Your Facebook Politics Bug Me And I Don't Even Care What Your Actual Politics Are

Yep, I'm in a mood. For the past year+, I have been seeing irrational political ranting on Facebook. Yes, irrational political ranting is everywhere, but it's on Facebook where it seems to bother me the most. It's stupid and I get that. It's essentially a website that specializes in sending people who kind of know each other pixelated farm animals, right? Well, here are the two things that have bugged me lately:

"Let's see if this llama can get more fans than Barack Obama."

My glib response: First of all, no, it can't. No one gives a crap about your llama. Your llama isn't offering us change nor is it in the company of a variety of fun characters voiced by Patrick Warburton and Eartha Kitt. There isn't a picture of me and llama sitting on my mantle. Why? Because a llama wasn't the freaking senator of Illinois in 2006.

This was the freaking senator of Illinois in 2006.

Why it actually bugs me: It's the stupidity of it. When you post something like that, you're making the statement that you think a llama is better than the man that more than 50% of your fellow Americans thought capable of doing the job. It's insulting to those people. It's insulting to me. It's insulting to me because I respected the office of president even when it wasn't who I voted for, even when I disagreed with the politics of the man in that office. Did I ever express my disagreements? Heck, yes, I did, but I did so in a way that was productive by writing to my representatives or signing a petition.

"Farah Fawcett was my favorite actress and God took her away. Michael Jackson was my favorite singer and God took him away. I just wanted to tell God that Barack Obama is my favorite president."

My glib response: Choosing Farah Fawcett as your favorite actress indicates to me (and, let's face it, just about everybody) that you do not have the discretionary skills to make an educated vote. Frankly, I'm not sure that you should be allowed to choose a cat toy much less the leader of the free world. Really, what person saw Cops and Robbersons and thought "Hey, that's acting! I really enjoyed her vulnerability as the single mom of the kid from Free Willy." Choosing Farah Fawcett as your favorite actress is like choosing Mickey Dolenz as your favorite Beatle.

Your favorite Beatle.

What actually bugs me: You know what you're saying, right, when you post something like that. You're saying that you wish death on someone. It's not a statement about your politics; it's a statement about your morals. You just said that you wish the president was dead. That is in every way unacceptable to me.

How I End This: I don't care what your actual politics are. I don't actually consider myself Democrat or Republican. In the near 12 years I've been eligible to vote, I've voted for both sides in one way or another. I can't help but remember being inspired when I heard John McCain speak at my college in 2000. I also remember 2008 when he retracted much of his old self. It was like I was Paul Pfeiffer and Kevin had broken my glasses to get more popular with the cool kids. No amount of Daniel Stern's mellow voice acting would make things the same again. I fear that will be a trend as I grow older and more experienced.

Truthfully, I don't care what your politics are as long as you know why they are your politics.

I was saying the same things to my friends back in 2000 and 2004 when folks were venomous towards Dubya. It's not about whether or not I am in your particular political boat. It's that this kind of ignorant fluff on Facebook is a telling statement about how healthy our minds are politically. I'm not seeing fan groups that say things like "Americans for Veterans' Hospitals that Are Better Equipped for our Female Soldiers" or "People against (specific point or bill)". I'm not saying those group don't exist. I'm saying that too many people would rather make a glib comment than state their actual opinion and that's probably because they don't know what their actual opinions are. That's truly terrifying to me.

Lots of love,

Stacie Rearden Hall

Demigods and Mortals: A Closer Look at the Sci-Fi/Fantasy Genre and the Accountability of the Actions of Heroes

The moral messages in "Star Wars" aren't just window dressing. Speeches and lectures drench every film. They represent an agenda. ~David Brin, "Star Wars" Despots vs. "Star Trek" Populists (all centered italics in this post are from this article)

An article by David Brin talks about the flawed nature of the Star Wars universe because of its misguided ideologies and roots in the Homeric Saga. I'm exploring some of the ideas Brin presented and adding some of my own. I would read what he has to say before continuing this post as I tend to lack in the skills that have made Cliff Notes so popular. Also, I'm not so much addressing all of the things with which I disagree as much as I'm adding a counterpoint to some of the ideas presented.

To be honest, I tend to fall in line with most of Brin's article. I, too, think that Star Wars does have a great deal of focus on its larger than life characters. Though they seem to have humble origins on the Outer Rim planet of Tatooine, both Luke and Anakin are born to be superior simply because of their supernatural abilities. They are both pulled into greater things by destiny, a theme that permeates the Sci-Fi and Fantasy universes. Frodo gains his mystical destiny through an inheritance left by his uncle. Whedon explores that theme with Buffy, the cheerleader who is chosen to save the world. Even Star Trek has its own Wesley Crusher, his intellect so great that he can bend time and space. Though each of these characters shares a certain archetypal quality with the ancient ideals of the epic hero, they also feed into the fantasies of the entertained. It's the idea that though one's life seems boring and simple, at any time someone could show up and reveal their destiny to them, taking them away from from the everyday mundane into the world of the fantastic. "Maybe I never met my dad because he's actually a god" is a lot better to imagine than "maybe I never met my dad because he's actually a jerk".

However, some of the most beloved characters in these genres are the everyman characters. The article ignores that Han Solo (the movie Han, not the one that gets expounded upon in the books) is anything but a demigod. He pretty much goes from the lowest common denominator in space society to a hero by the merit of his own values and earned skill. He does this with a general disbelief towards the central belief system of the original three films. He's an atheist in a universe of believers and still makes a successful life for himself. You also have Wedge Antilles, who appears in all three films as an everyman. He has a handful of moments on screen, but manages to become the anti-redshirt of the sci-fi universe. Even one of the most disliked elements of the series, the Ewok race, imbues the message that the smallest of us can make a difference. Ironically, the argument for the Ewok hatred is summed up in this quote from a friend of mine: "The evil Empire brought down by a bunch of cave man teddy bears? I don't think so."

"Some people say, why look for deep lessons in harmless, escapist entertainment?

Others earnestly hold that the moral health of a civilization can be traced in its popular culture."

A point Brin makes is that the Jedi principles taught by Kenobi and Yoda are "The biggest moral flaw in the Star Wars universe", specifically the Jedi tenet of fear leading to anger, anger leading to hate, and hate leading to the Dark Side. He says:

"...in Return of the Jedi, Lucas takes this basic wisdom and perverts it, saying -- "If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person! All of your opinions and political beliefs will suddenly and magically reverse. Every loyalty will be forsaken and your friends won't be able to draw you back. You will instantly join your sworn enemy as his close pal or apprentice. All because you let yourself get angry at his crimes."

Uh, say what? Could you repeat that again, slowly?

In other words, getting angry at Adolf Hitler will cause you to rush right out and join the Nazi Party? Excuse me, George. Could you come up with a single example of that happening? Ever?

That contention is, in itself, a pretty darn evil thing to preach. Above all, it is just plain dumb."

I don't disagree with Brin here, per se. I do argue that Skywalker, whether intentionally or by the sheer dumb luck of Lucas, actually recognizes the fundamental flaws in this dogma and tears them apart. Luke does a pretty good job of showing that both Force-based religions have major issues. He makes decisions based upon anger and fear, some of which leave his mentors Obi-Wan and Yoda fearing the worst. BUT he doesn't let the anger and fear take over. He engages those emotions, even to the brink, and comes back several times over in the series. While the Old Republic Jedi believe that fear leads to a slippery slope to the Dark Side, Luke instead uses his "darker" emotions as a barometer to prevent succumbing to evil. It's an unspoken lesson that's often ignored in the saga. Luke is the balance to the Force that the galaxy was waiting for, instilling the idea that no emotion itself is wrong, but that allowing those emotions to fully control a person is.

"Lucas wants us to gush with warm feelings toward a cute blond little boy who will later grow up to murder the population of Earth many times over?"

"...he holds up his saga like an agonized Greek tragedy worthy of "Oedipus" -- an epic tale of a fallen hero, trapped by hubris and fate. But if that were true, wouldn't "Star Wars" by now have given us a better-than-caricature view of the Dark Side? Heroes and villains would not be distinguished by mere prettiness; the moral quandaries would not come from a comic book.

Don't swallow it. The apotheosis of a mass murderer is exactly what it seems. We should find it chilling."

Yes, Vader does some unspeakably grotesque things in his life. However, before discussing Vader, I'd like to point out some other instances in popular fiction where characters aren't quite held as accountable as they should be. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Buffy's emotional inability to kill Angelus when she has the chance costs many lives. Xander casts the musical spell that kills several without any kind of emotional or otherwise negative consequences other than a shout of "Oh, all of this angst that we've been keeping in has been revealed. Boo hoo".

Every other season on Star Trek: TNG showed some kind of malfunction with Data costing lives. Why doesn't the consistency of problems with the android cause Data to be decommissioned until further notice? Well, the lives he took weren't main characters, that's why.

"Those red shirts didn't really matter, Data. Now let's go play some poker and share humorous anecdotes about how you don't quite understand human nature. Ha ha!"

In fact, the only series in the Star Trek universe that seems to value the lives of crewmen who don't have their names in the credits is one of the most poorly received: Enterprise. Interestingly enough, it's also the only one that doesn't have a captain who is infallibly good, but that's a discussion for another day.

Back to Vader...

Brin makes many compelling comparisons between Vader and Hitler and I do like what he has to say. However, it was the perspective of a stand-up comedian making a joke about workman's comp who made me expand this concept to include another character in that universe. It can be summed up in one question:

HOW MANY INNOCENTS DIED IN THE DEATH STAR EXPLOSIONS?

I can already hear the arguments. "The Death Star wasn't a civilian base!" "It destroyed a planet!" I get that. I understand the "them or us" mentality that made it necessary to neutralize the weapon. However, it was also the size of a small moon, housing thousands, maybe even millions of people, many of whom were probably civilians. I'm guessing that there were hundreds of contractors, food service, and other personnel. Considering the size of the base, it probably also contained schools and military housing for the families of the Imperial Troops. Was the destruction necessary? Probably. However, Luke Skywalker (and Lando Calrissian) are responsible for thousands of deaths. The utter annihilation of that many lives in one swift stroke must make us consider that mass murder was not simply a trait of the father, but one of the son as well. Why must we do so? Because making characters accountable for their actions makes them more human.

However, in recognizing their flaws, we make their redemption that much more powerful. There is nothing in Star Wars to indicate that the galaxy forgives Vader for his crimes. Yes, there's a funeral pyre, but it's in the distance with Luke alone mourning the loss of his father. You can see the confusion in his face, the love, and the burden of the loss. You can even hear the sounds of celebration in the distance, many, I'm sure, celebrating the very death that Luke was mourning. At that moment, it's not about a galaxy that forgives a mass murderer for his crimes against humanity (because they probably won't). It's about a son who stands alone, loving and forgiving his father despite all of that father's sins. There's beauty in that I think resonates with all of us at some level.



So, I guess the question is "what do we do with this information?". It's not easy. When you open your mind to humanizing archetypal characters in fiction, there are a lot of flaws to be seen. It's important to remember that iconic characters, for the most part, are just that: icons. They're not meant to fully represent the entirety of the human experience any more than we are meant to single-handedly fight ancient monsters and evil empires. What I recommend is that you enjoy the good, recognize the bad, and try to find some balance in between the two extremes.

May both sides of the Force be with you.

~Stacie

*Seriously, read the linked article. It's awesome.