http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/march-web-only/do-you-believe-in-confirmation-bias.html?start=1
Good article on Christian movies and the echo chamber surrounding them. Not sure I agree fully with his point on confirmation bias contained in the movies but I do agree that Christian movies should be judged and critiqued in the same way that other films are critiqued. The author seems to have a problem with setting up 'bad guys' (Atheist professors, Humanist scholars) by giving them lame arguments for Evangelical heroes to shoot down. True, some of the dialogue and situations that evolve are too clean and straightforward presenting a obvious moral dilemma with an easy moral solution. The same could be said of cruel Japanese and German soldiers in World War II epics who abuse prisoners of war. Most war is hell though and showing soldiers as ruthless and unfeeling is often the truth in the context of battle and survival. It isn't important to show the human side or 'balance' the narrative when making a point about either politics, religion, or war. Platoon focused on only the atrocities committed by the Americans and left the viewer with a sense that Americans were battling each other more than the North Vietnamese or the Vietcong. Critics said it was a brilliant film. It was a brilliant film, but it was decidedly unfair and presented the staff sergeant (Tom Berenger) as a cruel and dominating force being unleashed on peasants in South Vietnam. That was certainly true some of the time and in some of the country. That's what movies do, they pick sides. The fact that a movie has a Christian world view means that it intends to show a particular viewpoint and try to convince viewers that salvation is for everyone. These movies end on a hopeful note that can be summed up almost universally as, fight the good fight of faith and righteousness will triumph.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Sunday, March 8, 2015
China and the Free-Trade Miracle--in memoriam
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-chinese-crack-up-1425659198
Funny how schools of thought in foreign policy become the default way of thinking one day and a complete joke the next. The 'single payer health care idea' was a serious idea for a few conservatives at one time, then came Romneycare, followed by Obamacare. Now no one in Washington wants to hear the dreaded phrase and be booed off the stump. Another disposal theory once considered liberal orthodoxy, was the idea that a full-throated embrace of Western ideas like free trade would spark a change in thinking by the Chinese government and lead to more openness and greater freedoms for the populace. In the late nineties the Chinese economy began to heat up and the Communist party eased up on trade restrictions that governed export oriented businesses. The attitude from the party changed (slightly) from a collective model that valued selflessness for the greater good to a more selfish version that encouraged entrepreneurship with slogans like 'to get rich is glorious'. Despite the drastic transition and conflicting ideologies they had to navigate, the country went to first world status in less than twenty years. Partly because of the run-up to the Olympic games and partly because they now had (WTO) World Trade Organization obligations to maintain, the Communist party cadre opened up on a large scale to manufactures in America and Europe. Textile manufactures, electronic device makers, food service personnel, and retailers like Walmart all set up shop in the rapidly expanding marketplace. English teachers from America, Canada, and Britain were in high demand; for a country that was historically hostile to America and the West this was an unexpected development. The dramatic change led some journalists and academics to imagine the Communist government loosing control and authority over this irresistible prosperity and being forced to allow more liberties among the population. Some theories had the government surrendering control over anything business or economic related and keeping a tight lid on dissenters like Fulan Gong, while others saw the Communists embracing Western style democracy. The last one was always silly and not many believed it, but the fact that the West (particularly the United States) could see the Communist government as anything but authoritarian was absurd.
This WSJ article points correctly to the coming exodus of talent and leadership among the party elite. If questions about the regimes' legitimacy arise, one only need follow the trail of money that appears to lead outside China's borders. This shows how little the apparatchiks value the structure they're a part of. One can imagine how truly hollowed out the banking, military, and industry system are due to corruption and illicit activities. In order for real liberty and a democratic culture to take root in the middle kingdom, the authoritarian structure must be crushed and replaced with something representative. Xi Jinping probably realizes by now that without a tightening of control over the lives of ordinary people the Communist government is finished. It may be quick and bloody or slow and bloody, but it will be bloody because when authority is challenged it fights. 'When will this happen?' is the question think tanks should be concerned with answering now. The take-away from previous theories on Sino-American relations is that authoritarian regimes should never be expected to embrace liberal ideals. They can slog through diplomacy for a bit while enriching themselves and promising businesses to protect their intellectual property and keep the rules fair. Eventually though, the reality of Communism forces everyone to see the fist of totalitarianism inside the glove of free trade. That the thinking on China was ever different is hard to believe.
Funny how schools of thought in foreign policy become the default way of thinking one day and a complete joke the next. The 'single payer health care idea' was a serious idea for a few conservatives at one time, then came Romneycare, followed by Obamacare. Now no one in Washington wants to hear the dreaded phrase and be booed off the stump. Another disposal theory once considered liberal orthodoxy, was the idea that a full-throated embrace of Western ideas like free trade would spark a change in thinking by the Chinese government and lead to more openness and greater freedoms for the populace. In the late nineties the Chinese economy began to heat up and the Communist party eased up on trade restrictions that governed export oriented businesses. The attitude from the party changed (slightly) from a collective model that valued selflessness for the greater good to a more selfish version that encouraged entrepreneurship with slogans like 'to get rich is glorious'. Despite the drastic transition and conflicting ideologies they had to navigate, the country went to first world status in less than twenty years. Partly because of the run-up to the Olympic games and partly because they now had (WTO) World Trade Organization obligations to maintain, the Communist party cadre opened up on a large scale to manufactures in America and Europe. Textile manufactures, electronic device makers, food service personnel, and retailers like Walmart all set up shop in the rapidly expanding marketplace. English teachers from America, Canada, and Britain were in high demand; for a country that was historically hostile to America and the West this was an unexpected development. The dramatic change led some journalists and academics to imagine the Communist government loosing control and authority over this irresistible prosperity and being forced to allow more liberties among the population. Some theories had the government surrendering control over anything business or economic related and keeping a tight lid on dissenters like Fulan Gong, while others saw the Communists embracing Western style democracy. The last one was always silly and not many believed it, but the fact that the West (particularly the United States) could see the Communist government as anything but authoritarian was absurd.
This WSJ article points correctly to the coming exodus of talent and leadership among the party elite. If questions about the regimes' legitimacy arise, one only need follow the trail of money that appears to lead outside China's borders. This shows how little the apparatchiks value the structure they're a part of. One can imagine how truly hollowed out the banking, military, and industry system are due to corruption and illicit activities. In order for real liberty and a democratic culture to take root in the middle kingdom, the authoritarian structure must be crushed and replaced with something representative. Xi Jinping probably realizes by now that without a tightening of control over the lives of ordinary people the Communist government is finished. It may be quick and bloody or slow and bloody, but it will be bloody because when authority is challenged it fights. 'When will this happen?' is the question think tanks should be concerned with answering now. The take-away from previous theories on Sino-American relations is that authoritarian regimes should never be expected to embrace liberal ideals. They can slog through diplomacy for a bit while enriching themselves and promising businesses to protect their intellectual property and keep the rules fair. Eventually though, the reality of Communism forces everyone to see the fist of totalitarianism inside the glove of free trade. That the thinking on China was ever different is hard to believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)