Avatar: A Political Review

Earlier this week, I watched the new movie, Avatar, and I wanted to share my thoughts about the work.  Originally the title struck me as a bit odd.  I think the first time I heard the word “avatar” was in a class in Hinduism.  In Hindu theology, from time to time the gods take mortal forms and walk about the Earth.  They engage in all sorts of behavior such as: imparting wisdom, participating in battles, getting into fights, and even partaking in lewd and potentially immoral acts.  Perhaps the most celebrated avatar was Krishna, an avatar of the god Vishnu who you can find in the great Indian epic story, the Mahabharata.  Nevertheless, it is important to note that while the avatar can die, the god remains.  The reason I mention this tidbit of information was that it was the only insight I had about this movie beforehand.  I read no spoilers and I saw no trailers and so went into the theater not really knowing what to expect.

But back to the film…the basic storyline is as follows:  On a planet called Pandora live a species of bluish humanoids called the Na’vi.  Also on this world is a rare and extremely valuable substance ironically named unobtainium.  Although we are never told the uses for this mineral, we discover that the largest deposit lies beneath the Na’vi settlements.  As a way to gain access to the natives, and reap their rich natural resources, a mining corporation creates Na’vi/human hybrids that are controlled remotely through a form of mental link.  These creatures are a Na’vi-looking embodiment of the humans that operate them.  Although radically different physically, they share the same thoughts, experiences, and emotions, with their human consciousness hence, like in the Hindu stories, they are avatars.

Visually Avatar is a very rich experience.  There is an abundance of vibrant colors, lush and exotic scenery, and even the 3-D experience was well done, though I did have a bit of a headache to show for it.  Although certainly alien, the Na’vi physically, thematically, and styles of dress appeared to be some sort of cross between cats, Native Americans, and African tribesmen.  For what it is worth, they were fairly attractive, with the notable exception of Sigourney Weaver.  Although I would argue that she looks pretty good for a woman of 60, her avatar was quite unappealing.

Unlike traditional movie reviews, my central interest was in Avatar’s underlying political message(s).  It examines the plight of the naturalistic natives against the technologically advanced invaders, a page ripped from history:  Native Americans versus the United States, Indians versus the British Empire, Germanic tribes versus Rome, just to name a few.  Given the Na’vi’s Native American traits, throughout the movie I couldn’t help but think about the events leading up to Custer’s last stand.  It strikes an anti-imperialistic chord, which I can appreciate, as well as nativist, environmentalist, and anti-militaristic tones.  I’m going to delve a bit further into the plot, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet and don’t want me to give it away, I suggest skipping ahead to the final paragraph.

Still with me then?  Very well.  So, as stated earlier, these avatars are physical copies of the Na’vi, but with a human mind.  The scientists create these beings in order to gain a better understanding of this species and also to begin meaningful diplomacy.  At the same time, however, the hired muscle seeks to use the avatars merely as a tool to spy upon the Na’vi and learn how to best conquer them.  Both the commander and the soldiers in the film are portrayed in a generally negative light, as most treat the native population as mere savages unworthy of discourse, their land, or even their very lives.  The corporation, that finances and heads up this operation, is driven solely by its profit margin.  As we learn more about the Na’vi, peaceful talks seem increasingly fruitless as the Na’vi view their homeland as sacred and have no interest in bartering away their land.  They reject the supposedly superior goods and education offered to them in favor of their own traditional ways.  And so, motivated by money, the corporation resorts to plan B, sending their paramilitary army to claim the land by force.  Thus, in a not-so-subtle fashion, the film simultaneously warns against the dangers of the military-industrial complex, corporate greed, consumerism, and even neo-conservatism.

Avatar was persistent in its environmental message.  The natives appear to live in near perfect harmony with the planet in much the same way that we are told that the Native Americans did and supposedly still do.  They seem to go out of their way to preserve both plant and animal life, their structures blend with the natural surroundings, and they spiritually bond with both nature and the planet.  I’m not looking to get into an argument over this point, but I don’t think such a way of life is either practical or religiously correct.  Nevertheless, should a society choose to organize in such a fashion, I would not advocate changing their lifestyle or relocating them through force.  The greatest problem lies when they compel their neighbors to act likewise through a heavy-handed government.  Oh wait…the Na’vi don’t act that way in the movie, but modern American environmentalists certainly do.  The horror!  The horror!  Anyway, the movie then seems to go out of its way to validate these beliefs through the supposed scientific findings of the head researcher just as many environmentalists do in our society.  If you need more proof of the pro-green message, in the final battle sequence all of the creatures of the jungle rally in defense of the Na’vi as if guided by the will of nature itself.  After the humans lose, a vast majority of the wicked and thoughtless human race is exiled.  To top it off, the main character casts off his human body to become one of the Na’vi.  Therefore, we are led to believe that only by rejecting our humanity can we save the planet.  Lastly, one of the final lines in the film, when the main character mentioned that humans had previously destroyed the environment on Earth, smacked of rhetoric worthy of Al Gore himself.

How is the film nativist?  Although I couldn’t real see any difference, the Na’vi could easily differentiate between themselves and the lab created avatars.  At first, everyone in their encampment treated the main character as an interloper who neither understood their culture, nor appreciated their lifestyle.  In addition, they feared he would try to infiltrate them, which is exactly what he ended up doing by revealing weaknesses in their defenses to the Colonel.  Both the Na’vi and the humans were, for the most part, ethnocentric.  Neither cared really to learn about the other, thought of themselves and their ways as superior, and both viewed the other with distrust and great suspicion.  At the end of the day, one has to wonder what would have happened if the Na’vi never accepted Jake, the main character, as one of their own and maintained their xenophobic ways.  Would the first military attack have been successful if not for the intel that he gave them?  Would the lost of life been far less?  Or would the humans, pressured by the tremendous costs of maintaining their presence, simply have given up and left?  Who can say?  Then again, if both sides had viewed each other with respect, perhaps the corporation could have extracted the unobtainium without disrupting the lives and homes of the natives.

Apparently Avatar had at least one conservative message too.  Although I didn’t see it, after discussing the film with my cousin, he pointed it out with the plight of the main character.  You see, Jake is a wheelchair-bound former marine.  Not only does the desire to regain his mobility serve as a motivation, it also fuels his rugged self-reliance.  Despite his physical limitations, he displays a high level of personal responsibility.  He never gives up, never insists on others to help him, and never expects handouts or special favors from his associates.  Rather than stay at home and collect disability from a nanny state government, he instead chooses to live life to the fullest and explore life on a new world.

Overall, I enjoyed the Avatar experience and I would recommend the film.  Sure, the movie has some awkward and questionable dialogue and yes, the plot twists are easily predictable. Nevertheless, you shouldn’t pass up the opportunity to learn about the fascinating, colorful, and bioluminescent world of Pandora and it’s inhabitants.  A word of warning to you impressionable folks…although some misguided people tend to take cues from movies on how to think, act, and even live their lives (the Jedi Church anyone?), one should value this movie for its storyline and amazing visual scenery and effects.  Be mindful of the liberal politics, of course, and don’t use them as a motivating tool for action.  Otherwise you’ll likely find yourself hugging trees, dancing in the woods with a loincloth, singing kumbaya, and worshiping Eywa…I mean “mother Earth”.

22 Replies to “Avatar: A Political Review”

  1. Though I’m not putting it as eloquently as your thoughts, I do believe there is a powerful conservative message in this movie. Not republican or democrat, but true conservative.

    Conservatives, by nature, conserve. We believe in not using more than we need and not stealing it from others.

    While I do agree with your ideas on how the Na’Vi could have handled things differently, I think we should look at the glass half-full, especially when Jake wrestled the bird to make him his own. He said to him, “You are mine, now.” It shows ownership and dominion over the other “lesser” creations.

    Just as the homosexual groups have stolen the rainbow, I choose not to allow Hollywood “steal” the idea of conserving. I email companies that I see use the rainbow in their advertisments and let them know I am impressed they are supporting a promise of God! We have to really examine this, as you have quite well here, and not let them take over.

    Thanks for the insight and it really made me stop and think. 😉

    1. And thank you Kirsten for your kind words. I hope you and everyone else finds this blog informative. When it comes to the subject of the rainbow, you are quite right to point out that it was earlier used as a symbol of faith. God used this mark as a promise to both Noah and humanity as a whole in Genesis 9:8-17. I’d hate to call it stealing though as I believe any group can define itself with whatever symbols it sees fit. I just wish Christians could at least have a version of it to show honor and reverence to God.

      Could you explain a little more about when you reference Jake and the bird? Maybe it is just a bit too late at night and my mind is a bit fuzzy. Just trying to figure out your point there.


  2. If we want to poop in the water everybody swims in, we should be able to do it. Why, because if liberals don’t like it we can beat their ass.

    1. Maybe, my boy, you missed the point of the film. You can no longer take what you want. You live in a rich country born from theft, genocide, slavery, on and on, but those days are done. The message is getting to you slowly it seems, but the Viet Cong, the Iraqi insurgents among others have sent you this message loud and clear. Now al quida, the taliban, etc repeat the message. Try fixing your own mess. The rest of us are onto you. Poop
      in your own water, if you have any left, and if you have enough food to make poop.

  3. “I just wish Christians could at least have a version of it to show honor and reverence to God.”
    There is already one. Not the rainbow specifically but there’s a multitude of Christian Symbols which are widely used. Would /one/ more make much of a difference?

    “After the humans lose, a vast majority of the wicked and thoughtless human race is exiled. To top it off, the main character casts off his human body to become one of the Na’vi. Therefore, we are led to believe that only by rejecting our humanity can we save the planet. ”
    I’m going to disagree with this. You’re getting the wrong impression. Rejecting humanity doesn’t always equal saving the planet. He chooses his avatar form because it allows him to have the freedom of movement he loves. He chooses it because he’s mated for life, with one of the Na’vi.
    Being in a Na’vi body would make things easier for him in general.

    “A word of warning to you impressionable folks…although some misguided people tend to take cues from movies on how to think, act, and even live their lives (the Jedi Church anyone?), one should value this movie for its storyline and amazing visual scenery and effects. Be mindful of the liberal politics, of course, and don’t use them as a motivating tool for action. Otherwise you’ll likely find yourself hugging trees, dancing in the woods with a loincloth, singing kumbaya, and worshiping Eywa…I mean “mother Earth””

    Wow, just wow. Are you really that thick? People take cues from all types of things. RELIGION tells people how to think, how to act AND live their lives. It says you can’t do certain things, and you must do others and if you eat a sacred animal you’ll go to hell. It tells us that we have to worship a deity. It tells us that non-believers must be converted or the world is doomed.
    It’s not just movies. It’s everything around us that says how we should think and act. It’s fucking society.

    Also, way to make assumptions on Liberal Supporters. Hell, even in America the Liberals are generally right wing fucks. Your left wing is the rest of the world’s center right. What’s wrong with caring for the environment? What’s wrong with wanting to preserve the place we live in instead of becoming selfish fucks, fulfilling our own imaginary needs?

    1. Thank you for your thoughts Em.

      Although it is true that Christianity has a good number of symbols, I think the rainbow would be a good addition given its biblical significance. Personally, I prefer the ichthys (Jesus fish) to any other. Then again, the Darwin followers have tried to remold that one.

      I’m sure that your comments concerning Jake’s transformation into a Na’vi are correct. This new form allows him far greater mobility than he had as a human (although apparently technology had advanced sufficiently to restore his human form to his original state.) Also, people do a lot of things in the name of love, so it is not unimaginable. I’m just pointing out that in the larger scope of movie that one could draw the conclusion that the writers of this film want us to reject our humanity.

      Yes, our society, our religion, our politics, and our friends and family mold us. The point I was trying to make is that some people take things overboard and use a novel or movie as a principle guide to living.

      One should be a responsible steward of the environment. We cannot strip the land bare, dump pollution in the water, and cover our crops in pesticides without expecting gross consequences. For example, I prefer organic produce and buy it whenever it is available. If people want to install solar panels on their house or business, set up a wind farm on their property, or drive an electric car, I say go for it. Heck, if you want to set up an earth friendly commune on your land, be my guest. As I stated, the problem with too many environmentalists is that they rely upon the federal government to enact policy further overstepping the constitutional boundaries. In addition, the government has such a piss-poor record of inefficiency. Unless your activities are ruining your neighbors’ land (and yes I know debating this issue opens a huge can of worms), I believe you should have fairly free reign over your property. I believe that more private, rather than public, ownership of land and the sea will be result in an improved environment.

  4. I see your point. At this time I really don’t feel like debating, Sorry for the coarse language in my previous post.

  5. Hello Virginian Conservative:

    Thank you for the well written review of Avatar, the movie. It’s good that you explain what the original definition of an Avatar is as – like the Rainbow mentioned in the replies – words change along with the culture. How many magazines and corporations have been named Avatar and when someone mentioned the word prior to this film my first thought was that they were referencing the old magazine from the 1960s or some corporation.

    Your review was somewhat fair until you veered off into the new Conservatism at the end …”hugging trees, dancing in the woods…” and then the slap at the general population that a movie might change minds. My perception is that people are flocking to the film because they agree with having some kind of harmony with nature. I’m in agreement with most of what Em says but the most telling reply is from “David” – let the Japanese Whaling fleet decimate the oceans when the rest of the world realizes the wisdom in being “conservative” with our natural neighbors…the whales…did they ram the ships protecting the whales or was it an “accident”…

    What logic says to me is that if you take a word like “conservative” and make it the opposite, it really isn’t conservative. Progressives are proud of being the dictionary definition of progressive while many (not all) Conservatives today seem to be trying to pass them selves off as “independents” – shying away from the Republican party because the Republican party has been less “conservative” and more like …well…the aggressors in the film Avatar.

    Chalk one up for the progressives here.

    My second point is that with so much energy available on this planet, from solar to wind, what is wrong with not dumping toxins into the atmosphere we breathe and the water that we drink? You don’t have to hug trees, but if you want to chop down the trees in the Amazon that help purify the toxins that “conservatives” want to put into the atmosphere, what will you do when cause and effect creates some Frankenstein we’re not even prepared for…that won’t have a happy ending like some extreme Roland Emmerich flick.

    David Zucker’s An American Carol flopped because it didn’t resonate with the general public, despite the “conservative” radio hosts in America giving the director so much airtime. Box Office Mojo said American Carol cost 20 million to make and generated 7 million,. People paid big money to go to Fahrenheit 911 which cost 6 million and made almost 223 million – before the cable broadcasts and DVD sales. During the screening one could hear the applause in the next theater when the film ended. When the film ended in the theater I was in applause again erupted. These aren’t people listening to Rush Limbaugh for free, these are people shelling out ten bucks each to hear a point of view that wasn’t the current definition of the word “conservative”.

    The conservative movement doesn’t want to conserve resources. It is an oxymoron. The progressives, on the other hand, are into conserving things of value. I’m not suggesting dancing with trees in the moonlight…but to live and let live isn’t a bad idea on a planet where fellow humans attack others for wanting to preserve the air, the water, the very things essential to life. Pandora is not a planet, as you stated in your review, it is a moon circling a planet with a language and a culture so exotic and beautiful that “humans” in harmony with it can enjoy it for close to 3 hours. Though not a perfect film it is pretty sly of Cameron that putting on the 3D glasses our eyes slip into an “avatar” to get the translation of the film…not meaning that we need to stay in the film as Sam Worthington’s character must because his human body/vehicle isn’t working anymore – but that we can visit this exotic world and enjoy it without Rush Limbaugh’s military coming in to wreck the joint.

    True conservatism is conservation and until people realize we are all living in this same room called Planet Earth and have to find some harmony with each other how the heck can we be in harmony with the water we drink and the air that we breathe? You don’t have to believe in Al Gore’s presentations to understand that poisoning the water and the atmosphere will have multiple other bad effects whether or not it causes “Global Warming”. Avatar doesn’t even lay it between the lines, Cameron is very upfront about “Unobtanium” (Wikipedia has a very interesting definition of that) and the symbolic tree/twin towers falling in the forest.

    I liked your review…but how many “conservatives” are going to allow me to state my logical position without going on the attack? And that is the problem that Avatar addresses, doesn’t it?

    1. Thank you for your thoughts Joe.

      Sorry it took several days for your comment to make it to this site. For some reason it ended up in the spam section (which I rarely check) and I had to fish it out.

      Admittedly the last lines of my post may have been over the top, and one person advised me to remove it, but I decided to keep it in as a way to vent my frustration about the excesses of the current environmentalist movement.

      In your first point, you are quite right that too many Republicans fall into the mold as the aggressors in the movie Avatar. Although I am certain that this next line will infuriate many, civilized people should not engage of wars of aggression. Just wars are those fought to gain or retain life, liberty, and property and not an excuse for one group to benefit by wiping out, enslaving, or stealing from another group. War is horrible and should only be used sparingly, when all other options are exhausted.

      As for your second point, true, people should not pollute their surroundings. To do so would be detrimental to their quality of life. However, a person or group wished to clear cut their own land, dump toxins in their water supply, and sow the fields with salt, that should be their own prerogative. Now all these examples would be foolish, yes, but they are an important component of freedom. The greatest problem becomes when a person or group does something that impacts the quality of their neighbors’ land. Now, I don’t claim such naivety to not know that anything one does has an impact on the environment of many more people (and animals too). Obviously, if you pollute the river behind your house, it will affect the neighboring house downstream and his neighbor and so on. If a person feels that his or her neighbor is negatively impacting his or her property, he or she would look to the government and the law for redress. My belief is that the Earth is a resource made for the benefit of mankind. We should not squander this resource, but, on the other hand, we should not be afraid of using it too. As stated in another comment, I believe that so many solutions to our environmental problems can be solved with greater private ownership of land. After all, no rational person should destroy their own backyard because either a. He or she lives there or b. it would hurt the resale value of the property. When the politicians/government own the land however, they rarely think beyond the next election and balancing this year’s budget. Yes, the previous statement was an oversimplification and overgeneralization for certain, but there is a truth to it.

      I didn’t see An American Carol. Certainly conservative media outlets hyped it. I don’t know why I missed it though I’ll likely see it one of these days and give you my 2¢.

      Yes, Pandora is a moon…my slipup there. Hope it didn’t ruin the review.

      Lastly, I do my best to make this blog a place of civil dialog. Even though I may disagree with you, I will allow just about any comment, assuming it is not overly rude.

      Can’t really think of anything else to add at the moment. Thanks again for your comments.

  6. Hello Virginian Conservative:

    Mr. Cameron went a little too long on the cliche army guy (Colonel Miles Quaritch)…but who am I to argue with success…as of 1-14-10 boxofficemojo.com has Avatar moving in on Star Wars domestically for the #2 spot and closing in on the #1 worldwide spot for biggest gross over Titanic. Wish my new release (Marty Balin (of Jefferson Airplane) Live On The Boston Esplanade did those kind of numbers…if it were up to me Titanic wouldn’t have had such a dumb love story and Avatar would’ve had less war and more magnificence and exploration of the planet. Dancing With Wolves And Trees, if you will! 🙂

    Maybe we can split the difference on your response to my second point. We as a species are way too irresponsible…look at the awful situation in Haiti. Had we spent more money on humanitarian efforts instead of blowing up Iraq a poor country like Haiti would have a stronger infrastructure which would have made the rescue effort and clean up so much more efficient.

    So while I understand your belief that the planet is ours to use, I also understand we are very much like fleas on a dog, not realizing that the “planet’ is a living, breathing entity. Even sending planes and rockets up to study our home from afar, we still don’t have a clue as to what this world which is far older than us is really all about in the cosmic scheme of things.

    Still, Capitalism is a good thing if handled properly…too much of anything – even too much of a good thing like water (without balance) can have a devastating effect on the body (and the planet). What I don’t like is when big corporations exist for the benefit of the “bottom line” instead of the heart and soul of the corporation: its workers. Avatar doesn’t address that, per se, but it touches upon it.

    Up here in Massachusetts as we deal with ice and snow. The rock salt I purchase is 1.49 and you can make ice cream with it! We buy the “safer” stuff to protect our pets. The more expensive stuff is chock full of scary chemicals…so we are paying for advertising for less effective products that have more harmful toxins in them…

    That’s the problem with pseudo capitalism — big business disguising itself as being beneficial or helpful. We have the cleanest sidewalk on the street by using the safer materials…and it is also the most inexpensive…the most natural.

    If we spent more time making nutritious food instead of manufacturing poisonous food and then creating a wide variety of medicines to cure the problems caused by the bad materials being issued to the public…well…we’d have a stronger society to deal with situations like Haiti which arrive unexpectedly and which change many people’s lives forever.

    Avatar makes people think. And for the “progressive” spin it has, it is ultra-conservative Rupert Murdoch’s film company poised to reap the profit on this “tree hugger” movie. Go figure!

    We’re immersed in an amazing election for Ted Kennedy’s seat. The Republican candidate said “It’s the people’s seat” but my opinion is that the people voted Mr. Kennedy in (I’m one of them) because many of us in Massachusetts realized that Mr. Kennedy went beyond the call of duty…and didn’t have to. It was his seat and now it is back to being the people’s seat. Let’s hope The Democratic candidate is an empty suit by the name of Martha Coakley and the Republican candidate is an equally empty suit. They have nothing of substance to offer Massachusetts. Being a progressive I will probably vote Democrat instead of voting for Joe Kennedy (not related to Ted)…though Kennedy is the most coherent and believable candidate…and took the time out to thank me for actually reading up on him. I can’t waste a vote if Kennedy has no chance, and my mantra is: Vote Martha Now: impeach her later. Scott Brown (the Republican) Centerfold, not Senator (he did some photo spread in his younger days…not as outrageous as Dr. Laura but still kind of silly)…there’s my lengthy response….thanks for posting my previous thoughts.

    1. Joe, next time vote your conscience. It doesn’t mater if your candidate can win. The propaganda machines have convinced many that you have to vote for the lesser evil if your vote is to count. The two party cabal has created a devils gambit to limit your choices. If we all continue voting for the lesser evil we will always get evil. Now that is the definition of throwing your vote away.

      The devils gambit works well for the two parties, but is failing the American people as a whole. The two parties have us divided down the middle not by accident. That gives a lot of power to grass root movements. Much smaller groups can now profoundly influence elections simply by walking away.

      The Massachusetts election is a great example. The democratic candidate didn’t motivate people and they walked away giving the election to someone else. Next time the democrats will think twice and field a better candidate.

      Ron Paul did the same sort of thing to the Republican Party. His supporters didn’t like McCain and a lot of them walked. If true conservatives keep walking the Republican’s will keep loosing until they start fielding better candidates.

      I don’t see much difference between them anyway. They both serve the same masters when they should be serving us.

    2. P.S. What do you know about Haiti? American foreign policy destroyed their rice production capacity on purpose. Now they rely on American rice farmers to feed them. There is a reason why they are one of the poorest countries in the world. Like I said, I don’t see much difference between the two parties. Certain things stay consistent no mater who wins. They both serve the same corporate masters.

  7. Hi Virginian Conservative,

    Thank you for fostering reasonable dialogue between convertives and liberals. I appreciated Avatar’s “liberal” messages and was happy that a movie with those messages had such a broad audience. On the otherhand, prior to the movie starting, I watched a 5-10 minute advertisement for the Coast Guard which glamourized military life. The extended preview advertisement portrayed military life and values in a very positive, glamourized way, whereas the movie portrayed the military as having corrupt values. I found the juxtoposition interesting.

    My understanding is that when large organizations are allowed to use land for profit they often do so at the expense of the public. In classic economics this scenario is referred to as a “negative externality” An example of a negative externality is when a company causes polution through its waste dumping practices. While the company is decreasing its own expenses by disposing of waste in, say, a river, the company is doing so at the cost of the public, who has now lost access to unpolluted river water. Another example of a negative externality is trucking. While a business is decreasing its own expenses by using large trucks to transport goods as quickly as possible, it is doing so at the expense of other highway users who are at a much higher risk of dying by being hit by a truck. (Trucks account for a large percentage of automobile accidents). There are many examples of negative externalities. (Positive externalities exist as well but that is another topic) In classic economics, negative externalities are considered a failure of the free market. The purpose of regulation is to ensure that organizations absorb their own costs instead of allowing the public to absorb those costs.

    I bring this topic up in response to your comment above:

    “I believe that so many solutions to our environmental problems can be solved with greater private ownership of land. After all, no rational person should destroy their own backyard because either a. He or she lives there or b. it would hurt the resale value of the property. When the politicians/government own the land however, they rarely think beyond the next election and balancing this year’s budget”

    My understanding is that government intervention on behalf of the environment is intended to prevent large organizations from creating negative externalities. It is not intended to prevent private ownership of land or to dictate to rational landowners how to use their own land, when their use of it does not injure other parties.

    I do not agree with your dismissive attititude toward “tree huggers” who want to “dance in the woods” as I find these types of activities valuable to the human experience. (And I encourage you to try singing and dancing as you might have fun with it!). However, as I wrote earlier, I appreciate your work in opening civilized dialogue between liberals and conservatives. It is important that we try to understand each other’s views without degrading each other. I believe that at the end of the day, we have more in common than we sometimes recognize. We all want to live in a safe, fair, productive society and for the large part, we are good people with big hearts and we want to see our friends and neigbors be happy and prosper whatever their political persuasion is.

    1. Tamara Davis, externalities are probably the most important and the most under discussed topic in economic study. The current mess that we now call an economy is one giant example of a relatively small group of greedy people on Wall Street externalizing the cost of their gambling losses on to Main Street. The truth is that “negative externalities” as you call them can also transfer vast amounts of wealth to people that didn’t earn it.

      This causes rent seeking behavior on the part of the ne’er-do-wells who use this easy money to further corrupt government. Most congressmen have become merchants dealing in the externalization of costs. This humongous deficit that they ran up is going to further externalize the cost of these wealth transfers on to people who weren’t even born when the transfers occurred. This mess could have been avoided if more people had your level of economic understanding.

      I also find it interesting that you spotted the propaganda juxtaposition. How much do you know about the subject of Taxable Income Elasticity? The propaganda on the subject is horrible.

  8. A very good review.

    At a very fundamental level the film was about the “culture” of death versus the culture of life. And it is obvious which side (in the film) represents the “culture” of death.

    It is thus very interesting re how many so called conservatives responded to this film.

    They effectively came out in support of the “culture” of death.

  9. HI,
    I’m from Coalition of the Obvious, where the author of this article V-conservative dropped in last night.

    I was just curious as to where Waldo got some of his inspiration for his posting.

    At the COTO site, you will find a crew of opinionated writers and political philosophers out on the edge looking in.

    We are well versed in deep history, as opposed to Lollipop History as propagated in the mainline poopshoot of academia and media. We are aware of the hidden history relying on the synthetic social engineering using the tool of the Hegelian dialectic to grow the scum in the petri dish called “culture”

    I find the Left/Right, Conservative/Liberal caged minds an interesting thing to look in on here.

    Thanks V-C for providing an opportunity to check in on y’all here by checking in on us at our site.


  10. Wow it is interesting views from all of the responders of this site on the Na’vi culture which just wanted to live in harmony with their planet. And they were willing to live with and teach their ways to the humans until the humans wanted to destroy want was most scared to them. That is went they and what they considered their mother earth fought back to save itself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *