Archive for the ‘Propaganda’ Category

« Older Entries

REVIEW – Inner reflections/contradictions in "Avatar"

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

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***

(more…)

Posted in Media, Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Politics, Propaganda, Science Fiction | 3 Comments »

In praise of honest liberals(?) – Camille Paglia strikes again

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

She voted for President Obama. Wants to see healthcare reform go through. But she has no patience for hypocrisy and stupidity. Camille Paglia is a liberal(?) I can respect.

(I put ? after “liberal” because what does that word mean exactly? And perhaps Prof Paglia does not think of herself as a “liberal”. It may not be appropriate in this context.)

Just a sample from an as always powerful essay:

But this tonic dose of truth-telling may be too little too late. As an Obama supporter and contributor, I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration’s strategic missteps this year. I suspect there had been private grumbling all along, but the media warhorses failed to speak out when they should have — from week one after the inauguration, when Obama went flat as a rug in letting Congress pass that obscenely bloated stimulus package. Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform. (Who is naive enough to believe that Obama’s plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)

By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis.

Read the whole thing at Salon. Oh – and Nancy Pelosi is white. Think about it.

But since one of the concerns of this website is how people think and speak – in other words how they argue it would be remiss not to include this:

Throughout this fractious summer, I was dismayed not just at the self-defeating silence of Democrats at the gaping holes or evasions in the healthcare bills but also at the fogginess or insipidity of articles and Op-Eds about the controversy emanating from liberal mainstream media and Web sources. By a proportion of something like 10-to-1, negative articles by conservatives were vastly more detailed, specific and practical about the proposals than were supportive articles by Democrats, which often made gestures rather than arguments and brimmed with emotion and sneers.

Notice she does not say who is right or wrong. Or whether she opposes or supports “healcare reform”. She simply points out the poor quality of statements and articles by Democrats: “gestures rather than arguments”.

Precisely.

Posted in Healthcare, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Rhetoric | No Comments »

God and politics for me – but not for thee

Thursday, August 27th, 2009

Losing respect for people with whom I used to identify is painful. And I am beginning to despair for the future of rationality and honesty in our nation.

Where does one even begin?

I made the mistake of following a link to EthicsDaily.Com which is the website of the Baptist Center for Ethics. Two or three years ago I visited it on occasion. Most of time agreeing with the articles they published.

Remember when moderate Baptists criticized strongly the Southern Baptist Convention for how often it seemed to confuse Christian faith with conservative politics? for wanting a “wedding” with the Republican Party?

The irony seems completely lost on Robert Parham when he writes:

The Blue-Dog Democrats, many of whom are from the Bible Belt, and Republicans who have claimed for 25 years that GOP stands for God’s Only Party, seldom, if ever, frame health care as a moral imperative.

Read the whole thing here. Brace yourself. It is perhaps the single most offensive article by Robert Parham I have ever read.

Apparently he is fighting leukemia. Baptist deacon comes in and asks to pray for him. Parham replies “I won’t let you pray for me”. Why? Because the deacon is a sanctimonious jerk? Get this:

Then I told the bug-eyed deacon I would let him pray for me-under one condition. He and his church had to pray and to work for social justice related to the looming health care crisis in Tennessee, where some 300,000 people were at risk of finding themselves without health care coverage.

Uninsured Tennesseans deserved the same quality of care that I was receiving, I said, sharing that I was one of the wealthy Americans with good insurance and a community of support. Then, I asked him why he hadn’t written down what I had said on the pad he was holding.

Talk about moral blackmail. “I will not let you pray for me until you and your entire congregation agrees with me on this particular social and political issue. And why are you not writing this down?” Parham casually assumes that his understanding of “justice” is not only correct but the one that others must subscribe to or else he will not let them pray for him. And if they do not then they are “indifferent” to the “biblical imperative: seek justice”.

Not mistaken. Not wrong. Not sincere faithful Christians with different understandings of what “seeking justice” looks like. There are indifferent.

Look. To be honest he is indeed entitled to his opinion even to his convictions. That “seeking justice” in this particular context means helping 300,000 Tennesseans get health care coverage. We can extend that courtesy and generosity to Parham even when he will not extend it to brothers in Christ who came to the hospital to visit him and pray for him.

But therein lies the irony and the hypocrisy.

The Baptist Center for Ethics has pretty much taken the gloves off and declared not only their support for President Obama and “healthcare reform” (as understood by liberals in the Democratic party) but has done so in the name of God. This is what God wants. This is part and parcel of the biblical imperative to seek justice.

Those silly Southern Baptists. Those silly Republicans who claim that GOP stands for “God’s Only Party”. (Really? First time I have heard of that.) How dare they think God is on their side politically.

“No – we are on God’s side politically”. That is the irony. God and politics for me – but not for thee.

And the hypocrisy is to criticize Southern Baptists and Republicans for allegedly saying something similar.

Let me address at least two more articles I had the misfortune to peruse.

The first is “Choosing Sides: In Health Care, Jesus Sides with Poor” by Drew Smith.

Toward the beginning he writes:Many Christians are ignorant to the social justice message of Jesus. Preferring to see Jesus in only spiritual terms, and his message as only about salvation and heaven, we often miss the significance of Jesus as a political figure.

But if we are to call ourselves Christian, we must broaden not only our understanding of Jesus’ message as having social and political ramifications, we must also be open to how that message shapes how we live socially and politically today. Certainly this should influence how Christians should treat the current health care debate.

Read the whole thing here.

Fair enough so far. Although Smith might be careful about (1) assuming that if people disagree with him it is because they are “ignorant” (an all too common assumption people make about those who hold different views) and (2) professing to know just what those social and political ramifications are. I have strong political convictions myself. But (3) I do not push them on my congregation partly because (4) although I think my political convictions are good and reasonable I am not quite prepared to identify them entirely with what the Bible teaches about justice. In other words we can all (okay – mostly) agree that the Bible calls the people of God to seek justice. Even that God has special concern for the poor. But we might exercise a little humility when it comes to articulating exactly how we think that plays out in terms of specific political and social and economic policies in the United States in the year 2009.

I think I am right. I think my views are compatible with the “biblical imperative to seek justice”. But they might not be.

This is where Smith begins to lose it.

Why do many of our leaders side with big insurance and pharmaceutical companies instead of with those who need quality and affordable health care? Why do they listen to the lunatic fringe of the right wing misinformation machine, instead of standing firmly on what is right and just for the vulnerable of our nation?

Yet, we must not place all the blame on these leaders, for many of the citizens of this country, and tragically many who claim to be Christian, are also standing vehemently against any sort of reform.

Well now. Does Smith mean the pharmaceutical companies that have now offered to spend $130 million in support of President Obama and his healthcare reform proposals? Why assume that they “side” with insurance and drug companies out of malice? And Smith accidentally demonstrates he is not interested in serious honest conversation the instant he talks about “listen to… right wing misinformation machine”. As oppose to what? The left wing information hegemony? Why assume that people oppose the current healthcare reform proposals (of President Obama and the Democratic leadership) only because they are evil or are misled? And to say they are against any sort of reform is a lie.

A lie.

Let me say that again.

A lie.

Tell us that Republican proposals for healthcare reform are wrong. Tell us that ordinary citizens have support wrong alternatives for reform. Do not tell us they are against reform. What was that about misinformation sir?

If we read our Bible carefully, we will find that God is always on the side of the poor and vulnerable. If we are to be on God’s side of the issue of health care, then we must side with the poor and vulnerable of this nation. We can and we must speak with greater authority, even if those who stand against health care reform continue to scream. We have the power to change things, if we only will.

Like Jesus, we need to have a sincere consciousness about the plight of people in our country, especially the vulnerable. We have a moral and godly responsibility to care about this issue and especially the people who are greatly affected by this problem. We must, if we claim to follow Jesus, speak up for the vulnerable of our nation; we must be the voice of the voiceless. If we are not, then we cannot claim to follow Jesus.

There is some truth here I think. But once again Smith – while persistently caricaturing and demonizing his opponents – confuses the specific policies that he favors with “God’s side of the issue of health care”. And it is revealing that is precisely how Smith frames the issue. There is indeed a “God’s side of the issue”. And Smith and President Obama and the Democratic leadership are on that side.

And if you disagree – “you cannot claim to follow Jesus”.

I could also tackle “Infusing Health Care Debate with Nazi Imagery” by Rabbi Fred Guttman. But after reading through it a few times I found more irony than hypocrisy. When conservatives employ Nazi language and imagery against opponents – that is a classic mistake. But how quickly we forget (1) how Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done precisely that and (2) how some of the people who employ this language and imagery have been proven to be fakes and plants intended to make opponents of the current healthcare reform proposal(s) look bad.

(For the record – I myself have been the target of such fakery when I was in college. People pretending to be part of my group trying to make us look bad.)

Let us wrap this up with “What’s Really Motivating Angry Town-hall Mobs?” by Jim Evans. This borders on evil and is one of the chief reasons why my respect for many moderate Baptists is evaporating.

Members of Congress trying to hold town hall meetings on health care reform are being shouted down by angry mobs of constituents. Attendees at these events are reportedly carrying weapons. Conspiracy theorists are awash with nonsense about President Obama being a socialist, not a natural-born citizen and intent on dismantling the American way of life.

This is mostly slander. “Reportedly carrying weapons”. Oh really? You mean like the “angry white guy with an assault rifle” that MSNBC showed – never letting us see his hands or face because he was in fact an African-American? Most conservatives and Republicans I know have little patience for “birthers” (those who keep going on about whether the President is really a natural-born citizen).

It gets worse:

Pure, unadulterated paranoia? No, not really. Actually it’s displaced racism. There is a segment of the population that will not accept that we have an African American president. Any notion that seemingly disqualifies him is embraced with the ferocity of a pit bull at a dog fight.

One struggles to disentangle the slander from the sophistry in that paragraph.

So now if you have legitimate concerns about the Obama Administration and its policies including and especially his healthcare reform proposals – you must be a racist.

Yes of course. That must be why I applied to live in Ujamaa my sophomore year and become one of three white people surrounded by about 120 people who also happened to be African-American. That must be why I was one of the few Ujamites who bothered to visit his little brother (who happened to be African-American) regularly – and continued to do so for 4 years after I no longer lived in Ujamaa. That must be why I pastor a congregation in which several congregants are African. That must be why I led a mission trip and worked myself to exhaustion in order to purchase and assemble and distribute 1300+ backpacks with school supplies in one of the poorest areas of the United States that is also predominantly African-American. That must be why I pulled my children out of a predominantly white and affluent private school so they could go to a public middle school in which more than 2/3 of the students are African-American. That must be why my wife left her state job to become a public school teacher and now works diligently at an elementary school in which one occasionally has a white student.

Because we are racists?

Come on Jim Evans. Is that the best you got? Cheap slander? You bore me.

(This is why I have decided no longer to participate in discussions with people who employ such tactics. They do not respect me. In fact they rush to defame me. They have demonstrated repeatedly they are not interested in serious honest discussion of the issues. So why should I waste my time and energy with them? But I will try to pray for them and I do not mean pray that God would change their minds. Let his will be done. What else can we ask?)

What boggles my mind – really leaves me in a pit of despair for the future of sanity and rationality in the United States – is why people like Smith and Evans and Parham and President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and so on and so on and so on cannot do something like this.

“We think you are wrong about healthcare reform. We think this really is the best approach. We have read the bill in all its details. Here are some facts and figures and studies. We are aware of the arguments against this approach. We think those arguments are wrong or mistaken in the following ways. You are not bad people. You are not ignorant. You are not angry mobs. You are not dupes. You are not racists. We understand that dissent is still American and we are happy to listen to respectful calm disagreement. But we think you are wrong. And this is why.”

You know – if supporters of President Obama and proponents of the current healthcare reform proposals took that approach…

I think they would win.

And yes you can quote me on that. But will you take my advice?

Addendum: My friend Chris Brady kindly directs our attention to an excellent preamble from Sojourners:

Good health is the will of God for each and every one of God’s children. Death, disease, and pain did not exist in the garden of Eden, and Revelation tells of a “new heaven and new earth,” where once again they will not exist.

In the fallen world in which we live, injury and sickness are a fact of life; physical death on this earth will never be overcome. But scripture paints a clear picture that health was God’s intent from the beginning and will be the goal once again in the end. This means that on a personal, national, and global level the physical well-being of all God’s children is close to God’s heart — and should be close to ours as well.

There is no religious mandate for a specific, God-ordained system of health care or insurance. No amount of biblical exegesis will lead you to a policy conclusion about health care savings accounts, personal versus employer-provided insurance, single-payer public systems, or private insurance plans. Luke might have been a physician, but he never commented on whether or not computerizing medical records should be a national priority.

Read the whole resource page here.

Second addendum: Jonah Golberg at National Review Online welcomes – in a way – how the left is beginning to invoke God and religion in defense of their initiatives.

President Obama briefly switched from wonkish frippery about bending cost curves to speaking of faith. Reaching out to progressive faith leaders in two massive conference calls, Obama insisted that God was on his side. Expanding health care fulfills a “core moral and ethical obligation that we look out for one another . . . that I am my brother’s keeper, my sister’s keeper.”

This would be an easy opportunity to call attention, once again, to the double standards applied to Obama. When Pres. George W. Bush invoked God as his inspiration, many liberals saw our theocrat-in-chief taking a sledgehammer to the wall between church and state. When Obama does likewise, it’s inspiring, spiritual leadership.

But, frankly, I find it refreshing.

Of all the silly arguments that have been passed off as deeply profound in American politics, the notion that politicians can’t “impose” their personal morality on others tops the list.

Read the whole thing at National Review.

Posted in Christianity, Healthcare, Politics, Propaganda, Religion, Rhetoric | 1 Comment »

Excuses that cannot bear the weight of facts

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

(This is the busiest time of the year for me. Might not be posting an whole lot until middle of October. Will try to put up at least one item per week.)

It is always someone else’s fault.

“This woman that you put here with me”.

“The snake tricked me and I ate”.

“This Hebrew slave”.

“I inherited a mess that George Bush created”.

A-yup. Always someone else’s fault. Could not possibly be their own.

I remember how often on Baptistlife.Com more politically conservative participants were scolded for blaming Republican or conservative losses on the “liberal media”. (Which was interesting given that while true to some extent they were far more ready to blame Republicans and conservatives for their own losses. But let us set that aside for the moment.) “Our guy won. Your guy lost. Deal with it. And stop making cheap excuses”. Got it.

So… how are things going for President Obama so far?

And now we hear about Faux News (instead of Fox News – oh the shock and horror of a single news channel that leans Right oh gosh oh my). About what George Bush left us. About the media being controlled by corporate interests (which is partly true but highly ironic given the leanings of big corporations). About conservative talk radio. About George Bush. About special interest groups trying to influence public policy (which is again partly true and again highly ironic). About George Bush. And so on.

John Pitney in his recent piece at National Review Online neatly torpedoes pretty much every cheap excuse that liberals and Democrats offer with hefty doses not even of argument but of hard cold facts. Democratic and politically liberal interests enjoy an advantage on nearly every front. Congressional majorities. Congressional rules and procedures designed largely to shut out and shut down the opposition. Party unity. Friendly media. Internet presence and promotion. Money – including from big corporations and powerful interest groups. Money – from individuals. Foundations and universities.

My favorite line of devastating logic is this:

More significant, polls show that most Americans have a low opinion of El Rushbo. So the “Limbaugh Did It” theory works only if he can mesmerize millions who dislike him and/or don’t even listen to him.

But if one sets aside the cheap excuses this the truth may look more like this:

With such a commanding position, President Obama and his party should be having an easy time. Indeed, they may still ram a bill through Congress. But the battle has been tougher than they expected. There are a couple of possible explanations. First, despite his talents as a candidate, President Obama is showing weakness and inexperience as a chief executive. Second, the health plan is so bad that even a mighty political operation has trouble pushing it across the finish line.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

Posted in Healthcare, Issues, Logic and Reason, Media, Politics, Propaganda | No Comments »

NPR's Jim Engster Show – Healthcare reform, communism, and crazy talk

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

The title is excessively provactive – just trying to get your attention.

Gil Dupre - Louisiana Assoc of Health Plans

Yesterday a guest host Jim Nichols was in charge of the “Jim Engster Show” on our local National Public Radio station. (I do not enjoy the show very much. But I often listen to NPR and this show happens to come on about the time I am driving in morning.) The host was talking about the current healthcare reform debate with Gil Dupre(sp?) head of the Louisiana Association of Health Plans. I appreciated both what Gil Dupre and Jim Nichols had to say. Jim Nichols began his interview by commenting that “I think everyone supports the idea of health coverage for everyone. But there are still questions about cost and accessibility“. And Gil Dupre did a fine job I thought of commenting on the healthcare reform bill currently up in Congress. In a nutshell he said it contains several good and worthy changes. But much of it is not good. I appreciated the “Jim Engster Show” giving someone who actually works in the heathcare industry a chance to comment.

Listen to the show by following this link.

Where the show got seriously weird was when Jim Nichols  started taking calls. I may or may not have voiced loud and inappropriate things at my radio. I have seldom heard such breathtaking idiocy.

The first caller said there are two main questions. First – whether healthcare is a privilege or a right. Second – his expressed concern that in the relationship between healthcare and insurance industries the patient does not have a voice. Dupre and Nichols handled the first question well. Dupre declined to answer what he defined as a “philosophical” question and said it does not matter whether one regards it as a privilege or a right – either way we still have the problems of cost and how to get coverage for the un- or underinsured.

For the record I would argue it is not a right. Although it is a good and worthy goal. (Keep in mind that I still agree with Gil Dupre – whether healthcare is a right or not matters less than some think.)

What does it mean to say something is a “right”? I have a right to free speech – does that mean American taxpayers should pay for my ability to say what I want? So if I want to say “I disagree with politician so-and-so” and want to say this on national television at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars – everyone must pay for me to do that?

In general (and I will come back to this) “rights” are things that I can do without restriction but also impose no obligation on others. On the Baptistlife discussion board in which I used to participate one person expressed this point exceptionally well:

First, health care is not a human right. A human right is something that can exist simultaneously among all people without imposing an obligation on someone else. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are such rights. Free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right of self-defense (2nd Amend.) and the right to file grievances against your government are all rights that we Americans have that impose no obligation on others.

Health care, on the other hand, cannot be classified as a human right under that definition. Health care may be needed as much as food, clothing and shelter, but it is not a right. One cannot have health care as a human right without imposing an obligation on others. A “right” to health care means that if I cannot afford medical services, then you are to be coerced through government force into providing it for me. What moral principle says that I have the “right” to insist you pay for something I cannot afford? Why should you have to sacrifice you right to enjoy the fruits of your labor in order to provide something for me? You may do so out of the goodness of your own heart, but should you be forced to do so?

However, like a basic education, we may define a societal right to health care and may set up a government program to administer it, but health care is not a human right. [emphasis added]

There is at least one important counterexample which is the “right to an attorney”. “If you cannot afford one an attorney will be provided for you” (at public expense). Perhaps our excellent friend above would classify that as a societal right (or a societal obligation under the United State Constitution).

Dupre also pointed out that huge steps have been taken to make sure the concerns of patients are addressed. Well answered sir!

Before I get to the truly annoying and chilling phone call let me address directly what Jim Nichols said about healthcare reform and economic competitiveness.

A lot of countries have gone to a more socialized or government-run health care. They seem to have contained costs. And have gotten something of an economic advantage over us. Some would say part of our problem competing in the global economy is our cost of health care in America.

I was sorely tempted to call in at that point – because it is not (necessarily or clearly) true that the cost of healthcare in America is a factor in how we compete effectively in the global economy. But I am not an economist – I merely read what economists of stature have to say.

Greg Mankiw who is an economist at Harvard University – and is an insufferably rational and reasonable thinker who handles dyspeptic hacks like Paul Krugman with uncommon civility and grace – has addressed this on a few occasions:

A common argument, often made by ostensibly sophisticated commentators, is that the United States needs to reform its health care system to maintain its international competitiveness. Regardless of your views of health care reform, this particular argument is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. Long ago, Paul Krugman wrote a nice piece demolishing the whole concept of international competitiveness as a motive for national economic policy. More recently, the Congressional Budget Office has done a nice job explaining why the idea of international competitiveness as a reason for health care reform is fallacious.

Read the whole thing here. And I will stop writing “you do not have to register” after every quote.

Do note that even Paul Krugman argues against the “healthcare-competitiveness fallacy”. Note that we are not even addressing the questions of:

  • whether socialized or government-run healthcare really contains costs 
  • whether socialized or government-run healthcare reduces quality and accessibility 
  • whether nations with socialized or government-run healthcare are truly economically competitive vis-a-vis the United States 
  • whether anyone really would prefer socialized or government-run healthcare 
  • whether anyone would want to work in the healthcare profession within a socialized or government-run system 

Do not misunderstand me. I strongly support the idea of healthcare reform. Not just in terms of “containing costs”. But also in terms of helping all or most Americans receive adequate insurance coverage.

(Quick important point. People talk about “universal health care”. That is not really the issue. The issue is “universal health insurance” or “universal health coverage” yes? What we are debating is the extent to which you receive healthcare and do not have to pay for it out-of-pocket.* I am pretty sure that is what we really are talking about. I also think the current situation – where we depend upon our employers for health insurance coverage – is not a healthy one. It means too often Americans will not look for new/better jobs because they are afraid about losing/changing their health insurance coverage. I would like to think this is of concern to all or most political conservatives.)

Back to the “Jim Engster Show” yesterday morning.

The next caller was something else. Something about how we “couch our Christianity in America in terms of concern and compassion… not knocking [or did he say not for - hard to hear him at this point] free markets… should we lower the salaries commanded by people in this arena [healthcare and insurance industries]… compared to individuals who work and struggle to pay the bills. They live a comfortable lifestyle. How much more money do you need? If you can live comfortable in a nice home drive an automobile feed you family – how much more rich do you need to be? To me sir it all boils down to greed…”

Or envy. And the desire to control others. And make them do for us what we will not do for ourselves. But let us pass over that for the nonce.

It is difficult not to hear good old fashioned Communism in that call. Yeah I know it is unfashionable to throw out that word and others will dismiss you as a reactionary wingnut – but do think about it.

“I think you guys make enough money. I do not think you should make any more money past a certain point. I think I and/or the government should dictate what those salaries and reimbursements and so on should be”.

It is tempting to take that stance. And there are legitimate questions about how much profit is enough and at what point does the legitimate desire for profit turn into exploitation? But one has to wonder who this fellow is to determine what is enough – for people who do work thank you very much and often work harder than the working people who struggle to pay the bills. Did my dad make a high salary? Yup. And he worked at least 60-80 hours each week and traveled all the time.

How would you like to be a doctor and have the government say “you know – after all those years of med school and being up all night studying and working 100+ hours each week as a resident and all the rest… we do not think you should be well compensated for what you know and what you do”? My last primary care doctor transferred to working at the hospital because it meant for the first time in two years he might get some holiday time off with his family. He worked and sacrificed to get where he is. He works harder than I do. Darn right doctors should be well paid.

And let me note in passing that during his address to the American Medical Association the president rather strongly hinted that one way to contain costs is… that everybody gets paid less. And who will make that decision? And how will it be enforced? (Some offhand comment about “spreading the wealth around a little” comes to mind.)

I am not sure how much I should thank the “Jim Engster Show” for letting us know that Communism and craziness are alive and well in Baton Rouge. But my genuine appreciation to Jim Nichols for an intelligent discussion. And especially to Gil Dupre for how well he addressed the issues.

Posted in Economics, Local, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Uncategorized | No Comments »

NPR celebrates $20 gas and the forced hyper-urbanization of America

Monday, July 20th, 2009

Somebody please explain to me why I listen to NPR.

Friday afternoon listening to “Talk of the Nation: Science Friday” hosted by Ira Flatow. Talking with writer Chris Steiner author of $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Price of Gasoline Will Change our Lives for the Better. The title is more or less self-explanatory.

Steiner laments the comparatively low gasoline taxes – which if higher would help fund our transportation infrastructure. Fair enough I suppose. But he has much more to say. How super expensive gasoline would force Americans (who live in the suburbs or the country and commute to jobs in the cities) to start moving and living closer to where they work. In other words force them to move into the cities. It would also force many airlines out of business and make air travel an expensive luxury. America would be forced to significantly expand and develop public transportation.

Hoorah For $20 Gas!

If you’re anything like me, you consider distance before getting in your car for a joyride, and hold your breath when it’s time to fill up. For many, there is a brace yourself moment of fear that the price of gas will mirror the four dollars a gallon horror we had to live through last summer. But according to author Chris Steiner, our lives would be a lot happier if gas rose to even the double digits. Seriously. We’ll give Steiner room to explain himself, and the title of his book: “$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better”.

Listen to Talk of the Nation: Science Friday July 16 2009.

My reactions to this are not entirely negative. Of course the United States needs to develop a better public transportation system. In fact conservatives should support this because conservatives want to see people get out and work and support themselves right? But for the working poor transportation is a major problem. They may not be able to afford new cars that are reliable. And if they (a) do not have a car or (b) have an old car in poor condition that is not reliable it becomes difficult to find and keep a job. The working poor need a public transportation system that is (1) fast (2) not expensive and (3) reliable. In fact not just the poor could use such a system and the result is less traffic less time wasted in traffic and less use of fuel. I would like to think political conservatives resonate with such goals.

It would also help foster the creation of community. People who live near each other and know each other. And give new life to downtown commerce – small businesses and shops which would provide goods and services to this growing urban population. When I talk with my Chinese friends most of whom are from cities they explain how cities are organized much differently in China. To a large extent people in China live near their places of work. And often within walking distance of the shops and businesses they use.

And Steiner also notes this will encourage Americans to use their bodies more to get from place to place. Walking and bicycling. He cites one researcher who argues there is a correlation between low gasoline prices and increased obesity. Again – fair enough.

What troubled me about Chris Steiner was how glad he seemed about the prospect of $20 gasoline and the changes it would force upon many Americans.

Let me share an obvious secret about expensive gasoline. It hurts poor people the most.

If you make $100k per year drive a large car and gas goes up to $5 per gallon – that is a nuisance. It probably means less money you are able to save for retirement or travel or college for your kids.

If you make minimum wage drive an old car and gas goes up to $5 per gallon – that is a disaster.

There is a reason – a good reason – why there are such things as income tax deductions. There are certain minimum unavoidable expenses involved in living in America. If it costs a minimum of $15k to live (housing food clothing and transportation to work) and you make $15k per year – then any increase in any necessary expense (gasoline) is a disaster you cannot absorb. Persons with higher incomes are in a better position to absorb increases in certain expenses.

So I do not quite understand why political liberals who supposedly care so much about the poor can without apparent hesitation advocate higher taxes for certain things like gasoline. “It will force Americans to buy more fuel efficient cars and drive less”. Well that is fine – if you are a middle or high income earner. You are in a better position to make those changes. It would hurt my family to buy a new car right now – but we could do it.

But the poor are much less able to make those adjustments. More expensive gasoline could mean not being able to make ends meet. They cannot afford to run out and buy a Toyota Prius.

Also – there are at least two huge reasons why many Americans live in the country and work in the city.

First – the cost of housing. There is a reason my family did not purchase a home closer to Louisiana State University. We cannot afford it. We can afford a home around $150k. Most small homes around the university or around the church campus run $250k and up. I cannot afford to live within walking distance of my work. Period. That simple.

(Now granted I would like to ride my bike – but Baton Rouge is one of the most bicycle-hostile cities I have ever lived in. Most roads and streets have no shoulders let alone no sidewalks. There is an ongoing campaign to push the city to make it more bicycle friendly and apparently they are getting results.)

People often live in the boonies or the suburbs because it is the only way they can raise a family in something other than a cramped one or two bedroom studio apartment.

In a bad neighborhood.

Which is another reason why people often live away from cities. To get away from the crime and violence. No not every part of every city is riddled with violent crime and other social pathologies. There is a reason why my family moved from Richmond to nearby Mechanicsville when I was in seminary. We did not enjoy beer bottles smashing through our bedroom window at night. Or being afraid to go for a walk in the evening.

So I am troubled by the apparent enthusiasm Chris Stein exhibits for watching millions of Americans being forced to move into cities. Ira Flatow read one email from a listener who said “I live in the country and commute 45 miles to work – what am I supposed to do?” Stein said (paraphrasing slightly) that “Americans have had the luxury of being able to choose to live in the country and work in the city – then you will not be able to make that choice and will have to live in the city”. It is easier for the relatively affluent – like the researcher that Steiner quotes – to move into decent homes in decent neighborhoods in the city. But not everyone can afford even an “attached townhome in central Greensboro”.

And while we are at it what about schools.

The forced hyper-urbanization of America.

In one sense I welcome this. One could argue that is how it should be – people live close to work. Cities should be beautiful dynamic places of culture and community.

But until we have a better handle on urban planning and urban life – and education and crime and housing and all the rest – do we really want to force Americans to live in tiny apartments in dangerous neighborhoods?

And elsewhere I have addressed that America is becoming increasingly divided along rural-urban lines. I take it NPR thinks it would be just grand to watch the further destruction of rural America and the growth of urban America – along with the growth of urban culture and urban sensibilities.

The more expensive it becomes to travel – the less free we become as a people. Deeply troubling.

Addendum: I searched the internet for any conservative critiques of Chris Steiner and his book. Most hits were at public radio websites – and most of those were pretty much the same text reproduced. I was not able to find much at all about Steiner and his book outside public radio websites. Very strange.

Posted in Culture, Economics, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Science | No Comments »

"No Senator. I am not a duck. I am a rabbit"

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

Readers of this website know that one of my “buttons” – things that make me quite angry and that is not to excuse an un-Christian reaction – is when people insult my intelligence.

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor and the confirmation hearing are an insult to my – to all of our – intelligence. Just how stupid and gullible do the president and Senate Democrats think we are?

There are two major problems even if you agree with the judicial philosophy of Judge Sotomayor and support her being on the Supreme Court. And I would like to think there are principled liberals and Democrats who would be troubled by these.

First is the issue of fairness and consistency.

Republicans are supposed to roll over and wag their tails because Sonya Sotomator is a Latina. If they question her too strongly or vote against her confirmation they supposedly risk offending and alienating a huge chunk of the American  electorate. Given the conversation I had with a gentleman on the plane from Los Angeles to Houston I think there is some truth to this. He was deeply angry and offended by conservative opposition to and criticism of Sotomayor basically because his wife is Mexican. Is that logical or rational or reasonable? Frankly no. But that is not the issue. The issue is perception and reaction.

But let us recall how Senate Democrats have treated non-Anglo nominees in the past yes? Robert Bork – oh wait he was male and white and deserved what he got. Clarence Thomas? And dare we recall Miguel Estrada? And according to Democratic staff memos later unearthed Estrada was not even allowed a hearing because (a) he was Latino and (b) then President Bush was possibly grooming him for the Supreme Court. Senator Leahy of Vermont has lied about this claiming that Republicans opposed Estrada.

What is it about liberals and some Democrats – this obsession with rewriting history?

I am not a big fan of Ann Coulter. She can be harsh abrasive and hyperbolic. But she is right on target with her latest piece which addresses the unfairness and inconsistency of Senate Democrats when it comes to Supreme Court nominees.

So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his “hope” is that “if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment,” I think it’s a lovely speech.

It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.

But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war — while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example. (emphasis added)

Read the whole thing at Townhall. You do not have to register.

I will come back to that point in bold.

So that is the fairness and consistency issue. Senate Democrats will engage in vicious ruthless cynical possibly racist tactics in order to block Republican nominees and/or conservative judges. And get away with it. And then lie about it later. And expect us to believe all this.

Second – the confirmation hearings themselves and the apparent disconnect between what Judge Sotomayor is saying now and what she has said/done/written during her previous career.

There is much to say about Judge Sotomayor’s record – in terms of speeches in terms of articles and in terms of decisions. But Jim Geraughty brings it all home in his latest article:

But if you were a Republican senator, and wanted to vote in good faith to confirm Sotomayor, you would have to believe:

· That her “wise Latina” argument was just a bad “rhetorical flourish” that accidently left listeners believing she disagreed with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, when she actually agreed with her.

· That the misperception of the “wise Latina” argument remained uncorrected through six separate uses of it.

· That Sotomayor genuinely has “no idea” why George Pavia, a senior partner in the law firm that hired her as a corporate litigator, would say, “I can guarantee she’ll be for abortion rights.”

· That she did not read the legal briefs filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while she was on that organization’s board.

· That she genuinely does not have an opinion on whether citizens have a right to self-defense, and could not think of “a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question,” despite the fact that the Heller case decided last year declared, “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

· That she “actually agrees” with Justices Scalia and Thomas that judges have to be “very cautious” about using foreign law, despite a speech earlier this year in which she said, “Suggest[ing] to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding.”

· That she really believes that “we don’t make policy choices in the court,” even though she said in a 2005 appearance at Duke University that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

· That she genuinely believes that “the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind,” when she said in a 1999 speech that there is “no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. . . . Aspiration to impartiality is just that, an aspiration.”

· That she thinks the man who nominated her has a fundamentally flawed perspective on the role of judges, and that she will not “approach the issue of judging in the way the president does.”

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. You do not have to register.

Precisely. In a nutshell the confirmation hearings have revolved around the theme of “everything I have said in the past – I meant the opposite”.

Let us assume for the sake of argument and at the strain of credulity that she is telling the truth. That she is not just pretending to be a rabbit for the sake of satisfying the Senate and the public – when for years she has walked and talked and quacked like a duck.

What we then are being asked to believe is that for years Judge Sotomayor has been incapable of making herself understood.

Does that not trouble even liberals and Democrats? Surely the ability to communicate clearly and be understood is important for a judge or a Supreme Court justice. Will her decisions be misunderstood as badly as all of her previous speeches writings and decisions? What “rhetorical flourishes” might there be in a dissenting or supporting opinion on the Supreme Court that would radically disrupt lives and businesses and organizations – and all because she did not mean what she said in fact she meant the opposite of what she said?

This is an insult to my intelligence. And God have mercy on me because that makes me quite angry.

Look. You want a Latino-Hispanic on the Supreme Court? Fine. You even want a liberal Latino-Hispanic on the Supreme Court? I do not like that but hey guess who won the last election. One expects that.

But surely we can do better than this. Why not the liberal Hispanic judge who harshly denounced how Sotomayor handled (or not) the Ricci case? Why not just be honest and consistent?

“Yes Senator. I think some people of some races and backgrounds are wiser and make better decisions than others. I do not believe impartiality is possible – or even a goal to which a judge can and should aspire. I think judges and justices make policy. I think racial discrimination against individuals in order to correct past wrongs against other groups is a fine way to go.

Yes Senator. I swim. I fly. I quack. I am a duck”.

Posted in Issues, Law and Justice, Media, News, Politics, Propaganda | No Comments »

President Obama is not really a liberal (or) The Alinsky Administration

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Let us review Wright’s First Principle of Epistemology shall we?

In any given set of data, the anamolous elements are the key to explaining the whole.

In other words – to understand the pattern focus on what does not fit the pattern. (Nearly every mystery/crime story turns on this point.)

Yes President Obama is the single most leftist-statist president the United States has ever elected. But not consistently so. Several Bush Administration policies which Candidate Obama promised to end President Obama will continue. Will not back down on “health care reform” but will back down on releasing photos of detainee interrogations.

What common theme unites everything this current president says and does?

Jim Geraughty explains brilliantly the key to understanding President Barack Hussein Obama. Oh we knew about it but did not really pay close attention to it.

(1) Saul Alinsky author of Rules for Radicals and of whom Barack Hussein was a student. And (2) Power.

Geraughty summarizes:

Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama’s decision-making; an Alinskyite’s core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power.

As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it …

It’s not about the policies or the politics, and it’s certainly not about the principles. It’s about power, and it has been for a long time.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. You do not have to register.

Yes. Yes that would explain a lot. It might explain everything.

I do have one question thought.

Okay so it is all about expanding and maintaining power. But power to what end? Why does President Obama not use his power to encourage (even a minimally regulated form of) free market capitalism?

Posted in Politics, Propaganda | No Comments »

Do we engage or avoid and/or create an alternative culture? (or) Die Kulturfrage

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

(I have been wanting to write this for the last few months but have not sat down and taken the time.)

There is a polite debate among those of a more conservative political and/or religious persuasion.

Let me first establish the context for this debate. The premise? assumption? conviction? that popular culture is dominated by voices hostile to those of a more conservative persuasion. Or to put it another way by voices of a more liberal (using that term loosely) political and/or religious persuasion.

By popular culture I mean the popular music industry or television or movies or even the news. What point of view dominates? The point of view that favors the state/collectivism over individual responsibility/liberty. That prefers a “believe what you want (sort of) and do what you want (sort of)” approach to religion and morality. (The “sort of” alludes to that curious tension within liberalism. Believe what you want except these things and do what you want except these things. Frankly liberalism ultimately is much more restrictive.)

And what point of view is consistently attacked? With regard to religion the point of view that some religious convictions are more true/valid/correct than others. This includes traditional/orthodox/evangelical Christianity. With regard to politics the point of view that favors individual responsibility/liberty over the state/collectivism. (And one must concede this reflects a corresponding tension within conservatism. Government should be as small as possible but must prohibit those behaviors and promote these behaviors. But I submit that in general conservatism is much less restrictive.)

(Of course there is a problem with the above schema. Politics and religion are not so one dimensional as “liberal versus conservative”. At the very least there are two dimensions – The Political Compass offers “left versus right” but also “authoritarian versus libertarian”. Some “liberals” are libertarians and therefore against statism/collectivism. Some “conservatives” are authoritarian and therefore have no problems with using the power of the state to enforce their views on personal morality.

I suggest that the dominant ideology one finds in popular culture is generally more left than right and more authoritarian than libertarian. With regard to religion either atheist/agnostic or “pretty much all religions are equal except those who do not think they are equal”.)

Let me give a few brief examples of how this plays out:

  • America is bad and the rest of the world is good
  • Democratic party very good and Republican party very bad
  • George Bush very bad and Barack Obama unqualifiedly good
  • Elective abortion is necessary or even good
  • Same-sex relations are morally and/or socially neutral
  • Free market capitalism is bad – especially small businesses
  • Government control of economic activity is good
  • White people are bad and other ethnicities are good
  • The American military is bad
  • Conservative/traditional/orthodox/evangelical Christianity is bad and other forms of religion are good
  • Wealth and property should be redistributed from those who have to those who do not have
  • Equality of outcomes is better than equality of opportunity
  • Good intentions are more important than good results
  • Human is bad and non-human is good
  • Sexual fidelity within marriage is not important

(I know the above items may appear simplistic. I am trying to be succinct. Oh and I do not necessarily agree with the “conservative” position on all of the above.)

I submit that one can find one or more of these themes in nearly every song every television show every movie every newspaper article every news program every play every art exhibition/performance. And 2008 was a significant watershed year in which popular culture/Mainstream Media more or less declared openly what they support and what they oppose and frankly do not care.

So how do we (those of the more conservative political and/or religious persuasion) respond?

(more…)

Posted in Art, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Religion, Society and Culture, Television | No Comments »

Why such a hard time over a bow?

Saturday, April 11th, 2009

The video footage clearly shows President Obama bowing to the Saudi king. Efforts by the White House and other spinmeisters to explain this away are risible. (Now this is the only part of this story I find significant – if predictable.) Many of a more conservative or Republican bent are making much of this. The president bowed to a Muslim (or a king or the leader of some other nation)!

Why such a hard time over a bow? What is wrong with a gesture of respect that is appropriate to the culture of the nation one is visiting?

I have my problems with the Obama administration – but on this occasion do not understand the furor.

Posted in Media, News, Politics, Propaganda | No Comments »

« Older Entries