People are Strange

I'm hesitant to devote any more attention to the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter trainwreck, but I was especially struck by the quote:

I understood what photos were being taken. It was my mistake to pose for them given I had no photo control or approval.

Ya think?

I propose this operational test for anyone posing for photographs that are intended to bolster their credibility:

Are you wearing pants?

This Never Gets Old

O brave new world! O brave new world that has such people in it.

Avatar, Pantheism, and Environmentalism

Those of you emerging from a six-month coma may be unfamiliar with all of the attention being paid to the film Avatar. It has broken box office records, and as of this posting has grossed $1.6 billion worldwide, giving James Cameron the top two spots in movie history. It is a technological marvel: the movie is shown in 3D and used motion-capture techniques and computers to create the Na'Vi, the blue-skinned alien race you see on all the posters.

But with great box office power comes great responsibility, and there have been many examinations of the underlying themes of the movie. The first that comes to mind is When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar?, which looks at the white guilt escapism found in the movie. I include a link to this because after seeing the first preview for Avatar, I immediately sang "Colors of the Wind" from Pocahontas and explained that I had just summarized Avatar so no one would have to see it. I was probably the very first person in America to make that joke.

But the real meat of this post has to do with the religious critiques of the movie and the connections between Pantheism and Environmentalism. Ross Douthat wrote an editorial in the New York Times about the pantheism on display in Avatar.

In Cameron’s sci-fi universe, this communion [with Nature] is embodied by the blue-skinned, enviably slender Na’Vi, an alien race whose idyllic existence on the planet Pandora is threatened by rapacious human invaders. The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”

But after namedropping Alexis de Tocqueville and Deepak Chopra, we get this:

Today there are other forces that expand pantheism’s American appeal. We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.

Since Ross Douthat disagrees with pantheism, I wonder what he thinks about global warming. Has pantheism co-opted or misappropriated the rigorous set of 'thou shalt nots' from global warming? If pantheism isn't true, is global warming guilty by association? One other post of his that gives some insight is on the Precautionary Principle but it seems to suggest that the costs of environmental regulations are too high. I was hesitant to put words into his mouth or to use him as anecdotal evidence of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy joining environmental skepticism and religious conservatism, so I went looking for other cases.

And I found out that the Vatican doesn't much like Avatar either: "Vatican Radio said the movie 'cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium'." Again, I'm not sure exactly which pseudo-doctrines the Vatican is talking about. Is Barack Obama promoting those pseudo-doctrines? Is Michael Pollan? Is James Hansen? It's hard to tell.

But as I was listening to this Issues Etc. podcast like a good Confessional Lutheran, along came the line around the 10 minute mark:

You get the impression that ecology and relating to nature is kind of connected to religion, and as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis and many other people have suggested, when you stop believing in the God of the Bible, you need some kind of God-replacement, and so that [Environmentalism] element is there. It's interesting, as I was watching the film, I was kind of listing in my mind the different major scenes, and certainly the Green Ecology-- I almost thought there was a part of the Inconvenient Truth movie in there from Al Gore.

This is a long way for me to say that other people think environmentalism and pantheism are connected. I probably could have saved myself some time and brought up Captain Planet and his Planeteers taking their eco-marching orders directly from Gaia herself. But I would like to sever this connection between pantheism and environmentalism without damaging the integrity of environmentalism. That is, just because you don't like pantheism doesn't mean that environmental issues are bogus.

For starters, there is a very strong theistic case to be made in favor of environmentalism. Man is the final cap to all of Creation, and is given the following charge by God:

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

...

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Environmentalism as Stewardship- that is, God creating man and giving him a role as caretaker for the rest of Creation- is hardly new, controversial, liberal, Democratic, French, or Socialist. At this point I could do a bunch of linking to Rick Warren, Rowan Williams, and other figures on the Theological Left that Conservatives love to hate. But even that Vatican statement that I linked to above implies that Nature is a creation to defend.

Secondly, pantheism focuses on finding God in Nature, or that God is in everything, and that by communing with Nature, man can be closer to God. But many environmental issues are framed not as respecting that force that unites every living thing, but as simple human self-interest. Climate change is an important issue not because it will hurt Gaia or polar bears, but because it will hurt humans. Emission standards are not set according to a level of acceptable harm to Eywa, but how much they will hurt people.

Angst! Angst! Angst!

It would be one thing if people held opinions that differed from my own that I could respectfully agree with. It is quite another when they are madmen who in a just world would be shouted down from the rooftops. Trading Milton Bradley for Carlos Silva plus cash is so monumentally stupid that I question the sanity of anyone who would suggest such a thing.

In other news that makes me only mildly annoyed instead of inappropriately enraged, a close friend of mine believes something incorrect about a tongue twister. I will not share his name here, because I do not want potential future employers googling his name only to find out this career-threatening information.

Here is what he said:

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would[sic] chuck wood?
A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck would if a woodchuck would[sic] chuck wood.

Clearly, this is insane. For the following reasons:

1. It is completely meaningless, perhaps even Nihilistic if I knew what that meant. You are saying that "A=A" which, while true, does not need saying. If I asked "How much will it snow today?", it does me no good for you to say "As much as it will if it does". Or if I asked you "How many sugars do you want in your coffee?", it does me no good for you to reply "As many as I want". You are no Zen master.

2. It besmirches the industriousness of woodchucks. Woodchucks are fastidious animals. We can learn from them and follow their example. They would chuck as much wood as they possibly could, but due to the harsh physical and biochemical laws which govern the Universe, they do not have the physical capability to do so. To say that they would chuck as much as they would implies that the only thing stopping them is their will.

This is the best use of my time probably ever.

Stupidest Thing Lately Heard

I'm watching the pregame show before the Packers VS Bears game. Howie Long decides to sermonize about Drew Brees, who does a chant before he plays his games. Howie says something about how the troops love it, and that it is no coincidence that the Saints are 12-0.

Why are the Saints undefeated? Because Drew Brees does a chant for the troops and the people of New Orleans still devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

Long goes on to say, "Do you hear that, Wall Street? Greed isn't good. Peyton Manning and Charles Woodson have donated millions of dollars to children's hospitals. It is no coincidence that they are both having MVP-caliber seasons."

Why are Payton Manning and Charles Woodson playing well? Because they donate money to charity.

Why is Rome strong? Because of their superior virtue.

The Latest Facebook Attack on Conservative Values

By now you should all be aware of the ways facebook is undermining society with their recommendations of bands I don't like and their ads with pictures of girls with structurally unsound shirts. This is their latest:



I know absolutely no one else in the world is bothered by this. But I continue to carry the socially conservative fiscally liberal banner. For the children.

Emmy Rossum is totally pretty so shut up

There's something about Special Knowledge that makes people feel cool. You know something that other people don't- that makes you special, unique, different. It makes you chosen. You can exploit this knowledge to your advantage- you are powerful. I'd like to examine three variations on this theme, two of which I will rail against with the snarky invective that all the kids are doing these days, one of which I engage in myself.

1. Emmy Rossum is totally pretty so shut up.

This is actually a reference to an old movie review I read for the movie The Phantom of The Opera. The reviewer said that they recommended the movie because they really liked the actress (Emmy Rossum) who played Christine. Unlike those other actresses like Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan who are vain, conceited, self-indulgent, and as ugly on the inside as they are "conventionally beautiful" on the outside, Ms. Rossum has an inner beauty that shines through the prism of her unconventional (yet striking) outer beauty.

Just shut up! Emmy Rossum is so conventionally beautiful that I don't know where to begin. I guess with a picture?



There is another story here about how people accept narratives about people they've never met. Emmy Rossum is maybe very nice. Maybe she's mean. I don't know! But I'm more interested in this kind of Special Knowledge. The reviewer thought he (she?) had special knowledge of Emmy Rossum's beauty. No one else thinks she is beautiful, but I have a secret: I think she's gorgeous.

2. Poker is gambling. Poker is gambling. Poker is gambling.

Last week, I spoke with someone about the World Series of Poker, which is probably the biggest poker tournament in the world. They show it on ESPN all the time. There is a mysterious guy with long hair, sunglasses, and a cowboy hat who throws cards really hard at bananas. There is an Everyman named Chris Moneymaker (!!!) who had a normal white-collar job as an accountant before he entered the WSOP and won the whole thing.

So the guy I was talking to said, "when you think about it, if you really know how to play poker, it's not really gambling. If you know the odds and how to read people, you can control the game, win the game, you can't lose."

Whaaaaaat? There are perhaps a few dozen people in the world who are truly 'professional' poker players. There are thousands who consider themselves good enough to be professional. But even with the odds in your favor, it's still a big risk. No matter how good you are at calculating strategy or reading your opponent, you can't win if you don't get good cards.

In contrast to the Emmy Rossum scenario, I think this kind of Special Knowledge exists, or is true. It is true that some people employ better betting strategies, or can predict how another player will act. But my interest is in how over-emphasized this knowledge is. People may possess it but overestimate its impact.

3. SABR! It began with a bloody 'S'!

SABR is the Society for American Baseball Research. Using well-known baseball statistics like batting average as well as new statistics of their own construction, SABR-metricians, as they are called, seek to explain and investigate the game of baseball using scientific (ish) methods.

And the knowledge that they generate is powerful! Other General Managers of baseball teams don't think that this player is very good, but we know that he's very good. We will get him on our team and have great success, great power. The Oakland Athletics made the playoffs regularly despite having a low payroll because they had this Special Knowledge. They haven't made the playoffs anymore because the beans were spilled, the cat was out of the bag, the Special Knowledge became Common.

I enjoy SABR-metrics because I like that story, and I like answering questions in trustworthy ways. But my fantasy baseball team was very mediocre. Again, perhaps this knowledge is true, but people who have it overestimate its worth.

These are thoughts without conclusions. I'm not exploring how Special Knowledge is good or bad, or the differences between these three cases. I'm just expounding on a subject I've been thinking about lately. But if I had to give any summary, I'd say it's important to know the limits and usefulness of your knowledge.