Viking Cinema

Just saw Thor, which was a lot of fun. Tom Hiddleston really stole the movie as Loki (and the script gave him a nicely ambiguous role to play). Jotunheim looked cool. (Well, it looked like a cross between Mordor and the White Witch’s palace, but that seems about right.) The cameos for Straczynski and Lee were a hoot. And the post-credits sequence promises more good fun to come. (I have a comment on the post-credits sequence, but since it’d be a spoiler for those who haven’t seen Thor yet, I’ll put it in the comments section.)

Thor poster

My only real gripes were: a) Natalie Portman seemed a bit lackluster – closer to her Star Wars performance than to her much better V for Vendetta and (I gather) Black Swan performances.

And b) why can’t they bother to pronounce Norse names correctly? I can see why they might not want to depart from the familiar pronunciation of “Odin,” but why not go authentic for “Heimdall,” “Jotunheim,” “Mjöllnir,” etc.? (Still, at least they didn’t have the Asgardians massacring Elizabethan English the way the comics do. Just how hard is it to learn the differences between “ye” and “you,” “thou” and “thee,” and “doth” and “dost”?)

While we’re on the subject of things Norse-related, I recently recalled, in a comment thread on how the filming of Tolkien’s Silmaterial might be handled, the short animated film of Beowulf from 1998, voiced by inter alia Derek Jacobi and Joseph Fiennes. It’s the most faithful adaptation of Beowulf I know of, and I think the animation style is beautiful. Check it out:

And now, back to Thor:

SPOILER WARNING:


Blogger on the Inside

SPOILER WARNING:

Watch the following video clips only if you’ve seen the latest episode of Doctor Who (i.e., Neil Gaiman’s “The Doctor’s Wife”); in them, Gaiman talks about writing for the show, and describes/mourns some bits that got dropped from the script. (And no, the picture of the Beatles really isn’t a spoiler.)

And don’t forget this bit of cut dialogue (previously blogged).

In related news, the line in this episode about biting being like kissing, only there’s a winner, is a nod to the line in Steven Moffat’s Jekyll about killing being like sex, only there’s a winner. Whether the reference is Moffat’s or Gaiman’s I’m not sure.


Wichita = Gallifrey?

Randall Holcombe, discussing the FSU funding flap, writes (inter alia) that “Charles Koch is well-known for supporting libertarian causes.”

That wording tickled my funny bone, because of its similarity to a Doctor Who villain’s famous reference to “the Doctor’s long association with libertarian causes.”

[To the humour-challenged: No, I am not making either a pro-Koch or an anti-Koch point in this post. Sometimes a joke is just a joke.]


To Serve and Protect

Okay, time for the big contest. How can private property be protected? Who can help Sean Power recover his stolen laptop?

cop versus doughnut

In this corner we have the universally hailed champion, a vertically-structured coercive institution known as the Police.

In the other corner we have the challenger, a horizontally-structured voluntary institution known as the Internet.

The clock has started! The race is on! And okay, I’m mixing boxing with racing metaphors, but whatever. Which of these contenders will resolve Sean’s problem first?

Right now the champion is just sitting there. And … still sitting there. Is he formulating a strategy? No, he seems to be … eating a doughnut.

What about the challenger? Oh, look. (CHT Charles.)


The Only and His Own?

Steven Horwitz argues that libertarians’ “leave us alone” rhetoric can be harmful. (CHT Charles.) Although Steve’s explicit focus is on how such rhetoric can mislead nonlibertarians, I think there’s also an implicit concern about the ways in which it can likewise distort our own self-understanding as libertarians.


Anti-Americanism As an Anti-Concept

Just as some questions (e.g., “Have you stopped bleating at your wife?”) carry false presuppositions and so can’t rationally be answered either yes or no, so some terms build false presuppositions into their meanings, making it impossible to use the term (at least in its ordinary sense) without signing on to the presupposition. (Racial and otherwise bigoted epithets are an obvious case.)

NATION OF SHEEP, OWNED BY PIGS, RULED BY WOLVES

Rand used the term “anti-concept” to denote “an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept”; her favourite examples fall into the category of “a ‘package-deal’ of two meanings, with the proper meaning serving to cover and to smuggle the improper one into people’s minds.”

I think I use the term slightly differently from the way Rand did; for one thing, I don’t necessarily assume that such terms are always part of a purposeful “design” to corrupt thought and language. (I don’t deny that they sometimes are; but I don’t think Rand fully appreciated the power of spontaneous order, including malign spontaneous order – on which see Charles’ “Women and the Invisible Fist” and my “Invisible Hands and Incantations.”)

Rand identified “isolationism” and “extremism” (inter alia) as examples of anti-concepts; I’ve argued elsewhere that two of Rand’s own favourite virtue-terms – “selfishness” and “capitalism” – should likewise be treated, by her own standards, as anti-concepts.

Here’s another I’d like to add to the list: “anti-Americanism.” What is it to be an anti-American? It might mean any of at least four things: a) hostility to the American people and their interests, or b) hostility to the American government and its policies, especially its foreign policy and world role, or c) hostility to the founding principles of the u.s., most notably those embodied in the Declaration; or d) hostility to American culture and values.

Atlas Peacenik

Obviously there’s no necessity for these four types of anti-Americanism to go together; on the contrary, they pull in different directions. I’m pro-American in senses (a) and (c); and for precisely that reason I’m anti-American in sense (b). As for sense (d), I’m pro-American in some respects and anti-American in others, just as I would favour some aspects and oppose other aspects of just about any culture.

So what’s the false presupposition, the package deal, in “anti-Americanism”? It’s the tacit – and illicit – assumption that any person or position that is anti-American in sense (b) must also be anti-American in senses (a), (c), and (d). That’s how the term works; it builds into its very meaning a smear against critics of u.s. foreign policy. When people use it, call them on it!


Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes