Tuesday, October 18, 2016

History repeats, historians are parrots

A historical work of any value should have more question marks than periods. Even then, its scope will be overstated.

Historians, who not coincidentally are often wannabe fiction writers, speak with bottomless confidence about figures who died centuries ago in countries that no longer exist. If historians stuck to recreating the simple, everyday details of those distant, sparsely chronicled lives, it would be daunting enough. That challenge isn't enough for them, however. They seem more driven by a desire to credential themselves as all-knowing psychiatrists, affording them license to assert the precise motivations, impulses, and fetishes of every King Tom, Queen Dick, and Emperor Harry.

With many historical figures, we can't even piece together all the bits of their outer lives (birth dates, birth places, burial spots, etc.), yet historians speak with clinical certainty about their inner lives. A historian will confidently gives us 500 straight pages on Columbus's innermost thoughts, meanwhile, we're not even sure about the color of Columbus's hair (possibly ginger, poor sod - he probably hoped he'd fall off the edge of the Earth). If these goofy suppositions stayed within the circular Hell of tenured hackdom, the collateral damage would be minimal. Alas, this all too assuredly composed historical half-fiction not only gets repeated by other hacks; it trickles down to the masses, sometimes helping shape contemporary opinion on how modern situations - allegedly analogous to past ones - should be handled.

Today some polls show just 6% of Americans trust the media. People don't even trust those reporting in real time on contemporary events. Why then do they trust the reporting on events of foregone millennia?

How many times have you met someone seemingly mousy and tame who said, "You should have seen me in my twenties! I was partying hard, living on the edge, I'm lucky to be here!"

Assuming that person, let's call him Sir John Doe, is telling the truth, had he died in his 20s while partying, a historian would likely profile him as a wild man, then look for clues from his youth about what led to his being a "wild man." If obvious, measurable clues were absent, the historian would simply infer wild leanings from Sir John's Doe's otherwise ordinary behavior.

Assume Sir John Doe survived to become that mousy 30-something and never told anyone about his wild days. Without photographs or arrest records documenting them, what would even cause a historian to dig for evidence of wild days? Unless he stumbled onto folks who knew Sir John Doe then and were forthcoming about his hi-jinks, that wild period would go unreported. The historian would search for other motives for whatever actions Sir John Doe took in his 20s. If Sir John seemed aimless during that time, the historian might assume lack of confidence (after all, he ended up mousy!), when in fact that aimlessness had more to due with being too hungover to accomplish much.

Consider how many different people you've been in your life. Are all those phases equally documented?

When Hillary takes office, the first thing she should do is make it illegal to release a historical film that isn't animated. At least then the viewer might realize the "historical record" is fantasy.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The Most Sanctimonious Game

I have never shot an animal, which is too bad, because there are many humans I'd like to kill. This means I've never hunted, despite being a meat eater.

I have encountered meat eaters who upon hearing the word "hunt" quiver with more feigned outrage than a white politician running for office in the inner city. In a certain respect, hunters are more honest meat eaters than the rest of us. They're willing to do the dirty work we can't stomach. Not only do we outsource the killing of those tasty vermin, we sometimes throw away meat without even cooking it. "You know, I bought all this chicken, but I just wasn't feeling it this week."

Thanks to your ADD palate, an animal died without even fulfilling the purpose of feeding someone. Talk about senseless violence.

I have sometimes contemplated visiting a farm to slaughter an animal, so that I can at least say I did the dirty work once. I never have, and likely never will, because I love meat and seeing the killing up close would probably turn me off to it forever. So I continue to ignore the means by which that delicious lamb reaches my plate. Pure trophy hunting may be indecent, but otherwise, it is embarrassing for a meat eater to act like hunting is some unfathomable pursuit. Frankly, a deer being hunted in the woods has a much better chance to escape than a captive farm pig grown specifically to complement your mash potatoes.

If you're a meat eater, hunting is not only more honest; it is better sportsmanship.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

The only blog you need to read about Colin Kaepernick

Colin Kaepernick isn't standing for the national anthem before football games. You know the story, you have heard the arguments, you have watched the TV pundits faint at the "outrageous!!!!!" comments of whichever fellow time-filler happens to be babbling alongside them on the panel.

Some are upset that he is making a political statement by not standing for the anthem. Guess what: Standing for the anthem is also a political statement. The anthem represents a country, and by saluting it, you are embracing that country on some level. If the act of saluting has no connection to the country and therefore to politics, should American athletes also salute the anthems of other countries? If they did, I bet those hounding Kaepernick would be furious.

Some are upset that someone who is "just" an athlete is making such a statement. "No one looks to Colin Kaepernick for social commentary," that sort of thing. I too sometimes roll my eyes at "commentary" from celebrities. I love DiCaprio as an actor, but scamper for the remote when he is interviewed so I won't witness his puerility.

That said, those standing for the anthem are also *just* athletes making a political statement. If statements are wrong when the come from those who are "only" athletes, then athletes hailing the anthem - a political statement - is also problematic. One could credibly say, "Who are we to trivialize what the military does by incorporating it into a mere football game?"

When athletes raise money for military or police charities, no one says, "Shut up! You're just an athlete."

I have heard complaints that Kaepernick shouldn't talk as he does because he makes mega money. What does his salary have to do with it? If he was sitting to protest being underpaid, it'd be one thing. But he isn't - he is sitting because he feels elements of society are unjust. He didn't bring money into it, his critics did.

On a sidenote, I expect Blaine Gabbert to start sitting too. Not during the anthem, during the game, because he is, well, Blaine Gabbert.

On Twitter: @greatmikepayne

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Should Trump have his orange finger on the red button?

An alleged discussion on nukes attracted new criticism for Trump: Trump asks why US can't use nukes.

In the 2008 debates, Romney, Giuliani, and Duncan Hunter all stated that using tactical nukes was an option. Duncan Hunter even endorsed preemptive nuclear strikes. Not only weren't they called madmen; Romney survived to become the nominee in 2012 and the presumed #NeverTrump candidate in 2016.

In 2008 John "Fit for the White House" McCain sang a song parody: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." He has also said we could stay in Iraq for 100 years, has antagonized multiple world leaders, and has championed nearly every military intervention of the last 25 years (including Iraq, the biggest catastrophe of them all). He was almost the GOP nominee twice.

Mainstream GOP foreign policy has been rabid and unhinged for years. Trump's mistake on nukes is saying the "right" thing the "wrong" way. After Trump's defeat, the 2020 Republican hopefuls will continue the same fanged rhetoric without attracting the slightest notice.