 Jeff wrote a better summary of my post yesterday than I could- check out his blog for other good thoughts in a similar vein as my own: “What a great observation you imply here: Alien films are really a litmus test for how we answer three questions: A) What kind of universe do we live in (i.e. Is it basically hostile, basically kind, or basically indifferent)? B) How should we react and interact with the universe? C) What if our answer to A) is not in synch with our answer to B)?” * * * Day Three: The Man of Steel and The American Way Does anyone else find it ironic that primary defender of “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” is from beyond the stars? Sure, he looks like us, and as Clark Kent he can hide among us as a mousey reporter, but the reality is- Superman is not from ‘round here. He’s an outsider for a distant planet. He’s an alien. He’s Kal-el. And yet, he’s tasked with defending the American Way? Isn’t that odd? Well, let’s think about The American Way for a bit and see if there’s a way to reconcile this. The American Way and the American Dream are traditionally used interchangeably. To some degree, they both mean that no matter who you are or where you’re from, you’ve got a chance to make a difference. You’ve got the same chance as everyone else, to become what you want through your own work, by your own means- no matter who you are or where you’re from. With this definition in mind, it could be argued that Superman is literally the actualization of the American Way. As an alien, he knows better than anyone what it means to be an outsider, making his way in a world that’s unfamiliar territory. Sure, he’s able to use his innate abilities to become the greatest hero and defender of all time, but that doesn’t subvert the fact that he’s not human. Interestingly enough, it’s probably the fact that he’s not “one of us” that makes it so meaningful. Had he been the kid down the street- a true all American Boy- it wouldn’t be a story that resonates so strongly with us. After all, consider that Superman was created in a country of immigrants. Even last year (2008) over a million people were naturalized as U.S. Citizens. In fact, some studies show that immigration is the only thing that is keeping our country’s population from shrinking now that the average U.S. family has decreased to 1.93 children. Immigration is the foundation of our country and the backbone on which we’ve thrived. The one thing that most of us have in common is that our family trees are rooted on some other continent. We’re all from somewhere else. Which could be a reason why we don’t even think about Superman as an alien until we’re forced to. He seems like a regular guy who happens to be super powered rather than some humanoid life form from another planet. Sure, some of it is due to the fact that he looks just like us, talks just like us, and has adoptive parents from Kansas. But it’s more than that. Perhaps he is just like us. After all, we’re all aliens in some respect.  Day Two: Fear and Loathing in South Africa On Monday, we explored some initial thoughts about why humans feel the need to create something other than us. It could be due to our own need for significance, or perhaps because we need to know whether or not our decisions matter, or possibly it stems from mere loneliness, but no matter what reasoning stands behind it- we all ask that question: “are we alone, or is there someone else out there?” Alien films, of course are an exploration of this issue and others. Of course, the answer to what “someone” else is like is up for debate, too. The aliens in ET: The Extraterrestrial and Close Encounters of the Third Kind look and act a whole lot different than the ones in Alien, Independence Day, or the recent District 9. Of course there are the Predator films which feature aliens who hunt humans for sport. And there’s War of the Worlds and the rest of the alien invader movies that presents grim hostiles from Mars who operate huge tripods and are bent on destroying human life to make room for their own kind. And then of course, there are films like ET where the alien is a sort of cute little brown guy who hangs out with kids. Something that really stuck out to me about District 9 is that the film is really about apartheid and the monstrosity of humanity’s actions against those we don’t understand. On a lesser level, ET and Flight of the Navigator echo the same meme. They’re both about the fact that man has a need to dissect what we discover in order to control it and understand it. But no matter what the film is, almost all Alien Films center on fear. Aliens represent something unknown and foreign. They represent something to be afraid of because they’re different, more powerful, problematic, violent, or such a mystery that we feel like we need to shoot first and ask questions later. But isn’t this pretty much what we do anytime we’re in a new situation or around people that seem different or strange to us. I don’t mean to suggest that we always kill other people or dissect them when they seem different to us- but isn’t there something curious about racism and prejudice? Both of these are prime examples of how we tend to treat other people like something alien. Something different. Something Other. Even the more subtle approaches like writing off another nationality because of a language barrier or mannerisms that don’t line up with social norms are a form of what I’m talking about here. When humans are confronted with something different than what we’re used to, we automatically assume the worst and look for ways to make ourselves more comfortable. This often means isolating ourselves from those who are different than us or deconstructing and “figuring out” their actions so that we can cut them down to size and make ourselves more powerful. Alien films are a way for us to key in on some of these issues that we have with other human beings. And if you haven’t taken the time to check out District 9 yet- it’s a perfect film to begin thinking through our actions and how they relate to other people. Check out A True Review for more info.  After watching District 9 last week, I was struck by the allegorical nature of aliens in pop culture. After this realization, I thought of all the “alien” films I’ve seen over the past few decades and began to wonder if each of these movies were actually existential explorations of human issues that need philosophical or theological resolution. Thus, I decided to take a week to look at limited selections of concepts and ideas that aliens can represent in film and literature. What follows is a collection of those ideas… * * * Day One: Is There Anybody Out There? Even before the telescope recast our planet as merely one of many specks of dust flying around in a vast universe of worlds, earth’s thinkers and religious leaders have speculated that there may be life on other planets. But since the moment when geocentricity was dislodged and a more accurate picture of the universe took its place, theories regarding life on other planets have been increasingly common in science, philosophy, religion, and pop culture. So this week, I specifically want to look at some of these pop culture references to see if there are any philosophical ideas being expressed though the use of extraterrestrial life forms. One of the earliest stories to include extraterrestrials is a 10th century Japanese Folk Tale called “The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter.” In it, a girl from the moon brings wealth to a family who shelters her. Through a series of misadventures, the Emperor of Japan falls in love with her, but is rejected over and over again. And when the girl’s people return for her from them moon and she leaves an immortality elixir behind, the Emperor refuses to drink it; for life without his love- the girl from the moon- would be worthless to him. Instead, he has his guards set the elixir on fire at the top of Mt. Fuji, thus giving Fuji a name (Fuji means immortality) and also providing an origin story for why Fuji, smokes from time to time. But whether we’re talking about a fairy tales, H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds or films like District 9, ET, and The Day The Earth Stood Still, each of these pop culture references asks the question “…is there anybody out there?” I think we want to know the answer for a couple of reasons: 1. Our Own Sense of Self Importance Are we the only ones like us? Given the fact that our universe is as big as it appears to be, it seems unlikely that we’d be the only planet where life abounds. But as we look into the heavens, there’s a tendency to feel both small and huge at the same time. We see the vast array of planets and star systems and we feel small in the wake of the enormous amounts of stuff out there. How could anything we do or anything we say amount to significance when faced with the reality of our size in comparison with the rest of creation. At the same time, however the fact that we seem to be the only planet and species that’s capable of interplanetary communication and travel beyond the confines of our own atmosphere leads us toward a sense of pride. It we are truly the top dogs in a universe of fungi and bacterium, then our problems are the most important and significant. Our seemingly insignificant debates about where to eat or what to do with our lives are the pivotal decisions of the universe if we are truly the only highly intelligent beings in the Universe. 2. Our Own Choices as a Species In The Day The Earth Stood Still, alien invaders come to earth as emissaries from the rest of the galaxy to assess whether or not humans should be allowed to interact with the rest of the universe or be quarantined off into our own solar system. The reason? Our planet cannot escape warring with each other and the universe wants to protect themselves from our violence and our inherent selfishness. If others exist- aliens in this case can be representational of other human beings- it follows that my actions cannot proceed purely from an individual perspective. When something or someone other than me is affected by my decisions, I must take this into consideration when I act. I cannot act as though I am the center of the universe when I am not, in fact, the center of the universe. The Church had a hard time letting go of their own geocentric paradigm during the decades surrounding the Inquisition. Many scientists paid the price through exile, excommunication, and even death. Aliens often represent the fact that something or someone “other” than us needs to be taken into consideration when we are making decisions. 3. Our Own Loneliness Probably the most obvious, but understated metaphor that aliens represent, is an answer to our own loneliness. Loneliness is one of the sentiments that all of us share- we live in the reality that we were made for relationship and we hurt deeply when we are cut off from other people. So taken on a macro-level, is it any wonder that humanity longs for companionship just as individuals do? Perhaps extraterrestrial creatures represent nothing more than an attempt to reach out to the world around us and know that we’re not alone. We want someone else there along with us so that we can fill the void of emptiness with something meaningful. Even when that something turns out to be terrible- every alien invasion film ever written- it could be argued these references are still an attempt to engage with something or someone beyond ourselves. Where Are You Wyoming? 08/21/2009
When I was in High School, a few of us made up a silly little theory about the non-existence of Wyoming. Since then, I've actually met a few people from Wyoming and seen license plates that reflect the State, so I guess I'm going to have to resort myself to the fact that they DO exist after all. However, someone from Wyoming must have passed the word around that I didn't believe in them- because they're apparently boycotting my website. Here's a picture of my Google Stats for the year. Every State here in the US is represented, except for Wyoming.  Help me out Wyoming, I want to believe in you! Please note: I am NOT an advocate of recreational drug use. I do not use illegal drugs and even if they were decriminalized I wouldn’t partake. This post is written with the intent of exposing some of the misconceptions that people have about Marijuana so that we can save some of our taxpayer money from being spent on rounding up pot smokers and putting them in jail. Once you’ve read what I’ve got here you’ll probably agree that there’s much better things that the government could do with our taxes. Also Note: I borrowed a lot of these myths (rewritten and documented by me, of course) from a site called DrugPolicy.org. You can read about a lot of other marijuana myths by clicking on their link. * * * Myth #1: Marijuana Overdoses Are Fatal This myth states that smoking too much marijuana will kill you. And as strange as it sounds, a lot of people actually believe it. They’ve heard the stories of drug overdoses and assume that any illegal substance will be fatal if it’s taken in excess. The Reality: There are actually no records in the extensive medical literature of the world describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality... Ever. Yes, you read this correctly, there aren’t any documented deaths that were attributed solely to consuming marijuana. Now, some marijuana users have consumed other drugs that have caused them to overdose. But there is absolutely no historical evidence that anyone has ever died from smoking too much marijuana. Alcohol, Caffeine and Tylenol are more dangerous than marijuana in this regard. Check out the chart in the following link for more stunning figures about deaths: Myth #2: Marijuana Causes Brain Damage If you grew up in the 80’s like I did, you probably saw the same drug awareness ad over and over again. The butter goes into the skillet. “This is your brain.” The egg drops over the butter and begins frying. “This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?” It was a clever little marketing campaign, really. It was quick and simple and it had a really clear message that stuck with you and a catch phrase that was hard to forget. Teachers and other educators lacked onto this phrase as well as the famous monkey experiment where these apes were given Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and lost brain activity. The combination effort lead us all to believe that marijuana was a brain cell killing machine that would make us idiots if we smoked it. The Reality: Other than the aforementioned monkey experiment, no other researcher has been able to substantiate any brain cell loss due to smoking marijuana or being exposed to THC. A recent film I watched called “The Union” documented that this famous monkey experiment was not actually what we think it was. The researchers placed gas masks of incredibly high concentrations of THC and low oxygen levels over each monkey’s mouth for an extended period of time. After analyzing their methods, most other scientists agree that the brain cell loss should be attributed to suffocation rather than THC. It was the depravation of oxygen in this experiment rather than the marijuana that caused brain damage. And in fact, in every other major research study that’s been done, marijuana usage has not effected brain cells. This is probably an example of the War on Drugs grabbing the test that proved their point rather than the actual statistics.
Well, one might say, even if marijuana doesn’t cause brain damage- smoking causes cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema. I don’t want anyone to get these diseases, first hand or through second hand smoke! So it should still be illegal. The Reality: It’s true that like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke does contain some carcinogens and irritants. All smoke does. A burning marshmallow, or toast, or eggs, or coffee, or anything else that’s on fire and turning into smoke will contain irritants of some sort of another. The real question is whether these irritants actually cause cancer. The truth is, marijuana hasn’t been linked with cancer, and the lack of obstructions within marijuana smoker’s lungs indicates that bronchitis and emphysema aren’t very likely either. In fact, a new research article that came out in July of this year has actually linked 10-20 years of continuous marijuana use with reduced instances of cancer. Hmmm?
This myth basically says that anyone who smokes pot is at risk for becoming crazed and violent when they are intoxicated. The Reality: Hopefully, most people don’t take this myth seriously. Marijuana, in fact, has a calming effect that’s more likely to make someone sleepy than angry. Not only that, but almost every single serious study done on marijuana usage has shown that it actually decreases aggression and violence. The real trick here is that since marijuana is illegal, anyone who uses marijuana is obviously someone who the ability to break or ignore the law. That said, there might possibly be a correlation between crime and marijuana usage since those with a propensity to break one area of the law may be more likely to break other areas of the law, too. But this doesn’t mean that marijuana causes crime. It means that people who break the law are potentially more likely to break or ignore other laws. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it’s important to understand if we’re truly going to understand the consequences of marijuana use.
This myth states that even if all the other things about marijuana are false, smoking pot is a slippery slope that will eventually land users in bed with “hard drugs” like crack and heroine and therefore should remain illegal. The Reality: Yes, in some regards Marijuana is a gateway drug. But it is BECAUSE it is illegal that it’s a gateway drug. If the only way to get a hold of marijuana is on the black market, then of course people who purchase it will be more likely to purchase other illegal substances. After all, they’re engaging in illegal activities and interacting with drug dealers who also have cocaine, speed, PCP, XTC, and Heroine on them. Since marijuana isn’t addictive, it’s not really as profitable for the black market and so you’d better believe that the intention of every drug dealer is to get their clients hooked on something “harder” that will keep them coming back day after day. Thus, cocaine and heroine and PCP and all sorts of other illegal drugs are “offered” along with the bag of marijuana. But when you walk into a 7-Eleven to buy a case of beer, the guy behind the counter isn’t trying to get you to smoke crack, too. He may offer a bag of chips or a Slurpee, but he’s not selling hard drugs. And when you pick up a Percocet prescription at the pharmacy, the woman behind the counter isn’t there trying to peddle Codeine to you as well. You get what you came for and you leave. The truth is, most researchers, economists, and average human beings realize that marijuana would be a lot safer and less likely to lead to harder drugs if it were legalized and regulated like tobacco and alcohol.
According to my “accurate” sources over at Wikipedia, there have been over eight million cannabis arrests in the United States since 1993 including 872,721 in 2007 alone. 88% of these arrests were apparently for possession alone. That means that over 7 million people have been arrested in the United States for having a plant on their person or in their home that is non-fatal, causes no brain damage, bronchitis, or emphysema, reduces cancer, isn’t correlated with other crimes, and is only linked with harder drugs because of its illegal nature rather than an inherent trait within the substance. Now, I’m not sure how much it costs to make 7 million arrests, but I’m guessing it’s at least a thousand dollars per incident (taking into consideration the salaries of police officers, detention officers, and anyone else involved in processing). That means that at the very lease we’ve spent 7 billion dollars arresting marijuana users. And these 7 billion dollars, of course, are paid by taxpayers like you and me. Call me crazy, but considering the growing deficit problem we’ve got in our government and the programs that keep getting added, I think it’s time to rethink our Federal policy on marijuana restrictions. Why are we spending all this taxpayer money and putting our police force in danger over a plant that’s illegal because of misinformation? A Man Brings a Gun to a Meeting 08/19/2009
If you don’t know what this post is referencing, here’s a quick summary: President Obama and a lot of Senators & Representatives are using the Legislative Recess to host town hall meetings across the country in order to present information about the Healthcare Reform Bill (and other agenda items). At some of these meetings, attendees have shown up with guns and rifles. The press took a hold of these stories and have blown the whole thing out of context, making these attendees seem like violent revolutionaries intent on perpetuating violence against the President. Facts:
* * * A Little History Suppose for a moment that you live in a society where the only people who are allowed to have weapons are government approved military and police forces. The government uses the military and police force to uphold the peace and create security for the people they govern. And as long as the intentions of the government remain good and honest, it’s true that the people will be protected and secure under this rule of law. Thomas Hobbes, in fact, was a proponent of the STRONG monarch who ruled with an iron fist and kept his subjects safe from anything that would threaten them- including themselves. But what happens if the government turns on its own people? What happens when Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots appear? What happens when selfish dictators arise who are only concerned with keeping power and use any force necessary to keep themselves and their advisors in control of the people they rule? When governments turn evil, the people have a right- and perhaps and obligation- to institute a new government. One that represents that people it governs in fairness and justice. To that end, the people require a means of bringing about such a government and this is where the right to bear arms comes in. The people need arms in order to combat the arms that the government has. It’s basically another check and balance to ensure that the people are well defended against their own government- in case their own government turns on them. Alexander Hamilton said it this way: “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” In other words, the people should have as much power as the military. They should have the right to defend themselves against their own military. This does not mean that individual revolutionaries had the right to overthrow their own government. It does not mean that people have the right to kill each other needlessly with weapons. It doesn’t even mean that individuals have the right to go hunting and shoot deer. Plain and simple, it means that the People should never be put in a place where their government is able to enslave them. Granted, these laws were put in place before Tanks, Heavy Artillery, Missiles, Nuclear Explosives, and other weapons of mass destruction were invented. The reality is, the people of this country are not in a position to resist our own government. It’s just not reasonable to give everyone a Tank or a Nuclear Missile Silo in order to maintain a balance of power between the people and the military. Why They Did It The principle of the People’s right to be defended against their own government still remains true- even if the reality is that we’d have a hard time actually overthrowing our own government if it actually came to that (which I’m not suggesting, by the way). By entering town hall meetings with guns, these attendees were proclaiming their right to be defended against their government. It wasn’t an attack. It wasn’t an assassination attempt. It was a symbol. It was a symbol that was meant to remind Congress and the President that they are not our Rulers. They are not dictators who are allowed to put any policy into place, merely because they want to. They are representatives of the people. They are responsible to the people they govern and they should not expect to be allowed to continue to thwart the will of the people. The people didn’t want the Bailout of Wall Street or the Bailout of the Auto Industry. They didn’t want a government takeover of AIG or these outrageous “stimulus plans” that aren’t working and never will. They didn’t want Homeland Security or the Patriot Act. And yet, Congress keeps pushing these bills through, regardless of The People's opinion about them! And, each time one of these bills passes, it makes the People more and more angry. So before we blame this on Healthcare- it’s not the fault of this Healthcare Bill in particular. It’s a culmination of mistrust that’s been building to the point where the People are sure that Washington is going to push through anything they want, regardless of the People they represent. And that’s where guns come in. Not as a weapon; these guns weren’t intended to be used to perpetuate violence- they weren’t even loaded half the time. No, these guns were being used to send a message. They’re symbolic. They carry the symbol that The People have a right to be represented fairly. They carry the symbol that The People have a right to remove those in power from their role as governors if they continue to represent their own agenda rather than the will of the people. * * * Now, it’s true that because of the massive military that we have there in the United States, The People will not literally be able to remove those in power through sheer force- that’s what elections are for. But you've gotta agree that bringing along a voter ballot isn’t really quite as effective in sending this message home, is it? A Preview of Coming Events 08/18/2009
I went to see District 9 last weekend and it got me thinking about aliens. And politics. And philosophy. And religion. That’s why I’m dedicating a week to exploring Aliens & Philosophy. This week, I’ve got a couple other thoughts to share about music & marijuana, but I wanted to give you a sneak preview of next week’s agenda… I’m really excited about it and I hope you’ll join in the discussion and conversation. Day One: Is There Anybody Out There? Day Two: Fear & Loathing in South Africa Day Three: Victims and Victimizers Day Four: The Man of Steel and Other Alien Christ Figures Day Five: Aliens & Philosophy- Additional Questions That Need Answers I hope you can join me!  For Movie Reviews, Check out A True Review 08/18/2009
I don't get out to the movies very often anymore. When I do, it's usually so I can write a Blog series like the one I'm working on for this week called: Aliens & Philosophy That said, my new friend Neil has a really good site for film reviews called: A True Review I'll be linking there whenever I mention films in the future so that you can get a better idea of whatever film I'm discussing here on my blog. Check it out. It's good stuff. Ethics For Everyone 08/12/2009
One of the things I've been pondering (mostly due to my research on Heidegger) is primal ethics. What this means is that I’m considering the sort of ethics that emerge without education, power, or critical thinking. Heidegger was concerned with the state of being that Dasein inhabits- one that is universal to all people whether they are scholars of world renown or mere peasants living in the rural areas of Germany, post World War 1. So along the same line of thinking, I'm wondering about the sort of ethics that transcend to all people, whether they are giving a lot of thought to ethics and philosophy or not. This is one of the problems that I have with both Consequentialists like Mills and Deontological philosophers like Kant. Utilitarian ethics (Consequentialist or Outcome-based ethics) require actions to be magnified under the lens of universal good. This requires a certain critical thinking ability to consider ALL people, not just yourself or those close by. I don't know that all people in all cultures truly have the ability to consider "everyone" and whether their actions will truly cause the "greatest good." This seems to me to be the “thinking man’s” ethics. Each decision must be carefully thought over to make sure that the eventual outcome achieves the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Most of us don’t have the time or ability to think that much about our actions and so I can’t fully buy into the notion that this is rudimentary enough to use as a standard we should apply to everyone. Likewise, the problem with Kant and other Deontological ethicists is that merely obeying the "rules" means that we have to be aware of what the "rules" are. Since there isn't universal agreement on what's right and wrong, it's really hard to apply a rule-following ethic to all people. I suppose that at the base of this theory lies a disinterest in self, and so one could argue that disinterested obedience (obedience that springs from following the rules because they are right rather than because it profits me, personally, to do so) is something that we could apply to all people, even if they aren’t disinterestedly following the same rules- except for the fact that this particular notion seems to be a reaction from Kant and other Western philosophers against the innate selfishness of man. If selfishness is truly innate, it’s hard for me to rationalize that we’d be able to come up with a Universal ethic that rebels against human nature. So, I can’t apply this to everyone, either. That said, I'm wondering what the universal ethics are? What are the things that are innate to all people whether they be poor or rich, strong or weak, native or alien, smart or ignorant, and whether they live under a dictatorship or democracy? If it doesn't truly express the human experience, is it truly an ethical philosophy that will transcend cultures and time, or is it specific to a particular people? You Make Everything Glorious! 08/11/2009
You know those people who seem to make everything better when they show up? Maybe you're down in the dumps or reeling from one problem or another when this person walks into the room and act like a balm, soothing the wounds or at least distracting you from them long enough to gain some relief from the trials of life. Maybe they do it with a joke or a kind word. Or maybe it's just their presence. They're such a warm, compassionate person that the world seems like a better place because they're in it. I'm wondering it these experiences with other people are shadow plays of a bigger reality that God wants to invite us into? Perhaps, God is SO good that simply being in His presence makes everything- the good, the bad, and the ugly- into wonder and excellence. Perhaps Heaven and Hell aren't all that different, it just depends on who you spend it with (or without). Because in my experience, there are some glorious things that simply aren't worth experiencing alone and there are some trials that seem like joy when spent in the company of those I love. Maybe this is why the writers of scripture spend so much time telling us about the Goodness of God. Perhaps when they say that all things work together for good... they mean that they work together for good when we're in the presence of the right person. Namely, God. And maybe that's why Jesus says that He's only the way to the Father? When you're in the family, you can make exclusive claims like that! | Follow Me
   Blog ArchivesJuly 2010 CategoriesAll Nathan Recommends
Micah Tillman |