THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
09/17/10 -- Vol. 29, No. 12, Whole Number 1615
C3PO: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
R2D2: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
Ever Notice? II (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Engineers of Destruction (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Bacterial Altruism (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
MACHETE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
THE AMERICAN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
FOR MY WIFE... (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Fads, Dentists, and Names (letter of comment by Sam Long)
This Week's Reading (relationship terms) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Ever Notice? II (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
"Dormitory" is an anagram of "Dirty room"? [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Engineers of Destruction (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
On September 10 in the New York Times David Berreby says that
terrorists tend in large part to come from engineering backgrounds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html
I would think that you need to distinguish between small-scale and
large-scale terrorists. Engineers probably do the small, quotidian
terrorist acts like car bombs. For really large-scale terrorism
you probably need physicists and biologists. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Bacterial Altruism (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
This is all going to go toward a recent scientific discovery, but I
may hash over some old ground getting there. Please be patient.
It seems that altruism toward one's own kind may run (much) deeper
than belief, even much deeper than consciousness.
Several years ago I got myself into a debate with a co-worker who
was extremely religious. He was using an arsenal of arguments that
impressed me more for their quantity than their quality. I think
the list of points he was trying to make were not his own because
he would make an argument, I would counter it, and he would quickly
move on to another argument. It is like he was asking himself,
"Will he buy this one? No? Well, will he buy this one?" He was
unprepared to defend any of his points if they met even slight
resistance. He seemed to be arguing by checklist and it was not
his checklist.
One of his approaches was why was I not willing to convert to his
religion? Was I really afraid to take on the additional morality
that his religion would require? What, I asked him, made him think
that his religion made people more moral than they would be without
it? My wife and I keep kosher, I told him, and that is mostly
because of its rules for humane treatment of animals. He I knew
did not keep kosher. Ah, he said, that was not necessary because
people had been given dominion over all animals. Morality no
longer requires that people treat animals well. It was obvious to
me that he was saying that his morality was exactly the same thing
as obedience to his religion, no less and no more.
Then as now I saw no strong evidence that people who were piously
religious were any more moral than those who are not so religious.
Actually I have to generalize that to say that people who are
fanatical about any ideology, political or religious, generally
strike me as no more, and frequently less, moral than the general
run of people.
Still it seems a common belief--generally promulgated by religious
people--that without belief in a God who enforces morality people
feel that they can get away with anything. That seems inconsistent
with my own personal observations. It may well be that people with
extreme piety even seem to feel that that piety excuses and
compensates for their having a lower level of morality. Extreme
examples of this attitude is the person willing to murder to
further the ends of his/her religion.
But one has to wonder why is common decency so common? Why do so
few atheists turn to murder and theft, since presumably they feel
there is no God to punish them? There is the legal system, but I
do not see atheists being kept in check only by heavy law
enforcement.
The answer I think is that we are biologically programmed for
common decency. Anti-social acts seem to have negative survival
value. Altruism has positive survival value. Those who behave in
a positive manner have a much better chance of getting their genes
into the gene pool. General decency is part of our make-up.
There seems to be new evidence of altruism even in some very basic
organisms. There is new evidence that bacteria, far below the
level of having any consciousness, still perform acts of altruism
toward their own kind. And ironically this is a very real problem
in treating infection. Mutant drug-resistant bacteria work their
little overtime, at their own expense, to preserve other bacteria
of their kind and to make them also drug-resistant.
In an E. Coli colony faced by an onslaught of an antibiotic there
may be relatively few mutant E. Coli that by natural mutation
create a chemical substance, a protein, which protects them from
the drug. This will be a rare mutation, but it will be a drug-
resistant E. Coli.
A very recent discovery seems to indicate that sometimes when this
is the case the mutant E. Coli turns itself into a factory for
pumping out this protective substance, far more than it needs. The
extra protein acts as an umbrella protecting other local E. Coli,
non-mutants, that very likely carry many of the same genes that the
drug-resistant E. Coli does. They may not have the mutant
protective gene, but there will have many genes in common with the
mutant E. Coli.
The individual mutant E. Coli survives its good deed, but its
growth will be stunted. It is less likely to pass on its genes
directly, but with enough of its genes shared by the E. Coli it
protected, many of its genes will be passed on by proxy.
Now, presumably E. Coli is far too primitive to have consciousness.
But it still seems to be programmed to on occasion automatically
sacrifice for others of its kind. It has a sort of common decency,
or even heroism. This is bad news for humans whom the E. Coli are
making ill, but it is good news for the E. Coli. It also may show
that altruism may be more basic than conscious action.
See: http://tinyurl.com/bacteria-altruism
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: MACHETE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In the finest traditions of cheap, grindhouse exploitation
films comes this story of a big, ugly Mexican ex-Federale who gets
mixed up in Texas anti-immigration politics. Before long there are
half naked women firing machine guns. That is just the kind of
film it is. It is hard to say this is a good film, but it is a bad
film done very well. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
Finishing up the summer season we have gotten two different films
intended to remind us of drive-in B-movies from the late 1960s and
early 1970s. PIRANHA 3D resurrects the post-JAWS nature horror
film with an attack of super-fish with razor-sharp teeth. MACHETE
brings back the low-budget action-hero film. These are both films
trying to look like fugitives from the 1970s drive-in screen. But
each tries a different approach informed by the passing years.
While the prototypes of PIRANHA 3D might have had a scene or two of
quick nudity and might look away from the real visceral horror of
the fish attacks, PIRANHA 3D revels in nearly wall-to-wall nudity
and glories in showing pieces of people including sexual organs
floating in the water and people cut in half by taut cables. Its
goal is not horror but revulsion. With the exception of having
more and better-known actors, and perhaps a more complex plot,
MACHETE is much more true to its exploitation origins.
Machete (played by Danny Trejo) is a human mountain of ugly muscle.
He had been a Mexican Federale three years earlier. Machete
screwed up very badly and paid the price, losing his wife and
child. And now he is trying to forget the past. He is an illegal
immigrant working day labor in Texas. Machete is hired for more
money than he can turn down for a contract to assassinate an
aspiring state senator. The targeted victim, John McLaughlin
(overplayed by Robert DeNiro), is a man with a crusade against all
illegal immigrants. Whether Machete would have fulfilled is
agreement is in question, but Machete finds that he was the real
intended prey. Not too surprisingly this gets Machete into a fight
for his life against reactionary politicians, hired hit men, and a
drug lord from south of the border. It turns into a huge
cartoonish battle between immigrants and the corrupt power
structure.
Compared to Danny Trejo, Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Bronson, and
Bogart are all pretty boys. Trejo's face is a contour map with
mountains and canyons. In its most common state that face is
recently beaten and bruised. Part of the pleasure of Machete is
seeing familiar actors in support roles. Of course there is Robert
DeNiro, but there is also Steven Seagal (who succeeded in beating
up a lot of bad guys is his time, but who is losing at fighting his
own paunch), Jeff Fahey, and Don Johnson. The film is co-directed
by Robert Rodriguez and freshman Ethan Maniquis, with the former
co-authoring the script. The film itself started as a joke. In
the film GRINDHOUSE there were a series of phony coming
attractions. One was for a supposed action film, MACHETE. As a
coming attraction, it apparently looked good enough that they made
the film just as it appeared in the trailer. It actually was more
fun than either half of GRINDHOUSE. To enhance the cheap
grindhouse feel, the opening credits were distressed like a film
that had been abused and mishandled by dozens of half-hearted
projectionists.
This sort of martial arts film has always had a nostalgic feel
harking to a time and place before bad guys had good guns. I am
sure Machete is good with a machete at close range. But at twenty
yards, I would still bet that a guy with an assault rifle could
easily out-match him. It is hard to call this a good film. But it
is tough not to have a good time (your taste and politics
allowing). I rated MACHETE a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10
and went out for soft tacos immediately after seeing the film.
Of interest is this quote from the IMDB about Trejo's background
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001803/bio:
A child drug addict and criminal, Danny Trejo was in and out of
jail for eleven years. While serving time in San Quentin, he won
the lightweight and welterweight boxing titles. Imprisoned for
armed robbery and drug offenses, he successfully completed a
12-step rehabilitation program that changed his life. While
speaking at a Cocaine Anonymous meeting in 1985, Trejo met a young
man who later called him for support. Trejo went to meet him at
what turned out to be the set of RUNAWAY TRAIN (1985). Trejo was
immediately offered a role as a convict extra, probably because of
his tough tattooed appearance. Also on the set was a screenwriter
who did time with Trejo in San Quentin. Remembering Trejo's boxing
skills, the screenwriter offered him $350 per day to train the
actors for a boxing match. Director Andrey Konchalovskiy saw Trejo
training Eric Roberts and immediately offered him a featured role
as Roberts' opponent in the film. Trejo has subsequently appeared
in many other films, usually as a tough criminal or villain.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985694/
What others are saying: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/machete/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE AMERICAN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This film is neither a thriller nor a character study,
though it has been described as each. George Clooney, the one
familiar actor in the film, plays a dangerous man laying low in a
hilly village in Italy. He appears to be perhaps an assassin
himself or a gunsmith. We spend an entire film never finding out
who he really is or why people are trying to kill him, but it if
frequently pleasant just to enjoy the Italian scenery. In the end
we have seen something happen, but we or not sure exactly what.
Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
A comment following the main review is a minor spoiler.
THE AMERICAN is a crime film that is only occasionally the action
thriller it is promoted as. So it is hard to pigeonhole this film
as an action film. Perhaps it is more a study of a character. But
that is really not true either. The viewer has the feeling that if
we are going to spend so much time with this Jack--if that is
really his name--we should get to know him. However, we are
blocked at every turn. Everything we ever learn about who Jack is
is superficial. We don't even know what he does for a living. Is
he a hired killer? We know he can make guns and is good at using
them, but is that what he does? If so, why are people trying to
kill him? Perhaps part of the point of the film is we are never
going to know Jack. He will remain a cipher. The most substantial
information we learn is that he is he is smart, he is a very
private person, and he can be coldblooded when the occasion arises.
As the film opens Jack is apparently in the snowy fields of Sweden
when two or three men try to kill him. We are shocked by Jack's
ruthlessness and are not sure just why he does what he does, but
the point is made he will do what he has to do to survive. To
escape the police he flees to Rome, where a man--apparently his
handler--wants him to hide out in Castelvecchio. Jack does not
like the looks of Castelvecchio and goes to another village, Castel
del Monte. At this point we find out this is not really an action
thriller. Jack enjoys the beautiful surroundings and takes a job
to engineer a personalized gun specialized for one particular
killing. Perhaps the most interesting parts of the film are the
wordless sequences as Jack expertly builds the gun from parts. The
plot progresses a bit, but for the first hour nothing is really
resolved. Jack is befriended by a local priest who tries to help
Jack, but again is stopped at every turn by Jack's insistence on
privacy. The priest lives up to the dramatic stereotype of
priests, wise and perceptive. He knows that Jack is not what he
claims to be. Jack says that he is poor with machines and the
priest can tell from observation that Jack is lying. But even this
cleric can find out nothing of interest about Jack.
Like Clooney's character in UP IN THE AIR, Jack has spent his life
never making emotional connections to people and now is paying the
price in solitude. Jack does seem to have the beginnings of a
relationship with a local prostitute. We see a lot of her as well
as seeing her a lot. The pacing is supposed to be suggestive of
European directorial styles. Dutch director Anton Corbijn was
previously known for music videos and rock documentaries. Here his
work is controlled and even slow, though never tiresome. Most of
the film is not action scenes, and much more is a textured view of
setting. The film has not been cast with familiar faces, though
both the prostitute and the assassin are played by unusually
attractive women.
This film is probably not going to find a big audience after the
first week for the simple reason that it does not satisfy most of
the audience's expectations. In the European style the emphasis is
not on plot but in conveying atmosphere. In the end we do not know
who any of these people are or why what we are seeing is happening,
and the setting is the film's greatest asset. I would rate THE
AMERICAN a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10.
SPOILER...SPOILER...SPOILER...SPOILER.. .SPOILER...
The plot of THE AMERICAN film runs strangely parallel to that of
the much better film IN BRUJES.
Film Credits: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1440728/
What others are saying: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/American
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: FOR MY WIFE... (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The tragedy of the loss of her life partner in a lesbian
relationship was hard enough on Charlene Strong. Then the hospital
would not let Strong see the dying woman because it did not
recognize a lesbian relationship as giving Strong the same rights
it would give a man. This is the forceful and moving story of
Charlene Strong who became a powerful force in getting a bill
passed for a statewide Domestic Partnership Registry for
Washington. Strong's story is moving and inspiring. The film goes
on to give the then current status of marriage equality in various
places in the country. Writer/director David Rothmiller generally
makes a compelling statement with just a few false moves. Rating:
low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
Imagine that you have just gone through a terrible tragedy. Your
significant other of nine years has gone from vibrant life to all
but the point of death by a flash flood. You had been in the house
trying to help her at the moment she drowned. She had been rescued
by firemen and partially resuscitated, not successfully, by
paramedics. Then she was dying in hospital, again just feet away
from you. And in the whole world all you really wanted was to be
with her to strengthen her in her last moments which could happen
any second. And the hospital tells you that you cannot be with
her. The hospital does not recognize any close relationship you
had with the dying woman. Members of your loved one's birth family
have got to be contacted and they have to give permission. Later
when your loved one is dead the funeral parlor tells you that in
spite of the fact that you are paying for the funeral you have no
right to the ashes of your loved one. They must go to the birth
family and then the family can decide if they want to give you the
ashes.
This sort of treatment would never happen to you if you and the
dying woman were a heterosexual couple. It could happen and did
happen to Charlene Strong because at the time the State of
Washington did not recognize that a gay couple had a right to be a
gay couple. In spite of nine years of deep commitment to Kate
Fleming, her partner and lover, and in spite of the couple having
been married in Canada, in Washington Charlene Strong had no more
rights than if she had been a casual friend of the last day or two.
Fortunately, Kate's family did accept the relationship. Fleming
did spend her last moments being comforted by Strong.
And after this treatment Strong--true to her name--dedicated
herself to fighting for marriage equality and legal protection for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual families. FOR MY WIFE is
mostly dedicated to telling the affecting story of Charlene Strong.
Strong goes on to tell the story of her treatment to the Washington
State Senate debating SSB 5336, a domestic partner benefits bill.
David Rothmiller, who wrote, directed, and edited the film--a
first-timer on each--tells the compelling story with few false
moves. On is a sort of interlude in which we follow Strong walking
the streets of Manhattan to the tune of a folk guitar and a song.
In a 60-minute film, those minutes could have been better spent.
And he may not have had control of this, but the first minutes of
the film, the story of the flood and how Fleming became trapped in
the flooding basement, are the most compelling of the film. Later
in the film he gives us a scattershot status report on the state of
the marriage equality movement. While Charlene's story will be of
relevant interest in ten years, the status report will age much
more quickly, giving the film a shorter shelf life. Nevertheless
at the moment it is highly topical and promises to remain so for
the next few years. In most states Charlene could have had the
same experience today.
This is a moving account that has us feel the damage done by a lack
of marriage equality legislation. It puts a human face on the need
for and failure to pass reasonable and decent laws. I rate FOR MY
WIFE... a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. FOR MY WIFE... was
released on DVD on August 31, 2010. It is available from
Amazon.com.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1322918/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Fads, Dentists, and Names (letter of comment by Sam Long)
In response to Joe Karpierz's review of BELLWETHER in the 09/10/10
issue of the MT VOID, Sam Long writes, "The patron saint of fads is
St. Petroc (a real Cornish saint)." [-sl]
And in response to Mark's comments on naming and professions in the
09/03/10 issue of the MT VOID, he writes, "There's an oral surgeon
here in Springfield named Dr. Hurt. His name is very apt for a
dentist--a sort of name called an 'aptronym'--but when he did a
root canal on me several years ago, I experienced almost no pain.
One of the funniest aptroynms that I've come across is that of
gynecologist Dr. Ovary (and his wife, Madame Ovary--Flaubert would
be pleased. Dr. & Mme. O. shouldn't be confused with the DC Comics
character[s] of the same name.) [-sl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I talked at one point about how there are distinctions in English
that don't exist in Spanish (e.g., both monkey and ape are "mono").
But it works both ways (e.g., in English there is only one word for
cousin, regardless of sex).
But there are also words that have no parallels at all, and I was
just reading about some Spanish words that would be useful in
English. For example, in Spanish "cuñado" means "brother-in-law",
which we have, but "concuñado" means either the brother of one's
sibling's spouse or the spouse of one's spouse's sibling. (I think
the definition is usually stated as "the brother of one's sibling's
spouse or the husband of one's spouse's sister," but this is no
longer an accurate definition in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire,
Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, and
several foreign countries. I will convert all definitions to
gender-neutral so that they are easy to compare.)
(One dictionary I have (American Heritage) defines concuñado as
"the spouse of one's sibling-in-law". This includes "the spouse of
one's spouse's sibling", but excludes "the sibling of one's
sibling's spouse". Another (Real Academia Española) says it is the
relationship of the sibling of one spouse to the sibling of the
other spouse. That would be the exact opposite: it would include
"the sibling of one's sibling's spouse". but exclude "the spouse of
one's spouse's sibling". It seems as though even the dictionaries
can't agree.)
At any rate, using the most inclusive definition, my father's
brother's wife's brother would be my father's concuñado. (And
*his* (male) spouse would be my father's brother's concuñado. You
probably thought that I was just being politically correct in
saying "sibling" instead of "sister"!) So at last I have a simpler
relationship description for my Uncle Gus and Elmer: Gus is my
father's concuñado, and Elmer is my father's concuñado's spouse (or
my father's brother's concuñado, if you prefer). This is clearly
more compact than saying that Elmer is my father's brother's wife's
brother's spouse.
Heading in the other direction, my brother has a stepson, so I have
a step-nephew. To my step-nephew, Elmer is his step-grandfather's
concuñado's spouse. This is much shorter than saying that Elmer is
his step-father's father's brother's wife's brother's spouse.
Of course, one may ask how often such a case actually arises.
This is all reminiscent of discussing relationship terms in Jane
Austen's works. (See, I did mention something to do with books
other than dictionaries here.) "The past is a foreign country,"
L. P. Hartley said in one of his non-science-fiction books, and
it is. When one of Jane Austen's characters refers to someone as a
brother-in-law, she may really mean what we call a step-brother,
and half-brothers are called simply brothers. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods or no God. It neither
picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson