Is Tron Legacy About Socialism?

One of the things I love about WordPress is the site-stats page, which gives you a detailed report on how many people view each page and what search phrases direct people to your site. I noticed one of the search phrases that directed someone to my site today was the question, “is Tron Legacy about socialism?”

I don’t know if you can definitely say the movie is “about socialism,” but you can definitely say it is not very free-market friendly.  One of the memorable early scenes in the movie takes us inside the board room of ENCOM just moments before the launch of their software platform. Ed Dillinger, the chairman of ENCOM’s board, is portrayed as a money-hungry antagonist who wants to exploit the poor by releasing virtually the same platform every few years, with only minor changes, in order to increase profits. Sam Flynn, the youthful ideologue, swoops in just in time to upload the platform to a public domain for the public to download for free. Profits are definitely treated as evil by this film, which is ironic considering the huge profit the film is set to rake in over the holidays.

Also, please remember this film stars Olivia Wilde who is a radical Leftist even by Hollywood standards. However, all things considered, I think it would be more accurate to say that Tron Legacy promotes an “ultra-progressive” agenda than garden-variety socialism. The philosophy spouted by Kevin Flynn is definitely a Utopian view shared by socialists, Marxists and communists, but it takes a much more spiritual (Eastern based) approach than the average socialist could stomach.

 

Healthcare Reform as a Sonnet

I saw an eagle flying high today,

Disturbed by the mob, she searched for respite.

The mob’s anger was based in Marx and Che.

Men harassed by the bird and her free flight.

Detested because her independence,

Trapping the bird was a “big fucking deal.”

Puffing on a Red and lighting incense,

The Chairman leads the mob in for the kill.

At the urging of this Marlboro Man,

They hit the bird with their hammer and scythe,

To see the bird destroyed, his only plan.

Battered, beaten the bird appears to die.

As the move on to their Palace of Sin

Like the Phoenix, this bird will rise again.

Josh H. Ellis

3/23/10

Conflicted feelings about seeing “Up”

I’ve never been one for boycotts.  I fundamentally disagree with many of the artists on the proper role of the Federal government and on the issue of American exceptionalism. However, I continue to consume their art. Indeed, a quick glance at my movie, music and book library and you’d be hard pressed to find any work by an artist I consider a political ally.

Every so often, an artist harbors such an abhorrent political ideology or personal beliefs that one must question whether or not it’s proper to contribute money to their art.  To this day, I refuse to watch Passion of the Christ or any other Mel Gibson film because of his anti-Semitic tirades.

I’m having similar hesitations when it comes to the new Pixar flick, Up, which currently sits a top the box office and has received great reviews. However, the movie features the voice of Ed Asner.  Regardless of the adjective you choose to describe Asner’s political views, it’s  clear that he is well to the left of center of the average American, as evidenced by his support of the Marxist rebels of the FMLN who fought against our soldiers in El Salvador in the 1980′s. I can tolerate a socialist; I can’t support a traitor.

With that said, I don’t want to act like the religious nuts that boycott everything that runs counter to Puritan values or Levitical law.  What do I do?

—————-
Now playing: Dixie Chicks – Not Ready to Make Nice
via FoxyTunes

Question for Obama Supporters #1

I’ve noticed that many people scoff at the idea of certain conservatives calling the current direction the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership are headed, “socialist.”

Personally, I think it’s a bit hypocritical for most elected Republican officials to use the term “socialist,” since the past 8 years were filled with government expansion, an idea often closely associated with “socialism.” However, I have no real problem with the semantics of applying the socilaist term to many of the policies being presented by the current administration. While they may not directly mirror the textbook definition of “socialism,” they do contain many of elements of “nationalization” and involve the intervention of the Federal government in the private sector.

It got me to thinking, if any use of the word “socialist” or “socialism”, as it relates to the current administration, will be viewed as simply a pejorative, what adjective, or what form of government, best describes the intentions of this current administration?

A few facts:

The previous administration began a policy of using the Federal government to engage in problems confronting the financial sector, part of the private sector. This policy was continued and expanded on by the current administration, including the use of Federal funds to prop up privately held financial institutions.

One sector, the automobile industry, received a lot of “hands on attention” from this current administration. Depending on where you get your news, this administration either forced one company (Chrysler) into bankruptcy or strongly suggested they consider it. Either way, the Federal government injected itself into the day-to-day business operations of a company in the private sector.

This administration and Democratic leadership has made clear its intentions to pass legislation regarding health care in the United States, specifically involving the Federal government in seeking out solutions for the uninsured or “under-insured.” Again, depending on where you get your news, this administration either wants to completly nationalize the health care industry or it seeks to establish some form of government run health care for those in need. Either way, it appears this administration and current Democratic leadership will attempt to expand the role of the Federal government in the health care indsutry.

While this may not fit your definition of “socialism,” it certainly does not fit the definition of “free-market capitalism.” My question to those sensitive to the word “socialism,” how do we describe these policies. Is there a particular term or phrase you would choose to use?

Searching for the political Cool Hand Luke

In the movie Cool Hand Luke, Luke Jackson serves time in a Florida prison work camp. From the moment he is introduced to the camp, Luke establishes himself as a fiercely independent spirit, challenging the authority of  the prison guards and refusing to accept the heirarchy of power among the prisoners established prior to his arrival.  One of the movies most memorable moments occurs when Luke (Paul Newman) challenges Dragline (George Kennedy), the self appointed leader among the band of prisoners,  to a prison yard fight.

Dragline uses his size and strength to pummel Luke. However, each time Dragline knocks Luke to the ground, he rises back up to take the next round of punches. At first, the other prioners cheer the fight on, but after a while they begin to see the extent of the beating and encourage Luke to either stay down or start bleeding so that the guards will stop the fight.  Luke refuses, rises to his feet and attempts a weak swing at Dragline who picks Luke up and throws him over his shoulder like a sack of potatos. When Dragline puts Luke down, he takes another swing at Dragline’s face. Dragline looks at Luke tells him “you’re beat” and to “stay down,” but Luke rises back up, as Dragline walks away.

Later that night, Luke manages to win most of the money in camp by bluffing his way through a hand in poker. Dragline looks at Luke and makes the comparison of the way Luke continued to fight him with “nothing” to the way he won a big hand in poker with “nothing.” This prompts Luke to issue one of the most famous lines in movie history, “…sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.” As the movie progresses, we see Luke defy the authority of the prison guards and that of Captain, seeking to escape from both the literal and metaphorical chains they attach to him, refusing to allow the authority of the prison camp establishment intimidate him.

When I think of Cool Hand Luke, I’m reminded of what the Republican Party currently needs. In the current political clime, Barack Obama plays the role of Captain. Indeed, you can almost hear the words, “what we have here is failure to communicate,” coming out of Obama’s mouth. The prison guards represent Obama’s lackeys in the Democratic Party–Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, etc. Dragline represents the current “leaders” in the Republican Party–John McCain, Sarah Palin, Lindsey Graham. The other prisoners represent the Republican Party and Luke represents the figure the Republican Party lacks.

Yes, the Republican Party needs their own Luke, someone willing to challenge the authority of the political establishment, someone willing to challenge the Captain and his guards, someone willing to take the punches from those in the Republican Party who will tell him or her, “we’re beat, stay down.”  The Republican Party needs politicians,not with policy, but with swagger. The Republicans need someone to energize their party with their dissidence.

Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) understands this, but lacks the eloquence to properly express this philosophy.  Asking a political party to take lessons from a Paul Newman movie is far less controversial than asking a political party to take lessons from the Taliban. I might not agree with everything Sessions says, but I admire his bravado nonetheless. Earlier in the week, Sessions called out Barack Obama, saying that Obama wants to “inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not kill it.”  After that remark, members of Sessions own party played the role of Dragline, distancing themselves from Sessions comments, submitting to the authority of the Democratic leadership.

Instead of standing up beside Sessions, lambasting Obama for his contempt of the private sector, accepting the punishment the White House would surely throw their way, the Republican leadership tucked their tails between their legs and said they did not agree with Sessions. They chose to cut and run, instead of staying and fighting.

We have seen this same cowardice since 2000. Every Republican politician has marched in line with the leadership at top. Every now and then, a few Republican politicians will have a moment of clarity and take a stand like Sessions; however, none of them go far enough.

For example, when Sessions made his accusations about Obama’s attempt to “kill” capitalism, he could have launched into a speech against socialism and took a chance to criticize many in his own party. 

The Republicans taxed and spent the past 8 year like there was no tomorrow and tried to force the government in arenas where the government has no business (gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, etc.). Yes, the few remaining Republicans in Congress are just like their Democrat counterparts. In the words of Bon Jovi, “it’s all the same/only the names have changed.” 

As much as I hate the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is actually more puzzling to me. Why is that they continue to push issues that many, if not most, Americans see as products of bigotry and misogyny. You don’t win elections by telling people “we think this group of people should have these rights, but not these.” They’re free to believe that, but don’t try to legislate it.

The best way for Republicans to win elections is to focus on the economy. “I’ll cut your taxes. I’ll decrease regulation of your business. I’ll let you make as much money as you want and spend that money the way that you want. Other than that, do what you want, just remember your rights end at your nose.” 

Instead, Republicans vote with Democrats on raising taxes, increasing government spending, using the government as a vehicle to fix mistakes made by the private sector. Let us not forget, a Republican president started the Federal bail out program. Three Republican Senators voted in favor of the Federal stimulus program. No wonder the Republican Party is at rock bottom, right now, it has no backbone to support it. Hopefully, before too long, the Republican Party will find it’s Cool Hand Luke and throw a wrench in the Democrats plan to turn the United States into a European socialist state.

Reagan’s work undone

On June 12, 1987, standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, President Ronald Reagan famously demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” referring to the Berlin Wall, perhaps the most famous symbol of the divide between freedom and the oppressive reach of the Marxist governments in the Eastern Bloc.

Symbolically, this speech represented the triumph of the United States over the Soviet Union, free market capitalism over Marxism and socialism, and the beginning of the end of the Cold War. Recently, it seems that the Obama administration has taken great strides to try and undo the work of Reagan in the region, although don’t expect the kooks on the Left to report it that way. Indeed, many brown shirts see Obama’s actions as an attempt to “revive American dipomacy.”

As Obama cowers and placates the Russians, our roles as nations seem to be reversed. The Russians now dictate the conversation and as they do, our nation resembles the Soviet Union more and more. Looking at the full scope of the Obama administration’s first few months in office, it’s as if their playbook consists of one philosophy, looking at what Reagan did as President and doing the direct opposite–further proof to the Marxist motivations of our commander-in-chief.

Happiness Is…

I’m happy!

While many investors, media members and politicians lament the defeat of the proposed $700 billion rescue plan, I celebrate this resounding defeat of socialism.  Call me naive, but I believe that as a people and as a country we will be just fine. The United States has always responded well to adversity.

I admit; the economic situation makes an Obama victory more likely. However, House Republicans have shown that they have the intestinal fortitude necessary to stand up to the agenda of socialism pushed by the Democratic Party. Obama now knows that any attempt on his part to put government where government doesn’t need to be (i.e. health care) will be met with dissent.

I’m most proud of the people of this great land. Everyday citizens, like you and me, are the reason that this bill was defeated. We called our elected officials and voiced our opposition and the response was so overwhelming that they could not ignore us. Over the next few weeks, watch as European citizens cower to their government’s financial rescue attempts. I love them, but the Brits will sit around and let their government take control, socialism’s hold is firm and growing there. The French wouldn’t stand up to the Nazis, we know they wouldn’t stand up to their own government. The Germans, the Italians and most certainly the socialists in places like Spain, Greece and Denmark will stand back and let socialism gain even more control over their economic markets. Americans saw something they did not like and spoke up!

At the same time, we’re not caving into the corporatists who have ruined our country and ruined the Republican Party.  We are standing up to community organizers, like Barrack Obama, who use intimidation to force banks to loan money to unqualified home buyers.  We are standing up to the irresponsible consumers, who in an attempt to live well above their means, fell into a pit of debt. We, as American, are standing up and shouting for our elected officials and the rest of the world to hear–we expect people to take care of themselves, that personal responsibility is the only way out of our current economic crisis. It is because of this that I am a happy man today. America has not had this bravado since the tail end of the Reagan Administration.

Hollywood’s President

Later this week, HBO launches the latest season of their hit series Entourage, which chronicles the life and times of a Hollywood star and his posse. While I’m sure the writers take some liberties, for entertainment’s sake, in presenting the story lines, I’m convinced that Entourage paints a fairly accurate picture of Hollywood life. Everything I read regarding Hollywood, seems to back-up what the show points out, while Hollywood stars may be idealistic and eager for the “feel good” story at the “feel good” time, they lack the understanding of the real world and the responsibility that goes along with it.

Yet, even so, the elite of Hollywood feel they understand the everyday American citizen. They feel obligated to inject themselves into the middle of political discourse, without the slightest understanding of the policies they seek to debate, and tell us to vote like them. The media loves it; the left-wing blogs love it and they try to convince us that we too should love it and embrace the Hollywood lifestyle and support the Hollywood candidate.

Indeed, Barack Obama represents the values of the Hollywood elite, a value-system rooted in fascism, born of naïve idealism and completely out-of-touch with mainstream America. Throughout his campaign, Obama has referenced that he works for “Main Street” and not “Wall Street”, implying that he cares for the common man. However, his words ring hollow. What proof do we have of this?

Is it not more accurate to say that Mr. Obama works more for Hollywood Boulevard and Sunset Strip than Main Street, U.S.A.? Every time I see this candidate, he’s surrounded by some no-talent ass clown (see Sheryl “One Ply-One Square-For-My-Poo Poo” Crow) or some pretentious prick that might actually have talent, but is even more out of touch with American society (see Sean Penn). Yet I’m supposed to believe that Obama cares about the middle class?

This is what Ann Hathaway would have you believe. In an inteview with MSNBC.com, during the Democratic National Convention, Hathaway talks of the need to “build-up the middle class” and eliminate the disparity between the super rich and the poor.  Hathaway never has experienced middle-class lifestyle, so she can’t really speak on the issue; however, this is a typical Democratic tatic–talk down to the common and try to impress them with the ability to relate.  Perhaps next time Hathaway can focus more on the qualities of her potential male suitors and focus less on politics she can’t comprehend.

Obama tells us that his is the story of America, but he continues to mingle with an ultra-leftist, highly elitist, fringe element of society that functions on their own terms. They lack structure and discipline in their own lives and need a strong paternal force in their lives, so they look towards the government and/or drugs, alcohol, women, because they could never make it alone. They assume that all Americans are co-dependant as well and try to force us to accept their newest vice–big government. Just as the cocaine they snort will destroy their private relationships and personal lives, the big government they yearn for will also destroy lives, but this time the destruction will include the freedoms and liberties of every American.

Simply put, Hollywood needs Barack Obama and his socialism–America does not.