What Kind of Science Fiction Writer is Your Dear Editor?
Stanislav Lem. Whoever the hell that is.
 | I am:Stanislav Lem This pessimistic Pole has spent a whole career telling ironic stories of futility and frustration. Yet he is also a master of wordplay so witty that it sparkles even when translated into English. |
Which science fiction writer are you?
editor on 04.05.05 @ 03:39 PM CST [
link]
Whoa.
As a free-market libertarian I tend to read news issued from a variety of different sources, both left and right. It's a reassurance to me; it reminds me of just how correct I am in my beliefs.
But interestingly, this Terri Schiavo business has left me squarely in opposition to the Republican party, which usually ends up with my votes despite differing social values. But people can believe what they want to believe, right?
Yes. Of course. I really don't care. But the Schiavo case brought about a side of the Republican Party I never thought I'd see, at least not out in the open lest it alienate so many of its moderate and Libertarian voters: The hyperbolic, the histrionic, the stigmatic and the superstitious. They put on a horrific and exploitive display, using this irretrievably damaged person to represent its "Culture of Life" and invoke the Christian god in all things, including the justifiably nonreligious means of law, government and judiciary. (Curiously their god of invocation declined to intervene on Terri's behalf, letting her go on to her next destination - presumably a better place, as it's called - if she wasn't there already.)
Let me be very, very clear: My disappointment lies not in their religion, nor their consequent desire to maintain Terri's life and other defenseless humans (or potential humans, as you like); whatever gets a person through their trials is great in my book. No, what disappoints me is that so many are seemingly unwilling to remember that the role of law is primarily a rational, intellectual and public one; and that the role of religion is primarily an emotional, spiritual and private one. Personal public governance - will I steal this car today - is one thing. Private governance - by its very nature a singular, personally derived endeavor - is another thing entirely. To the extent that we societies need fair order, law and governance must remain entirely divorced from this irrational, emotional, private side of us. The law must be derived from rational reasoning meant to provide logical results for its public. Enforcing the subjective principles of private governance through public law ensures only the emotional satisfaction of a few.
Setting all this aside, three lawmakers are riding high on what they presume to be popular sentiment - that religious constructs are the basis for public policy - despite polls to the contrary. In fact, so devoted are Republicans Richard Shelby (AL), Richard Burr (NC) and Sam Brownback (KS) to the idea that religion is the basis for public governance that they are proposing a federal law demanding such recognition. It's called The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005" (Senate Bill 520), and it goes a little something like this:
"[T]he Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
I am not sure what part of the Constitution is restored here. I do wonder if this is meant to include the invocation of all gods, since the basis of religions worldwide generally don't differ in principle, only in the means to get there. Does this mean a mayor could invoke Amida Bhudda? A Shinto kami? Originalists, such as Antonin Scalia (of all people), would read the text as it stands and have to say yes - to all of it. But it's a question anyway if only because the Schiavo case, and this bill initiated presumably because of it, is such a conservative Christian fight.
There's no need to disintegrate further into a slippery-slope argument. I think we all know where this could lead. But the basic question remains: Should public law and governance protect our personally derived, private liberties? Or should our personally derived, private liberties define our public law and governance?
editor on 04.05.05 @ 03:21 PM CST [link]
Poetry (or so it's called)
I must admit that despite being well-read, my exposure to poetry is limited to the more, well, recognizable forms. Which is to say, the stuff that rhymes, or at least keeps a meter. Which is to say, the kind of stuff no one writes anymore.
In fact, when I read contemporary poetry, I find that most often the author does not bother to write within poetic forms, the effect of which is more like a prose paragraph broken up into the three-word lines. I admire poets of any generation who are able to tell a complete story in so small amount of space, but I wonder, Why not call it what it is? It's a very short, short story. (Charles Bukowski, I think, is perhaps poetry's greatest violator of this.)
As it happens, I am not the only person who thinks such things. My desire for literary honesty is a base one, but in this piece from Slate, former national poet laureate Robert Pinsky, expounds on what's good and bad about my rigid thinking.
editor on 04.05.05 @ 11:07 AM CST [link]
