I hope all is well in middle school land. We still miss you. Let me know if you have any more posts on BSG that I should read…

Matt Groening, commenting on Futurama said (paraphrase); “I’ll tell you a secret about science fiction — it’s not about the future”

Ahh, yes — but it’s a slider, isn’t it? Drag the slider to the left, the story appears more and more like our own reality. Drag it to the right, the story becomes more fantastic and escapist.

No story, no matter how buried on the right the slider becomes, departs entirely from reality — otherwise it’d be entirely incoherent. The question then is, where along the scale do you enjoy the slider most?

In the end, I hate watching CNN in a sci-fi movie or program. I watch sci-fi to get away from that nonsense, not to relive a CNN’s reporter bias.

Matt Groening, commenting on Futurama said (paraphrase); “I’ll tell you a secret about science fiction — it’s not about the future”

[...] To continue with your comments about BSG being drastically different from Iraq becauase the Cyclons replaced a democracy whereas the Americans are trying to bring one, I think the point is that it doesn’t matter. The Americans use the excuse that they are trying to bring democracy (a good thing) to Iraqis, to justify the occupation. However it doesn’t matter what the occupying force is trying to bring, what matters is that they are an occupying force and the people no longer can control and “sort out” their own future. [...]

I think you have a few elements mixed up, which is why I think that even good work by the BSG writers will not really come to mean much this season.

Americans do not occupy Iraq, for example. At most, they live side by side with the Iraqi people, with aims to leave as soon pracitcal. They have tried to bring a measure of security, much like the police try to bring a measure of security to our lives at home. Of couse we don’t claim that the police “occupy” our communities. America has offered to leave when asked to go. That is not an occupation, not by a long shot.

Nor is “bringing Democracy” an excuse for the (non) occupation. Rather, the US simply wants to see that Iraq steers clear of a civil war as a result of taking down Saddam.

The US took out a dictator, as they promised they would, if he failed to meet the conditions of the cease fire agreement to allow inspectors to keep tabs on his WMDs. He broke the conditions of the cease fire, armed conflict resumed, and he is now out of power as a result.

Following this first order of business, America had two choices… leave Iraq, letting the chips fall where they may, or staying in hopes of leaving a government behind that was better than a dictatorship. The US chose to try to piece together a stable government that incorporates some elements of equality, human rights, and a voice for the people… as they exit, wishing Iraq “good luck” on the way out. No US authority has ever promised western style democracy as far as I have been able to find.

You also make the claim that Iraqis can “no longer” control or sort out their future. Of course this mischaractorizes what living under a dictatorship is like. “No longer”? What has in fact happened is that Iraqi’s are only now in a position to sort out their future. It may take a horrific and bloody civil war for them to sort it out, but that is who and what they are.

If it takes a dictator to keep Arabs from descending into war between themselves, then the Cylon question concerning if humanity even deserved to live starts to become quite the interesting consideration. If they wish to kill themselves, do we think we should try to stop them? If so, who should do it? Would you support such an effort? Or would you let the blood flow as fate would have it?