Some sort of malicious code managed to embed itself in this website. I upgraded the version of WordPress. Made the most recent post private. Removed the embedded video from the most recent post. None of that seemed to work.
What did seem to work was changing the theme.
Well whatever it was just wanted to let you know that I am aware of the problem and am trying to fix it.
I know we have had to take the church bus to the local dealer because of a recall. But do not recall that it was national news.
Toyota has a problem that we are hearing about. Something about the gas pedal becoming stuck. Something like 17 fatalities because of this problem – obviously these persons put on the brake but the accelerator was stuck and the car kept right on going into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
(This almost happened to me and my brother years ago in Massachusetts but for different reasons. We had three cars – the third a Cheverolet Malibu Classic which my brother and I shared after we both started driving. Snow and ice can sometimes build up around the gas pedal and cause it to get stuck. I remember once having this problem and fighting – pushing down as hard as possible on the brake – to keep the car from pushing forward into intersections. My father was furious – very unusual – and angrily insisted the dealer fix the problem. Please note this is not necessarily a Cheverolet problem. I distinctly recall “how to fix a gas pedal stuck because of snow and ice” being a pretty standard problem that drivers in the North learn to deal with. Sort of like “what to do when your car skids while trying to brake on a snow covered road”. But the point is I have some understanding of what it is like when your gas pedal is stuck and the car wants to keep moving forward even with your foot on the brake.)
But there are a few things about this situation that has me wondering. Is this a plot to damage Toyota? Partly so that Americans will start buying cars from General Motors aka Government Motors?
Why would such a right wing paranoid thought cross my mind?
1) Transportation Secretary Roy LaHood. At one point he told Toyota drivers to stop driving their cars. The reaction was so strong – inciting panic! – he had to backtrack. “What I really meant was”.
2) The amazing amount of attention this problem is getting in the press. Last week was listening to National Public Radio – and they were speaking to a Toyota spokesperson. And the reporter was pressing the guy pretty hard. Tough questions. Response. Followed by “okay but what do you say?” pushing back. Which is not necessarily evidence for “liberal bias intended to support a plot to hurt Toyota”. Could be Standard Operating Procedure for good journalists. But the questions seemed pretty strong to me – especially compared to other interviews I have heard.
3) The hard cold fact that General Motors is now pretty much owned by the United State government. It is “our” automobile manufacturing company. Which means other car companies – such as Toyota or even Ford which is American – are the competition.
I note an article that I can across just now while typing this post by Mira Olberman: “Is United States bullying Toyota on recall?”
Good article that seems to show both sides. On the one hand you have a professor who says “this does not look good… But their behavior is consistent with the general behavior of the United States government”. On the other hand someone from Consumer Reports who says the reaction to the recall is overblown – really only a small percentage of Toyota vehicles have had this problem.
Weston Konishi (not with Toyota but with an American think tank) said:
Toyota is now a real stakeholder in the US economy — think of its auto plants and jobs — so trying to score points against it would be somewhat self-defeating.
He suggested only if Toyota cuts off contracts with American manufacturers of pedal assemblies (which itself is interesting) would the government have reason to make a big deal out of this problem.
I disagree with Konishi whose remarks appear (to this layperson) rather naive. The United States government does not see hurting Toyota as self-defeating. Sure we have Toyota plants and we have a couple hundred thousand Americans working for Toyota. But (a) those plants are mostly (entirely?) in predominantly Republican (less important) and (b) right-to-work states – in other words non-union jobs (much more important). The current administration has more than amply demonstrated that the interests of American labor unions trump other economic concerns. Hello? Why bail out General Motors and Chrysler? Why give the unions disproportionate ownership? Why in the course of crafting health care reform legislation give union health insurance plans special exemption from new taxes?
But what if?
What if Toyota for all its famed commitment to quality really has gotten sloppy?
We are a Toyota family. A committed Toyota family. First car we bought (not had) was a Toyota. When it died – we got another Toyota. We also have a Kia minivan and frankly we would trade it in for a Toyota in a heartbeat. (In fairness our frustration is more with the local Kia dealership. If we got better service we would probably be much happier with our Kia vehicle.)
But having said all that – we are aware that Toyota vehicles are not perfect.
The interiors are the worst. I think I have spent more money fixing the interior than anything else. Door handles and window buttons and door moldings snapping and breaking and peeling away. The car runs great and almost never needs repairs but the inside of the car is a disaster. Everything seems cheap and flimsy. True for both my current 1998 and our old 1992 Corolla.
And then there is the infamous “dude – where’s my engine oil?” problem that Toyota stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. That is how our 1992 Corolla died. The oil just… disappeared… and sure enough the engine seized up and died a horrible death. Toyota insists this commonly reported problem is the fault of owners who do not change the oil properly. When working in a soup kitchen in Houston I cut vegetables next to a Toyota executive who told me to my face that sorry bud it must be my fault. I got pretty angry with him and had to change the topic of conversation.
Okay maybe I do not change the oil as often as I should. But why do so many report the same problem? And why do my other cars not have the same problem?!? The oil in the Kia or the Chevy might get old and dirty – but it does not just disappear. I have had the oil just disappear from my 1998 Corolla within a few weeks – only about 700 miles – of changing it. Something ain’t right.
So here is what I think so far:
1) I do not think this is a problem manufactured by the United States government just to make Toyota look bad.
2) I do not think the current administration is out to get Toyota. I mean – they are not out to get other Japanese or Korean or German car manufacturers are they?
3) But I do think the current administration is exploiting this situation to hurt an automobile company that uses non-union labor and is a de facto competitor to General Motors and Chrysler.
4) So that it can encourage people to start buying from General Motors and Chrysler who are clearly and explicitly taking advantage of the situation with special “trade in your Toyota!” deals.
Call me paranoid. But that is my theory.
Last time took eight to see “Turandot” by Puccini. Fairly full theater. People came up to us with tears in their eyes (I am not making that up) to express how much they appreciate young people coming to see the opera.
This time we had eleven. Theater was packed. And quite a few young people – children and college age. Why was “Carmen” even more popular than “Turandot”? Our international friends said “‘Carmen’ is very famous!” I saw more people from University Baptist Church this time.
To be honest after the first half hour I was a bit embarrassed. “Uh oh. Wonder what our Chinese friends are thinking. Wonder if they wish they had not come. Very very different from ‘Turandot’”. The opening songs are about soldiers hanging around and pawing at Micaela (Barbara Frittoli) and leering at the cigarette girls who sit around wiping sweat from their half-exposed bodies. Real high drama there.
And then you get Carmen (Elena Garanca – whom I saw also in Rossini’s “La Cenerentola”). With cleavage and at least one leg showing at all times. Who is seriously bad news.
If you want her then she does not want you. If you do not want her then she wants you. And if she wants you better watch out!
Si je t’aime, si je t’aime prend garde a toi!
Our humble soldier Don Jose (Roberto Alagna) – who already has a girlfriend – unfortunately attracts the attention of Carmen who trains her wiles on him like a laser beam. Dude you are so dead. It does not take long before Don Jose is making out with Carmen and letting her escape from arrest and planning to get together with her later at a resort.
What the heck is this opera about?!? At first glance it seems dirty and sleazy and slutty. Not at all like “Turandot” in which the passionate love of Calaf breaks through the cold cruelty of the princess Turandot – all very noble virtuous and glorious. This is about a respected soldier and good son with a nice girlfriend who throws it all away because some hot temptress hands him a flower.
Speaking of “love is like a bird”. The first act talks a lot about love – l’amour. But it does not seem to be about love so much as desire or shall we say lust. “I love you” seems to mean not much more than “you’re cute and I want to have sex with you”.
So what is going on here? What is Bizet trying to say? Who – or should we say what – exactly is Carmen?
There are several different approaches I would suggest.
The first is rather simplistic morality play. “Stay away from bad girls”. Something like that. No doubt feminist literary scholars would have something to say about “the patriarchal warnings against the archetypal temptress” motif – and frankly they would be at least partly right. Don Jose has a nice girlfriend who goes to church brings him letters from his momma and won’t even kiss him on the lips. Along comes the hot hussy Carmen with her blazing unrestrained sexuality. Before you know it Don Jose is hanging out with bandits and breaking his momma’s heart and strangling said hussy and getting executed. Bad bad bad. Sort of “Reefer Madness” meets “Fatal Attraction”.
(Yeah I don’t know where that came from either.)
Maybe. But that seems too simplistic.
At one point it suddenly hit me just who or what Carmen is.
Freedom.
She sings about “I will live free or die free”. She represents perhaps the freedom to throw off the constraints of law responsibility and commitment. Don Jose is not just a guy – he is a soldier. He obeys orders and enforces the law. He does not just go off with Carmen – he becomes a bandit. He leaves behind society with its laws and regulations. Perhaps that helps explain the famous habanera “L’amour est un oiseau rebelle”:
Love is a rebellious bird… He has never known law. If you don’t love me I will love you. If I love you – you better watch out!
Carmen will not be imprisoned – no handcuffs or jail for her! Don Jose spends time in jail because he sets her free – but what gets him through that time is the flower Carmen gave him. If you do not love freedom – then freedom will come hunting for you. And if freedom comes after you – better watch out! Don Jose will not live without freedom (Carmen). The opera seems largely about freedom and the desire for freedom.
I will not suggest that freedom is unambiguously good in the opera. What happens when the desire for freedom means you reject duty and obedience and commitment? Freedom yes – but balanced with responsibility and self-control? Perhaps the opera also explores the ambiguity of freedom.
There is another theme which has to do with ethnicity and class. Sure we may fault Carmen for being the temptress. But she is not just a woman. She is a gypsy. A member of an ethnic group – the Roma(ny) – that even today is considered outcast and undesirable in Europe. How else will these people fight back against a (Spanish European) society that rejects them and marginalizes them? Can we blame them when they turn to (a) sex and (b) crime to get what they want – or need? And how noble are these “white” Europeans who are quite happy to get their booze and cigarettes and sex and black market goods from gypsies? And who think torturing and killing bulls is somehow more noble and civilized? Is not the final act with its parade of the different kinds of bullfighter a kind of satire? How silly!
Toreador, toreador!
And notice how the toreador desires and wins Carmen – and transforms her into a proper Spanish lady. Carmen has gone from marginalized outcast gypsy to accepted member of Spanish high society. (I am reminded of how the prostitute civilizes Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh – but cannot quite make the connection.)
One last theme. Fate and free will. This is particularly evident when Don Jose and Carmen are with the bandits in the mountains. Two of the woman consults the cards to find out their fortunes. Wealth and fame. Sounds great. So does Carmen. Death and death. She knows ahead of time that Don Jose will kill her. And no matter how many times she turns the cards the result is the same. Death and death.
Oddly enough she seems resigned to this. “Oh well. Nothing I can do. The cards say I am going to die. Guess I better just follow the script to its end”. She convinces herself that she does not have the freedom – free will – to make different choices and change course. In a way she brings about the very “fate” she fears. One is reminded of how Voldemort creates his own downfall in the Harry Potter books because he is obsessed with a misunderstood prophecy.
So perhaps there are many different themes and issues that drive the opera – all at the same time. Women and sexuality. Race and class. Freedom and its ambiguity. Fate and free will.
Okay – enough about the opera. What about the performance?
Outstanding of course. The music was energetic and delightful. The acting solid. The singing exceptional. And the pas de deux (sp?) that opened each act masterful. I did find the physicality of the performance a bit distracting. Woman getting pawed and groped. Don Jose lying down on Carmen whose legs are spread wide. Pushing hitting fighting. Even Rene Fleming commented and asked if the singers felt bruised after their performance.
The sets were a bit drab but otherwise brilliant – giant rotating circular walls?!? Now it’s a jail… now it’s a town square. Now it’s a town square… now it’s the inside of a bullfighting ring. Amazing. Clearly only the best work for the Met.
My favorite part by far was when Rene Fleming was interviewing Escamillo (performed by… don’t seem to have his name available). Apparently the bass performer was sick and this guy got a call that morning at like 10:00 a.m. “Hey um we need you to sing Escamillo at the Met today”. You could not tell this man had filled in on such short notice. That alone earns my respect.
Even better she asked how he became an opera singer. Well apparently he used to be a certified accountant in his native New Zealand. Around age 30 or 31 decided he wanted to sing opera. Gotta love it. We all had a good laugh.
“I’m sick of this pastoring gig. Think I’ll join the opera”.
Toreador, toreador! L’amour t’attend!
Hey. A guy can dream.
Not sure why this has been getting so much attention lately – except perhaps because someone is trying to do this again but from an even higher altitude.
On August 16 1960 (then) Captain Joe Kittinger flew in a helium balloon to the edge of space – to an altitude of 102,800 feet above the earth.
And then he jumped.
This just blows my mind. The guy must eat rusty nails for breakfast.
H/T Ace of Spades.
What astonishes me about the election of Scott Brown to the United States Senate – from Massachusetts of all states that Democratic stronghold – is the lengths to which the left (aka “liberals” although a case can be made that conservatives of a libertarian stripe are the true liberals) is to explain this as having anything other to do with what is obvious and evident.
“The people could not possibly have made a semi-informed semi-rational decision. The people could not possibly have voted for Brown because they agreed more with his campaign platform”.
Oh no. It is because he is a man (in a state that recently had a woman governor who was the first to give birth while in office). It is because he is good looking (true – so what do we do with other Massachusetts politicians?) It is because of a generalized fear and anger. It is because Coakley ran a weak campaign (which is true – have to give them that). It is because Brown ran a brilliant campaign (which is also true – have to give them that as well). It is because people turn against incumbents in poor economic times. It is because. It is because. It absolutely could not be because Scott Brown said he would work to lower taxes and stop runaway government spending and growth and stop Obamacare. It could not be because of the issues Scott Brown actually ran on. It could not possibly be because even in heavily Democratic Massachusetts the people are concerned about the direction of this nation under President Barack Obama and (this part is also important) Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
It amazes me how supposedly intelligent people can be so dismissive of what is right in front of their eyes.
They can disagree with Brown. They can say “the people of Massachusetts are wrong”. But to say they had no earthly idea what they were doing? That it was a completely uninformed and irrational vote?
Here is the colossal problem with that kind of thinking. So… what about the election of Barack Obama?
Which is why I was careful to say “semi-informed and semi-rational”. The election of Barack Obama does indeed demonstrate that the American electorate is not always motivated by logic and evidence.
And for the president to say the people of Massachusetts were still voting against eight years of George Bush?!? Wow. What breathtaking power he has! It is like some Christians who blame everything on Satan.
Charles Krauthammer again applies his ruthless rationality to the left’s efforts to deny the meaning of Brown’s election.
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one [referring to the tea party movement and town halls]. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social-democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.
…
Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to dis Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal — of a man who had them swooning only a year ago — something is going on beyond personality.
That something is substance — political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley, or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power — even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can’t even see is in your own interest.
Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?
Read the whole thing at National Review Online.
Dear God – the people couldn’t possibly disagree with our agenda could they?!?
Baton Rouge Community College - 15,000+ students
Okay just trying to get your attention with a provocative title.
Background. Every month or two(?) we have an early release day. Pick up first daughter at at McKinley Middle 11:30 a.m. then drive to pick up second daughter at Baton Rouge High. Along the way there is an empty lot with a small trailer that advertizes barbecue. Normally it is closed when I drive that way in the afternoon. But on early release days I have formed the habit of taking the opportunity to stop and get a barbecue sandwich, side, and drink.
Arguably the best dang barbecue in the city. They have a piece of paper on the window that sez so.
Anyways they are so friendly and so are others who come by. Have been getting to know this guy who comes for lunch – wears Dickie work clothes, long gray hair, glasses. Apparently his kids went to Baton Rouge High. Today asked him about his work. They build “big ass mufflers for boats” – as in tugboats. As in mufflers that are 3 feet diameter and 10 feet long. How is business? Good. Everyone been working full hours without having to go into overtime. He has six employees.
They make $28 an hour.
Wow. That’s good money. Making “big ass mufflers” for boats? That’s more than I make.
He tells me about his two best employees a father-son team. The son is 18 and been going to the vocational school up the road.
“Back in Massachusetts we had that. It was one of your options”.
Yeah but here it is like college – after high school.
He is from Chicago and knows just what I am talking about. They had shop, metalwork, woodworking, automotive, eventually even plastics. Each year they built and sold a house and a fiberglass mold – covered materials for the entire school year. Good stuff.
Here’s my point.
We have too many colleges and universities – or at the very least not enough vocational schools and community colleges.
Several months ago was reading National Review and they had a list of twelve things that would revitalize the middle class. One of them was this very issue – strengthen our non-college non-university educational institutions. I say this as someone who went to university and has three graduate degrees. But not everyone who goes to college will get a good job. How many people four years and tens possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars later are still not able to find work in their field? For some reason we have gotten to the point where it is considered a basic requirement.
Is it? What about trades? skills?
The director of Teach for America for this region – who grew up in this church – mentioned that Louisiana with its population size really only needs two universities. We have several state and several private. The courses/credits do not always transfer smoothly between community colleges and universities or even between different universities in the state system. Louisiana greatly needs to strengthen its network of vocational schools and community colleges – and coordinate them better with the state university system.
So that a kid with mediocre grades and almost no money can start at a community college… knock out his core requirements… transfer to a university… and eventually get a PhD.
Think I am exaggerating?
My grandfather Edwin Warner was for much of his career the dean of Mohawk Valley Community College which was the first community college in the state of New York. His great achievement was to visit big universities around the state and ask “what do you require – in terms of your core courses and basic course requirements?” So he went back and made sure that students at Mohawk Valley got what the universities expected – so they could transfer to those universities and all their courses and credits would transfer with them.
And he did not have a PhD. Although people often addressed him as “Doctor” Warner.
He used to get letters from people decades later – people with PhDs, CEOs of companies, professors, doctors, engineers – thanking my grandfather for the start they got at Mohawk Valley Community College.
And what if someone does not go any farther? What is wrong with an Associates degree in a useful trade that leads to a solid job?
Just thinking out loud.
With my two master’s degrees and a doctorate – I make less than experienced skilled high school graduates who build “big ass mufflers” for boats. Not that I need to change careers. So much as to emphasize that if we want to help Americans get a good education that leads to good job…
It does not necessarily mean we need to work on getting everyone a college education.
What does it mean to be human? More specifically what does it mean to be a person? How do we find meaning and purpose in an apparently absurd universe?
It boggles my mind that critics could rave about how “Moon” (2009) is brilliant science-fiction that everyone must see – and yet the film was released only in Los Angeles and New York City. In other words everyone needs to see a movie that almost no one can see.
For months I have ached to see it. Finally January 12 arrived and my family gave it to me for my birthday. Watched it with my younger daughter. She thought it was sad and depressing. I do not disagree but would phrase it differently. It is both profoundly disturbing and profoundly moving.
The sets and visuals are persuasive – all the more impressive when one realizes that “Moon” was filmed on a mighty small budget. The background music is exquisite. One of my pet peeves in many American films is the loud music that tells us how we should feel at every given moment. But in “Moon” several important scenes have no music. And when music is present it is elegant delicate and haunting. It enhances rather than forces the emotional impact of key scenes.
“Moon” tells the story of Sam Bell – the always enjoyable Sam Rockwell provides an exceptional performance – who is only two weeks from the end of his three year contract. His job is to maintain the equipment that mines the surface of the moon for Helium-3 (an isotope used in fusion to generate energy back on Earth). He is completely alone. Well except for the constant companionship of the robot helper Gerty (voice by Kevin Spacey). The communications satellite has been broken all this time so he cannot have live conversations with his family back home. He can only watch and send back recorded messages.
The years of loneliness and isolation appear to be taking their toll. But he is going home! “Two more weeks buddy!” Sam says to Gerty while eating breakfast (which is “the usual” – a nice touch that reinforces the sense of isolation and monotony).
Already the film raises important issues about the human need for companionship. How does a human being survive complete isolation? Sam appears to enjoy his work. The monotony of checking and reporting how many miles a harvester covered each day is occasionally broken by a full H-3 canister which Sam must retrieve and then ship back to Earth. But even Sam still has plenty of free time which must be filled somehow. He cares for and talks to his plants. He carves wooden models of people and buildings back home. He watches old television reruns.
But notice the pattern. Sam is utterly alone. He must talk to somebody. To Gerty. To his plants. Even the lunar harvesters are given names. A person needs relationship with another person. Even if the other is a substitute. (See also Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” and his relationship with “Wilson”.) This raises questions about the extent to which we engage in substitute personal(?) relationships. Virtual pets. Video and online computer games. Again we confront the interior-exterior distinction which is so important in Orthodox Christian theology. We are created for relationship – but relationship with persons.
I do wonder “would God be enough?” If for whatever reason I was completely alone would the presence and companionship of the Triune God – who himself is three persons in relationship – be enough to keep me from going insane? The answer is probably yes when one considers the stories of monks and saints from Christian history.
But even then – the idea of escaping from the world is to bring back to the world the spiritual resources we gain during our time in the wilderness. Sam’s three years alone is a struggle but it also changes him for the better (confirmed by one of the recorded messages from his wife Tess).
But back to the struggle. One evening Sam is making coffee when he sees a teenage girl(?) sitting in his chair. We wonder, Have the 3 years been too much? Is Sam losing his mind? Who is this teenage girl that Sam thinks he sees?
The next day Sam once again goes out to retrieve a full canister of Helium-3. And something happens that changes everything.
***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD!***
Continue reading ‘REVIEW – “Moon” (2009)’ »
That Senator Harry Reid said some rather bizarre things – about then Candidate Senator Obama being “light skinned” and not speaking with a “Negro dialect” – does not especially upset me. Of course what he said was inappropriate ridiculous and offensive. But there are a few reasons why my first reaction is not to join the modest chorus of voices calling for his resignation (from what exactly – from the Senate or just from his position of leadership?).
First – he apologized and said apology was accepted. And yet therein lies what truly upsets me about this episode. Remember when Representative Joe Wilson yelled “you lie!” during a speech by President Obama? Whether or not you think Rep Wilson was actually correct – and one can make a strong case that he was – it was entirely inappropriate to shout that during the speech. Representative Wilson wisely apologized and President Obama graciously accepted the apology. End of incident.
But it was not. What many pundits and politicians continued to make of that moment of indecorum! Maureen Dowd and daily emails from the Democratic National Committee come to mind.
There is profound irony here because one has to ask “Is there no forgiveness? Is there no redemption? Is there no grace? Even and especially when someone (a) apologizes and (b) takes responsibility for his/her failure?”
How else are people going to learn? How else are people going to grow if we continue to judge them for past sins for which they have apologized and taken responsibility?
Second – because who really wants to live in a world where one mistake one sin one failure destroys your life (more specifically career) forever without any hope? I actually feel a little for Senator Reid. Who has never said or done something stupid? Consider how many persons in the Bible committed horrible offenses – or made stupid mistakes – and yet God continued to work with them and through them for the healing and saving of creation?
I concede there may be some sins and mistakes so egregious one has to say “I am sorry but we cannot continue to keep you in this position”. And yes there are a few characters in the Bible where God indeed said “that’s it – I am taking the priesthood/kingship from you and giving it to someone else”.
Third – because I cannot stand to see another human being suffer shame. Ask my family how often I have to leave the room during a television show or movie because someone is being subjected to public shame and humiliation. Not sure why this is one of my “raw spots”. Probably I have experienced it cannot stand it and would rather not do it to someone else even if I think they deserve it.
Fourth – because there is something dangerous and pernicious in how the Internet age magnifies our sins for all the world to see. Not trying to let Senator Reid off the hook. But think about it. How would you like it if you have one seriously bad moment and someone films it with their cell phone and posts it on YouTube where the video gets 2 million hits? Suddenly everyone is God – able to see and judge whatever other people say and do. But God is merciful and loves humankind. Not so sure about myself.
Fifth – and please note this – it is a cheap and unsatisfying way to defeat a political opponent. Do I want Senator Reid to get his way? Absolutely not. Do I want him to be crushed and defeated politically? Yes indeed – I admit it. But that is precisely the point. Defeat his ideas. Discredit his politics. By convincing the American electorate that your ideas and your policies are better. Who wants to win a Gold Medal not because you ran the best race but because the other athlete failed a drug test? This is why I hope conservatives and Republicans would restrain themselves in calling for Senator Reid to “resign” solely because of this one incident.
Is that really how you/we want to win?
Sixth – how we judge is how we shall be judged. Well – theoretically. This principle seems to apply more to Republicans than to Democrats. But all the same. If today we call for a political opponent to step down because of one bad or foolish moment – then what about tomorrow when a political ally makes a similar mistake?
Now – about that “mercurial” thing.
Many conservative commentators have noted – correctly – the breathtaking hypocrisy here. Senator Reid says something that nearly everyone would recognize as “racist” or at the very least racially insensitive. And yet look how many on the left defend him. “Hey he’s a great guy doing great things for America – we should cut him some slack” (so President Obama and Al Sharpton). Or even “Well actually there is a way to interpret what he said in a way that makes sense” (so Henry Louis Gates Jr – of all people).
I see. Okay. Fair enough I suppose.
So why is the same grace and generosity not extended toward conservatives and Republicans when they commit (often and arguably lesser) sins? George Allen uses the word “macaca” (apparently a racial slur) and his political career is over. Trent Lott makes some foolish comments and he is out. Rush Limbaugh admits to using a controlled substance and he is forever a “drug addict”.
I do not understand this “grace forgiveness and generosity for me (and my friends) but not for thee (and thy friends)”.
On the other hand and on a more positive note check out the exact opposite phenomenon – a political candidate says something so brilliant it may constitute one of those “defining moments” in an election.
It’s not the Kennedy’s seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat.
H/T Gay Patriot.
I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?
Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.
So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.
It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?
My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:
In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world. For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]
In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.
Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen. In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have. For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home. This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.
Read the whole thing here.
So what about those conservative criticisms?
In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.
This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.
For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.
The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.
The article understands the situation well – but to a point.
Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.
Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.
“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”
Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.
Or do they?
Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:
It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]
Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:
Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.
Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.
Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:
For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.
The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”
We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…
That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.
There is a word in the English language for that.
9/11 and America-as-terrorist
***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***
Continue reading ‘REVIEW – Inner reflections/contradictions in “Avatar”’ »
Yes I saw it. Almost said “you can go without me”. Glad I went.
A tradition in my family has always been to go see a movie on a holiday – like Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s. So we went to see recent Disney release “The Princess and the Frog”.
It was delightful. Especially when you compare it to the stream of movies from Hollywood that basically insult the audience. If you pay attention there are a few welcome “conservative” themes and messages in “The Princess and the Frog”. It will be interesting to see how it fares at the box office compared to the other left-leaning fare.
***WARNING – A FEW MILD SPOILERS***
Prince Naveen is the rich aristocrat who is no longer very rich. All he wants is to avoid work and have fun.
His servant Lawrence is the one who envies what Naveen has. And wants to steal it through trickery and deception.
And Tiana is the one who has a dream. And believes the way to achieve her dream is through hard work and saving every dollar she can.
Imagine that! If you want something – you work for it. Rather than expect the government or *ahem* the forces of evil – represented by the Shadow Man – to give you what you want by taking it someone else.
There may be some subtle commentary on “haves versus have-less”. The film does not appear to criticize Big Daddy for being so wealthy. In fact it recognizes the simple fact that rich people hire and pay other people to do things like make dresses (Tiana’s mother Eudora) for their spoiled daughters or make beignets (Tiana) for a masked Mardi Gras ball. Big Daddy is rich but he is generous and his wealth supports such cultural activities as a Mardi Gras parade.
And – trying not to give away too much here – what happens to Doctor Facilier aka Shadow Man in the end? He plays with the forces of darkness – “friends on the other side” – and ultimately he pays the price. There are consequences for messing with spiritual forces of evil.
This is not to suggest the movie is full of orthodox Christian theology. There are no references to God or Christ or scripture. At most we get “good magic” in the person of Mama Odie versus “bad magic” in the person of Doctor Facilier (whose name oddly enough means “Doctor Make-easy”). And several times characters seem to “pray” to a star in the night sky. This is not a criticism. Just trying to recognize how religion and spirituality are portrayed.
In a way I find refreshing how the film addresses(?) race relations. People of darker skin can have genuine friendship with people of lighter skin. Although it does not ignore altogether that racial tensions can and do exist – such as when the bankers refer to Tiana’s “background”.
What is interesting is that Disney has gone back to old fashioned drawn animation. I thought they had shut down their drawn animation department in order to focus exclusively on computer animation. My argument then as well as now is “it’s not the computer animation – it’s the story stupid”. Disney seems finally to get that point. But drawn animation might strike some as ugly and primitive compared to “Toy Story” or “Up”. The comparison is unfair. But not if you compare it to the work of Hiyao Miyazaki or even the exceptionally beautiful “Snow White”.
Critics often focus on the music – and sure enough characters in the movie often break into song. Are they “memorable” or Oscar-winning? Only time will tell. Some of the songs are quite catchy – such as “Dig A Little Deeper” which my wife used in her sermon this morning.
Finally – Louisiana.
The story is set in New Orleans and the Louisiana bayous. Having lived in the south for a while I am sensitive to how “southern accents” are portrayed – you would think every southerner speaks in a South Carolina drawl. Most of the accents and speech patterns in “The Princess and the Frog” sound correct. Some are not quite right. But in order to establish the setting – New Orleans and Louisiana – one must expect some degree of exaggeration for the sake of emphasis.
One concern(?) is that people who do not live in Louisiana might not appreciate all the inside jokes. Like when Ray the Cajun firefly introduces all the members of his immense extended family. Or when Ray asks Naveen and Tiana where they are from – the answer is perhaps only to Louisianans one of the funniest lines in the entire movie (the audience erupted in laughter). Or how the name of the love of Ray’s life is “Evangeline”.
Overall an animated film I can heartily recommend.
