Into the Asteroid Field

Listen to Them, They're Dying

2009-04-29T21:33:00.002-05:00

I haven't posted here in forever, but I just saw (on Facebook) my stepmom's running commentary on tonight's Presidential Press conference, and I just had to write something about it somewhere.

Oh, these poor, pathetic people.

It actually made my stomach twist, reading her labored disdain and vitriol. After seven years of waving the flag to press conferences full of, "Y'see, they hate our freedoms," she actually had the gall to criticize President Obama over his "ums" and "ahs."

Clue to all Republicans who have suddenly discovered the merits of pristine diction: when someone who constructs elaborate, on-the-fly, grammatically correct sentences while addressing complicated issues inserts "um" or "ah" into those sentences, it means he is actually thinking about his answers.

I know that's not something we're used to, and not necessarily something that you folks believe is desirable in a leader, but there it is.

I've Never Seen Anything To Make Me Believe There's One All-Powerful Force Controlling Everything

2007-07-19T21:47:00.000-05:00

Michael Gerson (ghastly former speechwriter for George W. Bush) published a column in the Washington Post recently that made me write him an email.

Here's what I said:

There are a couple of problems with your contention that , "Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not."

First, of course, is the fact that human experience is wholly subjective, and so it doesn't especially matter whether I as an agnostic have an objective means of judgment. Yes, you can attack this as moral relativism, but moral relativism is an inescapable fact of the world, not just a bogeyman label meant to imply that everyone can do as he pleases. The institution of slavery is repugnant to us as modern individuals, but was considered perfectly moral only two centuries ago, and is actively condoned in the Bible by God Himself. Morality is an evolutionary process, and you can't get away from that. (I would in fact contend that it's a good thing.)

Second, for the largest part of your audience the lack of an objective means of judgment should be irrelevant. Christians have been commanded, Biblically, not to judge others. Now, you can get semantic about the distinction between judging "others" and judging "the conduct" of others, but I think those are just intellectual acrobatics. Your column is essentially promoting in believers the sense that their approach is superior to that of atheists, and by extension that they are better people than atheists, which is exactly the kind of judgment they've been ordered divinely not to make.

Finally, and most importantly, the opening clause of your statement provides an empirical starting point for disproving the followup. If atheists "can" be good people, what is it that results in the majority of them actually being good people? What thought process do they go through that leads them, by and large, to moral positions? You are clearly intelligent enough to reason out the answer to that question, if you would only put yourself in the shoes of an atheist and do so.

Believers do not want to accept the notion that reason alone can support a constructive, moral society. They want to be superior to nonbelievers not only in their attainment of salvation, but also in their approach to earthly governance of their baser instincts. But I would contend that this focus on worldy morality is anathema to spiritual success, if there is such a thing. Inevitably, the religionist who focuses on a material struggle between belief and nonbelief (or belief and alternative belief) becomes drawn toward a position in which immoral actions toward nonbelievers are considered acceptable.

As an example of this, I will point out that you, a believer, did not care that I, a nonbeliever, would be emotionally hurt by a column claiming that my worldview is incapable of real goodness.

Thanks for your time,

Herb Mallette

-------------------------------------

Most likely, he was too deluged with emails to respond to mine, if he even read it. But even as I'm pretty sure that's the case, I'd sure like to think he was just too smacked down to come up with a reply.

Twisted and Evil.

2007-06-30T16:09:00.000-05:00

I hope everybody saw the great Daily Show segment on the immigration bill earlier this week. (Thursday, maybe?) Jon Stewart turned to one of his senior correspondents (the guy who plays the PC in those Mac commercials), and spent about 5 minutes destroying Pat Buchanan and various other inane pundits who've been out pimping the "illegal aliens have tuberculosis and leprosy" line.

They used a terrific device for this: PC-guy would say something outrageous to Stewart -- something so off-the-wall it could only be over-the-top Daily Show satire -- and then when Stewart objected that anyone could possibly say such a thing, they would roll a clip of Buchanan or one of his ilk saying, verbatim, what the PC-guy had just said.

It's Over.

2006-01-11T18:11:00.000-06:00

Or most likely so. Here is what I expect to be the finale of my correspondence with Jonathan Gurwitz.

His response to the last email I posted here went as follows:

Mr. Mallette:

We disagree about the meaning - or perhaps the context - of Sen. Reid's statement. That's a reasonable disagreement and one that makes an opinion page interesting. I would encourage you to make the same points in a letter to the editor.

But your discussion of this subject is far different from ones in which you have accused me of writing inflammatory lies and suggested that the Express-News fire me. You'll understand, therefore, if your sarcasm doesn't necessarily register with your editorial nemesis.

The most important feedback I can receive from readers is solid, meaningful criticism. It forces me to reevaluate my positions and challenges my preconceptions. Taunts, name-calling and overwrought sarcasm reveal a narrow-mindedness that offers nothing constructive.

I am always glad to receive and truly welcome the former.

Regards,

Jonathan Gurwitz

_____________________________

My Response:

It has been a long time since my letter to the editor suggesting that your work did not meet the necessary level of journalistic integrity that I would expect of a major publication. As I recall, it was in response to a column that, like this most recent one, accused Democrats of not caring about the security of the United States of America. I see this as a gravely false charge -- indeed, a scurrilous one, and the worst kind of name-calling. It provoked me to outrage because I care so deeply about this nation and the philosophy of freedom that it represents.

I see now that you may not recognize what I see as the utter falseness of that charge. Your issuance of it actually does appear to be sincere. But at the time I wrote that letter, I simply could not credit that a person of such apparent intelligence could actually believe something I found so heinous. So I was wrong to call for your ouster -- because you would have been ousted for an opinion, not for deliberate falsehood. (I hope you will agree that the latter should in fact be grounds for dismissal from any journalistic enterprise.)

Still -- if your hostility toward my views has all this time been driven by that letter, which of us is being narrow-minded? More to the point, is it not "name-calling" for you to refer to me as "narrow-minded?" Can you agree that both of us have been guilty of overreaction to one another's writing?

Jonathan Swift would beg to differ that sarcasm (in the form of satire) offers nothing constructive. I wrote my satirical self-abasement because my attempts to maintain a straightforward, reasoned discussion with you had been so thoroughly rebuffed, culminating in an email in which you accused me of lying simply because I said that you had compared Chris Rock and Leni Riefenstahl. The fact of the matter is that you did explicitly compare them. (Note that that is completely different from saying you "equated" or even that you "likened" them.) You did so in a column that was highly critical of Hollywood and artists, two categories that include Chris Rock. So forgive me if I missed the fact that your intent was to decry the censors, not those whom they would censor. What came across to me was not, "Chris Rock is harmlessly funny though profane, whereas Leni Riefenstahl was a monster." What came across to me was, "Chris Rock is an example of the degraded morals of Hollywood, which cannot even recognize what a monster Leni Riefenstahl was." But instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt or asking for a clarification of my opinion, you called me a liar -- despite the fact that a literal reading of my statement reveals it to be clearly and empirically true.

In closing, I notice that you have ignored my retraction of your status as my editorial nemesis. Please recall that I admitted the wrong in that phrase, and apologized.

Are we to remain enemies, then, because your work angered me, and I expressed that anger openly? If you have no room in your heart to forgive words written in the grip of dark emotion, simply tell me so, and I will cease to waste our mutual time.

Sincerely,

Herb Mallette
---------------------------------

His reply to that:

Mr. Mallette:

I don't consider you to be my enemy, I hold no anger toward you and nothing in any of my correspondence to you could reasonably be construed as being hostile. The converse, however, has not been true.

I believe you hold a sincere but different viewpoint than I do. You believe I am a propagandist who writes heinous, gravely false lies. Who is narrow minded?

As I have stated, I welcome reasoned criticism from you and other readers. I hope to receive more from you in the future.

Regards,

Jonathan

----------------------------------

And my response (likely the end of this):

How about if we just leave it at that, then. I'm afraid I will have to disappoint you on the criticism end of things, as I doubt I will contact you directly again. The process of corresponding with you is rather distressing to me, insofar as it has borne almost no fruit that I can see. I would prefer to concentrate on other forms of writing in which I am able to achieve a more positive effect.

Have a good life.

Sincerely,

Herb Mallette

A New Hope

2006-01-09T22:26:00.000-06:00

Once again, I correspond with Jonathan Gurwitz!

The occasion was a column in which he referred to Harry Reid's purported boasting about killing the Patriot Act back in December. I'll try to find the link when I've more time.

I sent the following:

I could not find any full, in-context presentation of Harry Reid's supposed gloating over killing the patriot act on the web, but the WMV that's been circulated certainly does not show him looking like the statement is a boast. There's no way to tell whether he's crowing that "we" Democrats killed the Patriot Act or gravely observing that "we" the Senate killed it. But given the following statement that he issued on the subject, it is clear that the out-of-context statement cannot be taken as the end-all and be-all of Reid's opinion on the subject.

http://reid.senategov/record.cfm?id=249984
http://reid.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=249984

If you're aware of a fuller presentation of Reid's "We killed the Patriot Act" statement, I would be delighted to to see it, even if it supports your thesis.

Sincerely,

Herb Mallette

-----------------------------
To which he responded:

Mr. Mallette:

Accounts of Sen. Reid's boast can be found here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a.MKH8CaQO8M&refer=us
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13426158.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051217-123708-4670r.htm

It's very clear from these different accounts ("defiant tone," "cheering crowd") what Sen. Reid meant. It's also very clear from the statement on his Web site and from the following entry in the Congressional Record that Sen. Reid recognized the political fallout of his comment: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&page=S13997&position=all

Good to see you communicating in a civilized way again.

Regards,

Jonathan Gurwitz

-------------------------
My reply to this was:

Hi,

I'm afraid all that's clear to me from those accounts is that the press want to convey an appearance of boastfulness in Sen. Reid. They may want to do so because that is what they actually perceived, or they may want to do so because it throws red meat to the crowds of rancorous partisans whom, apparently, the media now view as their bread and butter. But I refuse to trust the characterization of the statement as a "boast" simply because someone from the Washington Times terms it thus.

What I find myself exceedingly frustrated by is the lack of any apparent resource for seeing what Reid actually said in full context.

Consider these two contrasting hypothetical contexts:

"Today is a proud day for Democrats. Our party is resurgent. The warmonger Republicans have suffered their first defeat. Look what happened twenty minutes ago in the U.S. Senate. We killed the Patriot Act."

versus

"Today is a sad day for all of America, and for the hallowed institution of the Senate. People on both sides of the aisle should be ashamed. Look what happened twenty minutes ago in the U.S. Senate. We killed the Patriot Act."

Now, I doubt very much that either of these two extremes represents the actual context of Reid's remarks. But the look on his face as he said "We killed the Patriot Act" hardly looked like someone glorying in a mighty victory, and so I can envision the possibility that the context was closer to the second than to the first.

Note that I say "envision the possibility" rather than "feel with certainty" or even "strongly suspect."

The cheering of the crowd can hardly be blamed on Senator Reid regardless of his intent, and I am unpersuaded that the phrase "defiant tone" implies boastfulness. That same phrase has been used of President Bush on many occasions when no one would have accused him of boasting.

I concede that Reid is clearly trying to control the damage of the way in which his statement was received -- but that is no proof of the way in which he intended it. I have on a variety of occasions had to work to undo discord that my own words engendered, even though discord had been the furthest thing from my intent.

I'm unsure how to take your closing line of "Good to see you communicating in a civilized way again." If your intent was to imply that my last email in our previous exchange was somehow uncivilized, I would beg to differ. I responded with strong sarcasm to being flatly called a liar, but there was not one impolite word in that email, which you may recall affected a tone of pure (though satirical) self-abasement. I am not sure what satire is if it is not an artifact of civilization.

On the other hand, if your intent was merely to express pleasure at receiving a new email from me, then I am a bit surprised, but hopeful and also appreciative.

Sincerely,

Herb Mallette
------------------------
Let's hope this go-round doesn't turn into the massively aggravating debacle that the last one became. (If you're reading this, Jonathan, please note that I am not saying that you are solely or predominantly to blame for the debacle, though I admit to holding you culpable in some degree.)

Strong With the Dark Side, That Place Is

2006-01-07T09:37:00.000-06:00

In trying to lay out a strategy for the GOP to regain its moral core, David Brooks unwittingly gives a hint as to why there was never such a thing in the first place. Here's the key paragraph, amid numerous very good pieces of ethical advice that would make for good policy and good government:

"Third, Republicans need to steal Democratic Reps. David Obey and Barney Frank's lobbying-reform ideas. Democrats have been slow to trumpet the ideas coming from their party. Republicans have a chance to hijack them before the country notices."

Got that?

"steal"
"hijack"
"before the country notices"

Brooks can't even use the language of honesty when trying to urge his party to do the right thing. The message couldn't be clearer: it's not doing what's right that's important, it's gaining the advantage over Democrats.

Brooks could just as easily have written the following:

"Third, Republicans need to team with Democratic Reps. David Obey and Barney Frank on lobbying reform. Democrats have been slow to trumpet Obey and Frank's ideas, and they're exactly the kind of ideas Republicans ought to be pushing."

My version even preserves the obligatory dig at the Democrats as a party, for pity's sake. It just doesn't couch the endeavor in terms of raw, naked partisanship the way Brooks' version does.

And that's why the Republicans aren't going to get out of this unscathed: they can look no further than tactics for retaining their political supremacy. Their moral reasoning is entirely based on what is good for the Republican party's hegemony.

[Sorry I couldn't link to Brooks' column -- it was on hardcopy in my morning paper.]

Things, You Will See. Other Places. The Future . . . The Past.

2006-01-02T15:22:00.000-06:00

I went to see King Kong on Saturday and The Chronicles of Narnia yesterday. Two very odd films. [SPOILERS FOLLOW]

Roger Ebert's take on Kong hit the key point: this great achievement of this version of the film is its successful portrayal of the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. It's no longer a disturbing tale of interspecies lust as it was in the original, but a real emotional connection between a bright, sensitive woman and a very intelligent animal.

What Ebert misses, though is the way that portrayal turns the final third of the movie into a revolting spectacle of utter and grotesque cruelty. It's like 45 minutes of watching Old Yeller get put down. And then some jerk who didn't give a damn about Old Yeller ends the movie by saying, "Well, that's what a dog gets for tangling with a wild boar. Dumb mutt."

Ebert also seems oblivious to the fact that the film is full of the dumbest of dumb action-movie contrivances. How he could give it four stars is beyond me. But the interplay between Naomi Watts and Kong is worth the price of admission by itself, and if you like dumb action movies, the Skull Island section of the film is a great one.

Narnia is weird because it contains the four most passive protagonists I think I've ever seen in an action film, even a children's action film. I guess it makes sense, since they're just kids, that they undertake almost no actions of their own volition or imagining once they get to Narnia. But I was kind of expecting to find Aslan a richly drawn character, not just a nice CG lion with a soothing voice. Overall, a spectacle and effects worth watching, but nothing that left me especially moved (other than the opening scenes of the Blitz on London).

Each of these movies deserves 2-1/2 or 3 stars. In Narnia's case, that's a consistent rating for the whole film; in King Kong's, its a mathematical average for a film that's almost all outlier and no middle.

But How Will I Know the Good From the Bad?

2005-10-24T20:56:00.000-05:00

Here's a new blog worth visiting. Check out this sterling example of the caliber of posting there.

So This Is How Liberty Dies

2005-10-05T22:21:00.000-05:00

Al Gore. Where was this kind of speech five years ago, dude?

If You Strike Me Down, I Will Become More Powerful Than You Can Imagine

2005-10-04T22:52:00.000-05:00

Firefly died long before its time, for reasons that still leave me perplexed. But since the direct result has been Serenity, I have to say, I can live with that now.

If you haven't already seen it, go.

From a Certain Point of View

2005-09-30T07:50:00.000-05:00

Bill Bennett doesn't really think we ought to abort every black child in America. He only said it as an example of how ends-justifies-the-means thinking can lead to "morally reprehensible" strategies. Evidently, he simply picked "black" randomly out of thin air, and it doesn't suggest anything whatsoever about his attitudes or presuppositions.

And if you buy that, then consider this: as a conservative, Bill Bennett has made it clear that he considers big-government poverty-reduction programs funded by taxes to be morally reprehensible as well. Unnecessary taxes are essentially a form of theft in his philosophy. After all, if you tax the rich to help the poor, you might, God forbid, cut into the rightfully earned gambling budget of some wealthy, two-faced, hypocritical idealogue.

That's just a hypothetical example, of course. It doesn't indicate any attitude on my part toward Bill Bennett.

She's the Ship That Made the Kessel Run in Less Than Twelve Parsecs

2005-09-27T22:38:00.000-05:00

If you don't watch The Amazing Race, I hope it's because you make a point of not watching any "reality" television at all. Somehow, the people they cast for this show manage to be more entertaining than the "cleverly" scripted fictional characters on most network dramas and sitcoms.

Case in point: tonight, the family teams of four had to perform a buggy pull in Amish country. In the lead at first were three strong young men and their father-in-law. But the course was tough, with two team members required to ride, and they bogged down for a rest not far into it. As the father-in-law tries to motivate his daughters' husbands to get moving, along comes the Gaghan family, with marathon-running mom and dad barely breaking a sweat. Just as the second wagon begins to pass the first, the kids break into, "She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain," with a particularly fiendish gusto. The looks on the hapless, out-of-breath son-in-laws, and the sheer aggravation written across the father-in-law's features, could not have been any funnier.

Storm's a'Comin', Ani -- You'd Better Get Home

2005-09-27T22:35:00.000-05:00

Here's a cleverly barbed portrait of the questioning of Michael Brown by the House Select Committee on Hurricane Katrina. What a performance.

We Seem To Have Been Made To Suffer

2005-09-17T22:28:00.000-05:00

This may well be the funniest movie review I have ever read.

If you haven't actually seen "Dracula 3000: Infinite Darkness," it may not be as funny -- but for heaven's sake, DON'T contemplate watching the movie just so you can enjoy the review.

In a nutshell: Dracula is found on board a derelict space ship by a rough-and-tumble salvage crew. He turns several of them into his vampire slaves. The characters discover that they can incapacitate the vampires with the old stake-through-the-heart bit. And yet, although it's demonstrated that removing the stake revives the vampire, Dracula never bothers to do so for any of the staked minions. There is no apparent rhyme or reason as to who lives and who dies, or who dies when, and you'll spend much of the film wondering why they raided the costume closet of "Saturday Night Live" for their Dracula outfit.

Imagine a Dracula who is less scary than having your blood drained at the Bloodmobile -- and a movie that makes you feel worse than the same experience.

Stopped They Must Be; On This, All Depends

2005-09-16T22:02:00.000-05:00

I clicked into "Threshold" on CBS three or four times tonight, curious to see if the highly positive reviews I've been hearing about could possibly be true. With Brannon Braga as a major player in the production, it seemed unlikely to me.

My first question is, exactly how many times do the networks have to remake the "Aliens Invade Earth By Transforming Themselves Into Humans or Taking Humans Over" show before even non-science-fiction fans start saying, "This is getting frickin' tiring."

"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" was what, the '50s? Then they took the notion to TV in "The Invaders" in the '60s.

"V" sort of did it again in the '80s. Then the late '80s/early '90s gave us that "War of the Worlds" TV show in which the Martians made themselves look human . . .

"Dark Skies" was supposedly pretty good in the late '90s. Then there was "First Wave" on the Sci-Fi Channel . . .

Have TV critics not realized by now that these shows just scream, "We want to do a sci-fi show, but how can we avoid spending all that dough on special effects?"

Two of the scenes I happened to see took place in an abandoned industrial complex. An abandoned industrial complex. Am I the only one who has seen this same location (or its exact clone) in every straight-to-video B-movie horror flick since "Robocop"?

Earth to Brannon Braga: abandoned industrial complex = "We are too cheap to build a set."

Braga spent what, like eleven years running the prefab formula of late-era Star Trek into the ground. But at least it was a formula with hallowed credentials.

Now, he appears to have strung some of the cheapest conventions of low-budget schlock together into a medium-budget TV show with what appears to be zero original elements.

Can someone please give this guy enough money to retire, with the only string attached that he actually do so?

Man. Shows like this really bring out the Dark Side in me.

This Deal Keeps Getting Worse All the Time

2005-09-15T20:06:00.000-05:00

Today's exchange:

Jonathan Gurwitz wrote . . .

In answering your questions, I was not referring solely to your previous email. I was referring to your entire correspondence, beginning with the letter to the editor.

I can't address all the issues here, other than to say we disagree. Your level of discourse in latter exchanges is far different from the first two. I'm pleased for that. But then you slip back into another unreasonable and utterly unfair attack. You cite, as an example of my propaganda, my alleged comparison (by which you mean moral equivalence, the same charge you make against me for mentioning Kennedy and Phelps in the same column) of Chris Rock to Leni Riefenstahl. Unlike the Katrina column, in which you can at least make the claim that a faulty headline somehow jaundiced your understanding of the text that followed, this is plainly and completely false. Not an elision of truth, a flat out lie.

The purpose of that column was to demonstrate how clearly our current sensitivity to Rock's crude language makes a mockery of the indecency of genocide and its sympathizers. This is a comparison in the same way that weighing Bill Clinton's personal indiscretions against Richard Nixon's crimes against the country are a comparison. I suppose you get apoplectic whenever Democrats make this comparison? Here is what journalists call the nut paragraph: "There is more than one type of indecency. Rock's indecency is language that offends the gentle ear. Riefenstahl's indecency was an ideology that offends the human race. If ever there was a time to hit the tape-delay button, it was when her name appeared on-screen a year ago."

I'll post the full column below. Perhaps you can find that I've taken this paragraph out of context in an attempt to deceive. Or perhaps you'll realize that the sinister motives you attribute to my writing reflect more about you than me.

[Rather than post the full text Jonathan provided, here's a link to my blog entry about the article in question, where you'll find a link to the column itself. -- HM]

----------------------------------------

My reply:

I give up. You win. I was wrong to think that your column intended criticism of the Hollywood elite -- clearly, you meant to lambaste the gross disproportion of our society, which focuses so intently on harmless curse-words while letting genocide go uncriticized. Obviously, you meant to mock not Art and artists, but all of those consumers of art whose ears might be offended by Chris Rock's entirely defensible profanity, while their eyes did not blink at Riefenstahl's monstrosity.

I was wrong, too, to think that by demonstrating a clearly temporary and barely maintained ability to be civil and reasonable in my email of September 13, I would deflect your insistence that I was incapable of such civility or reason. It is plain to me now that my base irrationality and virulent rudeness are too deep-rooted to be disproved by one or two counterexamples.

I have wronged you, maligned you, attempted to deceive others with my letters to the editor, twisted my own mind into a gnarled malformity of self-delusion. You are blameless throughout, having always written in clear and unambiguous terms the pristine and unblemished truth. It is impossible that I might have simply misunderstood you; instead my willful self-deception has been laid bare.

In abject apology, I render you the opportunity to have the last word: unless you specifically request a reply, your next email will be the last of our correspondence.

With continued thanks for your time,

Herb Mallette

---------------------------------------
Ultimately, the conversation just wasn't worth it. I tried very hard to understand his perspective, and came away feeling that I knew a little better where he was coming from. But he could not do the same for me. Without reciprocation, the progress was simply too meager to be worth the investment.

Update!

Just received from: postmaster@express-news.net

Your message was rejected due to possible spam or virus characteristics. Please contact the intended the recipient using an alternate method or a new message to arrange delivery.
Thank you,
San Antonio Express-News mail administrator.

I've resent the message from another address to see if he marked my main address as spam. If so, then apparently, he reached the same conclusion I did.

For once, we agree!

Additional update:

Suddenly, there are spam comments appearing on my blog. I really hate to draw any conclusion from this. Maybe I picked up a virus, and that's why the newspaper postmaster kicked my email back.

Hmmm . . .

Special non-event update: Lack of any further oddities suggests that it would be paranoid to conclude anything more than coincidence -- especially since Google just started up their blog search feature, which probably gave spammers a leg up on spamming a lot of blogs' comments.

This Guy Doesn't Take a Hint, Does He?

2005-09-15T00:27:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Gurwitz's next email response to me:

1. I am not Jonathan Chait. I am not likely to write a weekly column celebrating the hate of George W. Bush and finding the Republican Party to be a mortal threat to the Republic. Because of this, you call me a propagandist, and an inept one at that. I think you simply disagree with me. And like many people these days, you're unwilling or unable (in you're case, it's clearly that you're unwilling) to articulate your disagreement in a reasonable and respectful way.

If Herb Mallette had his way, I suspect the opinion page would be a rather homogenous blend of Dowd, Ivins, Goodman, Pitts, Broder, Harrop, Ives, el-Kikhia, Clay-Little, Seltzer, etc. What a bland and unprovocative page, not because these aren't talented writers, but because they represent a narrow point of view on most subjects. That's typical of narrow-minded people. They want to read people with whom they agree and intimidate or silence those they perceive as their nemeses.

"May God or whatever power you believe in help you." - In my book, that's vindictive and petty, aside from the personal insults about being a propagandist and deceiving readers. It is self-serving of you to accuse me of deception (or later, of eliding facts) while attacking me about a column I didn't write, one that purportedly equates liberal and conservative hate. The headline, which I did not write, does not reflect the content of the column, which is about appropriating disaster for personal and political purposes.

I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that the words "liberal," "conservative" and "hate" don't even appear in the column.

2. Charlatan - one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability.
Meager - deficient in quality.
Sacrilege - gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or thing.

When Kennedy suggests, as Robertson did, that Barbour's memo might have caused the hurricane's death and destruction, he is demonstrating all three. I have not checked to see if Kennedy has issued some sort of apology. But I'm certain that if he had that sentence to take back, he'd do it. It was a senseless and insensitive comment, one that put him in the gutter with Robertson, and one unworthy of his character and personal loss.

3. I write publicly, unless I clearly claim privacy. No problem posting my comments to your blog. However, you'll probably have to assault me over a new column, as time and events move on.

Final note. I have no input into the editorial process that determines which letters to the editor are published. If I had my way, I would print both your letter and Ben Phelps letter, not because they are morally equivalent, but because they demonstrate in interesting ways how people on both sides of the political divide can disagree about the same issue. We typically print criticism over plaudits, and for good reason: columnists have a soap box, and dissenting voices need to be heard. I have no idea whether either one will run, but I suspect since they weren't in today's letters, they won't be printed.

Update: I received a third criticism by snail mail. A woman objected to the harsh language in my column.

JG
----------------------------------------
My reply:

Dear JG,

I would appreciate it if you could help me understand how my previous email was either unreasonable or disrespectful. I was working pretty hard to be civil, while pointing out that you used several decidedly uncivil terms both in your responses to me and in your original column.

I do not have the same problem that you say you have with incivility -- at least, not with incivility in moderation. If you believe that I am narrow-minded, it is no grievous affront to me for you to say so. I don't enjoy receiving such criticism, but I don't think that it renders you unfit to be reasoned with.

What I do have a problem with is your inability to see that your writing does not live up to the standard of civility to which you want to hold me. Yes, I've said some mean things about you. I initially thought them all to be deserved, though this exchange has convinced me that some of them were not.

You, in response, have said some mean things about me. All right, tit-for-tat, that's not a big deal. Furthermore, your mean statements may well have been empirically deserved, in addition to being deserved in your subjective judgment.

But you refuse to admit that you've said anything mean, and that is problematic. Either it's okay to say mean things to someone who deserves them, or it's not. But don't pretend that mean things are not mean simply because you're the one saying them.

I hope that your goal in writing point 1 below was to give me a taste of my own medicine. Clearly, you feel that I have unfairly typecast you, and I suppose you may have wanted to let me see how that feels. Your presumptions about what I would like to see in an editorial page are, however, completely off-base. So if your purpose was actually to prove to me how narrow-minded I am, the attempt was not successful.

As for point 2, I was not asking you to justify your name-calling. I was only trying to point out that it was name-calling.

It was not a personal insult for me to label your work as propaganda. Propaganda helped us win World War II. Propaganda was used heavily in both Gulf Wars, and almost certainly saved lives both among our troops and among those blameless Iraqi soldiers whom our propaganda convinced to abandon their posts and arms. I happen to think that your sort of propaganda -- comparing Chris Rock to Leni Riefenstahl, for example -- is not a healthy sort of propaganda. But even if I am wrong about its suitability, I am not wrong about its basic nature. You do not take evidence and reach a conclusion from it in your columns; rather, you hunt and choose evidence to support your perspective, even if it requires you to omit directly adjacent evidence which is contrary to your thesis. That is the basic nature of propaganda: information meant exclusively to further a point of view, without regard to the correctness of incorrectness of that point of view. Propaganda does not require that its purpose be evil or malign -- only that its purpose be unquestioningly served by every word presented, whether those words are fairly used or not.

It also was not a personal insult for me to label your work as deceitful. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong about you, and that you may sincerely believe that your partial quotes and (what I perceive as) disdain for context are actually straightforward, empirical means of conveying the truth as you see it. But it is my sincere belief that that is not the case. My assessment based on the evidence is that you deliberately spin and massage bits of information to cast the best possible light upon your arguments, and that you knowingly omit important contrary evidence for your own convenience. This is not a personal insult -- it is an evidenciary conclusion. It may be wrong, but it is not an insult.

"May God or whatever power you believe in help you," was intended to give you a taste of your own medicine. Vindictive? Petty? All right, guilty as charged. Also presumptuous and overreaching. However, in terms of linguistic connotations, the sentence is arguably more civil than, "Such meager minds. Such enormous sacrilege." Saying that someone's mind is "deficient in quality" is explicitly an insult unless you're delivering the results of a clinical test on cognitive function. In contrast, "May God or whatever power you believe in help you," is technically a form of well-wishing, though obviously I was putting it to a more negative rhetorical use.

Your most clearly scored point is over the word "inept." No doubt about it, that was an insult -- and a petty and vindictive one, since even at the time I didn't really believe it. I was sorry to have written it even as I wrote it, and I'm more sorry now. Sometimes when we're angry, we do bad things.

Just to make you happy, I'll admit that, no, your column did not contain the words "liberal," "conservative," or "hate." Will you admit that it also did not contain the words "misappropriate" or "misattribute"? I apologize that I allowed the large-point headline to prejudice me into thinking the column was about hate. I am curious, though, about the fact that you admitted from the very start that it was reasonable for me to have been misled by the headline, and yet you have held my misinterpretation of the column so profoundly against me. Has this entire correspondence been about that one column, from your perspective? From mine, it has been about your overall writing tactics.

If the conversation needs to revolve around that particular column, let me explain that I interpreted it as highly biased because you included two extremist hate groups on the right, while your three leftist examples of "misappropriation," included two relatively mainstream leftists -- Kennedy and (the grossly incivil) Joseph Cannon. Conspicuously absent were any examples of misattribution by mainstream conservatives, even those on the far right of the mainstream portion of the spectrum. Such examples should not have been hard for you to find, with all of the Ann Coulters, Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys out there, not to mention the Karl Roves. And yet you determined that a "fair" balance was to show Robert F. Kennedy Jr. side-by-side with neo-Nazis. If the juxtaposition was happenstance, and these were simply the first examples you came across, then I apologize for imputing a political agenda to a column that exclusively intended to chastise opportunists.

Nothing would do more to convince me of your reasonableness, though, than if you were to admit that at least a part of your motive in choosing those particular examples was to make liberalism look bad -- even if that part was only subconscious at the time.

After all, would you not decry it if a liberal were to write a column describing the tactics Hitler used to control information in Nazi Germany, and in the same column described the tactics that the Bush White House uses to control information today? Even if such a column did not directly equate the two, or claim them to be equal in relative malignance, would you not find the juxtaposition highly offensive? Would you not be tempted to write a response to that column that was at least as scathing as your column on the misappropriation of tragedies? Would you not consider calling that liberal writer a propagandist, or, if "propagandist" is too incivil a word, a "charlatan"?

Thanks for your time,

Herb

p.s. Just a reminder that I would really like to know how my email just before this one showed that I was "unwilling or unable. . . to articulate [my] disagreement in a reasonable and respectful way." I am honestly confused that you would say that.

I Grow Tired of Asking This

2005-09-13T19:06:00.000-05:00

Further email from Jonathan Gurwitz:

Mr. Mallette:

Just a brief response. If you followed my series of Point-2-Point exchanges with Jan Jarboe Russell last year, you would know that I do not find in liberalism the seeds of our nation's destruction. If you have read my criticisms of the Bush Administration's response to the genocide in Darfur, Tom DeLay's ethical lapses and the Texas GOP's failure at leadership, you'll also know I don't find conservativism and its leaders to be infallible.

You very clearly read what I write in a prejudiced (not bigoted) way. The Katrina column is a perfect example. You still haven't come to terms with the fact that my column was not about hate. It was about appropriating the disaster for personal and political purposes. I re-read Kennedy's column, and without question, this is exactly what he has done. I do not believe you are decontextualizing Kennedy, eliding truth with falsehood or juxtaposing monsters. I simply believe that you are wrong.

I started Point-2-Point with Jan because I lamented the fact that so many people were unable to engage in debate in a civil way, were unable to separate political disagreements from personal animosity, and so eager to pour on the vitriol. Enough said.

Regards,

Jonathan

-----------------------------------

My response:

Dear Jonathan,

I appreciate the time that you've put into this dialogue. I do, however, have a couple of questions.

(1) How is it better for you to call me "narrow-minded," "vindictive," "self-serving" and "petty" than for me to describe your writing as deceitful?

(2) Were you merely "disagreeing" with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. when you called him a "charlatan," accused him of "enormous sacrilege" and said that he had a "meager mind"?

As an interesting aside, if you look up "nemesis," you'll find that despite its negative connotations, it's actually rather a compliment. (Although honesty compels me to admit that I really didn't mean it that way.)

In closing, I feel obligated to note that I've posted this email correspondence on my weblog, for the benefit of its two readers. (Sadly, I confess that one of those readers is actually me.) If you would prefer that this exchange be kept between the two of us, please let me know, and I will immediately take it off of the blog. (Available for any comments you'd like to make at www.asteroidfield.blogspot.com.)

Cheers,

Herb

He's Got To Find His Own Path

2005-09-12T23:37:00.000-05:00

My goodness, what an interesting exhange this has turned out to be.

The latest from Jonathan Gurwitz, my erstwhile editorial nemesis:

Mr. Mallette:

I received several dozen comments about this column, from retired ministers to self-described atheists. All but three were positive. Of the three negative, yours and grandson Phelps' were -- in your case continue to be -- personally vindictive.

I re-read my column to try to figure out what might cause Herb Mallette to react in this way. In your defense, I will say that the headline (which I did not write) is inaccurate. My column is not about hate; it is about how people attribute or appropriate tragedy for their narrow personal and political purposes. It's right there in the first sentence. Of course you know that, because you read the column.

You might have a point if my column were about equating hate from the right and the left. Of course that's not what my column is about. Again, you know that. You won't even find the word "hate" in my column. So your comments about deception are, to say the least, self-serving.
Now with regard to Cannon, I did not quote the most hateful part of his message, because that was not my intent. It was, as you know, to show how people were appropriating the Katrina tragedy. Here's is part of the same post from Cannon, which you can read at http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/08/damn-right-i-blame-bush.html:

"DROWN AND DIE, YOU ARROGANT HILLBILLY SOUTHERN-FRIED LEECHES!!"

Does that qualify as hate, just as reprehensible as Phelps and the white supremacists? I might have made that case, but that was not the subject of my column. Kennedy's message was not one of hate. It was, instead, tragically misguided.

Sometime back, someone forwarded to me a message you had sent out describing me as your "nemesis." That stuck in my mind at the time, because I wondered how someone whom I've never met (as far as I know) could consider me to be his nemesis. Now I know.

Some people are so narrow-minded that they are not satisfied merely to disagree with others. They must vilify them, savage them and attack them personally. Your two emails are perfect examples.

I find all types of hate to be equally objectionable. I find all kinds of narrow-minded people to be equally petty. I am happy to engage you or anyone in a discussion of my columns or the issues. I am sorry for those who cannot do so without resorting to personal attacks.

Regards,
Jonathan Gurwitz
------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Gurwitz,

Please bear with the following description of how you became my "editorial nemesis." It's meant to be communicative, not aggressive, and I'm working to write a little less angrily.

This story goes far back before the column at issue, as I have read your work for several years. I share with you an interest in politics and foreign affairs, and find you to be a talented writer. The fact that our opinions diverge is of little matter; I have many conservative friends, and enjoy engaging them in conversations and honest debates.

Unfortunately, as I read column after column after column under your byline, I found that I had difficulty reconciling your work with a spirit of honest debate. While you generally maintain a civil tone, my perception is of an author who cherrypicks information and de-contextualizes quotes at every opportunity, with what seems to be the primary intent not of proving his own case, but of demonizing those with whom he disagrees. Possibly I am misreading you, but it appears to me that you believe liberalism bears the seeds of destruction for this country, and that anything that you can say to discredit it is therefore noble. Please let me know whether I am right or wrong in this assessment, as I admit that it is an interpolation and therefore subject to error.

It is a failing of mine that I let preceived injustices anger me. One result is that when I read what I believe to be distortions of the truth, I write angry letters to the editor or angry entries in my weblog. After a certain critical mass of letters had been written in response to your columns, I couldn't help but reserve a special place for you in my thinking. No other single columnist has provoked me to such ire with his work. Given that the word "nemesis" has a certain delicious ring to it, and given your special place among columnists, I found that you provided me with numerous opportunities to use that word. Is this a nice thing to have done? I suppose not. But since I am otherwise an unusually nice person, I made myself an allowance or perhaps an excuse because, in a way, it was kind of fun to have a nemesis. In general, I have used the phrase "my editorial nemesis," to differentiate you from a literal nemesis, but in at least one case of extreme anger, I did away with the qualifier.

If, in fact, you are a nice person -- and I suppose you probably are, since in my experience most people are -- then I have to concede that labeling you my nemesis always bore the risk of causing harm to a fellow nice person, and thus violated my personal code. So I'll try to do away with the phrase, and I apologize if it caused you discomfort.

But it will be hard for me to do away with the angry letters, given your propensity for what I feel is the regular misuse of truths in service of untruth, and the occasional outright fabrication.
For example, I find it hard to believe that you really think Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was attributing the motions of Katrina to God's displeasure at a memo Haley Barbour wrote. You're a very smart man, and I can't imagine that you really interpreted his (unfortunate) rhetorical flourish as a literal representation of his opinion.

And yet you wrote the following sentence: "As Katrina roared ashore and initial reports suggested Mississippi bore the brunt of the storm, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. saw evidence of intelligent design." This is as straightforward and putatively factual a sentence as one can write, and yet it is clearly contrary to actual fact. Thus, I consider it deception.

Similarly, the Joseph Cannon vitriol you quoted is slightly different in context than excised from the original piece:

'If I read ONE MORE article in which a science-hating red state pundit attacks progressives, I'm going to take the money I was going to donate to disaster relief and spend it on a nice Thai meal. And I'm going to suggest that all other progressives do likewise.

'I'm going to say "DROWN AND DIE, YOU ARROGANT HILLBILLY SOUTHERN-FRIED LEECHES!!"'

As much as I disagree with Cannon's approach, and as destructive as I think his rhetoric is, it remains a hypothetical -- a whereas you quoted it as though he had actually made a written imperative. The distinction is a thin but real one. Cannon's hatred appears to be driving him toward an edge, but you elide his writing in a way that makes him appear past that edge.

If what Cannon was saying was so bad, why did you feel the need to truncate it? CTRL+C / CTRL+V works just as well on whole paragraphs as it does on single sentences, and in an email, you aren't facing the economies of verbiage that you do in writing a column. Your desire to render him equivalent to the Phelpses forced you to omit key information. I view this as dishonest, and when I see you do this sort of thing, it makes me doubt your integrity. I don't say that to be mean, only to explain the instinctual response I have to your tactics. And they are tactics that you use in virtually every column.

Presuming that the truth about conservatism is so good, and the truth about liberalism so bad, why not write the straight truth? Why twist it? Snip bits out of it? Juxtapose monsters with the misguided and claim them to be of the same cloth? You have a remarkable voice, and yet I see you playing such mean tricks with it. (That's the archaic use of "mean," by the way, on top of the more current connotation.)

In closing, let me say that of course I have nothing against you personally. I do not know the real Jonathan Gurwitz, and in fact I barely even know anything about the real Jonathan Gurwitz. But you have a distinctive persona as a writer, and that persona is a dramatic character to anyone who reads your pieces regularly. Even were I to get to know you and find you a stand-up chap, I would have something against that character. He's dishonest, manipulative, and in his well-heeled way, as vicious as Joseph Cannon.

Please read any future screeds I might fire off as attacks upon that character, not attacks upon you. I suspect that you're a better person than he is.

Sincerely,

Herb Mallette

After I sent my response, I realized that I missed the boat on pointing out that he'd called Kennedy, Cannon and the rest "charlatans" in that opening sentence of his column, and calls me "narrow-minded" in the same paragraph that he decries those who "are not satisfied merely to disagree with others [but] must vilify them, savage them and attack them personally."

But at least I learned something. I really am an uglier person on paper than in the flesh -- something that I suppose I should work on.

At least until my editorial arch-enemy drives me over the edge again.

(I'm kidding, Jonathan. I'm kidding.)

Now You Have Become the Very Thing You Swore To Destroy

2005-09-09T21:21:00.000-05:00

My editorial nemesis has once again written a column that provoked me to letter-writing.

Interestingly, he actually wrote me back after I cc:ed him on the email.

Here's my letter:

The transparency of Jonathan Gurwitz’s propaganda never fails to amuse. In an article that purports to decry the blaming of disasters on God’s vengeance, he chooses to quote three “hateful” liberals, one Islamic radical, some unnamed neo-Nazis and famously gay-hating Pastor Fred Phelps. One of the liberals is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., whose quote is clearly meant to satirize similar statements by Pat Robertson in the past. Another liberal fails to so much as mention God, and expresses a willingness to aid his red-state political opponents in their hour of need. But, the liberal warns, they’ll get a lecture from him. Gurwitz’s clear intention is to link liberals to neo-Nazis, religious crazies, and terrorists. But he is so inept, the best he can do is claim equivalence between attaching a lecture to a donation on the one hand, and wishing half the black population of New Orleans dead on the other. Thank you, Mr. Gurwitz, for showing us the difference between liberal hate and conservative hate.

His response:

Mr. Mallette: I am appending to this email a message I received from Ben Phelps, grandson of Fred Phelps. Perhaps he and grandpa are merely "satirizing" Pat Robertson as well. Whether you choose to see it or not, when you defend the indefensible, you make yourself the mirror image of such hatemongers.

Regards, Jonathan Gurwitz

Dear Editor,
Now that Jonathan Gurwitz has invoked the Bible (“Small-minded hate piggybacks on immense disaster”, 9/7/2005), I’m interested in how he explains Nahum 1:2-8.
“God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth. The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.
The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him. But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.”

The passage Mr. Gurwitz quotes in his column is irrelevant. Its purpose is to show how God interacts with His people – Elijah was, after all, a man of God. Nahum 1 shows that God deals with His enemies with whirlwinds, storms, etc. So God deals with His elect in one way, and His enemies in another way. New Orleans prides (or, should I say, prided) itself in decadence, depravity, overindulgence, and sin (their Southern Decadence sodomy parade was scheduled for the very week Katrina hit). Frankly, I can’t think of a city more deserving of being drowned in feces and rotting flesh. God sent Katrina to destroy New Orleans. If New Orleans is rebuilt, God will destroy it again. “I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down.” Malachi 1:3,4. And remember, “shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” Amos
3:6.
Expect more and worse from God.
Ben Phelps
Topeka, KS

And what I wrote back:

Mr. Gurwitz:
Nothing in my letter even remotely defended Fred Phelps. Nor, in fact, did I defend the hateful statements of one of the liberals you quoted, Mark Smith. Mr. Smith's rhetoric goes beyond a line. But his words were the worst of the three liberals you quoted, and even his words are clearly not in the same category as Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson. Joseph Cannon comes close to crossing the line, but he makes it clear that he does intend to help those in need. Be honest: your purpose in writing that column had less to do with making hateful people look bad than with making liberals look bad, by equating the worst among them with neo-Nazis.

Yes, everyone who propagates hatred is doing wrong. But can you not see that by trying to tar Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with the Fred Phelps brush, you are propagating hatred of liberals? It's a theme that runs through a tremendous number of your columns. Are you really unaware that that is what you are trying to do?

I never know when I read your work whether you are merely trying to deceive others, or if you are also deceiving yourself. But if you thought that "famously gay-hating Pastor Fred Phelps" was meant as a defense of Phelps, then apparently at least some form of self-deception is operative. May God or whatever power you believe in help you.

Sincerely,
Herb Mallette

What's most maddening about this is that he is able to write a column whose thesis statement is one I overwhelmingly agree with, and yet turn that column into a propaganda piece undermining the very principles of tolerance that he claims to espouse.

Mind Tricks Don't Work on Me -- Only Credits.

2005-09-06T20:06:00.000-05:00

Here's another op-ed piece that inspired me to write a letter to the local paper. They haven't called to say they're going to print it, and it's been a couple of days, so most likely, they're not.

At any rate, here's my response:

I had to scratch my head over today’s column by Lee P. Rodgers (Because wealth is limited, future Katrinas always a risk, 9/5). How exactly did Dr. Rodgers spend 31 years in the U.S. Air Force without learning that when something goes wrong, you should try to find out why? That when someone makes a huge mistake, you should hold them accountable? Apparently he learned a different lesson: we can’t afford to do everything, so let’s just shrug and move on after our leaders negligently allow a well-forseen disaster to destroy people’s lives.

Update: The paper called and said that the letter will be printed. Of course, now that I reread it, I wonder if I sound like kind of a jerk.

He Certainly Has Courage . . .

2005-08-31T18:21:00.000-05:00

In trying to defend himself and like-minded columnists from charges that they are "chickenhawks," Rich Lowry reveals precisely what is wrong with all of them. They believe that there is no inherent difference between war and any other policy choice. Just as Lowry has better things to do than work a desk at an unemployment office, so too does he have better things to do than fight and die for his country when he believes it to be in direst peril. To him, these two situations are equivalent.

Chickenbrain.

He's the Brains, Sweetheart

2005-08-29T20:58:00.000-05:00

There's been a lot of criticism of this Kenneth Chang article on the web. Mostly, people are aggrieved that Chang doesn't portray Intelligent Design as the outright farce that it is, or give an immediate enough or clear enough picture of how much of a farce it is in the eyes of almost all reputable scientists. I'm with them on that.

Here's a quote from the article:

These complex systems are "always associated with design," Dr. Behe, the author of the 1996 book "Darwin's Black Box," said in an interview. "We find such systems in biology, and since we know of no other way that these things can be produced, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, then we are rational to conclude they were indeed designed."

This is one of the most reputable and high-profile ID proponents, and the statement he's making here is so mind-numbingly stupid that a child could demolish it. But instead of quoting someone demolishing it, Chang merely writes, "It is an argument that appeals to many Americans of faith."

Yes, Americans of faith who don't want to be bothered with thinking about the tripe being fed to them. Behe is supposedly a scientist of some distinction, but he makes a statement that is equivalent to the following: "These creatures are always found in the wild. We found such a creature in my garage, and since we know of no other place that one of these creatures exist naturally, then we are rational to conclude that my garage is a wilderness."

Earth to Michael Behe: Your logic can be used to prove that complex designed systems are alive just as easily as it can be used to prove that living systems are designed. "The most complex objects found on Earth are, by far, living creatures. Since the space shuttle is one of the most complex objects found on Earth, it must be a living creature."

And this guy is one of the smart Intelligent Design folks. Yikes.

Your Sad Devotion to That Ancient Religion

2005-08-28T15:21:00.000-05:00

[Extreme geekdom warning . . . you may find the following post too remarkably nerdish to stomach.]

I'm pretty much a complete agnostic, but I had very close to a spiritual experience a couple of weekends ago. Somebody at the store where my wife works found out that I play Dungeons and Dragons, and said, "Oh, my son left a bunch of that stuff in my house when he moved out. I'll bring it in and you can see if your husband wants it."

So Katie arrived home one night bearing this old, beaten-up briefcase. You may be familiar with this particular sort of briefcase -- a solidly made piece of equipment that's thoroughly scruffy, but still in strong functional shape because some adult used it past its cosmetic endurance and then gave it to a kid who took extremely good care of it. So the container itself gave off the immediate impression of both age and preservation.

When I opened it up, I found a stunning set of first-edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons books. The whole collection was there: the original trilogy of Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual and Player's Handbook as well as the Fiend Folio, Deities and Demigods and Oriental Adventures. A few of the books had minor cosmetic issues -- the kid's name written on the edge of the pages, or a place on the cover where it appeared someone had been drawing circles on a piece of paper on top of the book, leaving slight impressions. But the interiors are pristine. My books from that era all got played to the point that the pages went soft and had finger-marks where they'd been flipped through endlessly. The spine came off my Player's Handbook at some point. These ones still crackle when you open them up.

I had the eerie sense, looking through briefcase at the manuals and the sundry modules that came along with them, that a precious artifact had fallen into my hands -- not a collection of rareties that might be broken up and sold on eBay for a handsome price, but something that needed to be kept intact and protected. I've opened it up several times, read sections of some of the materials that I never had, and held up the pale blue dice that I assume are the owner's original set. But I'm leery of touching it too much, lest I somehow inflict the ravages of time upon it.

I've Made a Lot of Special Modifications Myself

2005-08-27T21:48:00.000-05:00

Well, politics has become frankly too depressing for me to post on regularly.

I had more or less suspended work on this blog as a result -- but I didn't want it to become another of those sad cases where people lock down cool blog names only to abandon them after a pathetically brief run. (If you're not familiar with the phenomenon, just try entering random cool names and terms from the Star Wars film in as URLs, with ".blogspot.com" added on. Be warned: the results may depress or aggravate you. For instance, you'll wish like hell that the guy who snagged "millenniumfalcon.blogspot.com" had kept it up, and you'll wish with equal fervor that something bad happened to the guy who farted away "dockingbay94.blogspot.com".)

So I'm changing the nature of this blog up. From here out, I'll post whatever strikes me as interesting, or worth writing about, whether it's related to politics, culture, music, work, games, or any of the other topics I'm interested in. The only exception is that pure Star Wars musings will remain on Tashi Station.