Michael Prescott's Blog

Good-time Charlie

Okay, I admit it. I'm fascinated by Charlie Sheen's epic meltdown. It's rare to see someone destroy himself so completely and so publicly in so short a time.

In keeping with the rambling, semicoherent nature of Mr. Sheen's own rants, I have some disjointed, unorganized thoughts on this tempest in a tin can.

1. On another thread we've been talking about the ego. Sheen's behavior is a larger-than-life instance of the ego in action -- or in this case, out of control and running amok. I don't believe the delusional grandiosity and aggressive narcissism currently on display represent the ultimate truth about Charlie Sheen. His real self, his deepest self, is not this polluted self-aggrandizing wreck. And just imagine the hell of living eternally if this was the real Charlie. Extinction would be a much kinder fate.

2. Sheen is now threatening to sue CBS and Warner Bros. for $320 million on the grounds that they have unjustifiably deprived him of his livelihood. I'm not a lawyer, but in my layman's opinion this suit doesn't have a chance. For one thing, Sheen has a long track record of erratic and unstable behavior, which no employer can be required to countenance.

Moreover, Sheen agreed to enter rehab and demonstrate sobriety, and has not lived up to that agreement; curing his addictions "in a nanosecond" with his mind is not the same thing as going through a recognized rehabilitation program, and passing a single urine test is not the same thing as being clean and sober. (Update on March 2: I've now read that Sheen's employers had agreed to let him do his rehab at home, rather than in a recognized facility, so this point is not as strong as I'd believed.)  

Also -- and this is the kicker -- CBS and Warner Bros. can argue that allowing Sheen to resume work would pose a danger to his coworkers. After all, Sheen is on record as saying that he would like to pummel the show's creator with his "fire-breathing fists," and has challenged him to a cage match, while announcing that he has learned to "love with violence and hate with violence," and that he will "destroy" anyone who threatens his "family" (i.e., his entourage of porn stars, drug dealers, and assorted sycophants). That all this is not just talk is demonstrated by his documented history of violence. He shot his fiancée Kelly Preston in the arm; he reportedly beat up ex-wife Denise Richards; he reportedly beat up girlfriend Brittany Ashland and threatened to kill her; he reportedly beat up ex-wife Brooke Mueller and threatened to kill her; he reportedly choked girlfriend Capri Anderson. It is perfectly plausible to say that his threats should be taken seriously. CBS and Warner Bros. are already laying the groundwork for this defense by announcing that they have beefed up security at the Warners lot and will not let Sheen on the property under any circumstances. This is a sensible precaution, but also a shrewd legal move that will allow them to argue that Sheen represented a real danger to their employees.

3. Sheen, at 45, is five years younger than I am, and looks about 60 in recent interviews. How's that "total bitchin' rock star from Mars" lifestyle working out for ya?

4. Sheen is worth -- or should be worth -- an estimated $85 million, most of which he earned in the last eight years. Yet he implies that he is nearly broke and has a desperate need for new infusions of cash. As someone on the Internet quipped, "Hiring porn stars instead of financial planners was a smart move."

5. Is it possible that Sheen has been bipolar all along, and was using drugs and alcohol to self-medicate? Or is his current manic behavior some kind of withdrawal reaction? Or have years of substance abuse simply fried his brain? 

6. For a textbook example of a sycophantic enabler, look no further than the reprehensible Alex Jones, the radio interviewer who egged Sheen on, laughed at his inane jokes, praised him to the skies, and even compared him (for no conceivable reason) to Thomas Jefferson. Sheen is just a sad, sick man currently circling the drain; Jones is despicable.

7. I thought Two and a Half Men was funny in its early years, when it appeared that Sheen was doing an over-the-top parody of his pre-reformed self. For me, most of the humor went out of his character when I realized he was doing a considerably toned-down version of his contemporary self. I did still watch the show sometimes, though not regularly. Much of last season involved the Sheen character courting a beautiful and shockingly normal woman named Chelsea. I knew the show had lost my allegiance when I found myself actively rooting for Chelsea to run away from Sheen as fast as possible. I no longer found his character rakishly charming; I just thought he was sick, foul, and pitiable -- much like good-time Charlie himself.

Thought for the day

Every day I am grateful that Charlie Sheen developed an interest in 9-11 Trutherism and not in the paranormal.

X marks the spot

Here's an interesting NDE reported in The Omega Project, a 1992 book by well-known NDE researcher Kenneth Ring. Ring introduces the story this way:

In 1952, a twenty-one-year-old US soldier serving in the Korean War was wounded and flown to Japan for surgery. Now a speech pathologist living in Connecticut, Harold Jaffe still remembers the details of his operation vividly.

What follows is Jaffe's recollection, which appears to have been presented to Ring in writing. It is one of many NDEs that Ring accumulated specifically for this book. In a terse, elliptical style, Jaffe wrote:

Spinal column surgery... Ineffective spinal anesthesia in midsurgery required rapid use of gas/shots from a panic situation. I heard later that the combination "went green," i.e. sour. I recall lapsing into unconsciousness (having been awake and alert during the first hour of surgery). I "sensed" my heart stopping -- thought, "HEY, you guys are losing me." The next moment I was "floating" against the canvas roof of the O.R. tent, looking down on "me" stretched out on the table, face down, still being operated on.

The surgeon was alerted to cardiac arrest; several people shouted at once. A heavy, muscular black Air Force sergeant rushed in on call. "I'm not clean, sir," he said. "To hell with that, flip this man over!" He waited for a second for the surgeon to pack the wound, then fork-lifted me onto my back. I clearly "saw" an x-shaped scar on the top of the sergeant's scalp -- even though my vision without glasses is 20/400. The medical team frantically worked on my body to resuscitate me. I saw the anesthesiologist (female, lieutenant, Air Force) wiping tears, shaking her head, saying, "[expletives] he's gone!" I "yelled" to her that I was still here, but she couldn't hear me. (Now I recall that my "being" at the roof top had no form, no mouth -- only consciousness, vivid, painless, unimpaired hearing and vision and thought.)

I felt myself being sucked back. Many days later I regained consciousness.... Weeks later I spoke of my experience to my surgeon, hoping he wouldn't think I was crazy and declare me Section 8. Surprised that I could describe every detail of my "death" and [be] aware of the black corpsman's x-shaped scar on his scalp, my doctor only shrugged and said, "Well, nothing surprises me anymore." [pp. 99, 100]

A couple of things stood out for me in this account. First, it is written in a refreshingly matter-of-fact style by a well-educated person. Second, Jaffe's vision without glasses is just as lousy as mine -- 20/400. From experience I can say that a person with this degree of visual impairment cannot make out any details further than a few inches away. Third, the NDE is clearly remembered as having a strong visual component: looking down on the operating table, seeing the female anesthesiologist shaking her head and wiping away tears, and most of all, observing the sergeant with the distinctive scar on top of his head.

Of course, it is always possible to find weaknesses in any NDE account. The event took place in 1952 but was obviously reported to Ring much later -- probably about four decades after the fact. I'm sure it would be impossible to verify the details at this late date. A critic could argue that Mr. Jaffe retained his sense of hearing even while unconscious and was thus able to hear the commotion around him; his mind, it could be claimed, constructed the appropriate images to go along with the sounds. And the scar? Someone could say that this detail is an embellishment, or that the patient had the opportunity to see this scar at some other time and unconsciously incorporated it into his fantasy.

Counting against all that is the fact that Mr. Jaffe's experience is hardly unique, but follows a pattern of other veridical NDEs. It is easy to discount a single story in isolation, but when there are scores of documented cases, and probably hundreds of anecdotal cases, the skeptical argument becomes harder to swallow. There is also Mr. Jaffe's insistence that he actually did see these events with a vision much clearer than his normal eyesight. As he put it, he was "only consciousness, vivid, painless, unimpaired hearing and vision and thought."

===

P.S. Incidentally, it was Ring who inserted the word "be" in square brackets in the last sentence of the excerpt. I'm not sure the word is necessary, and I think it may change the meaning slightly. The way I read it, Mr. Jaffe is saying that the surgeon was both surprised by the story and aware of the scar; his knowledge of the scar would have lent some credibility to the patient's report.

Movie madness

Speaking of movies, as I was in the last post, here's a very funny and all-too-true assessment of contemporary Hollywood from Mark Harris of GQ.  

An excerpt:

We can all acknowledge that the world of American movies is an infinitely richer place because of Pixar and that the very best comic-book movies, from Iron Man to The Dark Knight, are pretty terrific, but the degree to which children's genres have colonized the entire movie industry goes beyond overkill. More often than not, these collectively infantilizing movies are breeding an audience—not to mention a generation of future filmmakers and studio executives—who will grow up believing that movies aimed at adults should be considered a peculiar and antique art. Like books. Or plays.

It's good stuff. 

 

Atlas Shrugged: the movie

Regular readers know that although I was a big fan of Ayn Rand when I was younger, my philosophy of life has gone off on quite a dramatic tangent since then. (Click on the "Ayn Rand" category link at the bottom of this post if you want to read my critiques of her ideas and the movement they spawned, Objectivism.) Even so, I still have a certain sentimental or nostalgic affection for Rand's novels, and I think her message of individualism and self-reliance, though overstated, does provide a useful counterpoint to the ever-encroaching nanny state.

That's why, when I heard that her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged was being made into a relatively low-budget ($5 million) movie on a rushed production schedule, I was disappointed. It seemed to me that such a big book, which still matters a great deal to so many people, deserved better treatment.

Admittedly, the movie in production is Part One of a planned trilogy, so it covers only the first part of the book. Still, with a no-name cast, a TV director, limited production values, an untested screenwriter, and a neophyte producer, the film sounded like a long shot at best.

Well, now there's a trailer on YouTube, and I have to say ... it looks pretty darn good! Much better than I expected, certainly. 

Of course, you can't tell too much about the finished product from a brief advertisement, but it's just possible that the filmmakers have found a way to convert Rand's somewhat dated and heavy-handed story into a slick, contemporary drama with thriller overtones. They may even have found a way to make the railroad industry seem dynamic and relevant to today's audience. 

Will the finished film be any good? It's too soon to tell, but I'm suddenly a lot more interested in this ambitious and interesting project. 

Incidentally, the movie is scheduled for theatrical release on April 15. Hmm, I wonder how they came up with that date ...

The official movie website is here. 

Facebookery

After years of resistance, I've given in to the inevitable. I am now on Facebook. (Their motto: You Will Be Assimilated.) 

My homepage is here. I invite you to friend me.

Uck, I hate using "friend" as a verb. 

I also have fan page where I promote my books, but I haven't figured out how to link to that. If anyone knows, please clue me in. 

Oh, speaking of promoting my books ...

My 1998 thriller Mortal Pursuit, originally published under the pen name Brian Harper, is now available as an ebook in both Kindle and Nook editions.

My recently self-published novel Riptide is still available in print and as a Kindle edition, and has now been put out in a Nook edition also. 

My 1992 novel Shiver, published under the Brian Harper name, has been filmed as an indie feature, and will be released (probably directly to video) later this year. I'll release print, Kindle, and Nook editions of Shiver to coincide with the movie's release.  

Details on all the above can be found on my author website. 

Cool

This is just cool. 

Mirabile dictu!

Roger Knights sent me this quote from G.K. Chesterton's 1908 book Orthodoxy (full text here and here). There's a lot to like in it, though I have one or two caveats.

Here it is:

But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. 

Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them rightly or wrongly because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them rightly or wrongly because they have a doctrine against them.

 

The question of whether miracles ever occur is a question of common sense and of ordinary historical imagination, not of any final physical experiment. One may here surely dismiss that quite brainless piece of pedantry which talks about the need for scientific conditions in connection with alleged spiritual phenomena. If we are asking whether a dead soul can communicate with a living, it is ludicrous to insist that it shall be under conditions in which no two living souls in their senses would seriously communicate with each other. The fact that ghosts prefer darkness no more disproves the existence of ghosts than the fact that lovers prefer darkness disproves the existence of love.

 

It is just as unscientific as it is unphilosophical to be surprised that in an unsympathetic atmosphere certain extraordinary sympathies do not arise. It is as if I said that I could not tell if there was a fog because the air was not clear enough, or as if I insisted on perfect sunlight in order to see a solar eclipse.

 

I conclude that miracles do happen. I am forced to it by a conspiracy of facts the fact that the men who encounter elves or angels are not the mystics and the morbid dreamers, but fishermen, farmers, and all men at once coarse and cautious; the fact that we all know men who testify to spiritualistic incidents, but are not spiritualists; the fact that science itself admits such things more and more every day

 

The sceptic always takes one of the two positions: either an ordinary man need not be believed or an extraordinary event must not be believed. For I hope we may dismiss the argument against wonders attempted in the mere recapitulation of frauds of swindling mediums or trick miracles. That is not an argument at all, good or bad. A false ghost disproves the reality of ghosts exactly as much as a forged banknote disproves the existence of the Bank of England--if anything it proves its existence. 

Caveats: 

It's not always the case that "the disbelievers in miracles deny them ... because they have a doctrine against them." Sometimes they deny miracles because they have found actual evidence of fraud, or have reasonable grounds for suspecting fraud. For instance, James Randi famously exposed the "miracles" of faith healer Peter Popoff as fraudulent by recording secret radio communications sent to him by his wife. 

And while it's true that "the believers in miracles accept them ... because they have evidence for them," it's also true that the believers have a doctrine that makes them more inclined to accept evidence that others might reject or doubt.

Overall, however, I'm pleasantly surprised that Chesterton was so open to the phenomena of spiritualism. In this he differs from C.S. Lewis, another famed Christian apologeticist, who dismissed spiritualism as mostly empty blather. 

===

P.S. Late in life, Lewis may have changed his mind a bit. Look at Dave Armstrong's first comment on this page for an excerpt from Lewis's A Grief Observed, in which Lewis recounts a spectral visitation by his late wife. Two reported ADCs from Lewis himself are also mentioned. 

Poetry corner

I once thought of a children's book called Do You Suppose. Never really pursued it. Jotted down a few lines, nothing more. Came across these jottings the other day while cleaning out some old papers. 

Here's all I wrote of my unfinished masterpiece: 

 

Do you suppose 

That the good ship Argo

Ever reached Key Largo

Or even Fargo

To bypass an embargo

And pick up some cargo?

 

Do you suppose 

That a pilot with an overbite

Ever made an oversight

While on an overnight

Overflight?

 

Do you suppose 

That the Monster of Loch Ness

Ever played chess

In state of undress

Under duress

With a lady named Bess

Or maybe Tess

And felt true distress,

Finding himself in no less

Than a serious mess,

But refused to obsess

And chose instead to confess

His lack of success? 

 

Do you suppose

That your toes

Go to picture shows

And buy clothes

And write prose

While you doze? 

No one knows. 

 

Yeah, I know, I know - I'm not quitting my day job. 

Jules and Jim

Here's a question that occurred to me while taking a walk this evening. 

First let's begin with a hypothetical scenario. Let's pretend there is no evidence whatsoever for life after death. No investigations have ever been done, no attempts at gathering proof have ever been made. Regular readers know I don't think this is the case -- far from it. Actually, I think a preponderance of the evidence suggests that consciousness does continue in some form after death. But for the sake of argument, let's say there is no such evidence at all.

Now let's say there's a fellow named Jules. Jules believes in life after death, but not on the basis of any evidence -- because, remember, there is no evidence. He believes it because he takes comfort in the idea. His parents are deceased, and he likes to think they are in heaven, watching over him. Years ago, he lost his daughter at a very young age, and it's too painful for him to think that this child was simply snuffed out like a match flame. He prefers to think that she continues to exist and even to flourish, and that someday he will be reunited with her.

Shy and retiring, Jules is not interested in proselytizing. He keeps his opinions pretty much to himself. He just wants to be able to draw consolation and solace from an idea that feels right to him, though it is unsupported by any empirical evidence.

Enter a militant skeptic, Jim. (The two names have no significance: they are a reference to the 1962 François Truffaut movie, Jules et Jim.) Jim believes strongly that there is no life after death, and that anyone who believes otherwise is a victim of irrational delusions. When Jim encounters Jules, Jim feels he simply must dissuade Jules from his beliefs. It seems urgently necessary to show Jules the truth and set him free from his superstitions.

The question that arose in my mind was very simple: Why does Jim want to do this? What's in it for him?

If you asked Jim this question, he might give you one of several standard responses. He might say that ...

1. ... civilization is built on science and reason, and only by defeating unreasonable ideas can we prevent a plunge into a new Dark Ages.

2. ... religion is responsible for war and terror, and if we wish to have a peaceful world, religious ideas of any kind must be stamped out.

3. ... gullible people are at risk of being taken in by charlatans, possibly even losing their life savings to mediums and psychics who will bleed them dry; they must be protected.

The merits of of these rationales are debatable. One might point out that most of the preeminently "logical" and "scientific" figures in history -- people like Aristotle, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein -- unquestionably had their religious or mystical side. Or that war and terror are motivated by many things, but probably most often by economic gains or cultural grievances. Or that very few people actually lose their life savings to streetcorner psychics, and anyone naïve enough to fork over his total assets to a stranger was probably ripe for the picking anyway; if he hadn't encountered a fake medium or a psychic, he would have been waylaid by a fake IRS agent, a guy selling claims to a nonexistent silver mine, or some other bunco artist.

Or one might point out that expunging all religious or supernatural beliefs from the human species is probably about as likely as expunging art, music, sports, or sex. 

But let's ignore all that. There's a more pertinent point to focus on. Namely, that none of these rationales applies to Jules.

Jules is not going to single-handedly tear down Western civilization and put up in its place a pyramid of skulls. Jules is not going to inaugurate a military campaign or a terrorist plot. Jules isn't even going to visit a psychic or a medium, since he's not interested in evidence. Nor is Jules going to inspire anyone else to do these things, since he is not a proselytizer.

So what's the real reason for Jim's urgent insistence on leading Jules to "see the light"?

Maybe we can't really know. And maybe we don't have to. But one thing we do know is that, if Jim is successful, Jules will be deprived of the comfort and consolation he currently enjoys.

Instead of thinking that his parents are watching over him from heaven, Jules will now believe that their distinctive personalities, memories, everything that made them unique individuals -- all of it is irrevocably gone, and what remains of them is only bones or ashes. Instead of believing that his dead child exists in another realm and will one day be reunited with him, Jules will now be convinced that she is forever lost -- that her life winked out all too suddenly, served no purpose, and was a pointless accident.

The upshot of Jim's efforts, if they succeed, is that Jules will be a sadder person. Sadder but wiser? That's open to debate. But sadder, certainly.

If this is true, then I think we have to ask: Does Jim have Jules' best interests at heart? Is he trying to improve Jules' life, or damage it? The high-sounding rationalizations about civilization, war, and con artists ring especially hollow when we consider the actual consequences of Jim's actions. Nothing he does in this case will make civilization any more secure, war and terrorism any less likely, or con artists any less prevalent. Nothing he does can change human nature or the human species. All he can actually accomplish is to make Jules feel bad.

And I have to wonder: Is that what Jim wants?

And if so, what does it say about him?