« Isn't That Ironic. | Main | Arizona's Upcoming Bankruptcy is starting to get some attention. »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As I read the post I realized I had already seen this movie: a machine (bad) guy gets magically put on the nature (good) side, he goes native and fights to protect his new friends/environment. It was called "Ferngully". Back then Hollywood made a movie about corporations stripping nature for resources to save the rain forests. Just reminiscing.

Conservatives should flex their muscles more to reign this in. Middle America is really what finances these arrogant liberals in Hollywood.

Believe me, despite all their railing against against capitalism, Hollywood Liberals REALLY love money and success. I'll start taking their Marxist ideology seriously when they start giving away their Malibu mansions and private jets to the poor and move to Cuba.

If these message films started flopping, you'd see a dramatic 180 on what would come out of Hollywood.

I liked that scene in that liberal flick "The Kingdom" when the terrorists are getting ready to cut off Jason Bateman's head in the ultimate act of cultural relativism. Then they get killed by American intelligence agents- which is the best part.
That movie rules.

I didn't know pro-imperialism was seen by conservatives as an opinion they embraced. Good to know.

There was a very pronounced class perspective in "Titanic." EVERY passenger in steerage was presented as good, and decent, and noble, and honorable...if a bit unsophisticated. A number of the passengers in first class, however, were presented as greedy, selfish, vain, dishonest, uncaring. The movie went to great pains, too, to show the preferential treatment that the wealthy received when it was time to decide who lived and who died.

I'm not saying this just to be argumentative. I'm saying it to make the point that the movie-going public either didn't notice or didn't care (just as they either didn't notice or didn't care about the "don't mess with Mother Nature" angle in Jurassic Park, which was really a pro-environment movie disguised as a dinosaur movie).

I suspect that the public either won't notice or won't care about whatever message is embedded in Avatar. James Cameron is a ham-handed screenwriter, but he makes movies that are great to look at. I'm guessing that this one, therefore, will do waaaaaaaaay north of $200 million domesticaly.

As he frequently does, Greg takes an idea with a germ of truth (Hollywood directors sometimes get carried away and think middle America likes political tracts) and stretches it to parody (there's a vast left-wing conspiracy to promote crappy movies if they have a liberal message). If Greg would look at the mainstream reviews that have been posted for Avatar, he would see most of them agree with his analysis -- great special effects, crappy plot. Not much of a conspiracy.

Hey Todd, we'll cut you some slack since being dense and liberal go hand in hand, but the problem isn't that "imperialism" is being condemned, it's that James Cameron is forcing the comparison that the US military only goes to war in order to steal from others.

Bryan_Hatfield - I am not liberal or dense but I am not clear - is your point that conservatives are only opposed to imperialism when it is being done by countries other than the US?

Todd - Dictionary.com defines imperialism as "the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies." Over which countries does the United States currently rule? Where are its colonies?

Iraq certainly comes to mind.

But I think the more germane point is that in US history there have been dozens of time the US marines have been ordered into a foreign country to protect the economic interests of US companies. From Cuba to China, Haiti to the Phillipines, Columbia to Hawaii. So, a story line that parallels this well worn path is hardly some type of crazy leftwing fantasy, well except for the 10 foot tall blue people.

Right - there have been no democratic elections in Iraq and Iraq is a US colony now - gotcha. And how dare those evil US Marines go out to protect US interests!

Imperial possessions can have elections, the questions is who has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

Also, I most certainly did not say the Marines are evil, I pointed to the long history of the US government using Marines in foreign countries to enforce imperial interests. it seems to me you might not be aware of even the examples I mentioned. Perhaps doing a simple google search might help you out.

Blah blah arrogant liberals blah blah ... Have you bothered to see the movie? It's not that heavy-handed, and never mind that it might actually be WRONG to crush indiginous peoples in pursuit of corporate profit, whatever party you call yourself. Sure, it's just Pocahontas in space, but it's actually not that bad.

So you're doubling down on Iraq? It's an "imperial possession" now? Will you continue to hang on to that after we withdraw nearly all our troops? I'm happy to let you continue to look more and more foolish here.

I'm familiar with plenty of instances that liberals perceive as US imperialism, but as long as American interests are served, they're all fine by me. I'm all for whatever's necessary for the ongoing success of our capitalist democracy. If you want to see imperialism, watch what Russia's going to do in the next decade or two . . .

So if I understand you, you are saying that there may have been plenty of instances of imperialism but you don't care because US interests were served. That is an odd response. Does this mean you would only be concerned if the imperialism had not served US interests? Are there examples of imperialism that has not been embarked on to serve the interests of the country carrying it out?

I will stick to what I said about Iraq. Invading a resource rich country that poses no threat based false and Inflammatory information and then continuing to occupy it, and let's remember the initial plan was to have permanent bases in the country, are all things we have seen before with imperialism. Remember the Maine!

You are $76 Million dollars wrong as of saturday and sunday still is left.

Nope Todd - "imperialism" is your word. I would describe the deployment of our military forces as defense - and that's in the best interest of the US. And I'm curious as to which of Iraq's resources are being usurped exclusively or even inequitably by the US.

You're unbelievably naive if you honestly believe that Iraq posed no threat whatsoever. Saddam Hussein feigned the possession of WMDs, but admittedly pursued them. He was a megalomaniac who would have proved a terrible threat had he gained access to nuclear weapons, for instance.

I don't recall ever hearing the the US planned on having permanent bases in Iraq, but I would certainly support that notion - the more bases we have scattered around the world, the easier it is to defend our interests. This is called American exceptionalism - expect a lot more of it in the years to come.

Misplaced hit on Obama, Greg. While, Bush didn't bow to the Saudis, but he did walk around holding the dude's hand. Obama was wrong to bow, but I missed the part where you point out that Bush was wrong to hold another guy's hand - particularly the hand of a criminal who allows millions of dollars to flow to terrorist groups. (Read: Sleeping With The Devil, e.g.)

"the more bases we have scattered around the world, the easier it is to defend our interest"

John - I see you also fail to address history. Doubtlessly you haven't even bothered to look into it.

So in your world, attacking a foreign country who has not attacked us is defense? Having troops around the globe is defense? Interesting viewpoint.

Actually, the more bases we have around the world the more likely we are to get embroiled in wars and conflicts which have nothing to do with defending the US except that we have bases in the area. Sort of a circular logic..

"This is called American exceptionalism - expect a lot more of it in the years to come."

This is truly a bizarre statement. Do you mean that you expect, and want, the US to invade more countries and set up more permanent bases? John - you seem to not understand you are advocating imperialism here.

Again - po-tay-to/po-tah-to. You call it imperialism, I call it defense, and to be sure - let me amend my previous statement and we'll call it "active defense." I am a believer in the Bush Doctrine. Indeed - we actively attack governments that are geared up or gearing up to do harm to capitalism and democracy in the world. I'm fine with that. And I see you've dropped your Iraq argument - indeed, the US is not usurping any of Iraq's resources exclusively or even inequitably - it's not a colony or a holding or a dependency or a protectorate. It's a country that was liberated from a totalitarian dictator by the generous actions of the US. In just a few short years, we will have very few troops remaining in Iraq. We won, totalitarianism lost.

And speaking of failing to address history - the US never had so many foreign military bases as we did during the Cold War - and we prevented the Cold War from escalating into what would have been the deadliest war in the history of the world. Rather then getting us "embroiled in wars and conflicts that have nothing to do with defending the US" our presence prevented such warfare - this is not circular logic at all. Weakness invites attack.

What I mean about American exceptionalism is that the insane overreach of the current administration is fomenting a backlash unlike anything we've ever seen before. President Obama has apologized the world over for our dominance and success. Many Americans are angry at this, and the elections in 2010 will prove a nasty shock to the left. The pendulum will come swinging back, and a future administration will return America back to her position of strength in the world. And perhaps we will indeed have more military bases around the world - hopefully so.

Seriously, you need to do some more research and reading. Nothing you have said here is accurate.

I would suggest you consider reading 'Blowback' and 'The Sorrows of Empire' by Chalmers Johnson for some actual history and context about what having 'military bases around the world' has done to our country.

This, as always, is another shining example of why Greg's theories have no credibility whatsoever. Hollywood is dominated by liberals? Really? Have you watched Passion of the Christ? Do you know who owns FOX? Everything isn't about black helicopters and conspiracies, even though Greg would like everyone to think that's the case. Nice try. The only thing with a weaker plot than Avatar is this posting by Greg.

$600M worldwide after 9 days, will probably crack $1B…

Might not hit Titanic $1.8B mark of all time, but still going to be smashing success…

Cheesy story, yes, but Star Wars wasn't exactly stellar thespian fare either and it set some sales marks too…

In other words, not a movie with merit based on plot and story, but rather the amazing 3D effects which might give the movie theater business some new life… …I bet many are going to be attending repeat showings…

US Military? I thought the movie went out of its way to emphasize that they were mercenaries in the employ of a corporation and was a dig at companies like Blackwater.

Someone earlier used this definition of imperialism "the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies." FYI, While the US doesn't rule over Iraq we do have authority over it. Also, we don't have colonies per se, but the US does have more than a few dependencies. So using that definition the US is an imperial power. I would definitely say a benevolent imperial power though. I think the problem comes in because of how "empire" has become a prejorative word when it shouldn't necessarily be that way.

The comments to this entry are closed.