Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

What To Do About Frozen Embryos

A reader writes:

The last number I read put the count of unused frozen embryos in the US at 400,000. 

I couldn’t tell you if that number is correct or not, but it’s certainly huge–whatever the correct number is.

I find that hideously disgusting and wonder if we have ever been so barbaric as we are now, allowing life to become a frozen commodity. 

I don’t know who you mean by "we," but the human race as a whole has been equally or more barbaric than we are now–we simply haven’t had the tech to do this particular barbaric thing before.

If by some miracle our sick society decided to change it’s ways and respect life, what would be the right thing to do with all these embryos?  Does the Church has a position on this?

No. The Magisterium seems to be sitting back and letting moral theologians kick this question around for a while. It’ll probably weigh in on it eventually–perhaps during the pontificate of B16.

I have heard news stories about women volunteering themselves to take these babies to term so that they are not just destroyed.  I can’t see anything wrong with this and actually find it to be a very noble gesture. 

Me, too.

Would it be wrong to just let them die? 

Good question.

Should volunteers be requested to take the babies to term?

Another good question.

What if a couple has 14 embryos in a freezer and suddenly realizes what they did was wrong?  To make it right, should they then try to bring all the babies to term.

Okay, we’re getting good question overload here.

These are just a few questions that came to mind as I was reading various stories.  If you have any insight, could you please blog it?

I’ll tell you what I can. Here is a plausible order of solutions to the problem:

  1. The couple that has created the embryos does its best to implant and bring to term these embryos. This means implanting them in a way that will maximize the chance of their surviving, so not all at once if they have 14 in cryonic suspension. Of course, doing this is expensive, and the couple may hit a limit to the number they can do before the children’s "shelf-life" is gone and they die on their own. Thus . . .
  2. For those children that can’t be raised by their own parents, allowing them to implant in the wombs of volunteer save-a-baby mothers. This also won’t solve the whole problem though, so . . .
  3. Develop artificial wombs and allow the children to develop in them. This also will be unable to fully solve the problem so . . .
  4. Baptize the embryos, knowing that the rapid thawing will result in their deaths. This solution is unlikely to be applied in very many cases, though, so . . .
  5. Allow the children to die (either frozen or upon taking them out of cold storage) and entrust them to God’s mercy.

Now, if no other solution is morally legitimate, then option #5 is morally licit. The question is: Are any of the other solutions morally licit?

While it is certainly wrong for the parents to have created the children in the manner they did, once the children are created it seems quite intutitive to me that it would be morally licit for them to be implanted in their own mother’s womb and brought to term. Thus it strikes me that solution #1 is also morally licit. It seems to be the best way to repair the situation, and I suspect most moral theologians would agree with me on this point.

Solution #2 is where known disagreement comes in. Many moral theologians apparently feel that allowing a baby to incubate in the womb of another woman is Just Wrong even if it means that the alternative for the child is Death.

Personally, I don’t see that. I think that the value of human life is such that, once the life is created, the priority of saving it is such that it would allow implantation in a second womb if this were the only way to do it.

I know that surrogate motherhood, as the institution has evolved in our society, is Very Evil, but it seems to me that we’re talking about something very different here. Surrogate motherhood is conceived of as a way for infertile couples to have kids through a rent-a-womb system. That’s not what’s being proposed in this case.

What we’re talking about here is Saving A Kid’s Life, and that’s a very different thing. It’s one thing to agree to serve as a surrogate mother for a child that isn’t even in existence yet. It’s another to offer to serve as a surrogate mother in order to save the life of a child who can’t (for whatever reason) live in his own mother’s womb.

I’ve heard arguments in this regard about babies having a right to being carried in their own mothers’ wombs, but it seems to me that these are better directed to surrogate motherhood situations than to life-saving situations. It seems to me that the proposed right is one that would operate in a non-absolute fashion. For example, "Yes, the child has a right to be carried to term in his own mother’s womb–unless he already exists and the alternatives are death or temporary residence in another womb."

I understand more clearly the idea that the child has an absolute right to being conceived of his married biological parents in a normal sexual act, but it seems that the incubation stage is not that analogous to conception.

The definitive step in the child’s development–its conception and thus its creation–has already taken place. Incubation in a womb may provide it with nutrition, hydration, oxygen, shelter, and even hormonal interaction, but it does not provide anything definitive of its existence. Temporary residence in another womb thus seems to me more analogous to having a wet nurse after birth (which experience also provides nutrition, hydration, and hormonal interaction) or use of an incubator (providing shelter) or use of a respirator (providing oxygen) or use of all three (thus providing all of these benefits)–than it seems analogous to conception.

Thus–under normal conditions–one would not want to force a wet nurse, an incubator, and a respirator on a child, but if the alternative to these is death then they are morally licit.

I rather suspect many children faced with the alternative of another womb or death would also (upon reaching the age of reason) say that they would prefer the former, that it would not be a violation of their rights, and that denying them this without reason could be viewed as a violation of their right to life.

So I tend to view option #2 as morally licit.

The same goes for option #3. Given what I have just sketched out about providing nutrition, hydration, oxygen, homonal interaction, and shelter through artificial means, I don’t see why a womb has to be organic rather than artificial for it to be morally licit.

Babies are often put into incubator/respirator/artificial-nutrition-and-hydration contraptions for life-saving purposes and it’s regarded as totally morally licit. If this can happen after birth, I don’t see why it can’t happen before birth.

As meaningful as birth is as a human moment for the parents, it doesn’t
seem to be a moral imperative that children detach from the mother by
natural processes only. Indeed, to save their lives preemies are often taken from the womb by cesarean section and placed in such devices and nobody say boo about it morally.

So–at this point in my understanding–I don’t personally see why a life-saving incubator can’t be customized to serve the needs of progressively younger and younger children who can’t survive on their own yet. If it means filling it with warm fluid, fine. If it means allowing the baby to eat and respirate through the placenta rather than by his mouth and nose, fine.

All of this is with the goal of saving the lives of children who already exist, not allowing people to create new kids for purposes of putting in such wombs. Abstracting from the frozen embryo problem, why can’t we develop such
incubators for the children of women about to miscarry at 14 weeks? Why
would the kid have to be 28 weeks old before such an incubator becomes
morally licit? Where do you draw the line? And once the tech exists to save the lives of kids who will otherwise miscarry, why can’t it be used to save the lives of kids who will otherwise die in cold storage?

So it seems to me that option #3 is also morally licit given what I can tell at present.

That leaves us with option #4, which involved baptizing the kids, even knowing that they will die in the process.

In this case the death is not either the goal or a mean toward a goal.
Thus the law of double-effect applies if there is a proportionate
reason. One could certainly argue that giving the children the certainty of eternal life is
proportionate to the shortening of lifespan that would otherwise occur, especially since the alternative would be letting them thaw without baptism and die or simply go "stale" and die in cold storage.

So: There are no firm answers on any of these things, there’s rather a lot of disagreement on all of the above, and we’ll have to wait for the Magisterium to weigh in on these questions, but I hope the above discussion provides some food for thought.

34 . . . Whew!

As folks guessed, I’ve been counting up the number of days Benedict XVI has been pope until they pass 33, the number that John Paul I served.

The reason is that I’ve been concerned about how traumatic it would be for the Church if Benedict XVI had an ultra-short reign.

After the cardinals elected such a wonderful pope, I really, really hope that he gets to shepherd the Church for a long time, though since he is 78, one must be realistic about how long "a long time" is for a person of his maturity.

The new pope himself, apparently, made reference in the conclave to the fact that his reign would be short, and I read in his interview book The Salt of the Earth where he referred to his health having been poor years ago when he first came to work at the Vatican (if I recall correctly).

Then when Benedict skipped the beatification ceremony of a couple of folks, it made me extra nervous, though he didn’t seem to be sick. It may simply be that he wants to devote his time to pressing things (like his first encyclical, for example) without delaying things like beatifications. (I presume he’ll still personally celebrate canonizations, though not necessarily.)

While Pope Benedict has passed an important milestone–the 33 day mark–he still could (God forbid) die in an abnormally short amount of time, and that would also put the Church through a huge convulsion, perhaps ven making the cardinals question whether they had elected the right kind of candidate. (Hopefully they’d focus on Cardinal Ratzinger’s age rather than his orthodoxy as where they went wrong.)

But let’s hope that Benedict XVI still will have a lot of time to shepherd the Church, to consolidate the gains of his predecessor, and to make his own unique contributions.

God bless Benedict XVI!

HERE’ZA SUMMARY WITH ANALYSIS OF HIS FIRST MONTH IN OFFICE.

LEFTIST TO LEFT: I’m Leaving You

SanFran Chronicle columnist Keith Thompson writes (EXCERPTS):

I walk away from a long-term
intimate relationship. I’m separating not from a person but a cause: the
political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character
and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I’m leaving the left  —  more precisely, the American cultural left and
what it has become during our time together.

My estrangement hasn’t happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I
watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see.
Now it’s all too obvious.

Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept
at not taking the measure of the left’s mounting incoherence. To face it
directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first
to myself and then to others.

GET THE STORY.

LEFTIST TO LEFT: I'm Leaving You

SanFran Chronicle columnist Keith Thompson writes (EXCERPTS):

I walk away from a long-term

intimate relationship. I’m separating not from a person but a cause: the

political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character

and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I’m leaving the left  —  more precisely, the American cultural left and

what it has become during our time together.

My estrangement hasn’t happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I

watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see.

Now it’s all too obvious.

Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept

at not taking the measure of the left’s mounting incoherence. To face it

directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first

to myself and then to others.

GET THE STORY.

How To Kill A Major Character

One of my interests is the dynamics of fiction. Even though I don’t get much of a chance to write fiction myself, the subject fascinates me, and I seem to have a knack for it. Friends sometimes consult me about plot problems in their own works of fiction and seem to be pleased with the solutions I propose.

It seems to me that there are two basic ways to kill a major character who is one of the good guys in a story.

The first method is the shock killing. This occurs when one has established the major character and unexpectedly whacks him a substantial distance before the end of the story. This is done to freak out and unsettle the audience. When done well, it makes the audience afraid by suddenly crushing out the hope that the character seemed to carry and makes them wonder how the surviving main characters will achieve their goals now that the great hope has been extinguished.

An example of a successful shock killing is the death of Scatman Caruther’s character in the movie version of The Shining. With creepy, evil stuff going on in the Overlook Hotel, the boy in the movie has telepathically summoned Scatman Caruthers, who represents the boy’s best chance to escape back to the world of sanity. Yet when Scatman takes an axe in the chest as soon as he arrives at the Hotel, this hope is ended forever, leaving the audience to wonder what will happen next. How will the boy ever survive?

Another example of a successful shock killing is the death of Qui-Gon Jinn toward the end of Star Wars I (as many flaws as that movie had overall, Qui-Gon’s death was effective).

The problem with the shock killing is that, if the character is too major and too beloved by the audience, it will alienate many of them. As a result, the shock killing is not used that much as it is rather hard to pull off.

More common is what may be called the climactic death  This occurs when the death of the major character occurs at the climax (or a climax) of the story.

For the climactic death to work, a number of factors have to be in place. The death needs to seem inevitable, emotionally weighty, and meaningful. If these conditions are not met, the audience feels cheated, with the death seeming arbitrary (non-inevitable) and frivolous (non-emotionally weighty or meaningless). From these requirements, several plot elements regarding the death tend to fall out:

  1. There has to be no other alternative to the death. Though the characters may seek other alternatives only to have them eliminated, in the end the audience must understand that there are no alternatives to the character’s death. Otherwise they will feel that the death was arbitrary.
  2. To make the death feel emotionally weighty, it must occur at the climax (or a climax) of the story.
  3. Also to keep the death emotionally weighty, it frequently must take time rather than happening in an instant.
  4. Since climaxes need to be seen coming a long way off, the audience generally needs to see the death coming in advance, with a building sense of doom as it approaches. (This is a distinguishing characteristic of the climactic death compared to the shock killing.)
  5. To make the character’s death seem meaningful to the audience there frequently needs to be a goal that he sacrifices his life to achieve, making his death a heroic sacrifice.
  6. Finally, between the usual needs to see the death coming in advance and for it to be a heroic sacrifice, the sequence of events that leads to the death usually needs to be closely tied to the main plot.

An example of a successful climactic death is that of Mr. Spock at the end of The Wrath of Kahn. Here all the elements are met: (1) Spock is the only one who can save the Enterprise, due to his unique physiology. (2) It occurs at the climax of the movie. (3) Spock doesn’t die immediately upon going into the radiation-filled chamber. His death takes time. (4) We see it coming in advance, particularly after all the talk of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and then seeing the Enterprise in a situation only Spock can save it from. (5) Spock heroically sacrifices himself in order to save his shipmates. And (6) the main plot of the movie (Kahn’s quest for revenge against Kirk) is what drives Spock to make this sacrifice.

The most spectacularly unsuccessful major character death that I can think of was the original death of Tasha Yar in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It violated all kinds of rules: It was an attempt to combine the shock killing with the climactic death, and it totally flopped. Tasha was walking along on an away mission in front of an evil creature, when suddenly the evil creature lashed out and killed her.

It didn’t happen at a climax (violating Rule 2). It happened way too quick (violating Rule 3). We didn’t see it coming in advance (violating Rule 4). It wasn’t a heroic sacrifice to achieve an important goal (violating Rule 5). It seemed arbitrary as the creature could have struck anyone or Tasha could have walked outside its reach (violating Rule 1). About the only rule that it might have obeyed was it was tied to the main plot (i.e., dealing with the evil creature).

The second deat of Tasha (going back in time to save the Federation from a crucial historical misstep) was much more satisfaying dramatically–and went far to redeem the first death (which the new episode confessed was "meaningless")–though in the end they welched on this and decided that Tasha survived her heroic sacrifice.

The most recent Star Trek attempt to kill a major character–Trip Tucker–also failed horribly.

This was a remarkably unsatisfying death. It was nowhere near as horrible as the first Tasha death (’cause it didn’t violate as many rules), but it was bad enough. Here’s why:

  • The death managed to honor rules 1-3, and 5. It honored Rule 1 because the episode made it clear to us that in order to save Captain Archer there were no other (clear) alternatives. Further, the self-sacrifice occurred at a climax, satisfying Rule 2. And it took a while, so we got a "goodbye" scene in sick bay, satisfying Rule 3.
  • Things get shaky with Rule 4: Whild we were told way in advance that Trip would die, we didn’t see the act of self-sacrifice until moments before he made it. Rule 4 was thus only satisfied in a pro forma way in that the audience was told what would happen but not in a plot-level way by letting the events themselves reveal what needed to happen.
  • Rule 5 was completely bungled. Trip didn’t die saving the universe or even the Federation. His motivation for self-sacrifice was much murkier. It wasn’t an act of duty or friendship (though these may have played roles in it) but an apparent attempt to enable the Captain to keep his schedule in order to make an important speech–one that Trip had no good reason to think the future hinged on. This came across as totally stupid.
  • Rule 6 was the most egregiously violated. There weren’t sinister anti-Federation forces trying to keep the Captain from making his oh-so-important speech. That would have (despite the implausibility of hinging all of history on a speech) at least tied the forces they were fighting into the goal that they were trying to achieve. Instead, the folks who drove Trip to self-sacrifice were passing, never-before-seen hoodlums who the Captain himself involved himself with and then honked off.

Listen, Star Trek guys: Next time y’all get a series (not any time soon) or a movie (probably ditto) and you wanna kill off a major character, please note the above list before you do so.

It’ll save y’all a lot of grief.

That Awful Last Episode Of Trek

Ick!

Okay, now that everyone (who wanted to) should have had a chance to see the final episode of Star Trek Enterprise, whenever it got aired in their local market, I can complain about it without giving away spoilers.

If, for some reason, you didn’t see it and don’t want to be spoiled, stop reading now.

SPOILER SPACE:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Now, the producers tried to spin this episode as "a love letter to the fans," but it left me feeling more like I’d received a "Dear John" letter.

Even after details emerged (amid complaints from castmembers, notably Jolene Blalock) about what the episode would involve, I tried to keep an open mind, particularly in light of how much better Manny Coto had made the series in its last season.

But apparently boneheaded writing reasserted itself for the final episode, no doubt at the behest of the producers.

Here’s the basic idea: The last episode of Enterprise . . . wasn’t an Episode of Enterprise at all.

STUPID THING #1

It was an episode of Next Gen. Specifically, it’s set in the seventh season of Next Gen. This was so the producers could bring back Riker and Troi and have them guest star, as if watching the actors portray characters they’re now 12 years too old to play would be a "magical" experience for fans.

But they don’t get Riker and Troi hooked up with the Enterprise crew by time travel (which could be cool). Instead . . .

STUPID THING #2

The whole episode is a freakin’ holodeck adventure! Sheesh!

Riker is playing the holodeck adventure to try to find guidance for a Big Decision that he’s got to make (and which you already know the outcome of it you watched the seventh season of Next Gen), and so he decided to play a holodeck adventure set on the (apparent) founding day of the Federation to sort things through by watching someone else make a Big Decision.

Does Riker get the help he needs?

STUPID THING #3

No! He doesn’t! When it’s become clear whose Big Decision he was focused on (Trip), and after he’s watched Trip make it, and when he asks Trip if he has any advice about making his own Big Decision, holo-Trip says nope, he doesn’t! Riker will just have to figure it out for himself.

Now, what was Trip’s Big Decision?

This has to do with the main dramatic action of the episode.

It is, after all, the (apparent) founding day of the Federation, so you’d expect the main action of the episode to be tightly bound up with the founding of the Federation. The crew of the Enterprise ought to be thwarting some last-minute threat to the Federation that could unwravel Star Trek history as we know it if they fail. Instead,

STUPID THING #4.

The main dramatic action of the episode has nothing to do with the founding of the Federation. Instead, the characters interrupt their Federation-founding schedule go galavanting off and help Andorian recurring-character Shran (Jeffrey Coombs, nee Weyoun and Brunt) rescue his daughter from kidnappers.

This was a bad, bad move on the part of the writers/producers. Never have your Big Finale deal with a threat completely unrelated to the main thing the viewers have tuned in to see (and, in fact, been waiting years for you to finally get around to showing them).

The previous two episodes–which did focus on a threat to the founding of the Federation–were far better and would have made a far better finale to the series than this tacked-on doo-dad.

So how does all this hook into Trip’s Big Decision?

STUPID THING #5

Well, the alien kidnappers get mad at the Enterprise crew for snatching the little girl from them and so they come after them, cornering Captain Archer and Trip.

Now the thing is: Captain Archer is s’pposed to give an inspiring speech at the (apparent) founding of the Fedration, and "I’m sorry but he was just killed or otherwise delayed by kidnappers" is not going to be an acceptable excuse for not making it.

Thus in a "Gotta git the Cap’n to the church on time" frenzy, Trip uses his engineering wiles to undertake an action that he reasonably foresees will kill the kidnappers–and himself–while leaving the captain free to go make his uber-important speech.

That’s the Big Decision.

Only the whole thing falls completely flat because (a) it’s implausible to think that the whole future of the Federation hinges on this speech and there are no valid excuses for not making it or being late and (b) Trip had no reason to think that this speech was so crucial that he needed to sacrifice his life for the captain to make it.

It might have been different if Trip had simply sacrificed himself for the sake of his captain out of duty or for his friend out of friendship, but dragging the speech into it casts a whole "saving history" aspect over the whole thing that is completely implausible. If they’d at least had a time traveller show up to tell them "The captain must make this speech or the future will come crashing down in flames" that would have at least given Trip a better reason to do what he did–even if it would still be acting on a totally stupid premise.

But then

STUPID THING #6

We get a post-Big Decision scene in sickbay where it looks like Trip might survive (except that we’ve been told by Riker and Troi that he won’t). Thus Trip goes smiling into some kinda big cat scan device, only to have us find out next thing that he really is D-A-I-D.

A pointless major character killing in the service of a boneheaded premise distracting the reader from the main plot the viewer tuned in to see, wrapped in a freakin’ holodeck story in a pseudo-Next Gen episode.

What drek!

Oh, and what about loose ends, like Cap’n Archer’s crucial speech?

STUPID THING #7

We never get to hear it! Not one syllable! All that build-up and we don’t even get to see what was so important that a major character had to die for it!

And what, then, about that two-season loose end: Trip’s relationship with T’Pol?

STUPID THING #8

Nothing comes of it!

After shoving the relationship down the viewers’ throats for two seasons, after establishing that there was ongoing romantic chemistry between the two, after establishing that they were telepathically linked on some level as a result of their relationship, after having the two of them discover a technologically-created daughter of theirs in the previous two episodes, after having that daughter die tragically (causing both of them to tear up), and after ending THE VERY PRECEDING EPISODE with the two of them holding hands and tearfully talking about how it would be possible for a Human and a Vulcan to have a baby together if they wanted . . . NOTHING COMES OF THIS!

Rick Berman and Brandon Braga, what the heck were y’all thinking?

After the viewers have been made to suffer so much from the incompetent set-up of this relationship, the least you could do would be to PAY IT OFF by having them become the first Human-Vulcan married couple, setting the stage for Spock’s parents later on.

After that tearful, hand-holding, "Y’know, T’Pol, a Human and a Vulcan could have a baby iff’n they wanted to, wink, wink, nudge, nudge" scene, simply dropping the relationship (and pointing out explicitly and repeatedly in the finale that it was dropped) is a TOTAL letdown.

I’m sorry. Y’all may have meant this as a love letter to the fans, but after watching it I feld like I’d received a "Dear John" letter instead.

You can see why.

Another Anti-Spoiler

Anti-spoilers (revelations that something does not happen in a movie, show, or book) can not only help folks who haven’t seen/read it yet from getting their hopes up. They can also help them not to needlessly worry about what the fear the work might contain.

You may have read press accounts that try to interpret Star Wars Episode III as an anti-American parable of some kind.

Don’t worry ’bout that.

This story was apparently set off following the debut of the film at Cannes, France.

Now the thing about France is, they just loooove America over there. So much so that they want to be a "counterweight" for us.

They love our President even more.

They’re so pro-American and pro-Bush that they’re obsessed with them, so any time they see anything in the movies that can plausibly be interpreted as being a symbol of America or Bush, that’s how they interpret it.

Their affection for us is touching.

That’s what’s going on here. T’ain’t nuthin’ to it.

I feel a bit sorry for the folks over yonder who are so caught up in Bushmania that they lept to this interpretation. It reveals that they don’t know their own history–European history–which is what Lucas is really playing off of.

Ever since Episode IV originally came out, Lucas has been playing off the history of ancient Rome. Y’know how in Episode IV Grand Moff Tarkin (sounds like Tarquin–an important name in Roman history) announces that "the Emperor has dissolved the Imperial Senate–permanently–sweeping away the last vestiges of the Old Republic."

That’s straight outta Roman history. Any time you get an Emperor, and Empire, a Senate, and a Republic being supplanted by an Empire, you’ve got an allusion to Roman history.

In fact, the term "Emperor" comes from the reign of Augustus Caesar. In Latin the word for "Emperor" (Imperator) was voted a title to Augustus (nee Octavian) as a substitute for the term "king," for Romans were very proud of the fact that they didn’t have a king. They could have one in reality–as long as they didn’t call him a king–so they called him an Imperator. Their subjects, some of whom shouted "We have no king but Caesar!" a few years later–were not fooled by the different in terms.

The term "empire" also comes from this.

The "Senate," of course, was the body that ruled Rome and voted folks titles like "Emperor."

And the "Republic" was what Rome became once they kicked out their last king (Tarquin the Proud). The term is Latin for res publica or "public thing"–a reference to the political order or "public thing" of Rome.

Now, the Roman Republic proved not to be stable. With time it became corrupt, with ineffective leadership.

Eventually a guy named Julius Caesar showed up and decided to provide strong, decisive leadership, even if it meant backstabbing his colleagues on his way to absolute power. This led to . . . civil war (dum! dum! dum!) . . . and to avoid perpetetual civil war, the Senate voted Caesar progressively more dictatorial powers until he became "dictator for life."

His successor, Octavian (later Augustus), became the first Emperor and continued with dictatorial powers lest civil war break out again.

Any of this sound familiar?

Yeah! It sounds just like what we’ve been watching (in an altered form) in Episodes I-III.

Palpatine’s rise from Senator to Chancellor in Episode I mirrors Julius Caesar’s rise. The Roman Civil Wars that led to Julius being voted dictatorial powers are mirrored in the Clone Wars. And Palpatine’s creation as Emperor mirrors the voting of the title to Augustus. (Oh yeah, and <SPOILER SWIPE>there was an assassination of Julius in this time, mirroring the attempted assassination of Palpatine</SPOILER SWIPE>.)

Rome, not contemporary American politics, is the central organizing framework for what Lucas is doing.

That’s not to say that there’s no reference to American history in there. In Episode II the separatist movement is modelled on the Confederacy. It’s even called "the Confederacy of Independent Systems" (also an allusion to the Commonwealth of Independent States that used to be the Soviet Union) in the script.

As to allusions to more recent American history, there ain’t many. Maybe an individual line of dialogue here or there, but that’s it.

When episode I came out in 1999, Clinton was still on the throne and the Monica Lewinsky Scandal was still big news, and I couldn’t help thinking that Palpatine’s line that Chancellor Finis Valorum (Latin = "Last of the Valiant") was a good man brought low by scandal derived from "baseless allegations" had an echo of Lucas’ views of the Clinton-Lewinsky mess, but I couldn’t prove it in court.

The timing of this also puts the lie to the anti-Bush interpretation. The "corrupt Senate > civil war  > empire" stoyr was overtly set up in Episode I, which came out in 1999 and was written at least 3 years earlier than that. Waaaay before 9/11 and the events that followed.

Episode II came out in 2002 (and was written no later than about 1999), making it too early for the manufactured Clone Wars to be an allusion to the Iraq War, which happened in 2003 (and it would be silly to suppose that they were an allusion to the toppline of the Taliban).

So when Episode III comes out and we see the endgame of the scenario played out on screen, it just ain’t based on contemporary American history. It’s Roman history redux.

The single line of dialogue that could plausibly be read as a riff on contemporary American politics is Anakin’s line at the end of the film about "If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy." That maybe, kinda, coulda be interpreted as a riff on Bush’s line post-9/11 (or on Jesus Christ’s pre-9/11 line), but you couldn’t prove either one of these in court.

In any event, it’s too slim a basis on which to interpret Episode III as some kind of anti-American parable, no matter how awitter our French friends may be.

(And yes, Obi-Wan’s reply about only Sith dealing in absolutes is stupid; the Jedi clearly have absolutes. This is why Lucas really needs a good script doctor. It would be so easy to fix that line. Even "Only a Sith deals with that kind of absolutes" would do it.)

So yeah, Lucas is a Lib, but he’s not doing any kind of serious anti-Bush or anti-America riff here.

In fact, press reports report:

Lucas said he wrote Portman’s line ]about liberty dying to thunderous applause] and the screenplay’s other
politically pointed elements [like Anakin’s with me or agin’ me line] before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks and the subsequent war on terror.

Lucas’ yes-man Rick McCallum also is quoted as saying:

"First of all, we never thought of Bush ever becoming president," "Star
Wars" producer Rick McCallum said, "or then 9/11, the Patriot Act, war,
weapons of mass destruction. Then suddenly you realize, ‘Oh, my God,
there’s something happening that looks like we’re almost prescient.’
And then we thought, ‘Well, yeah, but he’ll never make it to the second
term, so we’ll look like we just made some wacky political parody of a
guy that everybody’s forgotten.’ "

GO FIG.

NOTE: THE BELOW WILL ALSO BE A SPOILER-FRIENDLY COMBOX. IF YOU WANT TO AVOID SPOILERS, USE THE SPOILER-FREE COMBOX DOWN YONDER.