Avatar: A Sunglass Wearer’s Review

December 23, 2009 at 9:01 am | In Entertainment Review | Leave a Comment

In the 1988 film They Live, “Rowdy” Roddy Pipper discovers he is living in a society which has been overrun by a malevolent alien presence. The invaders, disguised as humans, have infiltrated every nook and cranny of society, controlling government and other institutions. They propagate their will through subliminal messages dispensed in media. Special sunglasses enable the wearer to see through the alien illusion, revealing both the content of subliminal messaging and the identity of the aliens themselves. It is with homage to this film that Fightin Words presents entertainment reviews intended to look beneath the surface and decode the messages and influences within. As this objective is substantially different from the typical entertainment review, the reader should expect spoilers.

Human beings are a disease, a cancerous infection which will kill this planet before moving out into the galaxy to kill others. Such is the apparent thesis of Avatar, a landmark film which has been in the works for many years.

The author of Avatar is James Cameron, director of Titanic, Aliens, and the better Terminator films. Cameron has long been a trailblazer in the craft of filmmaking, leveraging state-of-the-art technology to produce imagery unlike anything seen before. Seeing Avatar in a format other than IMAX 3D would be like going back to the middle of the last century and watching a Technicolor film in black and white. It would not be the intended experience. Just as early adopter’s of color sometimes chose outrageous palates (the Star Trek and Batman television shows come to mind), an early adopter of 3D might be tempted to throw objects in the viewer’s face. Cameron avoids such gratuitous gimmickry. Instead, his use of 3D serves only to immerse the audience further into the world portrayed on screen. After the first five minutes, one’s awareness of the third-dimension becomes minimal, much as one’s awareness of lighting, color, or other aspects of film typically fade to the background while remaining essential to the overall experience.

Aside from 3D, the other technology fully realized is computer animation. Motion capture techniques have allowed filmmakers to transfer actors’ performances to computer generated characters for several years. However, none have done so on the scale of Avatar, or with as much success. This film proves that literally anything is possible. There may be no limit to what can be portrayed on screen. With perhaps only a few years of development, directors may be able to bring back actors from the dead to reprise old roles; and the performances alongside others will be thoroughly convincing. Whether such a capacity will lead to anything good is yet to be seen. But it is certainly amazing to behold.

It is unfortunate Cameron wastes this impressive technology on the craft of blatant propaganda. Vulnerable viewers , particularly children, will likely come away convinced Earth is a living conscious organism being maliciously murdered by corporations and consumers. Previous films have attempted to carry this water. Roland Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening come to mind. But none have been as effective. Cameron is a master of weaving character and narrative. Although the story of Avatar is fairly cookie-cutter and predictable, its execution is sublime, making it a potent delivery system for the political and social messages within.

The most creative aspect of the story is reflected in the title. Protagonist Jake Sully, played ably by relative newcomer Sam Worthington, is a marine turned corporate mercenary who utilizes technology to project his consciousness into a genetically engineered alien body. In this avatar form, Sully is able to interact with the natives of Pandora, a planet which contains many natural wonders, including a rare mineral valuable to human enterprise. Sully’s mission is to convince the natives, called Na’vi, to relocate from their village atop a rich deposit of the mineral his employer seeks. As Sully learns the Na’vi ways, and cozies up to the chieftain’s daughter, it becomes increasingly clear that violent conflict is inevitable. You can imagine how it goes from there, and you would be right.

The science fiction set pieces thinly veil analogs of Western military powers, capitalism, and aboriginal peoples. The story primarily serves to protest Western institutions and promote the New Age religion of environmentalism, human inferiority to nature, and accountability to a collective consciousness. Here are a few examples: The facility from which the human corporation operates on Pandora has a pentagon-shaped perimeter. The Na’vi are referred to as terrorists after defending their homes. The dress and grooming of the Na’vi is lifted directly from Native American culture. The term “shock and awe” is used. The term “preemptive strike” is used. The term “tree-hugger” is repeatedly used in a derogatory manner by the villains. The Na’vi have the ability to physically link with the plants and animals of their planet and share their consciousness. Dead Na’vi are said to return to the “Mother,” a pantheistic consciousness composed of Pandora’s collective lifeforce. Pseudo-scientific explanations lend credence to this native religion; at one point Signorney Weaver tries to explain to her corporate master that the planet’s trees share neurological connections similar too and more numerous than the human brain. Pandora is alive, you are meant to infer, and the humans are killing Her.

At no point is any distinction made between Pandora’s nature and Earth’s. In fact, in a prayer to the Na’vi nature god which occurs late in the film, Jake Sully says of his fellow humans, “There is no green [on Earth]. They killed their mother.” The implication is Earth too is a kind of pantheistic entity superior to its inhabitants. If the resolution of Avatar is meant to suggest a real world solution to environmental problems, Cameron’s prescription is the elimination of humanity. The timing of this film’s release with the end of the climate convention in Copenhagen and the emerging debate over cap-and-trade seems as intentional as the two-dimensional portrayal of its human villains. One may note much of the rhetoric surrounding Copenhagen, and the environmental movement in general, calls for much of humanity to be wiped from the earth. Despite Copenhagen’s apparent failure, if its real life villains get their way, increased food prices will surely lead to a thinning of the Third World herd. It will not be the 75% to 90% reduction in human population some have called for. But, as Hitler would likely agree, a few million is a good start.

Daily Kos Founder Gets It Right

December 22, 2009 at 7:29 am | In Political | Leave a Comment

Regarding Senate compromises on healthcare reform which have led to its moving forward, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal blog Daily Kos, told “Meet the Press” on Sunday:

I don’t think this is a reform bill.  I mean, I think it’s very clear, this is not insurance or healthcare reform.  What it is, it’s allowing more people, 30 million people, to buy into the existing broken system.  It’s very important to keep in mind that healthcare insurance is not the same as health care.  Insurance, not the same as care.  If you go up to Massachusetts, they have a, a mandate as well, and last year 21 percent of people in Massachusetts could not get health care because they could not afford it.  Even though they had insurance, the premiums–not the premiums, the deductibles, copays and out-of-pocket expenses were too high.  So really, this isn’t reform.  It’s expanding the system, it’s almost rewarding the existing system.  Now, what is important about this is that it actually puts the federal government, puts America on the place to say health care is a right, it’s not a privilege to just those who are–who can afford it or who are lucky enough to have a good job that has good benefits.  But as far as reform goes, I think this is a long battle that we have ahead of us.

Although I am ideologically opposed to Mr. Moulitsas, and wish to see a very different kind of healthcare reform than he would prescribe, there is much he says here which I agree with. He indicates an understanding of what insurance is, and what it is not. Indeed, insurance is not the same as care. It is therefore facetious to refer to an effort to provide healthcare to all as “insurance reform,” as has been done by many. I agree an individual mandate will neither provide everyone with the care they need nor reform the insurance industry in a positive sense. I agree an individual mandate would provide tremendous benefit to insurance companies (despite the fact they would no longer be selling true insurance).

Wealth will be redistributed, not from the rich to the poor, but from unwilling individuals to corporations engaged in an insidious relationship with the state. This will accomplish none of what any benevolent party, regardless of ideology, wants to accomplish. Those who truly believe the government should provide healthcare to all will not see that happen. Those who believe the government should stay out of healthcare will not see that happen. Those who cannot afford insurance now will not be able to afford it later. The truly indigent will remain so. The only parties who will actually benefit from this bill are government and insurance companies. Government will be empowered to intrude deeper into the lives of citizens than ever before. Insurance companies will have millions of new customers compelled to do business at the point of a gun. In every way possible, this bill will fail the American people.

Where Moulitsas and I disagree, of course, is the notion that healthcare is a right. Access to healthcare may be regarded as a right, insofar as it should not be denied for non-medical discriminatory reasons. But there is a difference between access and provision. We have no right to any provision. Once blacks could sit anywhere on a bus, they were still expected to pay for it. Government provision of healthcare would be an entitlement, fundamentally the opposite of a right. Rights indicate what others cannot take from you, not what you can take from others. That said, it is somewhat ironic that a political effort ostensibly intended to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor now appears set to do precisely the opposite.

Congress Wishes You A Very Commie Christmas

December 21, 2009 at 10:44 am | In Podcast | Leave a Comment

Coming out of the weekend, it is increasingly clear the Senate will pass socialized medicine with the first vote likely before Christmas. The Minneapolis Star Tribune touts a Congressional Budget Office estimate which suggests spending hundreds of billions of dollars will somehow cut $132 billion from the deficit, a concept plainly nonsensical. We take a look at how the CBO came up with that number, and why its bogus. Then we evoke the oft-neglected concept of posterity, how it dominated the thoughts of our Founding Fathers, and how seemingly no one pays it any mind today. Lastly, we sample an upcoming “sunglass wearer’s” review of James Cameron’s Avatar.

The Unenviable Catholic Conservative

December 16, 2009 at 3:32 am | In Podcast, Political, Religous | Leave a Comment

“Redistributive justice” has a clear ally in the Catholic Church. Those of us who oppose socialism are therefore placed in the unenviable position of contenting with Catholic doctrine. Pope Benedict attempted yesterday to convict “rich” industrialized nations to assume responsibility for the environmental affects of their citizen’s lifestyles. Summarizing the pope’s address, Reuters writes:

“… technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency.”

<snip>

Environmental concerns too often took a back seat to what [the pope] called “myopic economic interests,” adding the international community and governments had a moral duty to “send the right signals” to effectively combat misuse of the environment.

Of course, the immediate question ought to be; how should societies “encourage more sober lifestyles?” In a vacuum, the pope’s remarks might be dismissed as inspirational rhetoric, like a parent encouraging their child to eat their vegetables. However, these remarks are not made in a vacuum. They are timed to coincide with the United Nation’s climate change conference in Copenhagen, which this week aims to reach an agreement obligating rich nations, including the United States, to pay climate reparations to third world countries through an administration of global government.

This move by the Catholic Church to rhetorically support institutionalized redistribution of wealth is not its first. Liberal commentator Jack Clark, host of a podcast called Blast The Right, advances a challenge to conservative Christians to reconcile their political views with the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25, which mandates Christians to care for “the least of these [Christ's] brethren” (i.e. the poor). Clark asserts that conservative Christians who oppose redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor do so in violation of Matthew 25. Clark relies heavily on Catholic social doctrine to support his position, relishing in what he clearly perceives to be a delicious irony. Indeed, Catholics are specifically and directly charged by the doctrine Clark cites to correct “systematic structures of sin” with “systematic structural solutions.” Clark argues such solutions can only come from government, and challenges conservatives to provide an “equivalent alternative solution” which helps the same amount of people in the same way, just as fast, just as certainly. In a recent Fightin Words podcast, I take on this challenge and provide what I believe to be a superior alternative solution to socialist economic policies. Key to this refutation is a direct confrontation with the Catholic Church.

As an authoritarian institution positioned as intermediary between man and God, the Catholic Church shares a defining characteristic with the state. Governments likewise act as intermediaries, intervening in the affairs of citizens to correct injustice. The Catholic Church is a form of ecclesiastical government which has at times been incestuously entangled with civil states or served as the state outright. So it should be no surprise to see Catholic doctrine supporting state intervention and centralized power. The question for conservative and libertarian Catholics becomes; is the Church infallible?

The Church has a vested interest in supporting the ideas advanced by President Barrack Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech last week. “We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected.” This quote was delivered in the context of advocating “evolved human institutions” to promote peace. It implies imperfect humanity can somehow manifest institutions capable of perfected results. If that is so, such institutions must be pursued, empowered, and supported. Clearly, the Catholic Church would derive an existential benefit from such a mandate. The alternative view, that humanity’s imperfection precludes the possibility of substantial evolution, to say nothing of perfected conditions, endangers institutions like the Catholic Church, the United Nations, and any oligarchy regarding itself separate and superior to the unwashed masses of humanity.

What say you Catholics? How would you answer Clark’s “equivalent alternative solutions” challenge? Do you agree with Pope Benedict’s comments regarding environmental responsibility? How do you reconcile your political beliefs with your religious ones?

Robin Hood: Prince of Patriots

December 15, 2009 at 6:50 am | In Society and Culture | 2 Comments

I find it interesting that the English folk hero Robin Hood is best known  as a thief. Given his tendency to dispense loot to the poor, Hood’s thievery may seem iconic and exemplary to those who advocate the kind of “redistributive justice” spoken of by President Barrack Obama. However, when one delves deeper into the folklore, Hood seems far more iconic of something entirely different.

We must acknowledge folklore is never definitive. There is no canon, so to speak. Folklore evolves, grows, and takes on new dimensions. The earliest known references to Robin Hood suggest him to have been a commoner with no real political bent aside from an affinity for the lower classes. This version might rightly be considered somewhat analogous to modern “progressives.” However, later visions portray Hood as Robin of Loxley, a disenfranchised nobleman, a loyalist forced into exile amidst a treasonous regime. This latter characterization raises an interesting challenge to the description of Hood’s occupation as simply “stealing from the rich to give to the poor.”

Contemporary visions of Hood show him to be an outlaw only from the perspective of an illegitimate government. Hood does not steal from the “rich” arbitrarily. He targets those who have taken up with a usurper and directly profited from a pilfer of the masses. The treasonous Prince John persecutes his subjects for hunting “the King’s deer,” declaring all natural resources the property of the government. The people’s crops and wares are seized through taxation, leaving them cold and hungry. Hood works to restore the people’s capacity to provide for themselves. He does not do so singlehandedly or without cost to those he aids. He asks them to serve in the cause of their own freedom, even unto death. Also noteworthy is Hood’s eventual mediation between the classes. Hood has no malice toward the upper class, his class. Indeed, he acts in the name of King Richard the Lionheart. He acts to restore what is considered, in the context of his time and country, proper government. He becomes a hero and kin of both the people and their king. Given these qualities, does not Robin Hood seem more like a modern tea party patriot than a thieving advocate of socialism?

Obama Calls For Perfected Human Condition

December 13, 2009 at 7:07 am | In Podcast | 2 Comments

As I perused remarks from President Barrack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, I was surprised by the extent to which I agreed with them. In particular, these excerpts resonated:

War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man…

<snip>

We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

… As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I found these comments amazing coming from the most liberal president in American history. They demonstrate an awareness of human nature which is antithetical to many of the policies Obama pursues. One must wonder how that is possible. How can Obama understand human nature, yet act as though he did not understand it? He provides a hint of an answer.

“We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected.”

If you find that sentiment perplexing, you have good reason. It defies plain sense. How can we perfect the human condition if our nature is imperfect? Again, Obama provides a hint:

Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

Evolved human institutions will perfect the human condition? Forgive my conceit at questioning the sage wisdom of John F. Kennedy, but how can a human institution accomplish something outside the scope of human nature? Obama does not overtly say. But he does provide a list of goals such an institution should pursue.

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force.

<snip>

Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

<snip>

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

These pillars of Obama’s vision for “just peace” can only manifest from a sovereign global institution empowered to enforce its will upon the nations of the world, most conspicuously by redistributing wealth. In other words, Obama is calling for a communist world government. He does so while pointing to the environmental cause of Copenhagen, where a treaty which could establish such a government is set to be signed this week.

By acknowledging the fallibility of human nature and then calling for an institution to perfect the human condition, Obama suggests the inherent superiority of whoever could craft such an institution. For if human nature is fallible, as Obama admits, then any human institution will likewise be fallible. An institution cannot evolve beyond the beings which constitute it. So, the question is raised; does Obama maintain an institution’s nature can surpass that of the people who constitute it? Or does Obama believe some people are perfect, and therefore capable of  constituting a perfect institution? Either explanation for Obama’s remarks is cause for concern.

Entitlitis: A Progressive Mental Disorder

December 10, 2009 at 7:50 am | In Political | 1 Comment

en⋅ti⋅tl⋅i⋅tis

[en-tahy-tl-ahy-tis] noun.

a psychosis characterized by the subject’s inability to discern rights from entitlements, most common among proponents of “social or redistributive justice.” Commonly diagnosed alongside fairmania*, patients afflicted with entitlistis are functionally incapable of distinguishing the concept of unfettered access from the concept of provision. A contemporary example would be the inability to discern the right to access healthcare services from an entitlement to receive those services at a cost reduced or waived.

Although further research is required, it is believed entitlitis most likely results from institutional deficiencies experienced during childhood, particularly parental neglect to instruct wards of the necessity to earn provisions. Since the nature of childhood is such that sustenance is provided as a condition of custody, if children are not instructed to expect otherwise, they may expect to have sustenance provided perpetually. Left unchecked, this expectation may become irreversible, leaving the afflicted functionally retarded and vulnerable to becoming the ward of any party who will provide sustenance.

Case Study – Barbara Boxer

The proposed environmental causes of entitlitis are supported by the pervasive nature of the disorder in recent decades. The seemingly exponential spread of the disorder may be a consequence of undiagnosed cases achieving leadership positions in some of the every institutions whose deficiencies contribute to its spread.

A potential contemporary case study is the United States senator from California, Barbara Boxer. Recent evidence of possible entitlitis came in the form of her arguments on the Senate floor indicating a perceived “right” to tax-payer subsidized abortions. Arguing against a proposed amendment to the currently debated health care reform bill which would restrict purchasers of government-subsidized insurance policies from filing claims to cover the cost of abortion, Boxer stated, “Why are women being singled out here? It’s so unfair. We don’t tell men that if they want to … buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can’t do it.” An analysis of these comments indicates potential fairmania*, a condition commonly associated with entitlitis. Also noteworthy is the senator’s inability to distinguish purchasing a product in the private sector from receiving a publicly subsidized product, a major indicator of entitlitis.

The diagnosis seems most appropriate given the thesis of Boxer’s argument, “This amendment would be the biggest rollback to a woman’s right to choose in decades.” Accepting for the sake of analysis the contentious premise that women have the “right” to kill their unborn children, Boxer here frames an entitlement to abortion services as recognition of that right. The psychotic nature of Boxer’s argument is apparent in its potential application in policy, where women would have the “right” to kill their children and compel other people to pay for the cost. A similar argument made by a defendant in a murder trial would be rejected outright as ludicrous, i.e. I had the right to stab him, Your Honor, and the state should reimburse me for the knife.

Proposed Course of Treatment

Entitlitis is potentially fatal to a society if its proliferation continues unchecked. When the expectation for provisions exceeds productivity, a clearly unsustainable condition manifests, perfectly analogous to physical starvation. While short term starvation is survivable, long-term starvation leads inexorably to death. Likewise, a long-term lack of productivity coupled with sustained or increasing demands for provisions will inexorably cripple a society.

Fortunately, while the prognosis for untreated entitlitis is dire, the treatment itself is simple. Awareness of entitlitis before affliction may prevent its manifestation and inhibit its effect from those already afflicted. Education regarding the true nature of rights as boundaries keeping others out, rather than keys letting others in, coupled with an adamant refusal to accept inaccurate use of the language, may serve to quarantine the afflicted by evoking an institutional environment in which they cannot effectively function – that is to say one of personal responsibility.

* fair⋅man⋅i⋅a  [fair-mey-nee-uh] noun. A psychosis characterized by an expectation that one’s personal perception of fairness shape their reality, regardless of how that perception conflicts with others or established measures of justice.

The Creature From Copenhagen

December 7, 2009 at 3:20 pm | In Podcast | Leave a Comment

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is officially under way. President Obama, after waffling on his agenda, has announced he will attend the end of the conference. The Associated Press now confirms, almost verbatim, the agenda Lord Christopher Monckton warned Americans about during his presentation in Minnesota last month. The intent of those gathered at Copenhagen is to strike a deal which would cede United States sovereignty to a foreign governmental authority empowered to enforce radical redistribution of wealth to Third World countries. The initial proposed cost is 30 billion dollars over three years with “hundreds of billions” of dollars to follow indefinitely. Yet, the entire premise upon which the scheme is based lies in tattered ruins. Anthropogenic climate change has been revealed as a myth as egregious and insidious as the Nazi pseudo-science which attempted to justify genocide. This week, Fightin Words takes the mainstream media to task, along with politicians and the public they represent. When will we wake up to the subversion of our republic?

Plus, what does the reaction by some to Tiger Wood’s alleged affairs signal of our society? Is it mere tabloid fluff? Or is there a greater lesson to be learned? You may be surprised by our answer.

“Make Us Gods Who Will Go Before Us”

December 6, 2009 at 4:15 am | In Podcast | 3 Comments

“Pastor” John Ziegler, owner of TigerWoodsIsGod.com, relays his horror at recent allegations of extramarital affairs by the world’s most recognized golfer:

After several days of evaluation, I have decided to disband the First Church of Tiger Woods … and I will not renew the TigerWoodsIsGod domain name when it expires in a couple of months…

… you might think that such a decision might be difficult. In this case, it was not. Unfortunately, Tiger Woods has made it all to easy (sic) to realize that he is no longer worthy of any special admiration (emphasis added).

<snip>

… Tiger is clearly no longer deserving of being seen as a role model or a hero (emphasis added) …

One may grant Ziegler the benefit of doubt and assume his “First Church of Tiger Woods” is facetious. However, if you consider his comments and demeanor in a recent media appearance, it seems evident Ziegler genuinely believed Woods was worthy of “special admiration.” At one point, Ziegler asserts that Woods “appeared to be as close to perfection as anybody we’ve ever seen, not just on the golf course, but off the golf course as well,” an image now decimated.

It should go without saying that no human being is worthy of the kind of special admiration Ziegler held toward another man. Tiger Woods is not God. Nor is he remotely close to perfect. He is a human being, like all of us. He can hit a golf ball well. This capacity does not imbue Woods with some esoteric existential superiority justifying elevated expectations in all areas of life.

This manner of deification is not unique to Woods. A cursory examination of print, radio, and television media revels disproportinate fixation upon “beautiful people,” the elite in entertainment, business, and politics. The lower classes willing submit to the higher, evoking the distinction through a desire to be led, to be saved, and to belong, even if as property.  Sarah Palin is an example of someone who runs counter to this idolatry; she defies deification and was therefore rejected as a leader. The chief criticism of Palin during the 2008 campaign was her lack of “qualification.” On its face, this criticism was substantially undercut by the fact she boasted the largest amount of executive experience of any individual on either presidential ticket. The other three had none. Of course, executive experience is not what people referred to when they used the term “qualification.” What they seem to have meant is sufficiently convincing pretention conveying the peace of mind that comes with being mindlessly led and provided for.

As Americans, there is a disconnect between our professed regard for liberty and this tendency to seek for ourselves gods among men. On the surface, we love to wrap ourselves in the rhetoric of equality, freedom, and the populist sentiments underlying representative government. On the other, we crave, demand, and ultimately crown royalty. A friend recently told me in reference to President Obama, “The way he speaks, you can just tell he’s intelligent. He’s so intelligent. And you want that in your president, someone intelligent.” The unspoken implication which I find echoed in criticisms of Sarah Palin is we want a leader who can serve as our civic auto-pilot, someone smarter than us, better than us, closer to perfect. Such a person demonstrates, through their intellectual peacocking, their right to rule. We dutifully oblige them. But this runs counter to such pedestrian ideas as “all men are Created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” We cannot have it both ways. We either believe all men have equal intrinsic worth, or we don’t. When we don’t, we come up with asinine ideas like the president ought to be smarter than us, or Tiger Woods is God, or any other manifestation of Beatlemania-like idolatry.

When Sarah Palin delivered her address at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul last year, many disaffected conservatives were heartened that such a plain person (that is to say someone risen from the middle class, without an Ivy League education, not from a political dynasty, with an earnest if naive lack of pretense, someone we might know, someone we might be) could still ascend to such opportunity in an American political system which otherwise produces relentless consolidators of power. Plain people liked Palin because she was like them. Others hated Palin for the same reason. We could not have some average nobody from some negligible backwater a heartbeat away from the presidency, we were told. How could we possibly stop thinking and take comfort in the superiority of a fearless leader when she shamelessly claimed “hockey mom” among her accolades? We might be compelled by a lack of patronizing reassurance to participate rather than mindlessly nod in response to emotionally comforting pseudo-intellectual rhetoric assuring us everything will be okay. We don’t want our hand on the wheel! That’s what elections are for – cruise control! Pull the lever and coast to next Novemeber! Palin did not sound like someone who would assure us we were in good hands so we could comfortably abdicate our sovereignty and the troublesome sense of panicked responsibility that comes with it.

This is a tendency we need to become self-aware of and begin to reject immediately. It is not partisan. There are no shortage of Republicans who buy into the idea of fitness to rule based on some intrinsic superior worth. Liberty is better served by public servants with average intelligence humbly applied within the constraints of principle than geniuses convinced of their right to proceed unchecked. Of course, to accept such a radical sentiment, one must value the principle of liberty to begin with. That principle rejects idolatrous claims of divinity or divine right, whether by men, or about men by others.

Exodus No More

December 3, 2009 at 7:39 am | In Podcast | 1 Comment

Another glimpse into my post-secondary education, the following is my reply to a discussion question which I thought might spur some… er, discussion. The question was: Are our freedoms more or less secure than they were when the country was founded? Elaborate.

I think, speaking strictly from a technological standpoint, there is no question our freedoms are less secure than at any other time in history. America stands as the last historical example of exodus. Oppressed peoples who could not overcome the tyranny surrounding them choose to extract themselves from it and come here. We no longer have that option. There is nowhere else to go until someone figures out cost-effective interplanetary colonization. So we’re stuck with each other, stuck with the government we have, a government which is becoming increasingly interdependant with others, including an emerging global government (keep an eye on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change later this month). It makes sense, if our forebears’ only way out of tyranny was escape to a distant frontier, we cannot expect any different. Add to that advances in technology which enable those in power to keep a stricter eye on the population than any historical dictator dared to dream, and you have a recipe for inevitable tyranny.

Of course, it is only inevitable if we let it happen. It may be our forebears choose exodus because it was easier to escape and risk death in an unforgiving frontier than to stand their ground and fight a ruling system. We do not know what would have happened if exodus was not a choice for them. Could they have established freedom where they first stood? Can we keep it here now? Time will tell.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.