Reading Orwell, as one does. Not just the obvious ones, but his essays and radio broadcasts as well, which are no less important. It’s a cliché now to say he’s more relevant than ever – indeed, at a time when a lot of people – millions and millions – think that “truth” is whatever the former President says it is, Orwell is incredibly important.

                Even so, I can’t help thinking some of the direct historical parallels are no longer quite so invocable. I thought that today while reading one of his essays, on the response to atrocities of all things. “The worst thing about atrocities is that they happen,” he writes, in that way of his, making blindingly obvious statements that nevertheless sound profound because it didn’t occur to anyone else to say them. His point being that in the run-up to WWII, fascist atrocities, communist atrocities, imperialist atrocities and capitalist-bourgeois atrocities were only selectively reported and selectively condemned, depending on one’s traditional sympathy with the perpetrators. The Left and the Right accused each other of atrocities, but turned a blind eye to their own. When the Molotov-Rippentrop pact was signed, it got messier still, with the radical Left forgetting all about both.

                It’s a huge theme of his – arguably the central one – and essential for understanding 1984 and Animal Farm. It’s pointless to read either without understanding this context. Orwell was writing at a time when the perception of reality was being twisted to suit political agendas. At such a time, telling the truth, or insisting there was such thing as Truth, became a revolutionary act.

                It’s not hard to see the relevance of this today. Truth is more malleable than ever, and the concept itself more-or-less out of fashion.

                Yet it’s even weirder than what it was in Orwell’s time. Could Orwell have imagined that Flat-Earth-Theory would be in vogue again? That germ-theory would be widely disputed? That elections could be swayed by a belief that everything is controlled by hidden satanic child-sex cults? Civilization isn’t being crushed by competing tyrannies – it’s bleeding to death from a thousand delusional cuts.  Truth is broken mirror. What would Orwell have made of it all?

                When I was younger I did dabble in Marxist-Leninist circles. Orwell’s descriptions felt very familiar. I recognized the selective analysis of history, the selective condemnation of atrocity – only when committed by, or attributed to, the capitalist-bourgeois west, and selective memory required to rehabilitate Lenin and Trotsky. Orwell talked about those kind of things, and it all felt very close to home.

                That all feels so remote now. We’re pulled in so many different directions now, the old Left/Right divide seems positively quaint. There’s no monolithic Leftist bloc out there competing for legitimacy. China (literally) bought into capitalism a long time ago. There was some blinkered thinking around Chavez and Venezuela, but that was really just a blip. The response to Islamic terrorism provoked intense debate,  but no one denied that it happened – only what caused it and what to do about it. The dominant ideological-fault line these days seems to have formed around “Woke” culture, which is a poor substitute indeed.

                Even if you think it’s not completely ridiculous to compare university pronoun guidelines to Zhdanov’s address to the Soviet Writer’s Congress, one has to admit the stakes are so much lower here. No one’s been shot. No one’s been sent to a Gulag. That’s not what’s happening here. I doubt that Orwell – who picked up a rifle and literally fought fascism, and literally took a bullet – in the throat – for Democracy- would have had much truck with all this bellyaching over “cancel culture”. Nor would the author of “Politics and the English Language” care one bit for all these stupid buzz-terms flying around.

                All of which is to say the analogies seem less perfect now, the parallels less immediately obvious. We’re getting into really strange territory here, into situations and scenarios Orwell wouldn’t recognize, and maybe can’t help us with. If his analysis was intimately tied to the particulars of his time, it might not perfectly apply to the particulars of our time. Maybe not. But I think the gist of his thought – that Power lies, that language matters, and that truth is a thing – will always apply.       

 

Captain Maga Storms the Capitol: on the embrace of a Fascist Icon.

           There is a scene maybe three quarters of the way through Avengers Civil War when Tony “Iron Man” Stark hands Captain “America” Steve Rogers a pen to sign some agreement or other placing the Avengers under some regulation or other. Stark proudly explains it is the same pen his father, Howard, used to sign America’s first Lend Lease Bill, authorizing military aid to Britain in World War Two.

            Rogers is unimpressed. “Some people say that led us closer to war”

            Woh. Back up a bit. Did he really just say that? Holy shit, oh my God. Did anyone else catch this line?

            It's a tiny little line, but it's got profound implications. A little history's in order: Lend Lease was the US plan to lend war materiel to Hitler's enemies in WWII.  America itself wasn't at war yet - the idea was if it could supply Britain, it wouldn't have be. It had an ESSENTIAL role in Britain’s survival in the face of Naziism. It was very nearly too little too late. For Lend Lease was not popular – many people against it. Many people did say it would bring the country closer to war, just like the Cap said. You know who?

           Anti-semites, fascists and nazi sympathizers. United with misguided pacifists in an “America First” movement (sound familiar?), they didn't just try to keep the US out of the war, but from anyone who was. Lend Lease was opposed by people who didn’t want to help the enemies of Naziism.

            And Captain America just echoed them.

            This was the moment the Marvel Universe lost me forever. Captain America, as portrayed in Avengers Civil War is a fascist. If not a full blown one, then an embryonic one. At the very least, he is thick-skulled, self-righteous, dangerous and delusional. He is a Captain America for Trump’s America.  

            Lo and behold, more than a few of the Capitol rioters were spotted sporting Captain America paraphernalia. Colour me unsurprised.

            What does surprise me is how many other people seem surprised. “Captain America is the absolute antithesis of Donald Trump,” said Neil Kirby, son of the great Jack Kirby who created the Cap. Alas, I wish I could believe him. Maybe Cap did once represent all those idealistic notions America has about itself, back when Kirby first uniced him.  Maybe in those early comics, he is an emblem of the nation’s better natures. I’ll bet you anything the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers waving Starred and Stiped shields in the Senate chamber haven’t read those comics. I’ll bet you my left toe their entire experience of Captain America is from Avengers Civil War.

            Think of it this way: the titular civil war of the film is triggered when someone tries to hold Captain Steve Rogers America accountable for his actions.  He balks at the notion of being answerable to anyone but himself. He reserves the right to intervene where and when he sees fit with as much force as he please. He leaves a trail of destruction in his wake. He uses violence to solve his problems, beats up anyone in his way, including his friends, and law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs. His first act is to help a suspected terrorist evade arrest, and later aids and abets the killer of Howard and Maria Stark.  He has nothing but contempt for the rule of law, or civilian oversight. He is utterly incapable of self reflection. He treats the world like his personal battlefield/playground. He cannot be reasoned with. He doesn’t recognize higher authority, does not abide by decisions he doesn’t like, and take it upon himself to reverse said decisions, by force if necessary.

            Sound like anyone else?

Photograph: John Lamparski/SOPA Images/REX/Shutterstock

            It is really not a stretch to see Civil War as an analogy for very different visions of how America should conduct itself in the world. Is it a citizen of the world, subject to the UN, the Paris Climate Agreement and the Geneva Convention? Or a freewheeling cowboy doing what it likes? It might actually have been thought provoking if it approached this with anything resembling even-handedness. But it doesn’t. Steve Rogers and his allies are clearly meant to be the heroes here. Not once do any of them question their actions or accept responsibility for the consequences. They don’t even recognize another side to their argument. Their foes on the other hand, are full of doubts. Tony Stark, who at least seems to have a conscience, questions his actions constantly. Rogers is full of blind faith and terrible certainty. The former is shown as weakness; the latter as righteousness.

            This sort of intellectual blockheadedness, crouched in blatantly nationalist colours, is already a indicator of fascism. Writing in “How to Spot a Fascist”, Umberto Eco writes that under fascism “Action is beautiful in itself, and therefore must be implemented before any form of reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation”. I think I’ve just spotted a fascist.

            I mean, he cast doubt on Lend Lease aid for God’s sake – LEND LEASE!

            Fascist or not, this particular Captain America is a superhero for whom personal conviction Trumps all, absence of restraint is the sum of all liberty, and getting one’s way the highest possible principle. It does not surprise me in the least that the Q-Anon types who honestly think their election’s been stolen would identify with him and do precisely what they think he would have done.

            Accept my analysis or not. But they were waving those shields. . .

 

 So Trump's supporters have stormed the Capitol building. 

They crashed through the gates, climbed the barriers and forced their way in. Guys wearing "Camp Auschwitz" sweaters and waving Confederate flags ransacked Senate offices, and roamed the Senate chambers brandishing zip-ties. Outside, they build a full sized scaffold and gallows. They beat a cop to death. They were there to restore their king and punish his enemies. 

All I can say is anyone who was surprised hasn't been paying attention.   

Sweeping Little x's Under the Carpet: Overturning a Pennsylvania Election.

The news gets worse and worse. 

Republicans in Pennsylvania are refusing to swear in a Democrat who won a seat in the Senate. 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-republicans-jim-brewster-state-senate-210000041.html 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/05/pennsylvania-senate-fetterman-brewster/

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/spl/john-fetterman-pennsylvania-senate-removed-republicans-jim-brewster-20210105.html

At issue would seem to be the legitimacy of some of the mail-in ballots - apparently a bunch of them didn't have hand drawn dates on the envelopes. 

Apparently, under Pennsylvania law, that matters.  

If these ballots could be disqualified, then there would be just enough of them to overturn the results of the election. So that is just what Republican Senators are trying to do. Overturn the results of the election. Funny how that just rolls of the tongue, doesn't it? 

They would argue that they're just upholding the rule of law - rules are rules after all, and we wouldn't want anyone taking office by breaking the rules now, would we? That would be cheating. Technically, they would be right. So why do I find their argument so incredibly unconvincing? 

The short answer is I find that an incredibly stupid reason to disenfranchise someone. 

When I vote, I put a little 'x' on a little piece of paper, which represents my little say in who ought to run my little country. I consider that little 'x' a very big right, a fundamental, unalterable Right, that ought to be protected and not discounted on some flimsy bureaucratic pretext. If they told me they would not count my little 'x' because the paper had been folded incorrectly, or I used the wrong pencil, or my middle-name didn't appear on the register, or I didn't renew my license plate stickers on time, or took thirty seconds too long, or broke wind in the booth or whatever. . . my reaction would not be "Whoops! My bad." I would fight tooth and nail to make sure my little 'x' got counted. 

You see, I don't think voting should be a Kafkaesque process. It should not depend on successfully navigating an arcane administrative maze. It should not be cancelled by some procedural booby-trap. The Powers-That-Be ought to facilitate voting, not prevent it.  It should never be conditional on fine-print. It should not be comparable to a Chinese puzzle, a riddle, or a cryptic crossword. 

I take a dim view of my rights being contingent on arbitrary procedures. 

The important thing about the Pennsylvania ballots is that people voted, not that somebody somewhere forgot where to put some pencil markings. (And if we're going to indulge conspiracy theories, have any Republicans been caught carrying erasers lately?). This is a technicality being used to disenfranchise people and Overturn the Results of an Election. This is a Bad Thing. 

Just this morning, Andrew Coyne wrote in the Globe and Mail wrote "If the Republicans will not accept defeat in [November's] election, what reason is there to suppose they will accept it in any?" 

As we can see, we have no reason at all. 

The Noun of the Daleks in the Key of Schmaltz for Piano

 So, let’s start the year off on something light. No talk of pandemics, crisis in democracy, ecological degradation or the decaying of the public discourse. That doesn’t leave much, but fortunately there was a new seasonal Doctor Who special, so we can talk about that.

I can say it’s a vast improvement over last year’s New Year’s Eve special. More explosions, more extermination, fewer “inspiring” speeches. . .unfortunately, just as much, if not more, schmaltzy sentimentality.  

The curse of the Chibnall era has to be its painfully earnest tone. The monsters are fine, the villains are fine, the diabolical invasion plots are fine – but every episode the directors insist on bringing the action to a dead halt in-order to have these nauseating heart-to-hearts, complete with slow piano music. It’s contrived sentimentality with all the same cardboard emotions of a Celine Dion concert, a Mitch Albom pamphlet, or a Nancy Reagan after-school special. You can almost hear the mother-superior demanding you pay attention so you don’t miss the moral.

The world is ending, but let's stop and have a chat. . .

It’s not that Moffat or RTD didn’t have their share of sentimentality. But it seemed so much more smoothly integrated with the flow than now. Teary moments happened in the beginning or at the end, and were always kept brief. Now, they just drag on. And on. And on! How long did it take Ryan to say goodbye? I honestly don’t know – I watched on PVR and zapped the whole scene until we got the bicycles. It was not the first time during the episode I did that. 

I did want to stay positive though, so enough of that. The Daleks are great, and there’s even
a good plot reason for them to look different (And a great surprise internet spoilers failed to spoil. I love surprises. . .).  Captain Jack inserts a few moments of much needed life into the often leaden proceedings. And I would love to see Chris North return as Jack Robertson, who’d make a great recurring anti-villain, like the Meddling Monk, Sabalom Glitz, or Gene Hackman’s Lex Luther. In short, things were great as long as the principals stayed off the screen. 

No, that’s not quite fair – I don’t have such a hate-on for Whitaker as all that. But she does 
seem to be fed some of the worst lines. (Though hinting that she tried to eat through her prison bars was probably her most “Doctorish” moment yet). The trouble is they’ve turned eccentricity into immaturity, to the extent that she needs counselling from someone like Ryan. That does rather undermine the otherworldly, ancient wisdom the character is supposed to exude. Indeed, this whole business of "The Doctors needs humans to keep them grounded" is incredibly tiresome, and only really worked with Donna. 

In short (and this goes for the whole series, not just this New Year's Special), the supposedly emotional bits all feel contrived, overwrought buzzkill, as conducive to excitement as Question Period, or a bucket of ice, is to foreplay. Maybe we just need new companions, or new writers or TARDIS roundels. . .or new editors who can helpfully cut out the boring bits to make way for more Burger King ads.  Definitely ditch the piano interludes and let the audience decide what to feel and when to feel it.

Captain Jack: Much needed levity in a leaden cast 

A handful of other thoughts: 

Yaz: the Doctor has just spent the last decade in prison. She didn’t do it        to inconvenience you.   Do not act as if you are the suffering party here.

(Come to think of it, I can’t imagine the Doctor just sitting in jail for ten years waiting to be rescued!)

Ryan: for god’s sake, get over yourself and give your step-dad a fist bump! God forbid you lighten up a little. . .

At least they kept the theme tune and title credits. Thank God for small mercies. . .