Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I am not proud to say I watch Smallville almost weekly. It is one of the purest examples of TV as a vast wasteland. The up side is the producers have exhibited a consistent dedication to entertainment -- story telling over all else -- so the episodes never intentionally contain a message targeted at swaying the U.S. audience.
Last week's episode guest starred Dean Kane as an immortal scientist/madman who (somewhat guiltily) had to kill scientifically selected "meteor freaks" as part of a plan to transplant their powers into the love of his live, in hopes she could live forever beside him.
At the end of the episode, Dean Kane made a public service announcement in which he urged donations to the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, which works for a cure for spinal cord injuries.
Given the Foundation's very public support for fetal stem cell research, I wonder how the Smallville producers could miss the irony, except, as I already said, I don't think they ever intend their plots to have a message.
The point of this post is not to take sides on the stem cell issue. Irony can be recognized in and of itself. Although if you want some insight into how I fall, let me just add that in general I consider the Pope a better arbiter of good and evil than Hollywood. This does not translate into opposing the very worthy goals of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. I think the Pope would agree.
Last week's episode guest starred Dean Kane as an immortal scientist/madman who (somewhat guiltily) had to kill scientifically selected "meteor freaks" as part of a plan to transplant their powers into the love of his live, in hopes she could live forever beside him.
At the end of the episode, Dean Kane made a public service announcement in which he urged donations to the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, which works for a cure for spinal cord injuries.
Given the Foundation's very public support for fetal stem cell research, I wonder how the Smallville producers could miss the irony, except, as I already said, I don't think they ever intend their plots to have a message.
The point of this post is not to take sides on the stem cell issue. Irony can be recognized in and of itself. Although if you want some insight into how I fall, let me just add that in general I consider the Pope a better arbiter of good and evil than Hollywood. This does not translate into opposing the very worthy goals of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. I think the Pope would agree.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Maybe I'm not paying close attention, but in the materials I've read about the Armenian Genocide bill that may soon be voted on in the House, I haven't seen anyone mention yet that this past spring, the House passed a resolution urging Japan to apologize for conscripting "comfort women" during and before WWII.
Japan, another important US ally, urged the House not to for the sake of comity, and pointed out they had (sort of) apologized in 1993. The Korean American lobby, like the Armenian American lobby, appears to view settling old scores as a higher priorities than America's foreign relations with allies. Or perhaps they think that the rest of America won't recognize the truth unless Congress tells us what to believe. (To be fair, in both cases, the controversial bills informed a broader segment of America than would probably have been exposed to the war crimes, so the lobbies did make progress toward their goals, even if the bills weren't passed.)
I am given to understand that we have been having issues regarding the expansion of the US base in Okinawa. Like our struggles with military basing in Turkey, tensions between the U.S. and its allies predate the resolutions, but relationships between equals aren't supposed to result in one side always getting its way. A well-recognized social compact among friends, however, is that we don't point out our friend's failings publicly just for fun.
In both cases, Congress has the right opinion, but it seems odd that a responsible governing body would take time out from governing to call for apologies from a third party to a third party. They used to actually have power to change things.
Both issues seem to boil down to an analog of the old joke "Let's you and him fight". If a wrong is serious enough to warrant attention from Congress, surely it is serious enough to warrant sanctions against the offender, if the urge for an apology is not heeded.
Japan, another important US ally, urged the House not to for the sake of comity, and pointed out they had (sort of) apologized in 1993. The Korean American lobby, like the Armenian American lobby, appears to view settling old scores as a higher priorities than America's foreign relations with allies. Or perhaps they think that the rest of America won't recognize the truth unless Congress tells us what to believe. (To be fair, in both cases, the controversial bills informed a broader segment of America than would probably have been exposed to the war crimes, so the lobbies did make progress toward their goals, even if the bills weren't passed.)
I am given to understand that we have been having issues regarding the expansion of the US base in Okinawa. Like our struggles with military basing in Turkey, tensions between the U.S. and its allies predate the resolutions, but relationships between equals aren't supposed to result in one side always getting its way. A well-recognized social compact among friends, however, is that we don't point out our friend's failings publicly just for fun.
In both cases, Congress has the right opinion, but it seems odd that a responsible governing body would take time out from governing to call for apologies from a third party to a third party. They used to actually have power to change things.
Both issues seem to boil down to an analog of the old joke "Let's you and him fight". If a wrong is serious enough to warrant attention from Congress, surely it is serious enough to warrant sanctions against the offender, if the urge for an apology is not heeded.
