Wall E is Not Walt D---Repeat

I am re-running one of my blog posts from June 30, 2008, because Disney is releasing Wall E on DVD for the Holiday Season. I can think of few films less appropriate for Christmas, the festive, joyful holiday. Here is my review of Wall E with a reader’s comment following:

One of the most important qualities Walt Disney’s movies, television programs, and theme parks imparted to me as a child, and to children everywhere, was a feeling of reassurance. I’m referring to the works of Walt Disney himself when he was alive, and of his studio the first few years after his death.

Even if the story is about things going wrong in one character’s life, it is clear that there is a larger world out there of sensible people and a system and world that makes sense, that there is something called normalcy, and the goal of the characters is to get back to normalcy or better, to improve their lives and live happily ever after.

The Banks family in Mary Poppins is at first somewhat unhappy, but there is hope and magical delight in the world outside, and there is a policeman and there are friendly neighbors who bring runaway children home. The home of (1961’s) 101 Dalmations’ owners is a happy, sane, home, and once the dalmations fight off the bad guys, they return to a state of eccentric yet happy normalcy. The world is expected to be filled with reasonable people who can get along and solve problems.

Even the satirical post-Walt movie The Barefoot Executive indicates that the larger world may be a little silly, but still okay at its core.

To a child, the sense of a system and society that is dependable and rational is extremely important to his feeling secure and optimistic, to his feeling free and motivated to learn and grow and become ambitious within that society.

The new Disney-Pixar movie Wall E is not at all in the spirit of Walt Disney’s movies. The characters of Wall E, Eve and The Captain are Disney-esque and very charming and funny. But the universe they inhabit is the opposite of Walt’s universe.

We are expected to believe and accept that in the future human beings (A) allowed a corporate monopoly to replace the U.S. Constitution (and all other governments) and become a dictator and (B) that no one noticed a problem with garbage disposal until it got so bad, the entire species had to leave the planet. In this dystopian vision of the future, the technology to build extraordinary robots and a spaceship that holds and takes care of the needs of the entire human population exists, but not the technology to get rid of garbage and plant trees or grass. Human beings are intelligent yet immensely moronic simultaneously.

Above all, the problem with this film and the fact that busy parents, or their child care providers, will one day buy the DVD and play it over and over for their children without watching it is the message that the universe makes no sense and the future is dark and adults are incapable of dealing with their problems until long past catastrophe. This is not a reassuring message to children who love life and can’t wait to grow up and flourish. It is harmful.

As my 5-year-old son said, “That’s a Garbage Planet. That’s not Earth. Why are they calling it Earth?” He understands that Earth makes sense. People are rational beings.

I explained it’s a make-believe silly story about Earth in the future where, as my wife said, “people become stupid” and can’t get rid of garbage. I reassured him and his sister that it’s ridiculous and that this is not going to happen in real life.

I received the following comment from Artifex:

Exactly right! For all the visual beauty and charm of Wall-E, the world we’re presented with is complete nonsense. BnL can build a massive spaceship with seemingly inexhaustible energy supply, human level artificial intelligence, what must be near-total recycling of resources (although strangely enough they seem to be ejecting a lot of trash into space - where does all that matter come from?), and the ability to hyperjump into another galaxy (!) in a matter of seconds but they can’t figure out trash disposal? Why doesn’t earth-that-was just fill the Axiom with garbage and hyperjump THAT into another galaxy? Why don’t they use the same recycling technology that must be present on the Axiom to solve the same problems on earth? Completely insane. It’s a shame - I really wanted to love this one.

I received the following comment from Mike:

Great post.

Saw your comment at the Think Progress site; your words were a voice of reason amongst so much vitriol, those words of hate that seem to be only language of left-leaning websites.

(wouldn't consider myself to be a right-winger, but I sure don't want to be classified with those who are haters of traditional values)

I'm so glad there are folks such as yourself who teach their children to think for themselves. Not having children myself, it makes me feel better about the future of this country.

Thanks to TCM for Glimpses of True American Spirit

The cable channel Turner Classic Movies often provides a better glimpse of American history than the History Channel, because it shows the spirit, or sense of life, of America in the past. This is an elevated, inspired, courageous, innocent, moral spirit that lives on in the hearts of many Americans who were fortunate enough to grow up surrounded by it. It is a spirit that lives on today in the families and communities in America that aren’t interested in the hopeless-violent-crude-hostile-negative-gossipy-nihilistic culture presented by much of the arts and entertainment media today.

On Veterans Day, through the night, TCM showed films I would not allow myself to stop watching, though I had not intended to see them. My feeling about my life and how I interact with people days later are still elevated by the glow of these films.
They were movies released during World War II: “Hollywood Canteen” and “Stage Door Canteen.”

They were made in 1943 and 1944, about real places in NYC and Hollywood at the time. The canteens were nightclubs where stars served food to thousands of soldiers on leave, and performed for them, for free, while civilian women volunteered to keep the men company for the evening. Everything about these films are so different from today. There are speeches that burst forth as if unwritten, from characters or stars playing themselves, about the meaning of the war, and why we must win, to preserve our freedom and specifically the pursuit of individual happiness. No altruism at all.

In “Stage Door Canteen,” the volunteer hostesses encourage the boys to be happy and to enjoy the women’s company, and berate a woman who doesn’t behave warmly to a man. Obviously it’s about soldiers so they get extra consideration, but the culture was so far removed from the fundamental hostility toward men, the presumption of evil or harmfulness in men, that I witnessed suffusing college campuses and large cities in the radical feminist-influenced late 1970s and early 1980s. This attitude still influences parts of the culture today.

It felt revolutionary to me to see these 1940s films where women respect and encourage men so directly, and women are also respected and adored. This is shown more vividly in these two movies than perhaps in any other film or TV show I’ve seen, even from that period. It’s so rare to see this fundamental respect so explicitly portrayed, rather than merely implied while part of another story. Maybe it’s because the characters seemed much more real to me than usual. These films expressed my sense of life, my sense of how people should act (even when it’s not wartime). Perhaps they seem especially real to me because I saw a bit of this positive ideal in the culture during my childhood in the early 1960s.

These films make the canteens come alive, and show the reality of them, by exquisitely choosing the best moments. I wonder if any of the incidents are based on actual ones.

If you want a happy sign in 2008 that marks the end of the feminists’ pitting of women against men, and marks the end of the hippies’ egalitarian removal of commitment, masculinity and femininity, and passionate romance, from relationships: It’s the joyful musical film for kids, “High School Musical 3.” It is has a non-cynical, innocent point of view, with worshipful adoration shown by boys and girls toward the ones they love, and pleasant flirtation all around. The songs and dances are about joy and energy and optimism and looking toward a great future.

More Political Thoughts

Now that there is no single leader of the Republican Party, and a clearly socialistic leader of the Democratic Party (and of the United States), I see evidence (on C-span, anyway) that the thinkers on the Right and the better Republicans (mainly in the House) are finally feeling free, with the inconsistent, concessionary McCain out of the way, to fight hard against the socialist/pacifist Democrats and the big-spending, bailout-supporting, me-too Republicans. They are energized. I think real intellectual debate could finally break out of the meaningless generalities and rally-the-crowd sound-bites we’ve witnessed during the campaign season.

Of course, the good news about Obama is that he will probably save stem-cell research and keep America pro-choice, will keep the borders open to all (hopefully excepting known terrorists) who wish to come, “wretched refuse” or not, and won’t appoint religious conservatives to the Supreme Court. But the bad news is everything else he may support, from restrictions on oil-drilling, to endless government spending, to paying off rather than destroying foreign enemies, to endless regulations on business and industry, to socialized medicine.

There is little hope of the Democratic Party becoming pro-laissez faire, so the better choice is to encourage the GOP to reinvent itself as such, and to reduce the influence of the religionists in the Republican party, now that the party has sunk to the bottom. Unfortunately, too many on the right still are religious pro-life types, whereas the reduction of the religious-right influence is not only more rational, but it is an important way to win back those who have deserted the GOP. My guess is that we won’t turn the nation or the party into atheists any time soon, but we can reduce the influence of the religionists in the GOP by emphasizing the principles of liberty, individual effort, private property, and self-defense.

Moving forward, I think it’s important to remember to pursue happiness. Defend your rights and property as needed, and then enjoy the unlimited opportunities still present in the United States for intellectual growth, productivity, learning, adventure, self-expression, building relationships, pursuing goals, and experiencing the arts and things of beauty.

Two Topics: The U.S. Elections and The Merging of Man and Machine

On the November 2, 2008 ”60 Minutes” TV program, Scott Pelley will report on one of the most amazing and important leaps in technology ever achieved by Man. I predict that this discovery will be the stepping stone to never-before-imagined possibilities in human activity during the coming century.

As a CBS promotional message sums it up: “People who are completely paralyzed due to illness or trauma …are getting help communicating with a remarkable new technology that connects their brains to a computer. In the future, brain computer interface, or BCI, may even restore movement to paralyzed people and allow amputees to move bionic limbs.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4560911n?source=newsletter

Now, on to a less inspiring topic: The U.S. Elections.

Obviously, for someone like me who seeks a moral, individual-rights-based, laissez-faire capitalist society where no one’s income is taken from him against his will, where no one is forced to financially support projects he does not choose to support on his own, where businesses, investors and banks are free to succeed or fail without government regulations and without government bailouts that steal from taxpayers (and also reduce the buying power of each dollar by inflating the money supply via deficit spending) — and for someone who seeks a government with a consistent foreign policy of pure self-defense, where no American soldier is sacrificed needlessly and no mercy is shown to our enemies — and for someone who seeks separation of church and state — and open borders to immigrants — there is no acceptable candidate for President.

Even if you simply seek a candidate who consistently speaks in depth of actual ideas rather than one-liners, who speaks from actual knowledge of history rather than pre-determined slogans, who acts like a human being rather than a marionette, you are out of luck. Of course there are brief exceptions here and there where the two candidates show a glimmer of actual thought, but nothing measurable.

The way the candidates act like robots, perhaps they are current examples of the merging of Man and Machine.

Here’s what I plan to do on Election Day.

I think that even if you don’t want to vote for President, it’s important to vote for good candidates for the House and Senate. Good candidates are (approximately) the non-theocratic, non-socialistic and non-pacifistic ones. In other words, the ones that are generally pro-capitalism, pro-freedom, anti-taxation, anti-spending, anti-regulations, anti-bailouts, pro-defense and pro-choice, who primarily follow reason and not a mystical or religious guide. Few are going to fit all of these criteria, but some will fit most of them.

Many of the anti-bailout House Republicans, for example, should be rewarded for their fight against nationalizing the banks, with your vote. (But don’t vote for any Huckabee types.)

Also, since the pacifist-socialist-altruist-leaning Obama appears to be headed for the Presidency, voting for any relatively secular, pro-capitalist and hawkish Republicans you can find for the House and Senate is a good idea, in order to fight Obama and at least create gridlock. But don’t vote in any more theocratic Republicans. Basically, look for pro-choice Republicans, or those who are not primarily known for religious-right views.

In New Jersey, I will vote for Zimmer for Senate, a pro-choice Republican who has been praised for his anti-tax record, and Lance for Congress, another pro-choice Republican.

If (pragmatist-socialist-altruist) McCain wins, there is automatically gridlock, as he will be fighting the majority-Democratic Congress. But since McCain is expected to lose, the best hope for gridlock is voting for the better Republicans for House and Senate seats.

Gridlock is good because usually, the less the government accomplishes, and the fewer bills that become law, the better for all of us.

Finally, if Obama seems headed to win in a landslide, it may be worth voting for McCain just to avoid an Obama “mandate” by reducing the margin of Obama’s victory.

To sum up, both candidates for President are unacceptable. For Congress, the religious-right Republicans, and big-spending altruist Republicans are unacceptable. The pacifist-socialist-altruist, tax-and-spend Democrats are also unacceptable.

But it’s important to vote for any secular, anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-bailout hawkish Republicans for the House and Senate, if you have any in your district. There is a chance they will fight whoever is President and the rest of Congress, and at least create gridlock, which is a relatively good thing.

What I'm Working On

Recently I’ve devoted some time to writing a TV comedy pilot script (on spec, which means no one asked me to).

I have had input from a professional TV story editor and writer, and also from an actor I know. I’m in the process of making final revisions.

The pro initially said, to keep things in context, “nobody ever sells a spec pilot script.” This obviously isn’t precisely true but is close enough to the truth, considering how many people write them and how few get on the air.

Still, as I work on it, I have to believe I’ll either sell it, or it will at least open doors for me. If it doesn’t sell, I can always turn it into a short story, screenplay, novel, graphic novel, or play so it’s not a wasted effort.

My attitude now is that it’s going to be so good (and also marketable) by the time I submit it, that I should expect only the best possible outcome. The pro has said very encouraging things about my work and my talent. I have totally agreed. So I will expect the best but I will be prepared for any outcome.

Meanwhile I have other writing projects to follow, and I plan to interview more fascinating people on podcasts for the Solid Vox Network in the near future. Keep checking this space and http://zigory.solidvox.com .

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to comment below or email me at zigory@comcast.net.

My Personal Happy Anniversary

Never mind the evildoers' anniversary just commemorated on September 11. I have a personal, happy anniversary to commemorate on September 12. No, it's not my wedding anniversary.

Exactly thirty years ago, on September 12, 1978, I met Ayn Rand for the first and only time.

I was about to start college at New York University as a seventeen-year-old freshman. My mother and I had to go to New York to do paperwork or pay tuition or something. But I had seen in my father's copy of The Village Voice, which he rarely picked up, an advertisement that said "Ayn Rand in person!" in big black letters.

Only five years earlier, my brother had shown me the fresh copy of The Fountainhead he had purchased when it was a book he chose from a high school elective reading list. (Thank you, Mr. Lamdanski). He said, "Read the Introduction." I was only 12. Still, I liked the Introduction. But I was not about to read such a long book.

When I was 13 and 14, I started looking for Ayn Rand books in the library. I mainly just wanted to know what her philosophy was, in her words rather than my brother's, without having to read over 700 pages of fiction to get to it. I would get to the fiction later.

I read a library copy of For The New Intellectual. (Thank you, Asbury Park Public Library). This was the "Eureka!" moment. I knew she was saying the truth, and that I had observed much of it myself. I knew she was my kind of person.

So on September 12, 1978, I talked my mother into letting me see Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was to assist Leonard Peikoff in a Q & A after his first lecture (of a series) on the philosophy of Objectivism. Visitors were permitted at the first lecture even if not planning to attend the rest of the lectures.

My mother did not intend to pay for a ticket for herself, so she waited outside the doors and I entered. I listened to Leonard Peikoff as he spoke, and watched him cover the bright light bulb over his notes (and under his face) when people complained that it was distracting. I paid close attention as it was my first time hearing such a systematic presentation of the philosophy.

When it was time for Q & A, Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor entered from the rear doors and walked down the aisle to a standing ovation. I knew they had just walked past my mother, who had remained outside the room, listening.

Leonard and Ayn took turns answering questions, including my own, which people had handed in from the audience. Ayn Rand herself answered all of my questions, which was thrilling and I tried to take accurate notes to review later when I could think more clearly.

When Leonard answered, Ayn would sit and scan the audience with her enormous eyes. It was as if she wished to look into the deepest souls of each one of us, in a benevolent way. I saw her doing this as a sign of her wanting to know who her fans were, since they were her kind of people. She wanted to see and know the people who loved and understood her work. It gave her pleasure. This is, of course, just conjecture on my part.

No photography was permitted. But someone in the front row took photo after photo of Ayn Rand. She asked him (or her?) for the 35mm camera. She opened the back of it, and dramatically unrolled the entire roll of film, exposing it to the bright light in the room. She held onto the camera, saying he could have it after the event was over.

When it was over, I took my partially-read copy of Atlas Shrugged and stood on line to obtain Ayn Rand's autograph. She asked me my name and how to spell it. Then she showed me the page where she had written, "To Greg Zeigerson." I nervously said, "You didn't sign it." She said, "I know, but did I spell your name correctly?" I said yes. (I wanted to slap myself). She signed her name, exactly as her signature appeared on "The Ayn Rand Letter" to which I had subscribed.

I asked, "Are you happy with the movie version of The Fountainhead?" She said, "I wrote the screenplay, you know." I said, "Yes, but are you satisfied with the final version?" She said, "They did the best they could." Earlier she had announced that she was writing the teleplay of an Atlas Shrugged miniseries. I was a teenager about to start film school at NYU. I said to her, "I wanted to direct the movie of Atlas Shrugged!" (with the obvious meaning, I would be too late since the miniseries was already going to be made). She said, "Maybe you will. The remake." This unexpectedly positive response was a moment I treasured. I nodded with seriousness, imagining with great hope that it actually was possible. She said, "You'll get the rights from my children." I pondered this, since I was unaware of any children, but I probably nodded again. She said, with humor, "But I have no children!"

I suspect she was thinking at that time about who would inherit the rights; perhaps it had not been settled yet. And her words may have just reflected that the topic was on her mind. This is pure conjecture, again.

Another fan told her he knew of a version of "Night of January 16th" being produced without her permission, with many changes in the plot and dialogue. She told him to call the producers the most obscene names he could think of, and "Tell them I said it."

My mother met me outside the doors. I saw Leonard Peikoff there and asked if I could take his picture. He said, "You want my picture? Sure." He seemed to think no one would want his picture. I still have that Polaroid photo.

My mother decided that since Ayn Rand spoke against Ronald Reagan for opposing the right to an abortion, that Ayn Rand must be in favor of "free love." It didn't help that the cover of my copy of "We The Living" had a picture of two men and a woman, implying a love triangle, but which she interpreted as a "threesome" (like in "Cabaret," said my mother).

I will never forget meeting Ayn Rand, exactly thirty years ago tonight.

Remember

As seven years have gone by, here are the words that express my yet-to-be-fulfilled wishes, thanks to the immensely talented graphic novelist Bosch Fawstin:

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/2008/09/their-911.html .

I wish to add the following to Bosch’s words: Time dissipates the emotions. But the primary perpetrators, the Islamofascists, the leadership and supporters of anti-Western ideology and violence in Iran and Saudi Arabia, still have not “heard from us” in the way they need to, the way President Bush promised the firefighters and rescuers at Ground Zero in 2001. I’m not satisfied.

Wall E is Not Walt D

One of the most important qualities Walt Disney's movies, television programs, and theme parks imparted to me as a child, and to children everywhere, was a feeling of reassurance. I'm referring to the works of Walt Disney himself when he was alive, and of his studio the first few years after his death.

Even if the story is about things going wrong in one character's life, it is clear that there is a larger world out there of sensible people and a system and world that makes sense, that there is something called normalcy, and the goal of the characters is to get back to normalcy or better, to improve their lives and live happily ever after.

The Banks family in Mary Poppins is at first somewhat unhappy, but there is hope and magical delight in the world outside, and there is a policeman and there are friendly neighbors who bring runaway children home. The home of (1961's)101 Dalmations' owners is a happy, sane, home, and once the dalmations fight off the bad guys, they return to a state of eccentric yet happy normalcy. The world is expected to be filled with reasonable people who can get along and solve problems.

Even the satirical post-Walt movie The Barefoot Executive indicates that the larger world may be a little silly, but still okay at its core.

To a child, the sense of a system and society that is dependable and rational is extremely important to his feeling secure and optimistic, to his feeling free and motivated to learn and grow and become ambitious within that society.

The new Disney-Pixar movie Wall E is not at all in the spirit of Walt Disney's movies. The characters of Wall E, Eve and The Captain are Disney-esque and very charming and funny. But the universe they inhabit is the opposite of Walt's universe.

We are expected to believe and accept that in the future human beings (A) allowed a corporate monopoly to replace the U.S. Constitution (and all other governments) and become a dictator and (B) that no one noticed a problem with garbage disposal until it got so bad, the entire species had to leave the planet. In this dystopian vision of the future, the technology to build extraordinary robots and a spaceship that holds and takes care of the needs of the entire human population exists, but not the technology to get rid of garbage and plant trees or grass. Human beings are intelligent yet immensely moronic simultaneously.

Above all, the problem with this film --- and the fact that busy parents, or their child care providers, will one day buy the DVD and play it over and over for their children without watching it --- is the message that the universe makes no sense and the future is dark and adults are incapable of dealing with their problems until long past catastrophe. This is not a reassuring message to children who love life and can't wait to grow up and flourish. It is harmful.

As my 5-year-old son said, "That's a Garbage Planet. That's not Earth. Why are they calling it Earth?" He understands that Earth makes sense. People are rational beings.

I explained it's a make-believe silly story about Earth in the future where, as my wife said, "people become stupid" and can't get rid of garbage. I reassured him and his sister that it's ridiculous and that this is not going to happen in real life.

George Will and Ayn Rand on Environmentalism

I have posted a reply to George Will’s excellent column, “The United States’ New Pre-Emptive War.” Although there is one sentence about abortion rights that I would argue with, in the rest of the essay Mr.Will eloquently and accurately analyzes environmentalism, with reference to declaring polar bears “endangered” based on “future global warming,” and quotations from Nigel Lawson.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/05/22/the_united_states_new_pre-emptive_war

Here is my comment:

Ayn Rand Foresaw This Outcome

Almost four decades ago, Ayn Rand predicted that leftist environmentalists would seek to justify all-encompassing regulations, as George Will accurately describes above. She wrote in her essay “The Anti-Industrial Revolution”: “The immediate goal is obvious: the destruction of the remnants of capitalism in today’s mixed economy, and the establishment of a global dictatorship. This goal does not have to be inferred —- many speeches and books on the subject state explicitly that the ecological crusade is a means to that end.” (From “Return of the Primitive”)

China and North Korean Refugees

All the talk these days is about China’s cracking down on Tibetans, and it is a terrible thing to witness.

Recently, China is claiming that the Tibetan protestors are puppets whose strings are being pulled by foreign religious elements, as a way of downplaying the situation and as an excuse to investigate and shut down churches or other groups who have any foreign involvement.

Related to this, things are getting worse in regard to China’s deplorable treatment of North Korean refugees and those who try to assist them inside China.

China has been known to send refugees, who have escaped North Korea’s police state into China, back to NK, to be imprisoned or tortured or killed by the authorities there, or to simply starve to death due to the conditions there.

Now China is recruiting more informants to report North Korean defectors by offering a reward equivalent to the average annual income in China, for each North Korean defector reported.

Added to that bad news, the punishment has been made more severe for those in China extending help to North Korean defectors. Instead of being fined, they now face the threat of imprisonment.

Of course, if China were to follow justice (and the international refugees convention) they would protect the North Korean refugees, give them asylum or allow them to move on to other countries safely, and allow people to assist them.

Here is a letter I have written to the Chinese Embassy:
———-
Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing in protest, upon learning that China is making punishments more severe for people who extend assistance to North Korean defectors.

I understand they face prison sentences now, rather than fines.

I believe that North Korean defectors are refugees who should be protected as such under the international refugees convention. Anyone helping such refugees should be permitted to do so, as North Korea does not respect the rights of its people.

Please end the threat of prison sentences for those who help North Korean defectors.

Additionally, North Korean refugees must not be repatriated as they face death or harsh penalties by the North Korean government for attempting to leave. North Korea does not respect human rights, these individuals need to be protected as refugees.

Most of the world is sympathetic to the plight of North Korean defectors, and sees them as refugees. Please show that you respect human rights, and protect them, and do not punish those who give them assistance.

Thank you.
————–
I sent this to chinaembassy_us@fmprc.gov.cn .

Feel free to write to them yourself. To send a letter (snail mail) to the Ambassador in Washington, write to:

Ambassador: Zhou Wenzhong
Address: 2300 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20008, U.S.A.

Website: http://www.china-embassy.org/; http://us.china-embassy.org/; http://us.chineseembassy.org/

Or telephone him at 1-202-328-2500, or 328-2551 .

For more information, see http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/2008-04-up1600percent.htm
and http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/index.html

Horton Hears A Who: Good For The Whole Family

We read the reviews that indicated that Horton Hears A Who was a good film and had nothing offensive for children, and so we took our five-year-old twins to see it. We all enjoyed it very much.

The story, as in the original Dr. Seuss book, is about a heroic dedication to justice, no matter the cost. Also, as Scott Holleran wrote at Box Office Mojo at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=2468&p=.htm, it upholds careful thinking and learning about all the evidence rather than following pre-existing assumptions, tradition, or faith. It also upholds the value of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and of respecting every individual’s right to live regardless of non-essentials (”A person’s a person, no matter how small”). Obviously, in the story, any creatures that think, talk and act like human beings are considered persons.

This film contrasts dramatically with the offensive movie destruction of How The Grinch Stole Christmas of a few years ago (surprisingly directed by the usually talented Ron Howard). That film was full of vulgarity and it stretched out and undercut the climax so that any impact was dissipated. I heard similar atrocities were committed against The Cat in The Hat in a recent version.

I understand the animators of Horton had previously created the film Ice Age, which I did not like because of too much vulgarity and scenes of torturous pain, inappropriate for children and unpleasant for me. Here with Horton Hears A Who, they clearly made an effort to be classier, and sensitive and respectful to the original material. However, there is a short preview of an Ice Age sequel before the Horton movie starts, and it is slightly disturbing for small children, but to a relatively minimal extent.

Incidentally, the same story is the major plotline in the musical Seussical. We took our children to see the shortened-for-children 90 minute version (or was it 60 minutes?) of Seussical when it played New York for free last summer and they loved it too. And the Seussical Broadway Cast Album became a great favorite.

In fact, our children have seen and loved every version of Horton Hears A Who, including the original book, and the superb Chuck Jones animated TV special.

The War on Freedom of Speech

I posted a comment after Yaron Brook’s OpEd on Forbes.com, regarding campaign finance restrictions limiting freedom of speech. I welcome any answers, here or on the Forbes page, to the question I pose at the end of my comment.

The OpEd is at http://tinyurl.com/37gkyx or at http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/19/yaron-campaign-finance-oped-cx_ybr_0321yaron.html

Here is the comment I posted:
————–
Yaron Brook explains well why this is not a small issue. Once we begin to lose freedom of speech, in small increments like this, the slippery slope becomes real. What will be left of the Founders’ Land of the Free? If America doesn’t protect its freedoms, where else can one go? One big question is raised by Brook’s comment, “A true crusader against political corruption… would seek to put an end to the government’s power to grant special favors to any group”: How do we put an end to the ever-growing powers that FDR, TR, Woodrow Wilson and others initiated in the early 20th century? Will it take new Constitutional Amendments restricting government power?

------------
I would add now, that a Constitutional Amendment won’t pass, and if it passes, won’t hold, until the American people more fully understand and embrace the idea of individual rights and a philosophy of self-interest and reason rather than altruism and pragmatism and majority-rule. So what is needed first is the full-scale education of the American people about the only philosophy that corresponds to the nature of man and reality: Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Fortunately the Ayn Rand Institute is making enormous strides in getting these ideas taught in high schools and universities and known to many more people via the internet and other media. Please support them.

Atonement Movie Review

Atonement is about to be released on DVD, and here is my review:

At first, every character we are introduced to seems either immoral, extremely unpleasant, a manipulator of others, or at best, simple-minded. After I saw Juno, which literally contains no villain, and where every character is decent and likeable, the characters at the start of Atonement made me fear I will regret spending the next two hours with them.

However, the film improves somewhat. The worst offender in the characterization department is Keira Knightley, whose performance as Cecilia makes her character far less likeable than actually written. If her character was presented in an admirable light, the story would have become more engaging and emotional.

In the end, the simple-minded, or naive, man, Robbie, played by James McAvoy, becomes the likeable and even heroic character, and as a result, the film becomes watchable and even slightly enjoyable at times. At one point, the story transforms into a war movie and at that time it improves.

Especially worthwhile are two sequences: the scenes of the nurses treating the wounded soldiers, which are based on the memoirs of an actual nurse of World War II named Lucilla Andrews, and the unforgettable, extended single tracking shot of Dunkirk after the battle has ended and the British prepare to evacuate. Horses are shot so that the Germans cannot benefit from their being left behind.

The story itself is ultimately about a youthful error whose impact spirals out of control; the theme is a dark one, but the resolution is somewhat emotionally rewarding in that it confronts how one might have to deal psychologically with such an error.

The production design, costume design and cinematography are superbly beautiful, and puts the viewer right into the period.

The first hour is only exposition; setting up the situation and relationships. I thought that if I could take the film and cut the first hour down to about 20 minutes–just get the important plot points and relationships shown–and recast the role played by Keira Knightley with someone warmer yet stronger, like Angelina Jolie or Kate Beckinsale, I could turn it into a good, short TV movie (by the BBC).

Overall, I would not recommend Atonement, as it adds up to an average film. (I am adding this line to clarify my overall impression).

Here’s a link to an article by the author of the novel Atonement, Ian McEwan, and charges that he plagiarized Lucilla Andrews’ autobiography:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/27/bookscomment.topstories3

Trivia: Robbie types an offensive word early in the film and I didn’t think that was at all necessary. Another word would have done just fine.

-------------------

Show No Mercy to Islamic Fundamentalists (Video from YouTube)

See my previous blog posting of February 7, 2008 called "Show No Mercy to Islamic Fundamentalists."

Show No Mercy to Islamic Fundamentalists

Al Qaida in Iraq, and other Islamic terrorist groups, follow the principles of Islamic Fundamentalism. By abandoning reason and embracing on faith, without question, the teachings of their leaders and of the Koran, which pretend to speak for some sort of God or Allah, which must be obeyed, Islamic Fundamentalists become terrorists, who kill the innocent brutally. The West, and any individual westerner, who primarily follows reason and not this mystical nonexistent God, is unacceptable to these Islamic Fascists. Therefore they believe they must destroy the West and they will do so if they have a chance.

They cause unthinkable harm now on an individual or small-group scale, and they will cause unthinkable destruction once they get their hands on larger-impact weapons. It’s not over.

These evil destroyers and their supporting dictators in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia must be stopped. Who will stop them among the US Presidential candidates? Who around the world will stop them? Who will show no mercy to them, as they show no mercy to the innocent? Who will wipe out the Islamic Fundamentalist leaders and their weapons, and terrify any still alive strongly enough to end the movement?

We must show no mercy, but no one should ever do what they are doing to the innocent.
Here are the facts and evidence that support my commentary:

From Lauren Frayer, Associated Press
(http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb06/0,4670,IraqBoyTerrorists,00.html) :

“Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said he believed insurgents were kidnapping an increasing number of Iraqi children, though he could not offer details or figures.

" ‘This is not only to recruit them, but also to demand ransom to fund the operations of al-Qaida,’ al-Askari said. He aired another grainy video clip which he said showed Iraqi security forces rescuing an 11-year-old boy who had been kidnapped by al-Qaida.”

And from this report by Jennifer Griffin, Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328832,00.html):

“Kidnapping and extortion are how Al Qaeda in Iraq finances its attacks. It is big business…

“This story had a happy ending, but most kidnappings in Iraq do not. Ammar was from a simple family, and his father never could have paid the $100,000 ransom.

“In an interview after his son was returned to the family, Ammar’s father said, ‘The kidnappers told us that if we fail to pay the ransom, they will behead my son and put his head in the garbage can in front of my house. We told them that we don’t have money.’

“The raid netted five kidnappers and led the coalition forces to another boy being held in a hideout nearby. He was freed on Sunday.”

The following report is from a pro-Christian Church organization, the Barnabas Fund, but I have seen similar reports elsewhere and I believe them to be true.

Iraq: Children being cooked

“In at least one incident, an 11-year-old boy was recently ’slaughtered’ by Muslim militants believed to be linked to the ‘al Qaida in Iraq’ group, who later ‘cooked’ the child, several news reports said. His family was allegedly later invited to a ‘feast meal’ where they were forced to eat the boy, reports said.

“In the most shocking report from Iraq we have received, a toddler was kidnapped in Baghdad in October 2006. The mother could not afford to pay the ransom, and so the kidnappers killed the child. They returned the body to the mother. The little child had been beheaded, roasted and was served on a mound of rice. In another incident a 14-year-old Christian boy was held down by his limbs and beheaded, or, as Iraqi Christians have described it, ‘crucified’. His Muslim attackers called him a ‘dirty Christian sinner’ and chanted ‘Allahu akbar’ (Allah is great).

“Christians in Iraq, including converts from Islam and people involved in mixed-faith marriages, are being crucified by Muslim terrorists, according to a Dutch member of Parliament studying the war-torn country.

“Several Iraqi Christians ‘are nailed to a cross and their arms are tied up with ropes. The ropes are put on fire,’ Joel Voordewind told BosNewsLife, an online news agency focusing on Christians and Jews in difficult circumstances.

“According to the site, Voordewind described how a person, who ’survived’ a crucifixion, ‘even showed holes in his hands,’ apparently from nails.“Voordewind said victims of the crucifixions are ‘in most cases Christian converts who abandoned Islam or people who, religiously speaking, are involved in mixed marriages.’”

Here is a Youtube video with an audio interview describing similar unthinkable, most-evil actions by Al Qaida in Iraq. The audio is from the chat room/podcasting web site Paltalk (http://chat.paltalk.com/g2/webapp/groups/GroupsPage.wmt), according to the person who posted it on Youtube.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj1pWqeKa30

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj1pWqeKa30]

Rudy’s Out of the Race, so…

Regarding my previous blog, as the late Gilda Radner used to say (as Emily Litella):

”Never mind!”

I have no one to root for in the election now.

Calling All Reluctant Republicans

If (unlike most of the Republican candidates) you believe in the separation of Church and State provision of the U.S. Constitution, if you are strongly moral in a pro-individual responsibility, pro-reason, pro-honesty, pro-justice, pro-freedom, secular way–

If you don’t hate corporations and businessmen in a rabid, manic, almost racist fashion, but instead if you love the benefits of capitalism–malls, personal computers, TV’s, theme parks– and of the freedom to start your own business and earn your own way with pride–

If (unlike John McCain) you are for the right to Freedom of Speech (which he violated with the McCain-Feingold Act) and if (unlike John McCain) you think a physically painless and safe technique of interrogation like water-boarding is perfectly acceptable for America to use in order to gain information that will protect Americans from death and destruction inflicted by our enemies–

If you admire the great capitalists that created Microsoft, Apple, Pixar, Disney, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Kodak, Amazon, and if you want their taxes and yours to be as low as possible, so that their property rights and yours are protected, so that they and you are as free as possible to be as productive as desired–

If you think abortions are often sad events but that they are a personal matter that must remain legal, if you are not a religious evangelist, not a theocrat, not a Christian Fundamentalist, but you also don’t want to be forced to vote for the anti-capitalism party of Karl Marx’s ideas (The Democratic Party), just to prevent the election of theocratic politicians who impose their faith on you–

If you’re sick of Democrats (and Ron Paul) pretending that talking to our sworn enemies (such as the Islamic Theocrats that run Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the other Muslim Dictatorships) and diplomacy with them (aka bribing them) will somehow keep them from trying without mercy to terrorize and destroy us–

If you’re sick of Democrats (and Ron Paul) pretending that World War III isn’t at hand, that Western Civilization isn’t at risk, but you also don’t want to vote for Republicans who pay lip service to self-defense but are going to crumble at the first sign of confrontation (e.g., the milquetoasty Mitt Romney, the second-generation politician)–

If you see that all but one Republican candidate includes imposition of religious ideas (like being “pro-life”) in his platform–

Now is the time to act!

Vote for Rudy!

Now is the time to fix the Grand Old Party so it isn’t the voice of Religious Domination any more, so that it can be a valid alternative to the Democrats for the secular but moral voter, who is on the side of American self-defense, and who is for the American way.

Vote for Rudy!

If you are registered to vote in the United States primary elections as a Republican, or if you are registered in a state where Independents and Democrats are permitted to vote for Republicans, the solution to the theocracy crisis within the GOP is at hand.

Vote in your primary for Rudy Giuliani.

There is no front-runner right now in the GOP race. Rudy’s voters have been quiet until now. But starting with the Florida Primary on January 29, Rudy can come back to the front-runner status he held all of last year.

Many Republicans aren’t sure, so far, who they want. If they can see Rudy Giuliani is still viable, they will realize that he is the leader they want. And if Rudy Giuliani becomes the nominee, he will do more than anyone else to transform the Republican Party back to the more secular pro-capitalism, pro-self-defense party it once was, or nearly was, in the early 20th Century.

The two main reasons to vote for Rudy Giuliani are that he will restore the secular identity of the GOP, and that he will actually and proactively defend America against our enemy attackers. A secondary reason is that, with the help of advisors like Steve Forbes, he will lower taxes and otherwise make good choices regarding the economy.

Another factor for my belief in him is the effectiveness with which he made major improvements in New York City, which anyone who visited the city for just one day in 1989 and then again for one day in 1999, could easily notice. I lived and worked in NYC during those years. He confronted powerful groups no one had confronted before, and made major improvements in quality of life, lowering taxes, fighting crime. He was effective.

What about his failed marriages, his family situation, his so-called scandals? They are minor details. Bill and Hillary Clinton have many more scandals in their histories, and their electability is not questioned. Frank Lloyd Wright had major scandals in his personal family life, but his greatness as an architect is not in question.

Vote in the primaries for Rudy Giuiliani.

Volunteer to help campaign for Rudy at http://www.joinrudy2008.com/ .

Send the Rudy 2008 campaign your money at
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/drive2five .

Write letters to the editor and blog about Rudy being the best candidate.

Tell your friends you are voting for Rudy.

Dr. Harry Binswanger (Objectivist philosopher and former student of Ayn Rand herself) has announced this month on his mailing list, HBL (http://www.hblist.com/), that he is supporting Rudy Giuliani for President, primarily in order to remove the influence of the religious right from the Republican Party and from the U.S. government.

But way back in March, I blogged an explanation of why I support Rudy. See this link:

http://zigory.thinkertothinker.com/?p=53

And see this recent article at Front Page Mag that focuses on one reason why Rudy is unique among the candidates:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6D347ACA-8929-4DC6-8F80-CB95575B44ED