Author: skzb

I play the drum.

Defend Edward Snowden

My statement on Edward Snowden is as follows:

Occasionally you run into a situation that just isn’t that complicated.

To support the hounding of Edward Snowden is to support government by secrecy, to support the attacks on the basic rights and freedoms that every human being deserves.

To attempt to support him by an appeal to Democrats or Republicans is to ask the very forces who are spying on private communications in the US and internationally to defend us against–themselves!

Sometimes there is a duty to speak out, and this is one of those times.  I support Edward Snowden.  I salute his courage and integrity.  I believe it is either knavery or foolishness to believe that he can be defended except by organized action of the masses of people.

And he deserves to be defended.

Steven Brust

I’ve been asked by David Walsh, arts editor of the World Socialist Web Site, to make a brief statement in support of Edward Snowden for publication on that site.  I’ve reproduced my statement above.   I am now asking any writers, editors, artists, and academics reading this to do the same. If you want to join me in this, send your statement to walsh at wsws dot org.

A Fun Read, Terrible History: Roger MacDonald’s The Man In The Iron Mask

Just finished The Man in the Iron Mask by Roger MacDonald, which purports to solve the mystery of that enigmatic prisoner of Louis XIV.  If you’re as much of a Dumas nut as I am, it’s a blast.  What makes it fun is that d’Artagnan, M. de Treville, and even Cyrano storm across its pages along with mentions of Athos, Porthos, and Aramis.  Much of what he suggests is even plausible, which adds to the fun.  As an actual historian, the man is an utter putz–his conclusion about who the Mask actually was is based on approximately zero evidence and fairly bad speculation–for example, he never answers the question, “Well, then why didn’t the king simply have him killed?” which is an appropriate question if MacDonald’s solution is accurate.  Of course, he doesn’t cite sources except in the most cursory manner.   And he does that thing bad historians do when looking into a mystery: constantly going, “Here is the TRVTH!” rather than, “Here is why I have come to this conclusion.”  It added to the fun for me that, at his worst, he sounds a little like Paarfi–not in the way he writes, but in his insistence that, “No, really, this is what happened, honest.”

Toward the end, he discusses the French Revolution, where he proves his complete lack of knowledge (the French revolution, it seems, occurred because of the royal family’s sexual habits, and the storming of the Bastille happened because they were too slow in getting information out.  Uh huh).  But still, there are delightful moments.  “…Germain de Saint-Foix, whose shortcomings as a dramatist were rarely exposed because of his reputation as a duellist…” and I do quite agree with his conclusion that even if the story of Voltaire’s deathbed statement (when asked to renounce the devil, “Is this a time to make enemies?”) is apocryphal, he’d have said it if he’d thought of it.

So, anyway, it’s a fun ride, worthless history.

Hitting the Ground Running

Fourth Street was wonderful.

I came back, dived into revisions for Hawk, worked on a short story, started a brand new project, and am continuing working on the new Icrementalists novel with Skyler.

This is so much fun.

Finished a pass on Hawk, but reluctantly concluded it’s going to take at least one more, so working on that now (with the help of the lovely Jenphalian).

Anyway, Hawk ought to be done pretty soon.

That’s what I’ve been up to.

 

 

“People are Stupid”

Earlier today, I was skimming Facebook (I know, bad idea) and I came across that, “People are stupid” thing again.

Of course, it’s true, people are stupid.

That’s why writers like Neil Gaiman who assume an audience of smart people are unable to have a career.

That’s why movies like “Lincoln” that appeal to smart people always flop.

That’s why bands like The Grateful Dead who made music that engaged the brain had no success.

That’s why TV shows like The West Wing that are aimed at smart people never go anywhere.

So, yeah, people are stupid.  The question is, which people?  I’d say it’s the ones who say that people are stupid.

/rant off/

 

On Science and Religion

In the previous discussion, Derek Jarvis asks about the “side issue” I mention there, concerning the relationship between religious thought and politics.  I’ve been scowling at my computer, trying to decide if I want to go there; it is going to get messy, and very likely in a way I won’t enjoy.  On the other hand, it is a valid question, and it was a little unfair of me to bring it up and then ask people not to talk about it.

So I’ll make this as concise as I can, then dive into the nearest foxhole.

Some believe that science and religion have separate “spheres” and can comfortably co-exist. I do not; I believe the methods are in conflict, even if, at a given point, an individual may be unaware of the conflict.  I further believe that scientific analysis is the only way to understand society well enough to consciously change it, and that conscious change is objectively necessary.

Another aspect can be expressed by example. The Eighth Commandment forbids stealing.  I believe the only way to save civilization will require at some point (at some not very distant point) that we expropriate the means of production. As Engels said, expropriate is another word for steal.  Someone who believes in the Eighth Commandment, when faced with that sort of crisis, must make the choice between rejecting an element of theological principle, and rejecting a social necessity.  I make no claims about which way a given person will jump; only that the choice will be there.

Does that help clarify matters?