The fatal flaw of Star Wars

10298986_931187526910701_6715412326544817959_nSome regard the Lucas trilogy of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi as great movie-making, and classic fiction. Indeed the characters that came out of that series are memorable and that action was enthralling. Special effects impossible before brought it all to life for a young generation. One person said to me that it was Harrison Ford that made the series successful, but that is an oversimplification. Carrie Fisher as Leia, on top of her hotness game and dressed down so that (as she said) “you could see all the way to Cuba”, had a lot to do with young boys and sexual fantasies. Fisher, as Leia, was accessible. Casting hit on the right qualities in choosing her and Ford as Hans Solo.

George Takei put up the photo to the right here on his Facebook page, and I think he has uncovered a fatal flaw. This kind of mistake in writing destroys willing suspension of disbelief, and destroys the whole of Star Wars. I have always been more a Trekkie myself, TNG, so I don’t care but will add one more failing of the Star Wars fantasy: At the end of Return, there is great joy and celebration that the Death Star is destroyed and that the Ewoks and everyone are now free of domination by the Dark Side. It won’t last. Lucas never thought it through. All they did, with the help, of course, of the Great White Interlopers Solo and Skywalker, was to win a battle. But there is no ground-level organizing. Solo and Leia are going off to make babies, Luke to save other planets. This one, the moon Endor, will shortly be taken over some other evil force. They are, after all, mighty warriors, these Ewoks, but they don’t think so good. If they did, they would not have needed a rescue.

Freedom, like dignity, strength or courage, cannot be given. It must be taken by force, and kept by fierce vigilance. I would like to know the exact date that the nascent Republic on the North American continent lost its freedom, but I don’t know. It was not 1947, though that date is important. I suspect that the Enlightenment window that had opened by 1776 had closed by 1812. Ours was a short and failed experiment, kept alive only by smoke and mirrors and two oceans that prevented invasions by the Dark Side. Consequently, we never needed a rescue, never had our cities destroyed. Our (white) people have not been tortured and put behind barbed wire.

Instead, we do that to others, and call it rescue.

19 thoughts on “The fatal flaw of Star Wars

  1. Happy May Day.

    “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.”-Your Buddy.


    1. I have no idea what that gobbledygook means. Care to explain? If it is from Marx, I want you to go back through my 2,513 blog posts and find one where I ever stated any preference for him or belief in his ideas. He, like Rand, is a person unable to predict or explain economic behavior. With both, actual attempts to implement the philosophy lead to mass human suffering.


          1. Nader summed up Obama accuratley way back in 2008 when he said “he’s nothing but a con man.” Nothing new here. You’re way behind the curve.

            I woudl take it further – Obama is a cloaked NeoCon-man.


        1. Is it possible for you to oversimplify any more than yo have already? Do you really need it that simple?

          Life is not black and white, but there is a battle between concentrations of private power and public will expressed through government. Private power hates government when government does not serve it. Private power loves government when government serves it.

          Consequently, private power hates democratizing forces in government, and seeks to end programs like Social Security, Medicare, Legal Services, or any program that serves ordinary people.

          However, private power loves the military because it siphons off wealth from the public and into private hands. Private power loves its control of the banking function, a government job.

          You’re a tool, mouthing the corporate line, barely sentient and unaware of what you’re saying.


          1. I don’t hate SS, MC, and LS. I hate what they have become. Which by the way was thru govt. manipulation.

            But being the simple man that I am could you name me a country devoid of corporations where their quality of life exceeds ours? Seems to me all totalitarian governmental abides are barren shit holes.


            1. You don’t seem to understand that SS, MC and other programs cannot exist in private sector because of greed, inefficiency and overhead. Mutual funds sap off like 25% of asset value in fees over time, where Social Security takes only 3%. If you want to scare the shit out of a stock broker, merely say the words “defined benefit.” They run and hide, as they know that the private market cannot support defined benefit pensions except for a few elite. Only government-run programs can.

              Your notion of “devoid of corporations” speaks of your state of mind more than anything useful – the corporation is a structure that we invented, and to the degree that we regulate them, they serve us well. When they become our master, as they have, then they do not serve us. Our country is involved in war making on the rest of the planet because of our corporations and their unrelenting greed – they need our wars to prevent wealth accumulation in the bulk of the population. Read Orwell some time.It does nto sound as if you’ve read beyond Rand.

              Corporations exist in all of the world, and to the degree that they are regulated, benefit us. Switzerland, for example, uses private corporations to run its health insurance system, and it works well there. The key: They are so regulated that they must offer insurance to all, and are not allowed to profit on basic care. Corporations as servants does work.


              1. My broker takes 1% annually Mark. And for that service he files all the correct paper work for quarterly reports and returns.

                The progressive’s angst toward corps is the fact that they diversified the ownership of companies along with providing tax advantages. No more singling out owners. No more elder employees without pensions. No more suing an owner into debtors prison. Their success and efficiency rests on the shoulders of every employee.

                Corporations with high percentages of labor influence (GM for instance) have a greater chance of failing. State governments (Wisconsin for instance) which reduce labor thru right to work laws turn their economic death spirals around.

                Switzerland is not a fair comparison. Switzerland has a nonexistent minority population and tightly controlled borders. And it certainly helps to be a nation with a long legacy of hard work and self sufficiency in a harsh mountain environment. Slackers need not apply.

                Right now 20% of families have no working members. 50% don’t pay federal taxes. Our current laws encourage single parent families encourage public assistance. If 10% were non-workers and everybody paid in we’d have a healthier economy and extended lives of afore mentioned social programs.


                1. I don’t know your broker, but all mutual funds take a fee right off the top without disclosing it except in the prospectus, which no one reads. This is in addition to the disclosed fees. Your math is weak, as the 1% you are aware of causes the 26% drain. That doe snot happen with public retirement programs, as they cost far less to manage.

                  Every time the privatization hawks go after Social Security, usually about halfway between market crashes, we dredge up these numbers. But they don’t sink in, do they Swede. My source is the Senate Finance committee, and these were their numbers published and undisputed back when Bush went after Social Security in 2005. 26%.

                  Most large corporations provide defined contribution retirement retirement benefits, but they are not stable or reliable due to stock market crashes. And, as any pilot will tell you, as any GM employee will tell you, they can be taken away.

                  The correlation between unionization and corporate failure is on your shoulders, as is the correlation between all other factors, such as infrastructure, health care, education and the like in right-to-work-for-less states. It is true that corporations do not like unions. It is true that unionized employees are better off than non-union employees. It is also true that corporations seek out sweat shops abroad to transfer labor costs becasue they do not like paying living wages.

                  Switzerland is a fair comparison. I have discussed health care with you ad nauseum, and nothing ever sinks in as I cannot overcome the voice from your radio. Truth is plain and simple:Countries with socialized medicine have lower costs, 100% coverage, better health outcomes. Switzerland, with a private insurance system, also ranks high because its insurance companies are heavily regulated. They are not allowed to turn people away, must cover all basic care, and are subsidized for those who cannot afford coverage. This is just true. Deal with it, stop making shit up.

                  All working families pay federal, state, property, gasoline and sales taxes. your 50% number is a professional lie.


  2. Plus chewbacca was apparently friends with yoda but then never apparently let’s on in episodes 3-5 of his previous pro-Jedi sympathies.


  3. Rambling on…

    Why is Mark that subjects from these corporational challenged countries risk shark invested waters and barb wired fences to come here to the land of semi-free markets?

    Why does those all powerful governments restrict travel, even incarcerate escapees for attempting to leave?


    1. There are no free markets, except where there is no government. Everyone hates free markets, and only people without power have to live with them. Take labor, for example: A Labor Union is anti-free market. Without unions, individuals have no power against large corporations. They are soon relegated to sweatshops, and eventually slavery. Slavery is the ultimate expression of the free market. That is what you favor, know it or not: Slavery.

      Your last sentence there, I could use some specifics. The US restricts travel, puts minorities behind bars, and incarcerates people without trial. I know you think you’re scoring some huge point here, but that is because you only know how to think one way, which is we-good-they-bad.


      1. I think Budge left the blogs because he could not reconcile slavery and free markets, among other contradictions. He put it in terms of having to deal with people not as smart as him, but it was more basic: He could not resolve his internet internal contradictions.

        You too need to resolve internal contradictions in your philosophy, but you have a leg up on Budge in that you never actually confront them.


      2. Non one swimming to Cuba Mark. Corporation free Cuba home of the coast to coast sweat shop.

        Please provide examples of free markets evolving into domestic sweatshops.


        1. You know nothing about Cuba, and intend to keep it that way, right? Good job.

          I do not wish to discuss free markets with you, as you don’t seem to understand the concept other than in a fairy tale kind of way. Everyone hates them, avoids them if they can, and if they cannot, suffer accordingly. Sweatshops and slavery are the product of free markets for labor, no unions. Name countries? You do it, it’s quite easy.


        2. By the way, I grabbed this comment you made over at 4&20 about the Sagebrush Rebellion:

          When this all plays out I’m predicting that our rebellion will provide much greater results than your anemic OWS.

          I call that a “Budgism,” or an assertion that even though you cannot be proven right in the past or present, that it will be done in the future. It creates the non-refutable argument, as your evidence is always years away.

          Nice job. You are locked away safe and secure, never having to validate your thinking on anything, proof always just around the bend.


            1. Not my point, but it did scare people. Obama had his goons all over the country cracking heads. It was violently suppressed by jackbooted thugs.

              It is the reason we say “the 1%,” your buddies.


Comments are closed.