Letter of Liberty News Edition (3-04-2014)

Ron Paul explains why Hagel's "defense cuts" are fake.

Phil Girardi explains more evil from AIPAC and the War Party.

Lawrence Reed interprets the minimum-wage debate through the Socratic lenses.

James Miller writes from the perspective of Cass Sunstein.

Pat Buchanan gives his road to peace: ignore the War Party.

Walter Williams: Black politicans are deceiving black people.

Robert Wenzel exposes more pro-Israel nonsense from Jack Lew.

Laurence Vance explains why so many constitutionalists are drug warriors.

Robert Bridge: American government wreaking havoc where it intervenes

M. D. Creekmore gives tips on how to avoid being a victim of crime.

Michael Deacon exhorts men to embrace beards.

Joseph Mercola: Vitamin C and iron can reduce risk of stroke.

Hestie Gerber explains ten mysteries of great civilizations.

Gary Galles explains the situation of labor unions and the freedom of association.

Jonathan Goodwin explains more of Stalin's role in WWII.

John Odermatt: Obama nominates pro-SOPA lobbyist, the NYPD says it has no obligation to protect you, and John Kerry is a complete hypocrite

Richard Ebeling explains the Austrian economic theory in refutation of Obama-ism and Marxism.

Is America really a safe haven as some assert?

Jonathan Goodwin explains Ukraine and the shifting orbit.

John Glaser and Scott Horton contrast libertarianism with the Empire.

Jacob Hornberger explains the differences between private data collection and government data collection.

Hunter Lewis explains the recent USG-Apple decision.

Ryan McMaken looks back at the Iraq War from a libertarian perspective.

Dustin Walcher reviews J. Patrice McSherry's new book on Operation Condor.

Dave Lindroff condemns the US government for hypocrisy regarding Russia.

Brendan O'Neill: The US government, not Russia, has acted irresponsibly.

Edward Walker explains that Russia's new move is in fear of NATO.

Doug Bandow: End the drug war. The American people are not enemies of law and order.

Left-anarchist Noam Chomsky explains how "security" concerns and state power relate to one another.

Nicole Goeser explains how the war on guns hurt her husband.

Hina Shamsi exposes Obama for the lies he told to the American people.

The Ukraine Crisis - The Libertarian Perspective

The Ukraine crisis is very controversial and many news reports have been written on this. While there is much good information on this, there is also much misinformation, much of it promoted by the mainstream media.

So the libertarian, particularly the libertarian Christian, must have an answer with regards to how to solve the Ukraine crisis. The basis must be the principle of noninterventionism. Nations should not interfere with one another's affairs, not even with the motive of helping a destitute country. Peaceful solutions to problems can be found without the use of intervention, and the United States government should not meddle in the affairs of Ukraine.

Having said that, we need to understand certain things about the situation that will clarify some things.

US Involvement in Ukranian-Russian Affairs

To fully understand the crisis, one must look to see how the United States government has dealt with Ukraine and Russia before the crisis broke out.

Sheldon Richman argues that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Republicans and Democrats supported an aggressively anti-Russian outlook. Also, unlike promised, NATO did not disband but rather expanded its growth, and included Ukraine in the fold, along with the other former Soviet republics.

Also, $5 billion was invested in the Orange Revolution, as admitted by the neoconservative Victoria "F*** the EU" Nuland, which for a time brought pro-US politicians into the halls of power, and the US government is still running the Ukraine opposition, as Daniel McAdams reveals.

In 2004, Ian Traynor reported that "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes."

This should explain some very important things: the US government does have its own interests in the situation, and they are not entirely noble.

The Current Situation

Now the current situation involves power struggles, riots, government corruption, and many problems. The nation is divided between the pro-European faction that wants to unite with Ukraine and those who do not.

Justin Raimondo aptly sums up the situation in this article:

First, a primer for those who have missed the rapidly escalating events of the past few days: mobs of protesters have taken over Kiev and the government of Viktor Yanukovich has been effectively overthrown. Impeached by the Parliament, andopposed now even by members of his Party of Regions, Yanukovich has fled the presidential palace for parts unknown (probably to his home town of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, near the Russian border). The police and all signs of organized authority have simply disappeared from the streets of the city: armed bands dressed inmedieval armor, carrying bats, crowbars, and sometimes guns roam the streets, dispensing victor’s "justice" to anyone perceived as a Yanukovich supporter.

It’s a coup d’etat, pure and simple, the violent overthrow of a duly elected official, and it is being hailed not only by that champion of "democracy," the United States government, but also by our clearly biased media, which is using this as a bludgeon to beat the hated Vladimir Putin – the latest in a series of overseas villains, second only to Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

So the overthrow of Yanukovich wasn't so great after all, despite what some may have you think. The media's support for this is more or less an attempt to stick its finger in the eye of Russian leader Vladimir Putin (who I don't exactly view kindly). While it is true that there was suffering among the Ukranians due to the outright thieves in government, the whole Ukranian protests are more or less funded by the American government in an attempt to install the US-supported rulers instead. And to add insult to injury, many of the Ukraine protestors are less-than-savory folks, many of which include right-wing neo-Nazis, ultra-nationalists, and all the other bad things. Also, to note, the chief rabbi in Ukraine warned Jews to flee Ukraine.

And to the claims that Russian troops are moving into Ukraine, they are moving into Crimea, which should be left for the Crimeans. Justin Raimondo says, "The very idea of a Russian invasion of Ukraine is so counterproductive to Russia’s longterm interests that it is difficult to see Putin taking this course – and yet nothing can be ruled out at this point."

So what should the position be? Crimea has the right to self-determination and should be allowed to leave Ukraine, the United States government should leave Ukraine, and let a peaceful solution be brought about with intervention from the US government.

Letter of Liberty News Edition (2-28-2014)

Ilana Mercer attacks the founders for making a loophole for eminent domain.

Pat Buchanan asks whether or not to intervene or end the Syrian war.

Robert Murphy explains the destructiveness of Obamacare.

James E. Miller attacks the mercantilism of Nouriel Roubani.

Judge Andrew Napolitano reveals the truth about Abraham Lincoln, for which he was attacked by Jon Stewart.

Robert Blumen explains Say's Law and the permanent recession.

Jason Maxham explains the economics of replacement, repair, and division of labor.

Justin Raimondo explains the most disturbing Snowden revelation of all time.

Glenn Greenwald explains how covert agents are using the Internet.

John Feffer explains the trouble that Ukraine is geting into.

Karen Greenberg explains how Barack Obama's five commandments are twisted.

Kelly Vlahos shows the defense budget crisis that wasn't.

John Odermatt exposes a new State attack on guns.

Paul Rosenberg explains the final warnings of Jefferson.

Eric Margolis warns of the horrors ahead.

Michael Rozeff exposes the real reason for USG intervention in Ukraine.

Laurence Vance shows how to properly pray for our troops.

Matt Moore explains how to make the perfect meatball.

Fred Reed gives his thoughts on crime and the streets.

Robert Wenzel uses the power of charts to explain America's military dominance.

Sheldon Richman argues that Obama should stay out of Ukraine.

Steven D. Greydanus explians why no one should panick over the Noah movie.

Christian film critic Peter Chattaway explains the new Son of God movie.

Dan Novak explains new DOJ evil.

Logan Albright looks at environmentalists who are calling for less, not more, regulation.

Sheldon Richman gives his tips on how to end bigotry without Statism.

Taki writes on his experiences with Sean Connery and Roger Moore, the two definitive James Bond movies (not excluding Daniel Craig, of course).

Robert Higgs looks back on Crisis and Leviathan and the national-security state.

Jonathan Turley argues that Obama's regime brought constitutional government to its tipping point.

Glenn Greenwald focuses on British intelligence abuses on The Independents.

The Washington Times editorial board show the lies government tells.

Mike Lolgren anatomizes the "Deep State."

Bruce Schneier exposes yet another NSA evil: robots.

Doug Bandow: Can selling ivory save elephants?

Wendy McElroy gives the classical perspective on how to live the good life.

GRAVITY (2013) - First Thoughts

Gravity (2013) - ****

Director: Alfanso Cuarón
Producer: Alfonso Cuarón, David Heyman
Story/Screenplay: Alfonso and Jonas Cuarón
Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki
Music: Steven Price
Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Run Time: 91 minutes

Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures

MPAA Rating: PG-13

REVIEW

So I just got the Blu-ray for the box-office smash/critically-acclaimed/award-winning hit movie Gravity and popped it in my system, equipped with a good projector, an AV receiver, a Blu-ray player, and surround sound speakers.

I was interested in this film due to the hype. But I never got to see it in IMAX or 3D.

So I just decided to what this 91-minute space movie in the comfort of my own home.

And how was it?

It was very good, but I felt it was a bit overrated and not the masterpiece that some have called this. This may be due to not appreciating it on the IMAX screen, but still, the plot is just basic adventure story enlarged with cinematic imagery that actually looks very brilliant.

So the basic plot is this: Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) get stuck in space in an attempt to suspend a mission, leaving them to fend for themselves alone in space. But Matt Kowalski disappears, leaving Ryan Stone to try to get back to earth.

So what makes this film unique, despite its simplistic surface plot that would make for an average disaster flick? Several things: the impeccably good performances from George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, Cuarón's direction, the cinematography that feels so realistic and ethereal and the stunning visuals in this film.

Sandra Bullock manages to give a very good performance as the troubled astronaut Dr. Ryan Stone, giving us shades of substance amidst all her screaming for about 90 minutes of the movie. We see her wonder and fear of space, her personal life's influence on her space travels, and her fear for her life in space. Sandra Bullock manages to wrap up all these character traits quite well.

And George Clooney does a great (if brief) job portraying Matt Kowalski, who is the only other survivor with Stone. His performance as the macho, experienced pro astronaut is very entertaining and confirms that George Clooney may be one of the best actors of our time (and he does manage to attract the ladies, hence his being called "ladies' man").

The rest of the stuff is good to great, including Cuarón's direction, which gives the film further energy amidst the vacant and engrossing atmosphere of outer space. He makes the film feel both realistic in its accuracy to space details and surreal in his cinematic imagery. While I couldn't appreciate it in 3D or IMAX, the cinematography is still something to behold, engrossing, dizzying, and interesting at the same time. The cinematic techniques of Cuarón fit well in this film. His penchant for long and thoughtful shots works well in this movie, not only fitting into the fast-paced, 91 minute time length of the movie but also reconciling quite nicely with cinematic engrossment. The CGi effects are used to brilliant effect, managing not to be overdone but rather to fit quite nicely, making for some truly awesome visuals.

But why is this film not a masterpiece?

While I did note that the film was suspenseful, I didn't feel my spine-tingling, and at times I felt like the movie should end quickly. Even though it was 91 minutes, the film dig drag at certain points.

Also, while Gravity is a very good film, the thing that holds this film back from being a masterpiece is the somewhat corny acting of the otherwise good Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.

So even if the film weren't a masterpiece, I did enjoy it very much, which is why I will give the film a 4/5 (A-) grade.

Revisiting THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2004) - Mel Gibson's Cinematic Masterpiece

This Friday, Mark and Roma Downey, creators of the popular miniseries The Bible, decided to release a new movie entitled Son of God this Friday. It combines clips from the original miniseries with deleted footage to make for a suitable two-hours plus of movie to sit through.

So I decided to revisit Mel Gibson's controversial 2004 smash hit The Passion of the Christ (which I rewatched recently), that controversial movie dividing people and critics, leaving those who loved it (e.g. Roger Ebert, James Berardinelli, Steven Greydanus) and those who hated it (e.g. Jami Bernard, David Edelstein). Defenders compared it to Carl Dreyer's 1920s classic The Passion of Joan of Arc, while critics of the movie had an opinion that was aptly summed up in this one phrase: "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" (in loving reference to the infamous horror franchise Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Defenders praised the power of the film conveyed through the graphic violence and technical mastery while the critics attacked it for alleged anti-Semitism and graphic violence reminiscent of exploitation cinema.

As for me, I consider this to be one of the all-time best movies ever, albeit a very underappreciated film. While it does have many moments of brilliance, it is very powerful ultimately due to its exaltation of Christ as Savior and powerful evisceration of anti-Christian doctrine. If one is not a Christian, then one can appreciate the technical elements of the film, down from Caleb Deschandel's superb cinematography to Jim Caviezel's impassioned performance as the tortured Jesus Christ (not in the sense of the dark and moody movie superheroes of today, but rather physically tortured for about two hours) to Mel Gibson's raw direction.

So I will break down several reasons as to why I think that The Passion of the Christ still holds up after its much-hyped debut in 2004.

The Filmmaking

The Passion of the Christ ultimately works not only because it is a great Christian-themed display but because it is a great film.

The acting is phenomenal; Jim Caviezel empowers his role as the crucified and tortured Jesus Christ, starting from the very heartbreaking opening shots with Him praying to God down to the very violent scenes where he is tortured and crucified. His role adds a new layer of understanding to the much-quoted passage from Isaiah 53:5: ^"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (KJV)

The performance from Caviezel doesn't add to that but rather exemplifies that in a brutal and emotionally cathartic manner; and I would like to note that the intercuts of Jesus' previous moments before His crucifixion work effectively well, not only due to Caviezel's performance but also give us a glimmer of hope and triumph amidst all this justifiably R-rated violence.

Also, Mel Gibson's raw direction fits well for this film, not only working with the massive amounts of graphic violence in the film but also the raw and intense feel one gets when viewing this film. I don't feel it pornographic or exploitative; rather, I feel it fits well for a film of this type, setting it apart from the other Christ-related films in its rawness, seriousness, cathartic feel and graphic depiction of suffering.

The screenwriting is not very traditional in the sense that it adheres to the standard three-act structure and the standard character-development rules of movie-making; in fact, there is no character development that i know of. But the film does not need character development, in my view, for The Passion shows the sufferings of a perfect God at the hands of those He came to save. This is the basis of the film and it works very well, without being preachy like many a Christian-made movie that has come out. And the events in the film are well-integrated into the structure of the film, interchanging with the bloodied Christ and the Christ who preached messages of love.

And the use of dead languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin) fit well into the authentic, down-to-earth aura of the movie, with subtitltes to assist the viewer.

Overall, The Passion works because it is a very good film; otherwise, it would not be able to hold up.

The Graphic Violence

One of the reasons The Passion stands out among the other films related to the crucifixion is precisely due to the graphic violence that Mel Gibson paints into the film. Normally, such graphic violence would fit well into a midnight exploitation flick, but in this film, because of the emotional catharsis established in the beginning scenes, the graphic violence further serves that purpose, to feel sympathy for Christ and to feel disgusted at this level of brutality leveled at Christ (which was probably much more gory than what was displayed in the film).

Some critics of the film would deride the violence as exploitative, and I will confess that this is true to a degree (and I will confess that the violence can get tedious at times). In fact, Gibson exploits the graphic nature of the violence to grab us and display cathartic rawness. But unlike the average exploitation film, I hold that the "exploitation" in this film is for a noble purpose and doesn't get out of hand by displaying distateful scenes. In fact, even during the very first display of graphic blood, there are moments when it cuts away from the action to display emotions on those who watch, especially Mary the Mother of Jesus (played effectively by Maia Morgenstern) and Mary Magdalene (played by Italian beauty Monica Belluci).

I guess that the emotional catharsis caused by the graphic imagery was also a reason many disliked the movie; they felt that the movie was being too distateful and exploitative in the violence in an attempt to gain an emotional reaction and that thus it made it a bad movie. But I hold that film is "manipulative" in that it uses images and emotions and technology to gain emotional reaction to it. If one could accuse The Passion of the Christ of doing this, then one could accuse some of the greatest movies of all time (Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.).

The Themes and Message

The final reason why I think The Passion of the Christ stands out is how forcefully it tells the message without always using words (not to say that words aren't used; in fact, during the many juxtapositions, they are). It displays the themes of salvation, love, forgiveness, and mercy even when we see people mercilessly taunt and torture the God of love, Jesus Christ. And it condemns those who reject the message (which I see is another reaosn why many people dislike this film) by contrasting them to the very goodness of Christ.

To those who condemn the film as anti-Semitic, I would say that the film is not anti-Semitic, not only because it did not cause anti-Semitic riots (as some feared), but because some of the very main characters are essentially Jewish, and the film is proud to display that Jewishness throughout the film, not shying away from it at all. Also, the villains of the film include Gentiles (Romans) along with the Jews, and many of the Jewish villains are not so much average Jews as they are hierarchical leaders that are threatened by Jesus and decide to act to crush Him. This is depicted as villanous, not the Semitism.

Also, the themes of love and forgiveness are effectively displayed, not only through the sufferings of Christ on the Cross but also through those sequences that were juxtaposed with the carrying of the Cross. The scenes with the final Passover, His preaching to crowds, and brief shots of people throwing down palm branches when He enters into Jerusalem, contrast so effectively to the hate that is spewed toward Him by the government and by regular folk who once celebrated Him. It utilizes one of the best methods of spreading a message (contrasting it to its opposite) and uses the power of film to effectively do this very well.

And that is why I hold that The Passion of the Christ is a very great film, especially years after its premiere.

a

Letter of Liberty News Edition (2-25-2014)

Justin Raimondo gives his thoughts on the Ukraine situation.

Glenn Greenwald looks into the mind of James Clapper.

Robert Batemarco explains John K. Galbraith's views on advertising.

Colleen Rowley reports on new calls for war against Syria surfacing.

Thomas Sowell exposes the "fairness" fraud.

Ron Paul admonishes us to stay out of Ukraine's affairs.

John Whitehead exposes the police's war against the American people.

William Anderson takes a look at the Loyola University president's lies against Walter Block.

James Altucher gives a "cheat sheet" for dealing with haters.

Pat Buchanan explains how freedom dies.

Jonathan Goodwin shows the real reason why football sucks: it's PR for the American State.

C. Jay Engel explains how the political narrative is propaganda, pure and simple.

Peter Dale Scott gives his thoughts on 9/11, Deep State politics, and Internet politics.

Rick Ector reports on a new pro-gun resurgence in Detroit.

Margaret Durst explains the harm caused by inflammation.

Joseph Mercola explains what's wrong with the American diet.

Gaye Levy gives 20 tips to survive an economic breakdown.

Chris Horlacher smashes more Stalin apologias (it's sad that Stalin apologias even exist).

James E. Miller: Libertarianism is the only peaceful philosophy.

Alvaro V. Llosa explores the life of Leopoldo Lopez.

Resource Page on Ukraine

I guess that one has heard of the situation in Ukraine, with mass protestors attempting to get rid of a government that they are discontented of. Since I haven't focused too much on the issue of Ukraine itself, I will compile a resource page that lists several articles dealing with this better than I can.

"Coup in Kiev" by Justin Raimondo; Antiwar.com, Feb. 24, 2014

"Leave Ukraine Alone" by Ron Paul; LewRockwell.com, Feb. 25, 2014

"Diplomacy, Not Empty Threats, Are Needed in Ukraine" by Eric Margolis; LewRockwell.com, Feb. 22, 2014

"Is Ukraine Driving Toward a Civil War And Great Power Confrontation" by Paul Craig Roberts; PaulCraigRoberts.org, Feb. 20, 2014

"The Truth About Ukraine - A U.S. Coup?" by Stefan Molyneux; Freedomain Radio, Feb. 22, 2014

"Democracy Murdered by Protests: Ukraine Falls to Intrigue and Violence" by Paul Craig Roberts; PaulCraigRoberts.org, Feb. 23, 2014

"In Ukraine, EU and US Are Nearing the Civil War They Caused" by Michael Scheuer; RonPaulInstitute.org, Feb. 23, 2014

"The U.S. and the Ukranian Revolt" by Tom Woods (interview with Daniel McAdams); TomWoods.com, Feb. 1, 2014

"Ukraine's Crisis, Not Ours" by Pat Buchanan; Buchanan.org, Feb. 21, 2014

"A Fire Bell In The Night for the EU" by Pat Buchanan; Buchanan.org, Feb. 18, 2014

"Dispatch from Ukraine" by Lawrence Reed; FEE.org, Jan. 20, 2014

"What Is Happening In Ukraine Is Far More Important Than People Realize" by Michael Snyder; Infowars.com, Feb. 25, 2014

"Did Susan Rice Just Threaten Russia With War?" by Daniel McAdams; LRC Blog, Feb. 23, 2014

"Victoria Nuland's 'Ukraine-Gate' Deceptions" by Daniel McAdams; LewRockwell.com, Feb. 10, 2014

"'F**k the EU': Tape Reveals US Runs Ukraine Opposition" by Daniel McAdams; LewRockwell.com, Feb. 8, 2014

"The US Is Pushing Ukraine Into a Civil War" by Jack Douglas; LewRockwell.com, Feb. 21, 2014

"The Crisis in Ukraine" by Paul Craig Roberts; PaulCraigRoberts.org, Feb. 25, 2014