Recently in Politics Category

Hollywood is pretty well known for making movies with a liberal political theme. However, Avatar is making some major waves and it seems that there are many writeups about it in the news. I saw this film over the Christmas holiday and unfortunately due to the time schedule in 2D. Afterwards, many people kept asking my opinion of the movie as though there was something special about it. Some were simply referring to the outstanding special effects. Others were referring to the political aspect and that is what this post will be about.

At first, I thought I might actually be the only one that did not like the political nuance of the film. Yet, shortly after articles started appearing in major news outlets about these aspects and what they mean. However, most of the articles simply concentrated on the parallels to Iraq and Hollywood sticking it to perceived American Imperialism. Only one article really resonated with me due to the emphasis on the cultural perspectives rather than simply the military.

I think those that have spent a lot of time overseas, spent time assimilating into other cultures, have learned a language and know their history will feel the exact same way as I do about this film. In short, the special effects are great while the storyline is horrendous.

Here is what I was going on in my mind as I watched the film.

A bumbling GI-Joe outcast goes along with the colonialist western powers to plunder yet another third world country. He realizes that what the colonialists are trying to accomplish is wrong and by some miracle is able to learn the language. He then, not only gets laid by the prettiest native, but also just happens to be the strongest and most intelligent of the native tribe! It is then up to him to lead the charge against his own people and unrealistically is able to defeat the far superior power! Then this former bumbler is now the greatest of the natives who could not have done it by themselves and gets to be king or something.

Now for the parallels

1. Evil corporation = Global Corporations coupled with the American military: Halliburton, Nike, Oil Companies etc. Or if we go farther back, the original bad guy, The East India Company

2. Na'vi = American Indians living in what could be: Vietnam, (or all of Indochina), Iraq, Africa, Mexico or any other place that Western powers set up colonies and basically raped the country for their own benefit.

Before I proceed to better endings I also saw a parallel with this movie and Giacomo Puccini's "Madam Butterfly." In that libretto the military captain gets the pretty Japanese woman due to the excitement and infatuation wtih the beautiful native girl. However, this guy leaves her after realizing he should go back, be smart and marry a western girl ("Where da White Women at?" - Blazing Saddles). She is distraught and promptly commits suicide.

I often wonder how this opera is seen from a Japanese point of view. I don't think Americans can even properly contemplate this because it would be like China invading and conquering America, a Chinese captain banging Miss America but then realizing it is better to marry a sophisticated (and better) Chinese lady. Me thinks this would not sit too well with an American audience but it is quite acceptable for the opposite to occur.

Now, let's have some fun and change the storyline to reflect realistic scenarios and would have made me happy. (With the historical reality, not necessarily the outcome)

1. Quick Scenario - Bumbler GI-Joe guy goes into the native areas and is promptly shot by an arrow. End of story.

2. State Department Scenario - The Evil Corporation gets smart and sends a highly intelligent agent from the State Department who really does speak the language and actually does understand the culture to manipulate the Na'vi. Yet the agent knows right away it is wrong, resigns from the agency and starts an awareness campaign of this abuse back on Earth. Then the population is split in their opinions of it. Half go stage a protest on Capital Hill while the far right makes radio programs and Fox television shows demonizing the "traitorous State Department Agent" and saying that he is trying to weaken America.

3. Vietnam Scenario - The Na'vi appeal to help from the UN saying that America (France actually) is destroying their country. The western powers manipulate the UN and tell the Na'vi to feck off. The Na'vi then align with China,, er I mean that larger planet which they orbit. The Na'vi defeat the French but then America spots an opportunity and tells their own population they must defeat the threat of Na'vi solidarity. So America moves in and sets up a Na'vi dictator to split the population in two. When this fails they send "advisors" and these advisors start shooting. Then the North Na'vi infiltrate the southern population with the Na'vi-cong. Then the North Na'vi win and American imposes sanctions on Pandora to only be lifted when they need their help to control and contain the population of that much larger planet around which Pandora orbits.

4. Mexico Scenario - The evil corporation is from Spain. At first they pretend to cooperate but then the Spanish general puts handcuffs on the Na'vi king. The population gets upset so Spain sends in the Jesuits. The Jesuits put pictures of Mary which have been modified to look like a Na'vi goddess on everything. They then they report stories of Na'vi tribes-people who have actually witnessed miracles regarding the Mary-Na'vi goddess and tell them to convert. They also take the Sacred Tree and put a cross in front of it, then mass produce this image and pamphlet the population. Seeing that this new goddess favors the invaders and obviously must be more powerful they do convert and the population is suppressed.

5. Nike-Scenario - After a devastating war the Na'vi can either win or lose it doesn't matter. Then the Americans impose economic sanctions which means the Na'vi cannot buy T.Vs or SUVs. The leaders want these things but need to have money. So they contract out sweatshops with the Nike corporation, make millions and now are rolling in the latest BMWs. Nike notices that some of the Na'vi are athletically gifted (cause they are all 10ft tall) and could dominate in American sports. So they lobby congress to get visas for some of the better players and now the Na'vi are some of the most popular players in the NBA and MLB.

6. Economic corruption scenario - The Americans win but see that the fruits of Pandora are really delicious!! So they start to import the Pandoran fruits to America but realize they are losing money by having to send the ships back to Pandora empty. So they stock the ships with Campbell's soup, powdered milk and other canned goods to sell to the Na'vi upon arrival. Now the Na'vi do not get to eat any more fruits from their own planet but instead must eat canned Dole peaches and Chiquita Bananas.

But no, none of the above scenarios happened. Instead the evil western power destroys the Na'vi village but in order to make the home audience feel good they make a westerner become the most powerful of the natives and defeat the bad forces from their own country and everyone gets to feel good.

No me gusta.

When I was about 20 years old, I was asked by a city leader if I "like politics." At that time, I really didn't know what it was and relied on the opinions of others to form my own. I didn't really have them explain in depth about any of the issues but would passively listen and would take the views of those I deemed "smart" as my own.

The easy part was, most people had the same opinions. I was in Business school at Ohio State so of course just about all the opinions were conservative. Growing up in a Catholic environment, just about all the opinions were conservative there as well. I actually had no access to the other point of view until I took some liberal arts classes at OSU and it was so easy to discount those views given the 20 years indoctrination on the conservative side. Nowdays, the words Liberal and Conservative are both toxic to the other side so I'm trying to write carefully as most readers will just be looking for which points I make that agree with their side and probably become angry should I make points that agree with the other side.

During my college years not many people of my age group actually cared about politics. When asked if they supported Bush or Gore it was a given they would support one or the other depending on their course of study. If you're in Business you supported Bush, whereas if you were in Liberal Arts you supported Gore.

Then I left the country for five years and was astounded at what I returned to. Bush had started two wars, had trouble making sense in public and the left was really hounding the President. It seemed that everyone had taken sides and everyone had an entrenched opinion. The media seemed pretty much like a tabloid and there were these blondes with big boobs wearing large crosses around their neck as well as something called "Evangelicals" bashing the Left. And I wondered what the hell happened while I was gone. These "conservatives" were really angry at "the mainstream" media which they considered biased so Fox news along with others counteracted and started their own T.V. shows which were extremely biased on the Conservative side. No matter what the other side did there were hundreds of talking heads criticizing every single step.

Further, both sides tried to identify with something called "ordinary Americans" and said the other side was "out of touch." By 2008 Bush had really plunged America's reputation into the toilet and most people thought "America was on the wrong track." Hence a very skilled orator comes along named Obama and wins the election!

Now, the conservative side becomes really angry at losing most of their moderate base and what we are left with is the "extreme right" which is spouting venom at every single thing the president does. In the past week they have called the President a "racist" and even question his legitimacy as President and are saying he was actually born in Kenya! I remember the left treating Bush pretty bad but I do not recall them calling him something as bad as a "racist." It seems that what is left of the Conservative base is really upset and for them Obama will never be able to do anything right.

So now we have these T.V. large personalities on the right such as Limbaugh and Beck who are very good at making every issue seem very simple in which their opinion is "the left is always wrong." This works very well since most issues are very complicated and they have a great market in making everything seem simple for the left over, hard-core Conservatives. Beck doesn't even try anymore to take a serious tone but instead gets all excited, starts jumping around and even makes sound effects!!

At this point in my post, most Conservatives are probably steaming mad. And this is the fun point where I change direction. The Liberals are spending tax money like crazy people. For a hard core and determined Capitalist, all this spending must seem like a nightmare. Our financial system acted extremely recklessly but did what they do best which was help consumers spend more money then they actually had! Can't blame the system for wanting higher profits as that is what the Capitalist system is all about and there is nothing wrong with that. However, all this excess eventually comes crashing down and people realize that spending more then they earn cannot continue forever. The financial system realizes that if people cannot pay back what they owe then they cannot pay their own bills either and everything comes to a halt.

Then we have citizens losing their jobs, houses and crying to their elected politicians to do something about it! If the politicians want to keep their jobs they better do something and quickly. So they spend gobs of money which makes any fiscally responsible person vomit. Besides those that are not in favor of all this spending are probably in a stable fiscal position and don't care about everyone else that "spent too much." It seems like perfect justice! However, this is all over simplified and we have "ordinary Americans" who did not spend too much and are still losing their jobs, pensions and so on.

Yet, this makes an easy target for the Limbaughs and Becks of the world who see a very easy way to pander to the group that is very upset about all this. And it doesn't stop with financials but spreads to just about everything the current President is doing. It would be best to have a Conservative viewpoint that does not pander to a small hard-core group but I doubt this person would get many viewers. It's much more entertaining to take one side or the other to the extreme and create anger or "a crisis." Pandering to emotions creates viewership whereas rational minded debate does not. It is no longer news but "entertainment" and as the name implies entertains the viewers instead of a long and boring serious debate.

The right has done a much better job of capitalizing on this then the left has. I can name several hotheads on the right than I can on the left. So in the interest of moderation I'll actually point out a few of my own political views which will either be agreed with silently by a slight majority or hounded upon by those slightly to the left or right.

1. Abortion (might as well start with a hot one)
Political stance: Neutral
- For the right it's murder and for the left it's for the women letting her do what she wants with her own body. I've read a lot on the topic and came to this conclusion. To kill a fetus is still killing but the state should not dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her body. So in effect, the woman should be able to choose weather or not she wants to kill that baby developing. Neither side will like that outcome.

2. Healthcare
Political Stance: Slightly Left
For the right, they all have it and don't want to pay for those (lazy in their opinion) people who don't have it. For the left, there are so many poor out there and it's obscene that in a developed society we let people suffer without it and that will clog the emergency rooms anyway.
It costs a hell of a lot to finance and might even come close to breaking the bank. Yet, most other developed countries do have it even though it might not be as good. Healthcare costs so much that you better not have any serious injuries if you don't have insurance or your in serious trouble.
Even though I have insurance I think that as a developed and good nation we need to help those that need it even if it makes them get off the couch and get a job with some insurance. One poke at the Right is that Jesus (and other religious leaders) tried to teach us to love each other and help others. The Right is just mad because it seems those that don't have insurance are not doing enough to help themselves.

3. Obama vs. Bush
Political Stance: Left
- Obama is smarter than Bush. Bush was not a very good President but in a hedge to Conservatives Reagan was pretty good! Obama has been very masterful in the way he has dealt with so many massive problems at once. I don't think any other leader could handle these terribly difficult issues as skillfully as he has.

4. Bailouts
Political Stance: Conservative
- Let it all crash. Things would go to complete hell but would recover more quickly. However, this would involve letting a lot of people suffer for a long time. What we need is light regulation and more a more responsible financial system. Yet that is laughable as "responsible" is just a word and the business of business is to make money. So, light but firm regulation is necessary but let people make money. America is Capitalist and is not in the business of being "fair." The smart people win and that's that. If you don't like it move to another country. And for the left, I do plan on moving to another country. :) Capitalism isn't fair at all so let's either be Socialist and be done with it or let the Capitalists make their money.

5. Talking heads
Political Stance: Neutral
- Shut up. You are doing nothing but making everyone dumber with simplified arguments which equals dumb talk. One word to describe what they are doing is "Demagogy."

6. Wars
Political Stance: Way Left
- Protecting freedoms etc is nonsense. Let other countries alone. America used to be this way but ever since the World Wars America has been crusading all over the place. I don't even feel like getting into it but unless one has actually traveled, understands other cultures and speaks another language you cannot understand other points of view.

7. Socially
Political Stance: Way Left
- If it were up to some, we would still be stuck in the Middle Ages. It's very difficult to have an open mind and most people have never EVER changed their opinion on important issues. I've changed mine several times depending on better arguments. Unfortunately, the arguments today are trite and just a lot of words without any depth.

There are others I could go on but am spent for now. If I was asked if I "like politics" I would say that I do but only when debating with intelligent people. Intelligent people for me are those than are able to change their opinion and carefully weigh the arguments. In fact, these people see good and bad to both sides and express it! Unfortunately that is not the case now.

As I've grown older and more informed through various media sources I cannot help but be very disappointed in how we in America appoint our leaders. This race for the presidency seems so absurd, so childlike, yet is for the highest office in the most powerful country in the world. This post could easily turn into a rant about the idiocy of the American media and the stories (stories = a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events) they report on the race. However, it is best to go right to the source and the media has become little more than a biased parrot (both sides) that simply repeats what the village idiots (politicians) are saying. The following are issues that have been giving me a severe headache and have turned me completely off any news unless it comes from the BBC, NPR or the Economist. Others such as CNN or Fox are simply tabloids and I've ranted enough about them before.

1. Sara Palin - While I still maintain a small modicum of respect for McCain, that too has nearly dissipated in his choice for running mate. A lady that stands up there and speaks like Ned Flanders (okaly dokaly, golly gee) in such a slow, dumb manner makes me want to jump off a building. I suppose the rouse is to "connect" with the idiots in America. If we are looking to rebuild our image in the world, it simply will not do to have a VP who thinks she knows foreign policy because "Russia is close to Alaska." I can just imagine it now how she would explain the problem of Iran to her supporters. "Iran has been naughty-waughty and my son is in the military so if you don't support my son who is fighting the baddies then you hate America!"

Just thinking about her conjures up an image of some 40 something blond bimbo in an SUV who agrees we should attack everyone so she can buy cheap oil to take her litter to soccer practice and believes that her faith in Jesus justifies that America is correct in everything it has ever done.

Living abroad has been so beneficial yet such a curse because those that have experienced other cultures can see very clearly how stupid our leaders can be.

I about blew a blood vessel when I read the headline "Sara Palin accuses Barack Obama of associating with terrorists."

So to sum up the Republican argument

a. If my son is in the military, you better support it or you hate America
b. America has never and will never do anything wrong.
c. Jesus loves America
d. We Deserve to have big houses, big cars and will go to war to ensure it.
e. If you don't agree with us, you are a possible terrorist

I have posted about this before, but just to refresh, I find it very sad how in the American mind, any country that has religious leaders is usually considered a "fanatical" country. Yet, Palin is an Evangelical Christian (see crazy ass) and often refers to her faith. I see no difference between crazy religious leaders of another country or our own.

2. Rush Limbaugh - Just saying his name should make people roll their eyes. I listed from time to time just to get the blood going. Last I did, he was talking about news reports that said John McCain's stay at the Hanoi Hilton "wasn't all that bad." The media interviewed the director of that prison who said he had "amiable chats with McCain," and "McCain often gave him impromptu English lessons."

He was speaking in Vietnamese and Rush's argument was "if that's the case, why doesn't he speak in the so called English McCain has taught him.

Letter to Rush.

Dear Fat Ass,

As I'm sure you cannot speak any other language I'm sure it would be very hard to comprehend through that fat skull of yours the difficulty of learning another language. Just because many immigrants have learned English rather easily does not mean that it is easy to do so. They have achieved it because they are surrounded by it day in and night for years. A few "impromptu lessons" will simply not do the trick and anything learned would most likely be forgotten in 40 years.

Your entire career has simply been to speak English while you grew fatter in your chair while fantasizing about what you could do to yourself with that microphone. You have spoken English everyday of your life so of course English seems easy to you. If you could complete three sentences in any other language you might be forgiven and no "Yo quiero Taco Bell," Mi cumpleanos es..." or "Mi nombre es.." does not count.

You are a fat biased prick and should I ever become president, my first act will be to deport your sorry ass to Antarctica.

3. OHIO - The Republicans of Ohio have been acting up lately and trying to deny people the right to vote. They finally got a boot put in their ass by the Supreme Court and "praise Jesus" for that. Just goes to show how vile that party has become when they resort to taking away liberties afforded to every American. I fail to see the difference between that and the tactics some dictator countries use. The Republicans won before by not counting votes and are trying again.

For me, the issues do not even matter anymore. I've clearly seen how evil the Republicans can be and no matter how many times they try to scare me by using the word terrorist, I will never vote for you again. In fact, I don't care if Gandhi comes back to life and runs for office,,, if he is a Republican I will not vote for him. From this day forward, I'm voting only for Democrats on every single issue, in every single campaign. I will join the Communist party before I vote for another damn Republican.

It has been a very long while since I last wrote an entry in my blog. This may be due to the fact that life doesn't hold so many exciting discoveries when you're back in your home country and it's so easy to slip into monotonous routine.

However after watching the presidential debate I've made a very exciting discovery. I am now voting for Ron Paul for president.

Just hearing his name will cause most people to subtly smile as they know he will never be elected and is considered a bit "out there" even when they don't really know anything about candidates or politics at all.

The reason I have changed my mind is to a well traveled person such as myself, he is speaking the absolute truth that many Americans do not want to hear.

The Republican mentality is that of "America can do no wrong." They believe America must go attack other nations when "America feels threatened." And therefore, America must attack the terrorists before they attack the USA. However, Ron Paul is saying that one of the reasons people might want to attack America just may be due to American foreign policy of "supporting dictators," "attacking other countries" and bullying other nations.

And he is absolutely right.

The thing about most (if not all) of most of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, and like most Americans is that they've never lived abroad, learned another language, and thus can never understand a different mentality especially that of another culture. Thus, the thinking is always "us vs. them." Therefore, when Ron Paul explains that it is the bullying of other countries which creates resentment of America, the other candidates attack him by saying he is reading "their propaganda."

Every experienced traveler knows that a big portion of the world has really come to despise America due to the foreign policy. Terrorists are not attacking us because "they hate our freedoms," as the Republican candidates would have us believe. Terrorists attack for a variety of reasons to be sure, but if we fall back to 9-11 as the Republican candidates often do, shouldn't we look at where those terrorists came from and who is currently supporting their government? Perhaps it is not a question of who supports who but I'm sure the hijackers didn't wake up one day and say "ya know,, I really hate Americas Freedoms. Maybe I'll go hijack a plane and crash it into one of their buildings because of those damn freedoms."

However, most Americans really have no idea what goes on in the rest of the world and believe they are educated by watching CNN or FOX. These people are the majority and therefore will elect the president. Therefore, even though what Ron Paul is saying is spot on, he will not be able to win.

Republicans have become a party that supports and rewards aggression towards other nations. America will be your friend if you do what we say and we will give you money. However, if another nation takes the notion of sovereignty too seriously and it interferes with American interests, then American foreign policy is to interfere with the politics of that country.

It is my belief that most American people want peace. However, it is the government that has created a culture of fear in this country and have them believing the only way to be safe is to stay on the offensive and keep attacking others. The Republican candidates embody this and their ideology is "for security we must attack."

Yet, I have to be understanding in that most people have not had the opportunity to understand or even try to understand another viewpoint. If someone hates America and wants to do it harm, Republicans believe it is not necessary to look at the reason behind it, or even how they became that way. Their response is to attack. More often than not, the reason might be because of Americas own foreign policy.

Whenever Ron Paul spoke, the other candidates would snicker and smile. The good ole' boys club they were indeed. By snickering it sends the message of "I think your ideas are so ridiculous I'm going to make a silly face as though we cannot take you seriously." However, they knew Ron is a long shot so did not waste too much time piling up on him and concentrated their heaviest blows on each other.

It's ironic that the Christians are in the Republican camp. Doesn't Jesus say to love one another and turn the other cheek? That has definitely not been the course the Republican administration has been on nor are the current candidates advocating. Such hypocrisy baffles me. Perhaps that is "terrorist propaganda" as well? Speaking the truth has often been a very difficult thing to do throughout history and rarely wins you any friends, especially among the powerful. Jesus did it and look what happened to him.

As I click the button to post this on my site a scary thought just occurred to me. When I was in Vietnam and expressing my political opinion through my website I always had to think, "Am I going to get a knock on the door from the police the next day?" Now, I'm wondering if the American government will pick this up on their scanners and put it into my government profile. It makes me laugh to think how inefficient the Vietnamese government is and how they still probably use manila folders in big metal filing cabinets. Yet, I almost turn pale when I think of how much information the US government probably knows and how efficient it is.

As a last thought: Seriously..... President Huckabee????? How could the USA have a president with that last name... HONESTLY!!!!

Hey Intelligence Agencies!!! Good news, I found the terrorists!! I'm sitting here watching the news in California and they've just reported that gang members have killed two 14 year olds in the past week! If you're not too busy please use your "precision guided missles" to unleash some "shock and awe" in the city of Oakland. Random checks for weapons catches in the the Oakland city residents homes would also be advised since half the city appears to be gang bangers.

What is that you say? You are only allowed to do that in poor countries? What, you already deployed the National Guard to the border of Mexico to stop those "villians" who are just trying to make a better life for themselves? Nonsense!! I'm sure you could drop one daisy cutter, obliterate a couple city blocks in Oakland and the real terrorists would be done for! And just think, you could still make money by constructing a golf course, or perhaps high income housing in the new vacant lot! It's a win win situation!

A concerned citizen,

Mateo.

PS: You can skip the Castro area. The terrorists are sure to keep far away from there on their own.

PSS: Just so you are sure to receive this message as you are now listening, reading the private communications of ordinary Americans, let me make sure your scanners pick up this message. bomb bomb bomb bomb.