A United Nations World

Security concerns cause doctors to leave hospital, quake victims - CNN.com

The UN orders Doctors to leave patients behind and leave, and they do -- except for a Doctor with an American News Corporation. When collectivism gets to the level of "World Government", of which the UN is the "best" example we have today. We are told every day that individual rights and resolve are bad, collective command and control are good, corporations are bad, government and Non-profit NGOs are good. How long can people keep truth alive in the daily drumbeat of false messages?

The people of Haiti have been "wards of the world" basically forever, the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. On the other end of the island, The Dominican Republic has built itself into the 2nd largest economy in the Caribbean and a major tourist destination. Why? Seems like something worth some study.

It is heart wrenching whenever there is a disaster, but it is impossible to look at Haiti and not be reminded of New Orleans and that feeling of people with the attitude that "life is something that happens TO them and it is entirely under the control of others and "fate"". Otherwise healthy people can somehow stand, wait for help, and complain, while feeling no responsibility to help either themselves or their fellow man.

Will the once strong spirit of America have to be reduced to people wandering about while the bodies of their  neighbors rot in the street and lamenting "where is help"? Obviously, such disasters are not the "fault" of the people to which they happen, but they show a fundamental difference between the largely self-motivated and self-sufficient and those that have decided to be dependent. It is said that disasters and trying times "bring out the best", and for functional, independent people, that is true. It is also true that for those that are dependent, such things bring out the worst; looting, rioting, crime and even more total despair.

New Orleans showed that the spirit of dependence already has taken hold in parts of this country, and like a plague, it can spread easily. Worse in many ways, the MSM decided that New Orleans was a great opportunity to "blame Bush" rather than point out that a half million people with days of warning failed to evacuate, leaving among other things, 500 buses to be flooded in a parking lot.  Not only did they fail to evacuate, they failed to get a few days supply of bottled water and non-perishable foodstuffs. Saying such things is currently "not PC", it is called "blaming the victim".

The idea that humans should ignore that sodden feeling in the pit of our stomach when we see the wages of dependence and despondency, NOT the disaster, but the inability of a community of people to do anything but beg ... even those completely uninjured by the event. To turn that off, and to somehow blame relief efforts for being "too slow", "not sufficient" or otherwise ignore the core problem is to walk the road that eventually leads to the despair of Haiti or New Orleans.

Let us lift our eyes and get off this road!

Secret Ballot in MA?

Democrat Coakley Fights for Massachusetts Senate Seat - TIME

Were you aware that a week from today voters in MA will decide the fate of Teddy Ks old seat and it is still in doubt if their candidate will win? You have to be somewhat of a news hound to know it. Just imagine for a second if say John McCain had died and his seat was up with the Republicans having a 60 vote Senate majority and the President being a Republican. Suppose there would be any talk of "the need for balance"? Would we hear anything about the "arrogance" of a party that has jammed through legislation without a single "Democrat" (remember, opposite world) vote, often late at night and on weekends with nobody having much of an idea what is in the bill?

Let's face it, were the roles reversed, there is no way the MA election could be could be a "win" for the incumbent party.  If they won, it would be by too little, and if they lost, it would obviously be a "repudiation of the President and his policies", a "mandate to filibuster" to prevent the "unpopular and ill advised policies foisted on Americans by this misguided party". We don't even have to imagine it ... we heard much the same in elections in '04 and '06 as the MSM harangued Bush and the Republicans who had far less than 60 votes in the Senate. They were "on message" in '04 and failed with much weeping and gnashing of teeth mixed with promises to "leave the country". Many of the Dems and MSM were "embarrassed for their country".

Well, in '06, the heavens opened and the donkeys brayed their way to big majorities in the House and Senate running on that platform of "Change" -- that was one campaign promise that the Dems finally kept. Things certainly have CHANGED since they took over congress in '07!

Unfortunately, nobody from the Republican side seems willing to do more than the Democrats did for a platform in '06 and '08. It ought to come so somebodies attention that "I'm not W", "I'm not BO", or "Change" aren't platforms. They are barely even slogans, and they are just as stupid used by Republicans as Democrats!!

PC Police As Political Force -- and Farce

Power Line - Race and Racism: What's the Connection?

Assertion #1: Race, Sexual Harassment, and Hate Crimes are all "crimes" that need no evidence, not corroboration, and are 100% in the eye of the "victim". Any male is only free of having a criminal record today by the grace of no woman having taken the time to say "he inappropriately touched me". If a woman is willing to make this assertion, even with no evidence or other corroboration, all it takes for a male to be a "criminal" is her word in court.

Assertion #2: At the political level, these "crimes" have become a simple way to "purge the undesirables", meaning Republicans. Since the "crime" is controlled by the "victim" rather than the state, the "victim" can decide to provided forgiveness and thus absolution to the supposed "perpetrator", because they "know their heart".

The specific link is to BO accepting the apology of Harry Reid, but Slick Willie and Monica Lewinski is another example. What Harry Reid said was not in my opinion racist at all, but neither was what Trent Lott said. What Harry said is something that BO said in his own book -- he is light skinned and able to talk without a  "black accent" -- he said it himself, and it has the advantage of being true.

What Lott said is only racist if you assume the worst and are certain you know his heart -- the actual words had no racist content at all. The old coot Thurmond ran for President a long time ago, Lott just said "we'd probably be better off if he had won" -- most likely appropo of nothing at all, other than humoring an old man at his birthday. To make it racist, you would have to ASSSUME that what he was refering to was the racial aspects Thurmond's candidacy -- which is a pretty big assumption.

Never the less, Lott lost his position in the Senate, and Reid got an apology accepted and that is the end of it. Naturally, Lott's heart was deemed wrong" -- he is a Republican after all. The party of Lincoln, vs a Democrat -- the party of George Wallace, Robert Byrd ( recruiter for the KKK), and thousands of politicians that supported Jim Crow for 100 years and fillibustered the voting rights act in the Senate while a majority of Republicans voted for it.

We have handed "minorities" (even those that are a MAJORITY (females)) social power that is used to enforce a set of beliefs about the "hearts" of leaders and the ma in the street. The "heart" of a country that stoops this low is stained to a black that contains no light at all.

Glenn Beck, Arguing With Idiots

I've never actually watched Glenn Beck on TV, only seen a few YouTubes of him and this is the first book of his I've read. Basically, if you read this Blog frequently, you've seen all this stuff more than once. He has a very odd style of discourse that doesn't appeal to me, but I was actually surprised that the book wasn't nearly has confrontational as both the title and the MSM would lead you to believe.

He defends capitalism, the 2nd amendment, covers education, energy, unions, immigration, the nanny state, home ownership, basic economics, how progressive all our presidents have been since 1900, universal health care, and the constitution. He does generally a good job. He points out what he sees as the most common liberal arguments and then debunks them.

I found his view on home ownership to be interesting. He uses some good statistics to point out that homes are historically not that great an investment. In some places and times -- CA from say the 60's on, etc they have been, but on average, especially without government largess of one sort or another (FHA, mortgage deductions, sub-prime loans, etc).

If you like Glenn and his writing style, there is nothing wrong with the book, read it. If you haven't read a lot of the background books, it may be a good "catch up".

Robinson On Cheney

RealClearPolitics - Cheney in Winter

Robinson Says:

"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war," Cheney begins.
Flat-out untrue.

Washington Post, March '09 Says:
'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name - washingtonpost.com

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

So BO renamed GWOT to "Overseas Contingency Operation". We also know that they are trying KSM, the mastermind behind 9-11 as a criminal, not a terrorist in a military tribunal. What does "flat out untrue" mean in the context of these facts? It seems pretty reasonable to me that BO is trying to treat terrorism as a criminal vs a military operation, and the efforts that Robinson points to relative to Iraq and Afghanistan are simply "getting out as fast as he can".

Robinson says:

Cheney knows this. But he goes on to use the big lie -- that Obama is "trying to pretend we are not at war" -- to bludgeon the new administration on a host of specific issues. Here is the one that jumps out at me: The president, Cheney claims, "seems to think that if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al-Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."

He goes on to point out that some of the folks released BY BUSH have already become terrorists again. What he doesn't point out is that Robinson, many Democrats in congress and some judges were pushing to have Gitmo closed, and the Bush administration was forced to release people that were there. Robinson and others have been DEMANDING that Gitmo be closed for a LONG time. What did they expect to be done with these people?

I could do on, but the point is that what the left tends to do is to simply lie over and over and assume that nobody will call you on it.

Saturday AM American Musings

 I woke up this AM after a nice relaxing evening at home watching "The Battle of the Bulge" off Netflix, having some pizza and doing some reading. I have 100's of things I ought to be doing, but I'm moving slow, drinking coffee and surfing the web.

A lot of folks seem extremely confused about "what happened to America"  from all sorts of angles, so I decided to write down some thoughts.

First, there is no "right to jobs", "right to some wage", or "right to a standard of living". All of it has to be EARNED in a world where competition is a fact for weeds and crops in fields, NFL teams in playoffs, and yes businesses, employers and even governments on the world stage. SOME of what is earned can be "re-distributed", but when a nation gets to the point where the top 10% of the folks are paying for 40% of the total budget, robbing Peter to pay Paul starts to get shaky.

California used to be close to the #1 state in the country for just about everything positive -- now it has a $20 Billion deficit and is losing 1,500 taxpayers a week and is ranked 40th in the Forbes ranking.  Detroit in the late 50's was a model for the nation, now vast sections of it look like a 3rd world country and MI is 47th. Meanwhile, Texas, the Dakotas and Utah are examples of states that are improving their rankings even in the current economic climate -- Texas is essentially the new CA now ranked 9th.

Most of the reasons ARE known -- strong property rights including low taxes, reasonable levels of regulation, stable/predictable tax/regulatory environment, well educated work force with minimal unionization and increasingly a university system that fosters innovation for new business creation make winners, the opposite makes losers.

There are some GREAT opportunities to understand what works and what doesn't:

• Virginia is #1, W Virginia is #50 -- right next to each other, the best and the worst!
  
• MN #11, IL #35, WI #40 -- these are states right around where I live. It is easy to put the rules for success from above against them and see why they are where they are, and what direction they seem to be going.
  

Essentially, our top 25 states ARE competitive on the world stage, but our bottom 25 are not. What has happened is that increasingly (with FL and TX as shining counter examples), our most populous states have slipped from the top 25 to the bottom 25, so nationally, we are worse off.

This isn't rocket science, it has pretty much been known since Genesis and the requirement for "the sweat of our brow". Policies that encourage education excellence, work, thrift and prudent risk taking and discourage the counter behaviors create growth. However, we seem intent on rewarding massive unionization and slipping results in education, increasing regulation and costs for employers, higher taxation for those that save and invest, and rewards (bail outs) for those that take IMPRUDENT risk, while trying to pay for those bail outs from the people that took prudent risks and created and retained some level of value.

I guess it is like my waistline -- I certainly KNOW that I need to eat less, but eating more "seems too good at the time".  I think we all basically know the answers to economics, we just "wish they were different". It would be wonderful if everyone could have a great standard of living, super jobs, lots of free entitlements, all without much in the way of hard classes, stress, long hours etc, and somebody would pay for it "somehow".

We have been going along thinking that some growing population of kids in the distant future was going to provide our wishes -- basically since the '30s. Sadly, nobody had enough kids, people lived too long, and the rest of the world didn't sit by and do nothing. The IOUs are coming due, and it appears we needed to have one last big national debt tantrum before we either get down to business, or decide on a standard of living that is more like the bottom half of the nations on the planet than what we currently have.

I guess that wisdom motivated me enough to at least LOOK at my work list. We will see how much it does from there!

American Progressivism, A Reader

The subject book, edited by Ronald Pestritto and William Atto provides a sampling of some of the key speeches and writings of key American "progressives". It is a sobering book.

"We today who stand fore the Progressive movement here in the United States are not wedded to any particular kind of machinery, save solely as means to the end desired. Our aim is to secure the real and not nominal rule of the people. With this purpose in view, we propose to do away with whatever in our government tends to secure privilege ..." (TR)

There you have it. Yes, it DOES include doing away with private property and the constitution as we know it, and the subjugation of any individual. The end is mob rule -- any means needed to get there is justified!

 "Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop."

"By tyranny, as we no fight it, we mean control of the law, of legislation and adjudication, by organizations which to not represent the people, by means which are private and selfish."

 Those quotes are from Woodrow Wilson. What is the problem? The rule of law. Everything ought to "evolve" to what "the people want". As if life did not "obey" the laws of physics (mechanics). At the core of progressivism is simple wishful thinking -- we can have what we want by voting for what we want and telling others to give it to us. It is a movement dedicated to the ends somehow not only justifying the means, but somehow creating the means.

"Now that mines are great social undertakings, and their products are sold at monopoly prices, has private ownership any basis is reason or ethics?" (Walter Rauschenbusch, theologian, social gospel movement"

Private property is obviously the root of American freedom and economic success, but it is the bane of those who are primarily driven by envy rather than productivity as progressives are. If a thing has value, then a progressive believes that everyone ought own it collectively -- which as we know from the USSR, means that the value is destroyed and everyone loses. No matter to the progressive -- better that all should starve than a few are able to earn their way to wealth through their efforts and at the same time save any from starving. The burning anger in the breast of the progressive for the success of that one person is worth the deaths of any number of people required so that his success can be "leveled".

While the book is useful and contains a lot of good material, I hesitate to recommend anyone but an academic or those hopelessly dedicated to looking at both sides reading it. There are no surprises here, "progressive" is synonomous with "anti-American" if America means anything different from "A standard European socialist state". If it doesn't, then why should there even BE an America?

Gitmo Obsession

RealClearPolitics - The Gitmo Obsession

This a slightly long quote, but worthy. The idea that closing Gitmo is going to have any effect on al-Qaeda recruitment has no connection to reality. It is either just a cynical political ploy (likely for BO), or complete blindness to the facts (common to many on the left).

Obama also sensibly suspended all transfers of Yemenis from Guantanamo. Nonetheless, Obama insisted on repeating his determination to close the prison, invoking his usual rationale of eliminating a rallying cry and recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.

Imagine that Guantanamo were to disappear tomorrow, swallowed in a giant tsunami. Do you think there'd be any less recruiting for al-Qaeda in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, London?

Jihadism's list of grievances against the West is not only self-replenishing but endlessly creative. Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa commanding universal jihad against America cited as its two top grievances our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraqi suffering under anti-Saddam sanctions.

Today, there are virtually no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. And the sanctions regime against Iraq was abolished years ago. Has al-Qaeda stopped recruiting? Ayman al-Zawahiri often invokes Andalusia in his speeches. For those not steeped in the multivolume lexicon of Islamist grievances, Andalusia refers to Iberia, lost by Islam to Christendom -- in 1492.

This is a fanatical religious sect dedicated to establishing the most oppressive medieval theocracy and therefore committed to unending war with America not just because it is infidel but because it represents modernity with its individual liberty, social equality (especially for women) and profound tolerance (religious, sexual, philosophical). You going to change that by evacuating Guantanamo?

Nevertheless, Obama will not change his determination to close Guantanamo. He is too politically committed. The only hope is that perhaps now he is offering his "recruiting" rationale out of political expediency rather than real belief. With suicide bombers in the air, cynicism is far less dangerous to the country than naivete.

Stalingrad

Finished the subject book by Antony Beevor last night. Incredible book that brings to stark light "how bad it can get". Very well written, very academic, even handed, historical and non-sensational. But even with a clinical description, the horror of having two totalitarian regimes in conflict is very instructive. It is impossible to convey the grinding destruction, cold, hunger, lice, pain, death and just flat out despair. The total military dead was nearly a million German, far more than that for USSR. Soviet civilian casualties ran into the millions as well.

I'm not going to try to pick out specific anecdotes, since there are just too many -- the descriptions of the cold, the fighting, the hunger, the desolate steppe and a myriad of other things will likely stay with me for a long time, but given the three winters of struggle, it is the context that really brings it all home.

Some thoughts:

• The fact that "central government control is the problem" is really brought home here. Communist, Fascist, it really makes no difference -- BOTH demand that the individual be subordinated to the state and that is the only way this level of disaster is possible. "LEFT wing" is ANY form of state control and loss of individual rights. Communist / Fascist / Socialist / Monarchy / etc ... FREEDOM only exists in the "middle right". "Libertarian Republic" -- what the USA used to be! 
• BOTH sides were rife with "political officers" -- SS / NKVD, whose job it was to propogandize and "insure loyalty". Both sides in some situations had "2nd fronts" to shoot deserters from the main front. Worse for the USSR, but problem for both. 
• Generals needing to get orders from the top to do obvious things or risk being shot, and the fact that providing real information to either Stalin or Hitler could easily result in people being shot made both sides make gigantic errors. 
• Once you let the government take over there are ample numbers of folks to "do the bidding" of whomever, and their "morals" are simply about supporting the regime since it supports them.

Highly recommended, a warning for the age of BOism!

A Tea Party Future?

Op-Ed Columnist - The Tea Party Teens - NYTimes.com

The tea party movement is mostly famous for its flamboyant fringe. But it is now more popular than either major party. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement. Only 35 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28 percent have a positive view of the Republican Party.

Imagine a movement that is universally derided and peppered with sexual slurs by the MSM and the Democrats for the better part of the year, but STILL is up to a 41% positive in polling! One has to wonder about a political party and media that find it intelligent to deride 41% of the electorate.

BOcare and Mayo

Medicare and the Mayo Clinic - The Boston Globe

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services, estimated last month that the Senate bill would squeeze $493 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years. As a result, it cautioned, “providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and . . . might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).’’ In short, the Democratic understanding of health care reform - more government power to set prices, combined with reduced freedom for individuals - will make medical care harder to come by: an Economics 101 lesson in the pitfalls of price controls.

Just imagine the howls of protest if the Republicans were trying to squeeze $500 Billion out of "needy seniors"!! Oh the horror that would be trumpeted from every front page and coffee shop. Since it is BO and the Dems, we hear barely a whisper.

Mayo has stopped taking Medicare patients in Arizona. BO held up Mayo as the shining example of "doing it right", but the stench of BOcare has sent them retching for the door.

Ahead of His Time

Op-Ed Columnist - That 1937 Feeling - NYTimes.com

Gee Paul, how did we get to '37? FDR took over in '33, BO took over in '09. Isn't this "'34"? I'd expect more destruction before 2011, and THEN of course BO like FDR will HAVE to declare his programs a raging success to be re-elected the next year in 2012 as FDR was in '38. Most likely, had it not been for WWII on the horizon, FDR would have lost in '38 and the US would have been a better place.

Will BO have the "luck" of a major terrorist attack in '12 to assist in "BO II, The Final Solution"?

I suppose the lefties are already hoping.

Fighting Over Scraps of Nothing

RealClearPolitics - Fighting Over the Squandered Decade

EJ is a nice well respected far lefty, and I think he does a good job of laying out the false choices of the supposed "left / right" dichotomy that I increasingly reject. Both Democrats and Republicans of today are very far to the left in terms of the America of 1900. We have been on the "wrong track" for essentially 100 years and part of how it shows is that most of our arguments are so false that we don't even realize what they are about.

I'm afraid that the past 10 years will be seen as a time when the United States badly lost its way by using our military power carelessly, misunderstanding the real challenges to our long-term security, and pursuing domestic policies that constrained our options for the future while needlessly threatening our prosperity.

"Afraid"? Don't you mean that you "fervently hope"? Later in the article he is going to hold up the 60's and the 30's as exemplary -- the 30's involved ignoring the rising threat of Fascism and a world war that followed, the 60's brought us Vietnam and the 70's economic collapse that followed (EJ fails to remember the existence of the 70's). EJ fervently hopes that Bush is seen as "the cause" of what he probably realizes will be the disastrous decade of the teens given the policies that BO has already embarked on. What are the actual drivers of the deficis? FICA, Medicare and other entitlements -- policies of the 30's and 60's. Dionne has a nice sleight of hand.

Domestically, Obama inherited an economic catastrophe. Dealing with the wreckage required a large expenditure of public funds that increased a deficit already bloated by the previous president's decision to fight two wars and to cut taxes at the same time. Bush's defenders, preferring to focus attention away from this earlier period of irresponsibility, act as if the world began on Jan. 20, 2009, by way of saddling Obama with the blame for everything that now ails us. But the previous eight years cannot be wished away.

I certainly hope that Democrats are in complete agreement that who controls congress is meaningless. They took over in '07, and it was obvious that they were going to do so in '06. If the Republican's could manage to wrest control in '10, I'm sure that EJ would never blame any subsequent problems on them. It must be a tidy world that is split into "Bush defenders" and "reasonable people". Did deficits start with Bush? Other than '69 and '99, we have always had deficits since the '30s. The major false choice here is that there is somehow a big difference between W and BO -- W created a medicare drug benefit that is about as big a bloat as something like half of BOcare. Over even the medium term, that alone is more costly than the "two wars". It is always interesting to me how the liberal retrospectives of the decade somehow tend to ignore 9-11. Were BOTH wars optional? Should Bush have raised taxes into the teeth of the recession that he was handed from the Clinton administration after the dot com crash and the 9-11 shock?

It should not surprise us that the battle for the future will be shaped by struggles over the past. How often over the last 40 years have conservatives defended their policies in the name of rolling back "the excesses of the '60s"? For even longer, liberals were charged with being locked into "the New Deal approaches of the 1930s." Liberals, in turn, pointed proudly to both eras as times of unparalleled social advance. 

As for the 1980s, they remain a positive reference point for conservatives even as progressives condemn the Age of Reagan for opening the way to the deregulatory excesses that led to the recent downturn.

I'd say that the core difference is really there -- the 30's and the 60's gave us a host of entitlements and expansion of government that have saddled us with ever increasing debt, unfunded liabilities, and loss of the sense of individual responsibility to save to provide for ones own retirement. Both eras also gave us significant wars -- WWII and Vietnam. If Iraq was a "war of convenience", then Vietnam was even more so -- NOBODY attacked us. It is very interesting to try to claim that the subprime bubble is a product of "Reagan deregulatory excess". There is plenty of blame to go around, but the key element in sub-prime was the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 that forces lenders down the path of finding ways to loan money to people that actually didn't qualify for loans. It simply got out of hand.

BOTH parties have been giving away the store for 100 years. The original "progressives" were led by Teddy Roosevelt, supposedly a Republican. Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Nixon and Carter moved the "progressive" ball farther -- Nixon was big on the environment, lots of government controls and big government in general. Yes, Reagan did away with enough of the excesses of 80 years of government fattening to ignite the best period of economic growth in our history, but he did NOTHING to fix the entitlements mess, and in fact did the biggest tax INCREASE in history with the FICA/Medicare bill that increased the rate and allowed the caps to keep rising.

We need a MASSIVE entitlement REDUCTION -- but we are getting the exact opposite!

What Ever Happened to the US?

Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out - New York Times

Scientists and technologists have the same uneasy status in our society as the Jedi in the Galactic Republic. They are scorned by the cultural left and the cultural right, and young people avoid science and math classes in hordes. The tedious particulars of keeping ourselves alive, comfortable and free are being taken offline to countries where people are happy to sweat the details, as long as we have some foreign exchange left to send their way. Nothing is more seductive than to think that we, like the Jedi, could be masters of the most advanced technologies while living simple lives: to have a geek standard of living and spend our copious leisure time vegging out.

If the "Star Wars" movies are remembered a century from now, it'll be because they are such exact parables for this state of affairs. Young people in other countries will watch them in classrooms as an answer to the question: Whatever became of that big rich country that used to buy the stuff we make? The answer: It went the way of the old Republic.

Listened to MPR chortling over a judge deciding that the governor has no right to use his unallotment power to cut funding to some group or the other. We live in a "make it so" world where ever more of the teeming masses believe they have a "right" to everything from talks with a shrink to a flat screen TV -- oh, and while that is being gotten up for them, please be sure it has a negative carbon footprint. People know how less and less of how and why their lives operate, but they feel that they are totally justified to get more of whatever they want at someone else's expense, and complain that it wasn't acquired with a cheap enough rate from the folks that knew how to do it!!

Avatar: "Dances With Ewoks"

First of all, I went to see the movie with the family last night in 3D and it was great, a real trip -- immersive, enjoyable, beautiful, exciting and a lot of fun, go see it. I pretty much checked my brain at the door and just thought of it as an amusement park theme thrill ride, and it did extremely well at that level.

The blog title is a mostly tongue in cheek joke -- someone else on FB had mentioned the "Dances With Wolves" connection and when they were in the forest retreating, the Ewoks came to mind. There is some truth to the pangs of it being a really good ride, but it IS quite long for the volume of  insanely shallow plot while trotting out new effects. I think it leaves an "ontological hangover".

This isn't a movie that I'd worry about "spoilers" -- it is the all formula all the time, good vs evil, princess kisses frog, earth mother vs war god father, buddy bonding, technology vs nature, etc. with a blatant attempt at being a "Wizard of Oz" (color), Star Wars" (special effects), Toy Story (all computer generated imagery), etc  blockbuster that changes the industry for the digital / 3D technology. It may, but it seems a bit "tarted up" in trying.

My stream of consciousness:

• Must we ALWAYS suspend tactical awareness in odd ways? Humans can't breath the air on the planet. Your forces have to break off close contact with the core human base because of strong difference of operational objectives/outlook. You are willing to "go native". You have a group of "natives" at your disposal. Take control of the air supply in some innovative way for gods sake! You only have to put up with pompous ass old marines for a max of 4 min if they won't negotiate on air issues!
• I think "We're not in Kansas anymore" is a bit too much of a wishful reference to Wizard of Oz being the first film of the color eara -- 3D was interesting, but I think it is "always" going to be a high stakes tech two edged sword on the border of "immersive" vs "intrusive". It isn't color.
  
• OK, so we quit paying attention to religion, philosophy and have ditched western culture for the "noble savage". How does a guy worth over $100 million spend $300+ million on popcorn munching entertainment that supposedly disses the war god Yahweh "man has dominion" material / technical model for the eco green nurturing earth mother mixed with Klingon warrior uses the force model with a straight face? Only in America circa early 21st century. Oh, and the main character makes this transition while inhabiting a bio-engineered amalgam of human and alien DNA linked up by some sort of MRI / wifi from the Star Trek school of technology. Maybe there is a meta humor statement here of this is what happens when any concept of "the good" or "the sacred" is forcefully removed from the Prometheus / Pandora / etc world of myth? I mean, he named the planet "Pandora" -- he must have SOME understanding of mythology. 
• The witch goddess psuedo orgy pagan transfer of human to "golem" TWICE (attempted) was just a bit much. Yes, yes, we got it -- western civilization murdered mother earth. Father god = evil. Mother god = good. Mother god get angry, mother god kill just like daddy. Mother god better though -- use spears and arrows and have swaying tail and chanting at home rather than nasty polluting boy toys with smoke, fire, video games and enough comfort to drink your coffee while mass murdering. Those men are all alike -- and no doubt they would waste time watching football on Sunday rather than tending the flowers too!
  

I really don't need to be reminded "this is just entertainment", I did have fun DURING the film. Is there really any reason to go QUITE as far out on the "noble savage vs technology" theme?. MUST we have TOTAL boobs on the side of technology (the compound reminded me of Jurrasic Park)? Is it REALLY "all or nothing"? The Pandora planet is 100% nurturing for those that are adapted -- with luminescent plants for the night, giant leaves to enfold you in secure sleep, and lovely creatures for you to "plug in" in order to have all the high speed thrills and spills of your earthly atv, hang glider, mountain climb, etc.Come to mommy and you can have everything if you just "grow up" like mommy says is best. There there now, mommy can provide with just a few simple rituals of "joining". So much better than awful "separation".

Damn -- daddy threw us out of Eden. If ONLY we were lucky enough to have a mommy god,  it would have been so much better! At least we got to play with all our nature destroying daddy tech computers and build us one hell of an amusement film making mommy look nice while we are destroying the planet!