Contending with Principles

This one is not just a movie review, but a review on conceptualizing morality. Probably very few of you have seen the movie, The Contender. i can honestly say that i am most thankful that i did not spend money to see it, but borrowed it from the library.

The Contender is a story about Jeff Bridges (the vice-president) ascending to the Presidency because of the death of the President and getting the opportunity to appoint his own vice-president. His first choice is a man, but he wants to leave a legacy and chooses a woman (Joan Allen). Her congressional confirmation must face the opposition of Gary Oldman (easy to hate) and Christian Slater. She faces her past, sexual escapades and scandal of varying degrees, and "sticks to her principles."

Well frankly, the movie pisses me off because of her lack of real principles. It's not that i disagree with her character as anti-pro-life or anti-second amendment or even as an atheist. What bothers me most is that her highest principle is privacy, over and above those political and religious ideals she claims to hold. As the movie concludes, and the "good guys" win, it's discovered she didn't actually whore herself out in college as alleged. However, they never address her affair with her current husband, whose ex-wife was her best friend. The movie portrays this woman as having the high ground. Those who would attack her sense of morality are the "bad guys" because they have no principle. It's mind blowing. Apparently, it's against her principles to answer for her personal life, but not to be complicit in marital infidelity with her best friend's husband. Now that's a woman of true principle, right?

Furthermore, Jeff Bridges starts his final speech before congress by saying that her gender should have nothing to do with her selection or confirmation. This is ludicrous. His first choice, made clear in the movie, was someone else. She wasn't even his first female choice, but the one least likely to be opposed of the women. He chooses her over his first choice BECAUSE she is a woman, and NOT because she is most qualified. She seems qualified, no doubt, but his character would have you believe that he chose her because she is MOST qualified and her gender had nothing to do with it. In fact, her gender was the reason he chose her. He desires to leave a legacy, or his "swan song" as he makes mention of many times over. He cannot ask congress to not consider her gender if it was his guiding principle for choosing her, and most especially if she is not the most qualified or even his own first choice.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Bill of Rights: Amendment I

In her closing statements, Joan Allen claims the founding fathers were not trying to protect religion from the government, but the government from religious fanaticism. This is probably the worst part of the movie. i do not think the church should rule government any more than government should rule church, but to claim what she claims ignores the entirety of American history. It's a farce. The Pilgrims came to the US seeking the freedom to practice religion as their community saw fit, without the interference of the government. The entire Bill of Rights, which the ACLU claims to uphold, is based on protecting individuals FROM the government and its power. This is done because the Constitution is set up to GIVE specific powers to the Federal government in the ideal that ALL other powers are reserved for the states. Our founding fathers made sure the basis of our laws were to ALLOW us, or give us freedoms FROM rule, not to dictate all we could or could not do. Our rights to peaceably assemble and to worship or not worship as we see fit are the guarantees provided by our forefathers. Her thinking is entirely backward. The forefathers had no reason to fear that some large church body would reign down over their new government. There was no such power around or conceived of at the time. Their concern was that a government would arise, like that in Europe that could dictate how they might live and worship and choose to assemble. Someone should give the directors and actors in Hollywood an American History Textbook.

Only in America

Never watch C-SPAN.

Two border patrol agents were sent to prison for pursuing a drug smuggler (in the country illegally) and his subsequent butt wound. Yup. You read that right. Several border agents pursued a drug dealer 9 months ago. He fled on foot when they almost caught up with his vehicle. Agents followed him and were separated. Shots were heard by agent Ramos, and he found his partner laying on the ground moments later. The drug smuggler turned around with something shiny and Ramos opened fire. He didn't think he even hit the suspect because he turned and ran again into the brush and escaped in another vehicle that was waiting for him.

Did the government...
A) Seize the 800 lbs. of marijuana, arrest and detain the drug smuggler, and pin a metal on the border agent who was injured in the pursuit

OR

B) Give prosecutorial immunity to the drug smuggler, bandage his butt wound, and sentence the border agents to federal prison for a minimum of 10 years and maximum of 20?

You may have guessed from my sarcastic tone, the government opted for option B. In other news, later this week, the US government is expected to begin giving rabies shots to the Easter Bunny and employing mimes for circuit court bailiff officers.

You may have heard a lot about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, and i'm not here to deny that prisoners there have been sorely mistreated or to debate how ashamed we should feel about that. Conditions have, however, improved.

In Gitmo, prisoners get 9 hours of exercise, including soccer.
In Texas prison, these border agents spend 23 hours a day in their cell.

In Gitmo, prisoners get to watch Arabic TV.
In Texas prison, these border agents are allowed no TV or books.

In Gitmo, prisoners receive the same medical treatment as American Soldiers.
In Texas prison, one border agent was assaulted and had to wait 5 days to see a doctor.

Yes, we stick border agents who go after drug dealers in prison and treat them worse than terrorists and criminals. Yes, we let the drug dealer go with no prison time that the border agents were intercepting.

The next time i get the urge to smuggle 800 lbs. of pot from Richmond to Chapel Hill, i'll just be sure to get myself shot in the ass by some state trooper. i'll get a band-aid and he'll go to jail for 10 to 20.