts it, “.. why Science Fiction sucks.” In this speech Card completely shredded (in my opinion) the snotty, self-absorbed triteness (my words) of literary fiction and most of all literary fiction writers which the aforementioned magazines (and also elitist literature programs at universities) apparently encourage. I have audio recordings of both speeches, which are both very enlightening, entertaining and to me even moving – but unfortunately my recording of the latter is cut off too soon. However I have a full, cleaned up recording of the former speech, which I here present. Strictly I may not have any authorization to do this, so I’m not giving a download link for this recording, and I want to seriously advertise the symposium and the proceedings; if you like this, you’ll probably like Card’s other address and anything and everything else at the symposium, so please: watch BYU’s web site for news on next year’s symposium, and releases of the proceedings from previous years. Email them via the “contact” link at that page and ask them what’s up and when the proceedings will be published.

Meanwhile, here’s my audio recording of Card’s main address. This is just over 47 minutes.

Download audio file (OSC_Main_Address_LTUE_XXVI_(2008).mp3)

The pure irrationality of religion would be an example of a right-brained or intuitive thing that the left has to accept.  There is no way to logically prove that the dictates of any religion are truthful or valuable, but the fact is that there is an observable cause and effect, manifesting its own reason, in following those dictates.  People do good things based on the irrational dictates of their religion, which cause them to feel good, and live more abundant lives, and, since the dictates of religion can neither be logically proved or disproved, it is worth it to risk that the reasons of religion may be true, not false – because _if_ they are true, then there is something real and valid behind the observable happiness in following the ultimately purely irrational dictates of a religion.  And if they are false, why not follow religious dictates anyway?  What would it hurt humanity, if religion is false, to live lives deluded by the happy imaginations of heaven, if we’re all going to die and obliterate into an unknown nothingness anyway?  An unknown nothingness would be the ultimate hurt; delusions of a happy heaven would be no hurt at all compared to that hurt.  That the thought of an unknown nothingness fills man with fear is proof itself that the makeup of man longs for something beyond this life.  Given that none of it can be proved, and it could be either way, I’d pick a life of either delusions about heaven or experienced knowledge of heaven – I’d pick that over nothing at all, risking that heaven could be real.

(By the way, I waited five weeks checking three different Blockbuster video stores for the right disc of the right season of BattleStar Galactica to be checked in – there was a conspiracy to keep me from checking out that disc – and then one day my wife brought home the entire season of the show, checked out for far less a price, from the Orem Public Library. Now, as well as for the Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, I have a testimony that the Orem Public Library is true.)

The premise of the show is that the Cylons, robots created by humanity but which betray humanity, wipe out all the planetary colonies and drive and hunt the very small remainder of humanity into space. The entire show is humanity outsmarting, outmaneuvering, thwarting, and seeking to destroy the malevolent forces which they themselves created – while the evolved Cylons who are indistinguishable from humans fool people into David/Bathseba fiascoes.

In this episode (Season 2.5, “The Captain’s Hand”) President Rosylin is presented with a young pregnant woman who stowed away on the fleet command ship (Galactica), seeking asylum from her evil, fanatic, controlling parents to abort a child she apparently doesn’t want and/or can’t support. Rosylin has begun campaigning for re-election to office (she became President de facto as the highest ranking surviving political officer of the human race), and apparently the majority of the fleet is “pro-choice”, and her whole life Rosylin has fought to support the right, as she puts it, for a woman to control her own body. But General Adama reminds her that after the Cylon struck and nearly destroyed humanity, one of the first things she said to him was that “..if humanity is to survive we need to start having babies now.” Adama points to the number of humans still alive which Rosylin has kept on a whiteboard behind her desk since being sworn into office – around 54,000 – and says “That number hasn’t gone up for a long time.” Despite her position on abortion, Rosylin issues an executive order declaring any interference with the birth of a child as subject to criminal penalty – she makes abortion illegal. At the same time, since the executive order occurred after the young woman’s abortion, and the woman had already claimed asylum, Rosylin does not hold the woman subject to criminal penalty, which outrages the religious, fanatical representative from Gemenon. This principled compromise also outrages the eleven of the twelve colonies who support abortion (uh, how reflective of America or humanity would that be in real life – not very – the issue is very divided, and pretty equally). It also opens the way for a former political ally to come out in opposition and betray her in a factioning bid for the Presidency. Not bending to either extreme, Rosylin outrages everyone. Huh. Sounds like prexy Bush, dudn’t it?

The episode, in my opinion, underscored what Orson Scott Card said of the Science Fiction genre, in his main address at Life, the Universe, and Everything XVII (which symposium I very much enjoyed attending). Card sought to answer the question of why so many prominent writers of Sci-Fi and Fantasy happen to be Mormon. Apparently Mormons have been heavily dominating winners in the Writers of the Future contest for many years – and the contest is run blind. None of the judges know the names of any of the writers who submit, as the names are stripped from the entries before judging. Card argued that Science Fiction often embodies both the American plain narrative style and the American pragmatic hero – the hero who tests and tries things for himself until he finds the best solution – and, Card argues, Mormonism is also an embodiment of both of those, or more specifically, of the Scientific Method in harmony with religion. Mormonism does not ask its followers to simply blindly accept the religion, but to try it out.

“Prove me now herewith“,

- echoes the Mormon God in the Book of Mormon,

“..if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.“

And again in Moroni:

“..And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.“

If you are showing faith in Christ, if you are sincerely seeking Him, if you have changed your life already, if you are experimenting on the word (Card didn’t mention the verses that say that), and you have a sincere desire to follow these things if they are true, God Himself will manifest the truth to you by the power of the Holy Ghost. If you sincerely try Mormon principles and doctrine in your life, Mormonism promises, you will know for yourself whether the doctrines are true. That, Card argues, is the Scientific Method – run tests, try things out for yourself, experiment on a hypothesis until you have an idea whether it seems true or false – that is the Scientific Method in complete harmony with the Mormon religion.

In summary then, Mormons who are raised with these values of pragmatic experimentation find themselves very easily at home in a body of literature where pragmatic experimentation is the norm.

And what pragmatic truth does this episode of BattleStar Galactica unfold to our view? (By the way – I heard asides from Card that he doesn’t like the overt references to Mormonism made in BattleStar Galactica – because the leaders of the 12 colonies are more like the 12 idiots.) When the human race is driven to near extinction by evil robots, abortion is not a good idea

According to Michael Medved – who has given Dutcher some of his best reviews! – the artist as cultural or religious challenger is a mythical role that has emerged only in this last century. Medved argues that most of the artists who created our “classics” through the centuries found plenty to do – under every kind of label or adjective you could conjure: disturbed, glorious, funny, tragic – whatever- without heckling their host culture, as so many artists in our day have been taught to believe they should. It is a point given in Dutcher’s biography at his own web page that one of his teachers while in film school at BYU prophesied that the first great Mormon writer will be excommunicated. Richard, that teacher was full of crap! Without a mass of knowledge to back up my agreement with Medved, I only say that Medved’s take on artists and culture sounds to me a whole lot better than advertising your film as “The first R-Rated Mormon film!” Why don’t we just change the billboard to say “This film will shock and offend you!” What of the dopes in the narrative of this very film who claim the only way an artist will get ahead is by shocking and offending? We’re supposed to think those guys are dopes, right? They’re part of the culture that led to the lead character’s fall. So let’s not listen to them.

Now I know I’ve gone and abrasively criticized marketing. Sometime last year I abrasively criticized a marketing effort coming from Dutcher’s Main Street Movie Co. and shortly thereafter found a comment at my film blog from Dutcher’s marketing guy, abrasively criticizing my (retrospectively) amateurish concept trailer. Tit-for-tat cannon blasts among the artists in Zion. I don’t think it’s easy for artists to separate the line of personal criticism from artistic criticism. And too often we merge them – but that’s an essay for another day.

I believe Dutcher could have told the exact same story of FALLING with just slightly different directing decisions that wouldn’t ensure he turns a lot of his audience away. And his marketing of this film is way off-base. (I know, I hear the cannons blasting still.) If you don’t care about ratings (as I believe Dutcher claims not to), you don’t advertise them. If many Mormons think it wrong to ever see an R-rated film (and that thinking is in error, in my opinion), period, that’s fine for them – it is their right to risk missing out, and frankly, too many who argue against the point would seek to deny Mormons so inclined of that right, or deny them their freedom of conscience to avoid whatever they want – but the inevitable message behind “The first R-rated Mormon film!” is ironically as narrow in a different way. It actually seeks to drive the question of the appropriate to the utmost limits of tolerance – and I would argue that very approach will only produce intolerance – it isn’t going to make anyone think. Nobody thinks when they feel threatened. All they think about is either raising their fists to pummel the hell out of you or getting the hell away from the situation (Dutcher has experienced far more than his share of both, on emotional terms). Fight or Flight. It reduces us to cavemen. Where’s the love in that? Philosophical battles are one thing, but you’ve gotta know that even though there may not be a rational basis for Mormons to do so, they’re simply going to read it as an attack on their religion.

Art isn’t a culture or religion test. Life is a culture and religion test – the way we live. Art is a huge part of life (and for artists, it is literally the subsistence of their life – how they get by) – but as the Indigo Girls penned, “..there’s just no medium for life”. Life is life, art is story (where this film is concerned). And this story should be advertised for what it is – a very powerful morality tale – not for what it isn’t (G-rated).

The unfortunate irony of that advertising is that the film is, in my opinion, powerfully Mormon, but while the advertising raises a question entirely irrelevant to the film, it only invites those whose minds are closed to the question – and I have tried opening many minds to the question, and the steel trap set on that question does not respond to crow bars – it only invites them to keep the trap shut, indeed the trap may only close tighter.

I had to decide whether I think Dutcher himself or his actors went against good principle in their performances. I’ve decided I don’t think they did. The directing decisions over that question are so distracting it could not only tear down the proscenium for many (it nearly did for me, but I’d gone into the film with a lot of forethought and preparation) – it could make them want to burn down the theater. Nevertheless, to those willing to explore them, the questions are so gripping it may not matter. The context and the story, the presentation, the direction, what happens – it all very clearly paints the disturbances the film explores as just that: disturbances which are not wanted in a good life. The obvious implication is that we like good, not evil. Hallejuhah. One more film striking against evil.

This also may not be a film for the squeamish.

This film wallops the bloodthirsty with divine guilt.

Last of all, this film probes deeper into the mystery of the Atonement than any work of art I have encountered. If the story it presents is deeply disturbed, the power is in the questions the story poses of whether those disturbances could be overcome. The ending presents situations on questions of innocence and very powerful symbolic reversals – leading to Christ – which I found deeply affecting.

I will give this film a shot. It may surprise you to hear me speaking of going to this film as taking a risk, and you deserve the respect of hearing why I do.

show

show

Spotted at NRO’s Corner

There are various/ reasons I support Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency.

[Update: I have moved paragraphs of fading relevance - since they concern /candidates who are either fading or have dropped out of the race - to the end of this entry. I've also added a bit more against McCain and for Romney.]

First I’ll say why I don’t support McCain. McCain’s campaign finance reform bill had loop-holes in it which, as had been predicted by many critics, opened the way for parties to receive far and away more exorbitant financing to a degree where private interests can virtually pocket a party. Thanks to McCain’s bill, private radically liberal institutions have been able to gain great control over the Democratic party (so, by the way, unless you intend on casting a surrogate vote for George Soros, don’t vote for Hillary Clinton). (I confess not knowing whether the measure has had a similar corroding effect on the Republican Party). McCain’s position on cutting taxes is to cut them after cutting back government, which is like asking a drunkard to cut back on whiskey after he has stopped drinking. No fat government gets lean before giving money back to citizens (and citizens who retain more of their money produce more money and taxes besides). McCain’s amnesty position on immigration is a threat to the right of sovereign rule of law. When a foreign national is made a citizen – or not even made a citizen – without paying the price, we import a citizen who gives nothing back for the price of import (and the price of import is paid against our will, besides). The protections and benefits of citizenship come with a price – freedom is not free. When freedom is given without a price, freedom is bound, and in this case, bound to the exports, apathy, and eventual controls of other nations. We want immigrants, but we want them to pay the price for American citizenship.

Now I’ll attack some of the attacks against Romney. His conservative social stances are erroneously slammed as flip-flopping by folks who seem to think that the only motivation any politician could have to change his mind is a buckle to peer pressure and not any genuine change of thought. This hard-line cynical criticism has the benefit of being both unprovable and seemingly reasonable. It is only logical if we assume from the outset that we should simply trust one group over another without even perusing the logic of what either has to say. Dismissing one man’s word simply because another man alleges he is lying is not a logical basis of ascertaining whether the man is telling the truth, but that is precisely what every liberal writer and speaker I have encountered does in regards to Romney. Yo. Truth test, folks. It may make a convincing smear, but we aren’t out to form our judgments around the most convincing smear. We like logic. I hope. Logic usually places more trust in the experience and belief of a person witnessing it – not in the witness of their enemy. Both these points are driven across much more strongly than I have put it by Ann Coulter, in this article which I recommend a read of. Coulter also raises the critical point that the Republican candidate the generally liberal MSM fawns over is precisely the candidate we should reject, and explores other fallacies behind the “flip-flopper” allegation against Romney. Amen to that. And is the MSM favoring McCain? Read this contrast of AP reporting of McCain vs. Romney. It’s jaw-dropping. Also recommended: this rallying cry for Romney from NRO’s Mark R. Levin, which among other things very clearly reports the facts of McCain’s very un-presidential contempt and personal verbal assaults on Romney. Romney has never attacked a political opponent’s person, only their position, which is perfectly fair and right to do – it is a contest of record and philosophy. McCain’s attacks make a hypocritical attempt to draw hatred against Romney as among the very wealthy classes – among whom reside McCain himself. No president would lead America well by encouraging class contempt (and by pretending he is not something which he is – rich). Also, McCain blatantly lies about his record and statements on several issues. Here’s a loosely abridged excerpt of Levin on it (click “show” to read it):

show

McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual.. I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface.. why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal.. the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.

Last night McCain.. resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t lend him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum [or trite, meaningless platitude] which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.

And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?

.. how can anyone explain [McCain's] abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? .. [he] led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration.. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the [same bill] as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. [Me: is that straight talk? One week he say's he's "gotten the message" against his bill, the next he says he'd sign it, the next he waffles on the question? No way. He's clearly either hiding or undecided on his real position, or else he woudln't change it every week]. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. [My note: mainstream media is by and large liberal. Maybe that's common knowledge, but..] At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is. [Me: he's someone capable of flat lying!]

Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.

Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.

Romney has the right idea on the separation of church and state with encouragement of religion in general in the public square. (If you missed it or would like reminding, read the transcript of his speech on the topic over at NPR.) He has a very good track record in fiscal reform – he turned both the bankrupt Salt Lake City Olympics and the government of Massechusets around to great surplusses – and reason of hope to reign in our massively burgeoned government. He has the practical approach to foreign policy required to secure our nation by stamping out militant extremism abroad. Romney is the real deal and I choose to trust the position he states he has on various social issues. I am impressed, actually, when a man is capable of changing his mind and saying why he did so. It assures me that he thinks for himself and does not just blindly follow or rigidly adhere to any dogma without thought. Lastly, Romney’s position on immigration is naturalization, not amnesty, and naturalization bears a price for citizenship. Citizens obtained through amnesty draw on the resources of a nation without paying the same price as other citizens. But naturalized citizens do pay the price, and in turn contribute to the society they join.

If your mind is made up not to support Huckabee, you may not need to read these next paragraphs, which blast Huckabee’s utterly despicable tactics and frightening thinking. If you want to read them, click “show”.

show

These next expired paragraphs rail against Giuliani and speculate on Thompson, neither any longer relevant to the race. Again, click “show” if you want to read them.

show

This was my comment responding to a comment in this CNN article.

show