|
|
Reply Privately Here
Updated Diligently But Irregularly
|
|
First Things Daily Article Reciprocal linking is appreciated, but not required. |
It was Alfanso Cuaron's privilege to turn P.D. James's novel, Children of Men, into a movie about the Iraq War. At any rate, I gather that's what he did with it; I have not seen the film. I have read the book, though, which is a profound allegory about sterility and modernity; and also, whether by accident or design, the best fictional treatment we have so far of the implications of the Birth Dearth. But look, the interpretive deficit may soon be made good:
"It's really taking root more in the origins of the novels in that it will focus on the cultural movement in which young people become the society's utter focus"...Eick
added that Children of Men will question how society defines responsibility, freedom and a sense of values when it doesn't necessarily believe humans will survive as
a species...."It's not really a war show like the movie was. It's more an exploration of that issue."
In treating the story for the screen, perhaps the place to start would be the film version of On the Beach. But more upbeat.
On Central Planning and Global Warming, David Warren has these thoughts:
But to get beyond this half-measure, the central planners need a war. The “climate change” and “global warming” scares are intended to provide this war, and justify
Moloch in seizing the rest of our earnings, property, and freedom.
Certainly the expansion of state intervention in social matters and economics was an aspect the of the long period of mobilization that the West experienced in the first half of the 20th century. So were antibiotics and heavier-than-air aviation. "War Socialism" is a slogan of the era of World War I, but it seems to me that the war was more responsible for creating the socialism rather than the other way around. Also, the process began much earlier, at least as early as the American Civil War.
Today we need to distinguish "central planning" from the maintenance and development of public institutions that are essential infrastructure for civil society. Both President Roosevelts, if you ask me, were chiefly interested in the latter, though FDR did have his Stalinist Five-Year Plan moods. Be that as it may, Warren is right about the political uses of Global Warming. Whatever you think about the warming itself, the people who are keenest to manage it are just bossy in a way that almost no one is about pure economics these days.
Good News for the Federation of the West, though Daniel Drezner understandably does not recognize it as such, to judge from his piece in Newsweek, A Stupid Conversation. He was writing about the stupidity he found at the Brussels Forum, "an all-star confab orchestrated by the German Marshall Fund (GMF)," where he found the discussions backward-looking and irrelevant:
The unity of the West was at greatest danger in the 1990s, when it seemed that the happy future was fool proof. Now there is a recognition of common interests, and that those interests are being badly served. So, everything is on track.
And down the track comes an out-of-control train, or could that be Spengler, usually of Asia Times, but now perpetrating his latest enormity from the blog at First Things:
Magdi Allam has long been in danger of his life; with this step, the danger becomes more acute. Actually, the same now seems to be true for Benedict also, to judge from recent stories about Vatican security.
I have been arguing for years for the active evangelization to Muslims. The horrified silence the suggestion usually elicited was strangely gratifying. Now that evangelization seems to be more than hypothetical, so does the bloodshed I knew would be a likely side effect.
|
Thank you ---John J. Reilly
|
| Copyright © 2008 by John J. Reilly |