Avatar... great movie... childish message.

Hey it's fantasy!

Yeah... that could not be more true. Even the overall tone that at one point seems like a lecture is pure fantasy.

Now, let me quickly say that I plan on giving James Cameron some more of my money as soon as it comes out on DVD. I might even see it again to get the full 3D effect. (Hey, see it in 3D... don't be cheap.) I LOVE this movie. I really do.

But, since Cameron's lecture is sooooo prevalent and the demographic for this movie so willing to be led by the nose... I feel I must respectfully protest it's cultural relativity message.

If you don't know cultural relativity is basically the belief that all cultures have a right to exist and that one shouldn't dominate the another.

WRONG...

It is this kind of Mickey-Mouse Pollyanna thinking that drives me nuts.

My thinking on the meshing of cultures is simple, trade up or you will be engaged in a protracted struggle to survive.

What do I mean by "trade up". Simple. When two cultures meet the less dominant and less modern culture has no choice but to trade up for the dominant culture. The more progressed, more modern, more advanced.

If the less dominant culture chooses to hinder this trade, this inevitable trade, a protracted conflict is possible. The result is that the dominant culture succeeds and the less dominant culture suffers.

Concepts as large as "cultures" survive in a state of nature or every culture for itself, or a completely self-serving agenda. Because of this self-serving nature in which no culture has at any relative time an advantage over another culture this concept is logically and ethically sound.

It is in effect a sort of natural selection for cultures. The ones that work survive, the ones that don't will eventually be taken over by the more dominant selections. Things that "work" in the less dominant cultures survive or assimilate with other working dominant culture aspects. Things that don't "work" are discarded.

This is and always has been the way of things. The victims of this "trade up" system are often dear to the less dominant culture. Languages, traditions, land, resources are lost to the less dominant culture. These are redistributed via the dominant culture's system or discarded. This redistribution and discarding of once important parts of the less dominant culture are quite expectantly painful and hard to cope with. But, the utility of this assimilation is undeniable and fair.

Is it fair in a particular instance? Not always. Can examples of horribly inhuman treatment be found in the history of meshing cultures? Of course. But in a utilitarian, do the most good and the least harm, sense it is the only rational system available, and in fact is the only system available.

Attempts to thwart the "trade up" only result in a delaying of the inevitable and protracted suffering borne mostly by the least dominant culture.

How does this translate to the Na'Vi in Avatar?

First let me say I understand the license taken to make the Na'Vi appear flawless and completely endearing. I get it. But if you are going to have a message it needs to be accurate. This movie could have been just as good and just as successful without the lecture.

A simple but accurate observation of the Na'Vi is that they are of course tribal, yet none of the horrible cultural practices that many "tribal" cultures have exist in the Na'Vi culture. No honor killings, no cannibalism, polygamy, no arranged marriages no female genital mutilation, and no infanticide.

A more advanced culture that doesn't rely on tribal principles to maintain order and predictability shuns these tribal practices because they are no longer needed. Ordered systems of government and civil society replace polygamy, FMJ and other acts we now find horrific or outside the norm. Witchcraft, wizardry and oracles are replaced by the much more reliable and predictable philosophy, scientific method and logic.

Cameron knows this so he had to create a fictional device to over come it. This device is the Na'Vi ability to network with nature. This small but important fictional element actually proves my point. That without this fictional parallel that made the Na'Vi pseudo-modern they were in fact a much less dominant culture. One that could benefit from the human culture in both the painful short term and utilitarian long term.

Emotionally we pull for the Na'Vi. But the bad guy... modernity (the same modernity that allows for this kind of advanced cinematography) has just as much "right" to advance as a culture has to survive. The assumption is that billions or even tens of billions of people need the fictional element Unobtainium that is a metaphor for oil.

If the metaphor is to be complete then this fictional element is literally the second air that the human society needs to breath and survive. Like oil, it touches every part of our lives. Improving it, moving it, saving it, prolonging it. Without it we would not be recognizable as the society we are.

To be clear, if we did not have oil/unobtainium that means you can't go to work, buy goods and services for your family and would have to return to a self-sufficient means of leaving. No, gas. No, markets. No, cheap goods from other parts of the world/universe.

Do your children have the right to be educated? Then quit work and home school because that is your choice without the catalyst that is oil/unobtainium. Want them to be healthy? Tough. We are back to country doctors that can not proscribe modern medicine or treatments. No MRIs, no advanced antibiotics, no cancer treatments.

The assumption and metaphor used in the movie suggests that human life depends on that fictional element. So, while you are ready to cheer for the Na'Vi as I did. Understand also as I did, that the movie is a one of a kind work of fictions to include the poorly thought out and typically leftist lecture on cultural relativity. A lesson that disregards the realities of an upward moving dominant culture and the benefits we enjoy.

And while many of us understandably turn away and prefer a fiction to the reality of the makings of modern society, that reality remains and much be dealt with via an accurate lens that accounts for what will do the most good for all involved or sometimes what will do the least harm. Or to simplify via a common metaphor, many of us don't want to know or see how the sausage is made, we just want to enjoy it.

So enjoy your sausage. Go see Avatar!!! It is a one of a kind masterpiece.

John McCain is supporting Henry McMaster...

Just got an email from McCain giving his support to McMaster for SC Governor.

Well, I wasn't leaning towards McMaster. Now I know I will not vote for him!!!!

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

California is set to have its citizens vote via referendum on the legalization of pot in 2010.  As of now, it is legal for medical use despite it being illegal per the Federal government.  Without telling my actual stance on the legalization of marijuana let me list some pretty significant "pros" that will come out of California's social experimentation.

First, the Federal government will be shown to be the actual paper-tiger that it is when it comes to drug enforcement.  Long has the US spent BILLIONS on chasing drug dealers and as far as I know the drug trade is tougher and deadlier than ever. No return on our investment!  If California legalizes pot, marijuana producers go legal or get shut down via market forces. (Do you buy beer/wine/liquor from a bootlegger or from Foodlion or BiLo?)  Chasing drug dealers...good!  Putting drug dealers out of business and not spending Billions chasing them... better.  As well, now California municipalities can tax the drug and use those funds to chase crack, meth, and cocaine dealers.  Or fund addiction centers, head start school programs or build prisons! (Knowing California it will be wasted on a typical liberal agenda.)

Second, the legal precedent of California standing up to the US government will trickle down to all states.  California legalizing marijuana will actually make it easier for states like Texas, South Carolina Vermont, Iowa and others who consistently try to protect State's Rights, to do so.  That means telling the Federal government "NO" even if they pass massive healthcare legislation that has no Constitutional backing.  That means telling the Federal government "NO" to education mandates that are not right for South Carolina.

Finally it lets California, a pretty diverse and representative sample of the US, conduct the social experiment of legalizing weed.  We, in SC, get to sit back watch this either be a success or a complete failure.  Perhaps test scores will drop and kids become more lazy than they are now.  Perhaps people are constantly late for work, zoned out at work and always have the munchies.  Maybe California collapses on itself in a drug educed haze.  Maybe.  Or, they enjoy Billions of dollars in new tax revenue, cut crime and show the Federal government that we are 50 sovereign states in one union of mutual support and protection, not one 350 million person state in need of a massive government Nanny.

Ha!!!! I love being right!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Tons of info out there on this stuff.

The idea that the educated scientific community is self-monitoring and in any way judicious within its own ranks is finally shown to bogus.

This is an indictment of all "peer reviews" that continue to be an incestuous mutual-aid-society. RIFE WITH GROUP-THINK!

Roger Goodell.... owned!!!

Thanks Steve King!

Flute? Manly?

Can you be manly and play the flute?

Uhhhhh. Yeah actually.

Coolness

...all apologies to Ron Burgundy.

Pageland Nobel

With so much going on nationally and statewide, I have neglected what is going on right here in our lovely town of Pageland (I will comment on Obama's "Peace Prize" however.).  A mayoral race is a foot, as well as three districts on the town council.  This past Thursday night I had the privilege of listening to most candidates state their case and respond to several questions concerning the future of Pageland.  First let me comment on the turn out.  I was happy and disappointed.  There was a larger crowd than I expected, as well there seemed to be some sincere interest in the outcome of these political races.  I was however very disappointed to not see more Black or Hispanic listeners.  Now, I had my back to the entrance so if someone slipped in late I did not see them.  But, the point remains.  I would have preferred a more representative crowd.

Candidates were allowed to introduce themselves and were then asked a serious of questions.  Without a doubt Joe Steen (council candidate) and Brian Hough (mayoral candidate) won the day.  Both Hough and Steen spoke clearly about the future of Pageland and what it needs to more forward.  Town Councilman Hough spoke with confidence and with more specificity often referring to facts and figures that the other candidates generally did not utilize.  Steen laid out a motivated vision for Pageland with a cornerstone of increased industry and jobs to increase the tax base of Pageland. 

David Whitaker also convinced me he is a qualified candidate for Mayor.  While he does not have the experience that Brian Hough brings he has obviously taken the time to inform himself and seemed more knowledgeable than any other candidate, Hough excluded.  If Whitaker doesn't win the Mayor's race this go-round I would very much like to see him try again or pursue a council seat. 

In terms of actual "content" the candidates were polite and attentive.  Decorum was never tested and the hot-button issues that can be so divisive were handled with care.  There is one more event on the 20th of this month held by the Chamber of Commerce.  I hope to see more in attendance as well as a more representative crowd.  Perhaps those candidates with public speaking jitters will shed those and other front runners will emerge.

The IgNobel Peace Prize

Last week most of the world was stunned when the Nobel Peace Prize was given to our President, Barack Obama.  Over the years this prize has become less about peace and more about ultra leftism.  Jimmy Carter, the worst US President ever, has received one.  Al Gore got one.  As well as Yassir Arafat.  Not to mention 1976 winner Betty Williams who confessed to school children once that she wishes she could "kill Bush," referring of course to George W. Bush.  Oh, and lets throw Kofi Anan in that mix too.  The guy who presided over the expansion and corruption of the UN, including sweet-heart deals for his own family.  So, Obama is in great company.

Basically Obama received an award for not being Bush.  Or, for weakening our country rather than protecting it.  Weakness in the eye of an ultra-leftist is the only way to peace.  If only everyone were equally weak we would all live in peace.  No I believe it is strength guided by individual freedom, capitalism and democracy that brings peace.  Our world remains in a general state of peace because of the strength of the US and our allies.  Not because of anything Obama has done in the 9 months he has been in office.  This award signifies the utter ridiculousness that Obama's presidency has become.  It is all HAT and no CATTLE as they say in Texas.