Conquering Pandora

Avatar is a great, possibly a landmark movie, IMHO, and that of others and still others. It turns the tables completely on our history of science fiction about aliens, in which we express our fears of being exploited and conquered by an alien race, while demonizing them so we can deal with them as savages, should they appear. Think War of the Worlds, or Independence Day, The Matrix, or even Men in Black. In a stroke of genius, this movie asks "what would humans do" if they reached an alien world that was miraculously rich in "unobtainium" and populated only by simple aboriginal folk who do not even practice agriculture, to say nothing of high technology. Three guesses... Are we not the folks who corrupted the Golden Rule into: "do unto others before they can do it unto you!" It would be minutes before we began to mine the place; and to hell with the natives.

The movie is widely regarded as belonging to the genre of "Dances with Wolves," "Pocahontas," and other White Guilt stories in which an officer of the oppressing people "goes native' and joins the aboriginals in their struggle against his own people. The movie is also rich in references to American behavior on the world stage, especially in recent years, when questions arose along the lines of: "how did our oil get under their sand?" and when we concluded that the only acceptable response to a perceived risk was preemptive war.

Scientists play an interesting and typical role in Avatar, serving as enablers of war and exploitation even as they, themselves exploit the interests of others in support of their own fascinations. That's just as true on Avatar as it was in Peenemünde, Baikonur, Los Alamos, or Huntsville. One wonders if we can adapt to the apparent lack of others out there to exploit, or if we will go on girding to defend ourselves from perceived threats, as an excuse for exploitation, here on Earth and beyond it.

But the movie also made me think of that ultimate exercise in White European Guilt, the modern move to regard Columbus as a villain who upset the balance of nature in the New World by launching the extermination of Native Americans. And I know of no better expression of that view than a song by Tracy Chapman, called simply: America. Tracy never avoids or turns away from dark thoughts. She faces them and revels in them. Here are the lyrics and a link to the song. Tracy even manages to anticipate the theme of Avatar here, calling us down for our selfish motives as we begin to explore space.


AMERICA

You were lost and got lucky
Came upon the shore
Found you were conquering America
You spoke of peace
But waged a war
While you were conquering America

There was land to take
And people to kill
While you were conquering America
You served yourself
Did God's will
While you were conquering America

The ghost of Columbus haunts this world
'Cause you're still conquering America
The meek won't survive
Or inherit the earth
'Cause you're still conquering America

America
America
America

Your found bodies to serve
Submit and degrade
While you were conquering America
Made us soldiers and junkies
Prisoners and slaves
While you were conquering America

America
America
America

You hands are at my throat
My back's against the wall
Because you're still conquering America
We're sick and tired hungry and poor
'Cause you're still conquering America

You bomb the very ground
That feeds your own babies
You're still conquering America
Your sons and your daughters
May never sing your praises
While you're conquering America

America
America
America

I see you eyes seek a distant shore
While you're conquering America
Taking rockets to the moon
Trying to find a new world
And you're still conquering America

America
America
America

The ghost of Columbus haunts this world
'Cause you're still conquering America
You're still conquering America
You're still conquering America

© 2001 Tracy Chapman

The Pledge of Citizenship

Some Americans have problems with the content of The Pledge of Allegiance, and I'm among them, though I won't admit to any lack of commitment to my country or its founding principles. The Pledge always made me feel conflicted, for reasons I could never articulate well. Now there are some interesting ideas circulating about this, one of which can be summarized by the question: "Shouldn't the government pledge allegiance to the people rather than the other way around?" The following is a clipping from an article by Michael Lind that ran on 16 Nov 2009 at http://www.salon.com

"While a pledge of allegiance by the subject to the government is incompatible with American republican principles, a voluntary pledge of mutual support among the people who collectively create and own the government might be useful, if only as a succinct catechism of the American Creed. [With selected wording from the US Declaration of Independence,] if we replace the topical phrase "this Declaration" with a reference to the enduring principles of republican liberty, we might get something like this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. And for the support of these principles, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

"Call this purely voluntary pledge the Citizens' Pledge of Mutual Support for the Principles of the Declaration of Independence, or simply, The Citizens' Pledge. It would be addressed by Americans directly to one another, rather than to the flag or any other symbol of the state. Oh, and if you give a stiff-armed salute, you'll be sent to the principal's office.

Here's a suggested short "Pledge of Citizenship" that might be "memorizable" for voluntary recital on appropriate occasions.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal, and endowed with unalienable Rights;
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;
that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted;
that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In support of these principles, we mutually pledge to each other,
our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

And Then There Were Three

A third John Boswell composition on science has now appeared at symphony of science. It's a bit slower and moodier that the first two efforts I featured. All three are on the link you get clicking the title here. And it has also been announced that a collaboration with the great Jack White and friends at Third Man Records, in Nashville, TN led to release of a 7" vinyl single of the song "A Glorious Dawn," featuring a special etching of the Voyager Golden Record cover on the B-side. This makes for a great collector's item, and a novel way to experience the song as well. It was released 11/9, on Sagan's 75th birthday.

Ann Druyan and Jack White apparently collaborated on this so we can now breath a sigh of relief that there will not be legal problems concerning these remixes of Cosmos and other materials. You can go to the Third Man Records site to learn more about the release: http://www.thirdmanrecords.com/news.html

And to their store to order it: http://www.thirdmanrecords.com/store.html

The Symphony of Science

Well, it's been a while, but I haven't gone away. These two pieces of remix work by John Boswell, who has a home page here, is something special. It echoes and greatly amplifies some materials I have linked from the opening of the Cosmos series (lower right column), but Boswell has added music in a very pleasing way, at least to me. And millions of others agree, as these short music videos are wildly popular on YouTube. In any case, it is really wonderful to see such creativity invested in Cosmos, and also the really great segments added in from Richard Feynman's interviews, from Bill Nye's material, and from Neil Tyson's work. I hope you enjoy these if you stumble in here, and let's hope that these materials create a big wake in the universe, of people who have been "turned on" to science and it's spiritual side.

Values Expressed by The Election of 2008

It seems the election is sufficiently "over", and the new administration sufficiently "underway" for some reflection on what happened and how things are going. Most of our attention is being directed to the financial crisis, the stock market, and varying prescriptions for recovery. Suffice it to say here that I regard the crisis as a symptom of Republican values concerning the military pursuit of idealistic goals, privatization of government functions, the right of the wealthy to increase their wealth and decrease their numbers, and the Ayn Randian prescription that whatever works for personal ambition (and greed) is best for humanity. 'Nuff said. Now on to a couple of items that have cropped up this week.

First item: neocons have been resoundingly discredited by the election, but have they been replaced by dogmatic ideologue realists? That's one wag's view. He says that Obama has made a big mistake in appointing such a realist, Charles Freeman, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Realists, he says, are completely blind to any idealistic motivations that the electorate may harbor, and see US self-interest as the only guide for foreign policy. In his view the idealism of the American electorate is legitimately important in some decisions about foreign policy, but totally opaque to realists. This is expressed in his most memorable line: "Consider, perhaps, if eunuchs tried to explain the way teenage boys act around girls." Nice; I'm sure this will forever endear Jon Chait to realists everywhere.

IMHO, American idealism tends strongly to be either hypocritical (we think we can "impose" democracy on others), or proselytizing (we have sent Christian missionaries to Muslim nations since antebellum times!). With that record, American idealism is always suspect in my mind, so I'm firmly in the realist camp. And I'm not at all sure that Freeman's take on Tienanmen Square amounts to a "reductio ad absurdum." After all, what happens in the USA when a disruptive demonstration occurs? Can anyone remember the 1968 Democratic National Convention?

Second item: It seems that the Obama administration is raising hackles by making Federal aid to localities blind to local rules on health profession "conscientious objection". That is, Federal aid will no longer be withheld from localities that discipline health workers who refuse to do assigned duties on grounds of conscientious objection. The Bush admin. measure to withhold Federal aid was principally directed at abortion related duties, but was broadly written enough to limit family planning, blood transfusions, and end-of-life treatment issues, according to the linked article.

IMHO, conscientious objection should be expressed by refraining from the activity that requires the offending services. For example, where would we be if conscientious objection to military service was acceptably expressed by active military personnel? Conscientious objection is not only a rationale for deferrment from military duty, it is a disqualification from military service. Those who are squeamish about those actions involved in providing professional health care should similarly steer clear of careers in the health professions. Instead, under the Bush administration, they were indulged as a means of harrassing the medical profession. The new adminstration's initiative to eliminate this harrassment is arguably at odds with its expressed intent to "find common ground." On the other hand, we can hope that the common ground will be sought in a more direct way of addressing the simultaneous legality and undesirability of abortion.

Third item: the new administration has announced plans to proceed with removal of most US troops within 18 month (vs. 16 months suggested during the election), and entirely within 36 months. This timetable is sufficiently close to that suggested by the Bush administration, and advocated by the Iraqi government, that we should be able to accept a certain convergence of views on this. Yet some pundits are claiming that Obama, in admitting that Iraq is now "winnable," has also accepted responsibility for the successful completion of the military action in Iraq.

IMHO, the administration is making good on its promise to end the war, and to do it in the most constructive way possible, which involves a certain buy-in to the Bush administration goals for the war. This in no way is an endorsement of the war, or an acceptance of full responsibility for it and all its outcomes. If the war eventually reflects well on the Bush administration through the eyes of history, so be it. But it will be exceptionally difficult to separate the war and its conduct from the financial crisis that has engulfed the USA and the entire world. Vice president Cheney famously opined that "deficits don't matter." But it is difficult for me to escape the conclusion that the reckless pursuit of idealistic goals by military actions in foreign lands is likely to be more costly than we reckon when we begin them, and indeed more costly than we would willingly afford in the absence of an overwhelming national interest in the outcome.