Star Wars: The Case for the Empire

[CamEdwards]

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I find this to be fairly amusing and somewhat convincing.

The Case for the Empire
From the May 16, 2002 Daily Standard: Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong.
by Jonathan V. Last
12/26/2002 12:00:00 AM

STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.

It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.

First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.

If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.

I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic

At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.

Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."

The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.

Like the United Nations, the Republic has no armed forces of its own, but instead relies on a group of warriors, the Jedi knights, to "keep the peace." The Jedi, while autonomous, often work in tandem with the Senate, trying to smooth over quarrels and avoid conflicts. But the Jedi number only in the thousands--they cannot protect everyone.

What's more, it's not clear that they should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes, full of Zen wisdom and righteous power. They encourage people to "use the Force"--the mystical energy which is the source of their power--but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble. The Force comes from midi-chlorians, tiny symbiotic organisms in people's blood, like mitochondria. The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard.

And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we meet in Star Wars are full of themselves. They ignore the counsel of others (often with terrible consequences), and seem honestly to believe that they are at the center of the universe. When the chief Jedi record-keeper is asked in "Attack of the Clones" about a planet she has never heard of, she replies that if it's not in the Jedi archives, it doesn't exist. (The planet in question does exist, again, with terrible consequences.)

In "Attack of the Clones," a mysterious figure, Count Dooku, leads a separatist movement of planets that want to secede from the Republic. Dooku promises these confederates smaller government, unlimited free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism." Dooku's motives are suspect--it's not clear whether or not he believes in these causes. However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.

The Republic, of course, is eager to quash these separatists, but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.

II. The Empire

We do not yet know the exact how's and why's, but we do know this: At some point between the end of Episode II and the beginning of Episode IV, the Republic is replaced by an Empire. The first hint comes in "Attack of the Clones," when the Senate's Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers to deal with the separatists. It spoils very little to tell you that Palpatine eventually becomes the Emperor. For a time, he keeps the Senate in place, functioning as a rubber-stamp, much like the Roman imperial senate, but a few minutes into Episode IV, we are informed that the he has dissolved the Senate, and that "the last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."

Lucas wants the Empire to stand for evil, so he tells us that the Emperor and Darth Vader have gone over to the Dark Side and dresses them in black.

But look closer. When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats are in charge now."

Palpatine believes that the political order must be manipulated to produce peace and stability. When he mutters, "There is no civility, there is only politics," we see that at heart, he's an esoteric Straussian.

Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.

Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly. In "The Empire Strikes Back" Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."

And while it's a small point, the Empire's manners and decorum speak well of it. When Darth Vader is forced to employ bounty hunters to track down Han Solo, he refuses to address them by name. Even Boba Fett, the greatest of all trackers, is referred to icily as "bounty hunter." And yet Fett understands the protocol. When he captures Solo, he calls him "Captain Solo." (Whether this is in deference to Han's former rank in the Imperial starfleet, or simply because Han owns and pilots his own ship, we don't know. I suspect it's the former.)

But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn't evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn't want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.

None of which is to say that the Empire isn't sometimes brutal. In Episode IV, Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet, Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors.

The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.

But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.

Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.

Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.

III. After the Rebellion

As we all know from the final Star Wars installment, "Return of the Jedi," the rebellion is eventually successful. The Emperor is assassinated, Darth Vader abdicates his post and dies, the central governing apparatus of the Empire is destroyed in a spectacular space battle, and the rebels rejoice with their small, annoying Ewok friends. But what happens next?

(There is a raft of literature on this point, but, as I said at the beginning, I'm going to ignore it because it doesn't speak to Lucas's original intent.)

In Episode IV, after Grand Moff Tarkin announces that the Imperial Senate has been abolished, he's asked how the Emperor can possibly hope to keep control of the galaxy. "The regional governors now have direct control over territories," he says. "Fear will keep the local systems in line."

So under Imperial rule, a large group of regional potentates, each with access to a sizable army and star destroyers, runs local affairs. These governors owe their fealty to the Emperor. And once the Emperor is dead, the galaxy will be plunged into chaos.

In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe. All we see are plots and fighting. Their victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.

Which makes the rebels--Lucas's heroes--an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back.

I'll take the Empire.

The most convincing part of the argument to me is the idea that if the Senate is so supportive of democracy, what do they have against people leaving the Senate?

[Crapshoot]

one of my favorites Cam - posted by me a while back...

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ight=star+wars

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I find this to be fairly amusing and somewhat convincing.


The most convincing part of the argument to me is the idea that if the Senate is so supportive of democracy, what do they have against people leaving the Senate?

I'd say the standard response to this is that you can be supportive of democracy, but if Arkansas or Alabalma wants to leave the US tomorrow ( hopes...) , would you support them ? The Senate is a semi-federal model- its not a pure democracy.

[MJ4H]

?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

?

I'm with you.

[ISiddiqui]

And this article is exactly the reason I was supporting RotS showing the evil of the Dark Side. Because loons like this end up thinking the Empire was ok. Then again, I'm sure a majority of people think he's a loon because of it (though I may be mistaken on that).

Though those who think Pinochet was a benign dictator need their heads examined in the first place .

[Desnudo]

Loon, maybe. Enormous nerd who needs to get out more, absolutely.

[Franklinnoble]

Clearly, this writer is a lurker here at FOFC...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

The most convincing part of the argument to me is the idea that if the Senate is so supportive of democracy, what do they have against people leaving the Senate?

That's why Southerners still refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression."

[DaddyTorgo]

down with the Republic. Boo on the rebels!

[kcchief19]

Mr. Last is a liar. He says he has no knowledge of and ignores information from the Expanded Universe, but he cites several examples of information gleamed from the Expanded Universe never mentioned in the films, such as Han Solo beginning his "career" in an Imperial Academy. He chooses to include that but ignores the fact that Solo was conscripted against his will into the armed forces and later went AWOL. Chewbacca owes his life debt to Solo for helping to escape slavery at the hands of the Empire.

I also like that he calls Palpatine a benign dictator. Is there such as thing? Especially when you engage in mass genocide, war, propaganda and slavery. That's like saying Mussolini was a benign dictator because he made the trains run on time.

Once again: I have wasted my life.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Once again: I have wasted my life.

[flere-imsaho]

The most damning response to this write-up is a critique of his "meritocracy (Empire) vs. royalist (Republic/Rebels)" argument. In the Empire, although regional governors may have some level of control (as may generals), all final power rests in 2 Force-users: Vader & the Emperor. It's also made pretty clear that should one of them meet an untimely demise, they'll be replaced by another Force-user (i.e. not a general or a governor). Therefore, there's no real meritocracy. Bear in mind, also, that we never see anything about how people get promoted in the Empire (except when Vader kills someone), so his claim that the Empire is meritocratic is theory, really.

In the Republic/Rebellion, on the other hand, we see a number of instances where non-Force-users (Solo, for example) advance in position and prestige. Queen Amidala, also, you'll remember, was voted into her position. Jar-Jar Binks, even, was raised to a position due (based on Lucas' story, to much hilarity) to merit. The best example, however, is that the commander of all the Rebel forces in Mon Mothma, a non-Force-user, and non-Royal.

There are other problems, too:

Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual.

This is the heart of his attack on the Republic. I won't quote him in detail since it's already above. Last's point is that a benevolent dictatorship is preferable to an anarchic democracy. While this may (and I stress may) be true in the context of the Star Wars story (though it is certainly not true for the inhabitants of Alderaan), I don't think one can take this argument, part & parcel, and say that it applies to civilizations generally, which is what some people are attempting to do.

Dooku's motives are suspect--it's not clear whether or not he believes in these causes. However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.

This is extremely naive. History has shown us that separatists can have a whole range of motives and that a separatist movement can find room for this range. Some may be in it for profit, some may be in it for a noble new start, some may be in it just for a change. However, to make his point, Last assumes they're all thinking the exact same thing (and the noble thing, at that), which weakens his argument.

Furthermore, as to the bigger question of whether a Republic should allow parts of itself to secede, it's interesting to note that he fails to mention that such an act is something the Empire would not tolerate, and with vicious consequences. In Last's parallel universe, the Union didn't defeat the Confederacy and bring them back into the fold, they obliterated them from the face of the Earth.

Not to mention that the whole "Separatist" movement is merely a plot device, anyway. It is (oh, irony) very easy to look to deeply into this story.

Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.

The comparison to Pinochet (why not Saddam?) is where this really begins to fall down. Pinochet's regime had a monstrous effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen, as a for instance, as does the Emperor's. Last conveniently forgets the destruction of Alderaan, for instance, but also fails to note the wholesale destruction of other population centers detailed in the novelizations (which merely contain details chopped from the movies, and so are relevant).

Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly. In "The Empire Strikes Back" Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."

Two very big leaps here. First of all, Last admits he doesn't know anything about the Expanded Universe, but then breezily claims that there are imperial academies throughout the galaxy. Where's his proof? And there's no indication that they accept everyone. Furthermore, Last fails to recognize that a very possible reason for "fast promotions" (another thing we have no real evidence of, but no matter) is the likelihood of high mortality rates amongst the military due to its continuing war against an insurgency (again, Iraq?).

The example of Piett is humorous. Last wants us to be surprised that the Captain of a Super Star Destroyer, the Flagship of the Imperial Navy, gets a battlefield commission to Admiral?

And while it's a small point, the Empire's manners and decorum speak well of it. When Darth Vader is forced to employ bounty hunters to track down Han Solo, he refuses to address them by name. Even Boba Fett, the greatest of all trackers, is referred to icily as "bounty hunter."

Last forgets the previous dealings between the Skywalkers and the Fetts.

And yet Fett understands the protocol. When he captures Solo, he calls him "Captain Solo." (Whether this is in deference to Han's former rank in the Imperial starfleet, or simply because Han owns and pilots his own ship, we don't know. I suspect it's the former.)

I suspect the latter. Unlike Last, I'll explain the rationale for my supposition (note, however, the number of times Last uses an uneducated guess to provide support for his overall argument). Solo & Fett operate in the same "industry". For the both of them, it's nothing personal, merely a job. So, when Fett talks to "Captain Solo", he's recognizing him as a fellow professional.

But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn't evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn't want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.

This is his most compelling evidence? Vader doesn't kill Luke because he wants his son to live and join him on the Dark Side. This is the same Vader, remember, who goes through a number of Admirals who have, as their faults, relatively simple mistakes. As for Vader wanting "order", Last fails to mention what kind of "order" we're talking about. Hitler, after all, wanted order as well....

None of which is to say that the Empire isn't sometimes brutal. In Episode IV, Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet, Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors.

This is the problem. The idea that "The Empire Knows Best" belies his previous arguments about the Empire being, in essense, a benevolent dictatorship.

But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.

Whether or not Leia is telling the truth is irrelevant. The Death Star has no military equal and is threatened by no planet, and Tarkin & Vader know it. Both Vader & Tarkin feel up to the end that there's no realistic threat the Rebellion can pose to the Death Star, so why go to such extreme lengths to get Leia to talk? Expediency? Could the Empire be using billions of lives to shorten an interrogation cycle? Isn't that, you know, not benevolent?


Anyway, I'm not even a Star Wars fan.... I feel that Last's point in all of this is that given the choice between trading liberty for order or accepting freedom with anarchy, he'd rather submit to the authoritarian. While everyone's entitled to their opinion, his is not one I share.

[QuikSand]

Just when I thought this couldn't get more absurd.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Just when I thought this couldn't get more absurd.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The most damning response to this write-up is a critique of his "meritocracy (Empire) vs. royalist (Republic/Rebels)" argument. In the Empire, although regional governors may have some level of control (as may generals), all final power rests in 2 Force-users: Vader & the Emperor. It's also made pretty clear that should one of them meet an untimely demise, they'll be replaced by another Force-user (i.e. not a general or a governor). Therefore, there's no real meritocracy. Bear in mind, also, that we never see anything about how people get promoted in the Empire (except when Vader kills someone), so his claim that the Empire is meritocratic is theory, really.

In the Republic/Rebellion, on the other hand, we see a number of instances where non-Force-users (Solo, for example) advance in position and prestige. Queen Amidala, also, you'll remember, was voted into her position. Jar-Jar Binks, even, was raised to a position due (based on Lucas' story, to much hilarity) to merit. The best example, however, is that the commander of all the Rebel forces in Mon Mothma, a non-Force-user, and non-Royal.

There are other problems, too:



This is the heart of his attack on the Republic. I won't quote him in detail since it's already above. Last's point is that a benevolent dictatorship is preferable to an anarchic democracy. While this may (and I stress may) be true in the context of the Star Wars story (though it is certainly not true for the inhabitants of Alderaan), I don't think one can take this argument, part & parcel, and say that it applies to civilizations generally, which is what some people are attempting to do.



This is extremely naive. History has shown us that separatists can have a whole range of motives and that a separatist movement can find room for this range. Some may be in it for profit, some may be in it for a noble new start, some may be in it just for a change. However, to make his point, Last assumes they're all thinking the exact same thing (and the noble thing, at that), which weakens his argument.

Furthermore, as to the bigger question of whether a Republic should allow parts of itself to secede, it's interesting to note that he fails to mention that such an act is something the Empire would not tolerate, and with vicious consequences. In Last's parallel universe, the Union didn't defeat the Confederacy and bring them back into the fold, they obliterated them from the face of the Earth.

Not to mention that the whole "Separatist" movement is merely a plot device, anyway. It is (oh, irony) very easy to look to deeply into this story.



The comparison to Pinochet (why not Saddam?) is where this really begins to fall down. Pinochet's regime had a monstrous effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen, as a for instance, as does the Emperor's. Last conveniently forgets the destruction of Alderaan, for instance, but also fails to note the wholesale destruction of other population centers detailed in the novelizations (which merely contain details chopped from the movies, and so are relevant).



Two very big leaps here. First of all, Last admits he doesn't know anything about the Expanded Universe, but then breezily claims that there are imperial academies throughout the galaxy. Where's his proof? And there's no indication that they accept everyone. Furthermore, Last fails to recognize that a very possible reason for "fast promotions" (another thing we have no real evidence of, but no matter) is the likelihood of high mortality rates amongst the military due to its continuing war against an insurgency (again, Iraq?).

The example of Piett is humorous. Last wants us to be surprised that the Captain of a Super Star Destroyer, the Flagship of the Imperial Navy, gets a battlefield commission to Admiral?



Last forgets the previous dealings between the Skywalkers and the Fetts.



I suspect the latter. Unlike Last, I'll explain the rationale for my supposition (note, however, the number of times Last uses an uneducated guess to provide support for his overall argument). Solo & Fett operate in the same "industry". For the both of them, it's nothing personal, merely a job. So, when Fett talks to "Captain Solo", he's recognizing him as a fellow professional.



This is his most compelling evidence? Vader doesn't kill Luke because he wants his son to live and join him on the Dark Side. This is the same Vader, remember, who goes through a number of Admirals who have, as their faults, relatively simple mistakes. As for Vader wanting "order", Last fails to mention what kind of "order" we're talking about. Hitler, after all, wanted order as well....



This is the problem. The idea that "The Empire Knows Best" belies his previous arguments about the Empire being, in essense, a benevolent dictatorship.



Whether or not Leia is telling the truth is irrelevant. The Death Star has no military equal and is threatened by no planet, and Tarkin & Vader know it. Both Vader & Tarkin feel up to the end that there's no realistic threat the Rebellion can pose to the Death Star, so why go to such extreme lengths to get Leia to talk? Expediency? Could the Empire be using billions of lives to shorten an interrogation cycle? Isn't that, you know, not benevolent?


Anyway, I'm not even a Star Wars fan.... I feel that Last's point in all of this is that given the choice between trading liberty for order or accepting freedom with anarchy, he'd rather submit to the authoritarian. While everyone's entitled to their opinion, his is not one I share.

.

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

[Neon_Chaos]

Sigh.

You want to play on morality and the Force? Go play KOTOR 2. Heh.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I still think that Emperor Palpatine is Darth's father.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Dola: Isnt the movie suppose to tell about The Jedi's objection to the Emperor's attempt to bock the fillibuster?

[flere-imsaho]

So I had a few minutes to wibble on at length. So sue me.

[Leonidas]

Palpatine/Vader = Cheney/Bush?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Palpatine/Vader = Cheney/Bush?

That seems to be the basic jist of RotS... There's some pretty overtly political stuff when Palpatine is turning the Republic into the Empire.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

That seems to be the basic jist of RotS... There's some pretty overtly political stuff when Palpatine is turning the Republic into the Empire.

I feel that the galaxy is better ff under a strong empire, instead of a senate that did nothing.

[kcchief19]

I think this is more of an example of life imitating art than the other way around. The themes in ROTS people are cluthing on to are classic themes that existed long before George W. Bush was an itch in his daddy's pants. Bush wasn't the first person to say "you're with us or against us" -- it was a pretty standard line in the very serials that Lucas borrowed from to create the Star Wars saga in the first place.

I have a lot more respect for the common sense and intelligence of losers who dress up in jedi garb or in stormtrooper armor to go see the movie than I do for the losers on the far right and far left who want to turn a popcorn movie into a parable of the war on terror

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I have a lot more respect for the common sense and intelligence of losers who dress up in jedi garb or in stormtrooper armor to go see the movie than I do for the losers on the far right and far left who want to turn a popcorn movie into a parable of the war on terror

Ditto.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ditto.

double ditto

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

such as Han Solo beginning his "career" in an Imperial Academy. He chooses to include that but ignores the fact that Solo was conscripted against his will into the armed forces and later went AWOL.

You're kidding, right? Han Solo worked HARD to get accepted to the Academy. He got out once he found out how involved the Empire was in running slavery (probably the biggest point ignored in the original article that shows just how bad and evil the empire is).

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Chewbacca owes his life debt to Solo for helping to escape slavery at the hands of the Empire.

Well, you got this point right

Sorry, the first Han Solo Trilogy, and then the "authorized" Trilogy that came out later are my favorite Star Wars books right after "Splinter of the Minds Eye".

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I have a lot more respect for the common sense and intelligence of losers who dress up in jedi garb or in stormtrooper armor to go see the movie than I do for the losers on the far right and far left who want to turn a popcorn movie into a parable of the war on terror

Um, that's Lucas' fault for drawing the parallel.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I have a lot more respect for the common sense and intelligence of losers who dress up in jedi garb or in stormtrooper armor to go see the movie than I do for the losers on the far right and far left who want to turn a popcorn movie into a parable of the war on terror

So on a respect scale, where would you rank losers in Jedi garb and political extremist losers, with say, Jar Jar Binks as a 1, and Obi Wan Kinobi as a 10. I also think you are missing out on the crucial demographic of losers who dress up in Jedi garb and are on the far Right or far Left.