A public record of some of my thoughts. Feel free to comment, but don't expect me to respond.
Have you noticed that this dangerous warming is always going to happen?
It’s like solar power. It’s the power of the future, … and it always will be.
I have come to the point that it’s not even worth listening to anybody who says renewables are the solution to climate problems. Renewables are causing problems!
The short-term solution is to switch from coal to gas, the mid-term solution is nukes, and the long-term solution is better nukes.
I thought this was funny and strange.
If you don’t believe there’s cheating in our elections, you’re naive. But not every accusation of cheating is true, and so far (I believe) no one has proven that the cheating has flipped an election.
Mrs. Crowhill and I saw the movie last night, along with two of the next gen Crowhills. I don’t need to be mysterious about this. It was good, but it was not great.
I hope that spoilers are not an issue here because everybody knows the story, right? If not, go read the book for Heaven’s sake. And, as you’ll see below, you might not understand this movie very well if you haven’t read the book.
The tech: Dune has some interesting futuristic technology. Lasguns. Maula pistols. Personal shields. Hunter seekers. Ornithopters. Stillsuits. Those things were all done pretty well, and I particularly liked the ornithopters. But they left a few things out, like the Holtzman effect, and the idea of folding space.
Dune has an almost steam punk feel to it, because it’s simultaneously very advanced and very restrained. The movie didn’t take any time to give the necessary explanation / backdrop for that.
It’s the future, so you expect computers and androids. Not in the Dune universe. After the Butlerian Jihad, where humans fought off their machine overlords, all humans lived under a strict prohibition on thinking machines. Not explaining that background was a rather surprising omission, in my opinion.
I liked the tech, but I’ve read the book a few times, so I knew the story. I imagine someone who has not might have been left with some questions.
The overall atmosphere / world: Again, we didn’t get much of the background. We didn’t learn about the spacing guild, or the navigators, or heighliners. Generally speaking, it felt right, with one important exception.
Since they don’t rely on thinking machines, they try to push other technologies, and human ability, to its limits. The Mentats, the Bene Gesserit, the Bene Tleilax, the swordmasters …. Without that background, you don’t quite understand Thufir Hawat or Duncan Idaho, and even the Bene Gesserit might leave you scratching your head.
There’s only so much time in a movie, but I think they could have done more to explain things.
The Planets: Caladan and Arrakis looked about right, although I preferred the way Caladan was done in the 1984 film. (Unlike most other people, I actually like that movie.) What seemed lacking to me was opulence and glamour. We’re dealing with the great houses here, not ordinary people. Not even ordinary rich people. I think the sets for the planets could have been much better.
Duke Leto: Everybody loves the Duke. He’s a great and noble character, and they portrayed him well, although — again — I feel as if those who haven’t read the book wouldn’t understand him.
Lady Jessica: The portrayal of Lady Jessica was the part I liked the least. They did a good job making her powerful, but they did a lousy job making her gorgeous and regal. The actress is quite a beautiful woman, and they could easily have made her stunning on the screen, but for some odd reason they chose not to. I don’t get that.
Paul Atreides: I think they overplayed the scrawny / brooding / little boy-ish theme. Paul was a young man, not an angsty teen who needed to eat more meat. Having said that, he did an interesting job portraying his visions and his growing understanding of his destiny. Although, honestly, I think that aspect was done better in the 1984 version.
Gurney Haleck: How can you compete with Patrick Stewart, who played the part in the 1984 film? I liked this Gurney, but I didn’t like him enough. Gurney is the best guy in the barracks. He’s always got a joke, a song, or a quote from the Orange Catholic Bible. And he can kick your ass. I would say that he’s the most loyal person around, but not in House Atreides, which is built on loyalty. Everyone in House Atreides is loyal.
Duncan Idaho: Jason Momoa was an interesting choice for this part. As I mentioned above, Duncan is a swordmaster, which puts him in the tiniest top sliver of bad asses — which is why he’s able to fight off about 20 Sardaukar — who are also extreme bad asses.
The military in the Dune universe is not made up of construction workers and dock hands who’ve been given six months of training and then sent to war. Their training is way more intense. Think ninjas, but without all the dark clothing.
Duncan is a guy who practices martial arts for two hours every day. He’s the baddest dude on almost any planet.
My first thought was that the bulky Jason Mamoa takes an edge off that. You’re tempted to think, “of course he can kill those guys, look how big and strong he is,” where the far less bulky Duncan in the ’84 film made you realize it was his training, and not his braun, that did the trick.
But my second thought is that if you’re in the business of fighting all the time, you also work out like a madman. Think of the Navy Seals. So on reflection I think Momoa was a good choice.
Baron Vladimir Harkonnen: The worst part of the ’84 film was the utterly disgusting, repulsive grossness of Baron Harkonnen. This film manages to make him disgusting and gross, but takes just enough off the repulsiveness. He still comes across as the completely amoral, untrustworthy, evil man who will do anything for power and wealth. And I liked the way they did the suspensor belt and the flowing robe, so that he appeared as a giant among his troops. That’s very consistent with Baron Harkonnen.
The Fremen: We didn’t see enough of Stilgar or Chani to get a great sense of them, but the scene near then end, where Paul has his fight with Jamis, was pretty good. I look forward to how they portray the Fremen in part 2.
And that’s one thing I forgot to mention. The new movie is only part 1.
Overall, it was a good movie, but it had a very high bar. I expected to be wowed, and I was not.
A consistent theme in arguments between the left and right is who has the authority to do something. Biden’s latest vaccine mandate is an example.
The Daily Wire is suing the federal government over the mandate. They argue …
… the federal government has no power under the Constitution to force half the U.S. private sector workforce to be vaccinated against their will or to endure repeated medical testing as a condition of earning a living.
It also argues that even if the federal government did have this power, Congress never delegated the power to OSHA, meaning this type of rule would be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, making it unconstitutional.
This is the way a conservative would think. It’s not only a question of whether something is a good policy, it’s also a question of who should do it, and under what authority.
Liberals tend to push that stuff aside. If it’s a good thing to do, they don’t care about all those details. (Back when I participated in that dumpster fire called Facebook, I saw this play out again and again.)
I’ve mentioned Dr. Jonathan Haidt’s work on moral foundations before. They include …
Dr. Haidt says conservatives tend to give equal weight to all these factors, while liberals tend to emphasize #s 1, 2 and 6, and don’t pay much attention to the others.
We see this pattern in the debates over the vaccine mandates. Liberals don’t seem to care whether OSHA in particular, or the federal government in general, actually have the authority to issue these mandates. They just think it’s the right thing to do, so get on with it, and damn the details. But to conservatives, how something is done is just as important as what’s done.
Note: I’m not saying that liberals never appeal to authority, or rely on it. Of course they do, especially in legal arguments. It’s just that authority is not as important to them. It’s the annoying stuff you have to get past.