County Supervisor Linda Parks has a GOP revolt on her hands on the heels of her announcement to seek reelection.

After the moderate Republican's record was strongly criticized by attendees of Wednesday night's Ventura County Republican Central Committee meeting, committee members unanimously passed a resolution to formally ask Assemblywoman Audra Strickland to run against Parks, and to offer their endorsement should she decide to run.

"The Republican Party is thrilled at the idea that we might be able to convince Audra to run," said GOP County Chairman Mike Osborn. "We are asking her to consider running--not for herself--but for the good of the people of the 2^nd Supervisorial District."

Attendees labeled Parks as anti-business, anti-taxpayer, and complained that she works against Republican principles behind the scenes with Democrats such as Fran Pavley and Hannah-Beth Jackson, the latter whom she endorsed over her fellow Republican Tony Strickland in 2008. They said that Parks hired environmental activists for her staff, citing reports that they unceremoniously disconnected callers who identified themselves as developers.

Last month, Parks crossed party lines again by voting with her Democratic colleagues on the Board of Supervisors to establish educational requirements for county treasurer, leading to accusations that the requirements were designed to stop Assemblywoman Strickland from running for that position.

Ironically, Parks' vote may have freed Strickland to run for her seat--something that Parks said she knew was a possibility.

Strickland's campaign maintains that she is still weighing her options in the wake of the county supervisors' decision. She terms out of the Assembly this fall.

Earlier this month, a telephone survey was conducted in Thousand Oaks that asked respondents for their opinions on a possible Strickland/Parks matchup. Parks charged that the county party initiated the poll and said it was merely a vehicle to push negative information about her to her constituents.

Osborn refuted the claim that it was one-sided by pointing to questions that cast both women in a negative light. While nobody has officially claimed sponsorship of the poll, he told the Central Committee that "it was pleasant to read the results."

Parks had previously stated that she is disappointed that the county party would inject itself into a nonpartisan race. VCRCC bylaws permit endorsements in those elections.

Should Strickland announce her candidacy for Parks' seat, she would have to change her registration to the 2^nd District, which includes Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, Santa Rosa, and parts of Oxnard. Wednesday night's resolution guarantees her the party's endorsement should she decide to run.

Strickland must decide by March 15^th, the filing deadline for the June ballot.

They didn't appear before the students to debate, deliver stump speeches, or solicit votes. There wasn't press or campaign staff present. Instead, two candidates for the Assembly seat in the 37^th District met together for the educational benefit of the students in a public policy and politics class at California Lutheran University.

Jeff Gorell, an adjunct professor who teaches the class--a part of CLU's graduate program in public policy and administration--is also a veteran and former prosecutor that's all but guaranteed to win the Republican primary. Ferial Masry is one of the nation's foremost Saudi-American politicians and is seeking the Democratic nomination.

The candidates met for the first time in the hallway outside of Gorell's classroom in the Humanities building on CLU's Thousand Oaks campus last Thursday, and then Gorell introduced Masry to the class. For the next hour-and-a-half, Masry discussed her life story, her past races (both she and Gorell have run for the 37^th Assembly District before), and her thoughts on the wars in the Middle East, where her son fought in the U.S. Army.

Masry was born in Mecca, one of seven children. Her mother sent her girls to Egypt to be educated, and after Masry graduated from college in Cairo and married a civil engineer, she and her husband moved to Nigeria, England, and then ultimately to the United States in 1979.

Masry told Gorell's class that in Saudi Arabia, society revolves around the past. It's important who your parents are, who their parents were, and who their parents were, and so on for generations. Europe, she said, is all about the present--culture revolves around who you are right now. America attracted her because a person's status isn't determined by their ancestry; Americans are always looking toward the future.

But Masry looks to the past for inspiration. In 2004, when she attempted to become the first Saudi American to hold public office, she told ABC News that she's motivated, more than anything else, by the U.S. Constitution.

"It's a very small document -- 7,000 words, five pages -- but what it had in it is something visionary and beautiful," she said. "It really emphasized not to put the power into one man or one group."

That same year, Masry was a write-in candidate for the 37^th Assembly district seat, but lost to Audra Strickland (who defeated Gorell a few months earlier in the Republican primary).  Masry told Gorell's class that each time she's run since then--in 2006 and 2008--she's done incrementally better. This year, she faces two opponents in the Democratic primary. Any money she spends against them is money she can't spend against Gorell in the general election, should she emerge victorious from the primary.

But campaign considerations such as those were for another night. Gorell's students were instead interested about her position on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (where Gorell was deployed after the 9/11 attacks), and her book, Running for the Right Reasons.

"She is a pleasant person with a very interesting and inspiring story," Gorell said, "especially for young people or for people who take freedom, education or democracy for granted." He added that it's his intention with every class to try to convey in politics and public policy that participants should be passionate but not take things personally.

Masry shared with me a letter she wrote to Gorell after she addressed the students.

"It is with great pride, in our system of American democracy, that I serve as an educator, citizen and candidate in this process," she wrote. "My enthusiasm is nurtured by the dream that together we can overcome the barriers between worlds both locally and globally.  We can reach for economic prosperity and social progress through compassion and civil discourse."

Both candidates should be commended for their civil treatment of each other despite their political differences. The nation seems to be polarizing, so examples such as these are truly refreshing.

Another Democrat, Moorpark City Councilman David Pollack, will address Gorell's class next.

This is part two of my exclusive interview with Evan Sayet, a leading conservative comedian (see part one here).  Sayet is performing at Universal City Walk on Tuesday and in Ventura next Sunday. He wasn't always a conservative; he spent many years in Hollywood as a television writer (for Win Ben Stein's Mone and Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher) and thought much like his coworkers.

Q. Now that you're closely identified with conservatives, headlining for the Heritage Foundation,  going on tour with Right to Laugh, etc., do you think it will come back to haunt you in the industry you're in? Have any been closed to you because of your strong points of view?

My decision to get out from behind the cameras (I had been writing and producing television shows and the like since 1991) included a decision to remove myself from the industry known as "Hollywood."  My business plan -- based on my recognition that there's more important things than being a Hollywood A-Lister (such as the survival of freedom) -- was to no longer seek work as a "gun for hire," writing in the voice of -- and therefore to the beliefs of -- people like Bill Maher.  When one job ended and I went in search of the next gig (which is part of the job here in Hollywood), I had no interest in writing "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" or "Desperate Housewives."  Nor did I want to work in comedy clubs where, even if they would have me given my new, political material, it meant following to the stage folks who were -- at best -- pseudo-intellectual but truly juvenile anti-American comedians. [continue reading]

"Do not start a civil war."

That simple statement was toward the top of about a hundred comments on my article breaking the infamous "finger-biting incident" that took place in Thousand Oaks last September, and it stuck with me.

The story of violence that broke out between protesters on opposite sides of the emotional health care reform issue occupied much of the news cycle that day, and while there's been many other violent clashes between protesters, nothing captured the tense mood of the country quite so succinctly as what happened in our quiet county.

Political tensions haven't been this high in my lifetime. People are scared and suffering, sweeping changes are taking place at home and abroad and there is great distrust among opposing political participants.

Believe it or not, some that left comments on my post argued with the one that cautioned against a civil war, saying that it was needed, or that the victim got what he deserved. Consider these:

"They are going to start the war for us. If you're afraid to fight, I understand. But a fight there will be."

"They drew first blood. Let's draw the last. You have to hate your enemy to win the war."

"The political class has already declared war on the American people. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet."

Don't delude yourself into thinking that the bloodlust isn't on both sides. Just like with the finger-biting incident, both sides were at fault. Although this wasn't apparent right away (I was prevented by Sheriffs from interviewing the other side the night of the incident) I updated my original article to say so as soon as I confirmed it, and I told the John and Ken Show the next day that the four-fingered man threw the first punch.

These are eventful times, and a high degree of sensitivity should be exercised when addressing the topic of political violence, and that's the purpose here today.

Before Carly Fiorina and Steve Poizner descended on Thousand Oaks last Friday, I wrote a pointed article about the Democratic Party's organization of a protest at the venue where they were to speak. I said that they planned to "disrupt" the forum--a word choice to which the Democrats strongly objected because they felt that it has a violent connotation.

At first, I chalked up their objection to political posturing, because to me that word does not contain such a connotation.  I used it in the sense that if a hundred protesters showed up in the lobby of the Thousand Oaks Inn that was already packed with guests of the Conejo Valley Republican Women and the candidates and staff they invited, the proceedings would be disrupted. It didn't even occur to me that it might be construed that they might be flipping over tables or attacking anybody, so I argued back and forth with the Democrats for a few days, essentially saying that they were being silly and reaching for things to criticize about my post.

Then I stepped back from the discussion and tried to see it from their point of view. In light of the fact that the most infamous case of recent protest violence occurred just a few months ago and less than a mile away from where the Democrats were to hold their protest, I can see why they would be sensitive to the word "disrupt." It's just ambiguous enough to where a follow-up post was warranted to give all sides an opportunity to condemn all forms of violence and promote civil discourse, and we can do our small part to help diffuse the tensions that fray the bonds that join us.

Had I been a little more sensitive to the situation when I wrote the article, I would have used the word "discombobulate" instead of "disrupt."  The Democrats that went to the protest had no intention of causing any harm.

One of the protesters was Brian Leshon, the chair of the communications committee of his party.

"I am always telling the people on our side to steer clear of situations that can lead to confrontation," he remarked. "We always tell our constituents prior to a rally not engage in a street corner debate with the opposition; we are not going to change their minds and they are not going to change ours; we are there to talk to the general public to convince them to adopt our positions. If you get into it with opposition you risk escalation, which is not kind of press we want and you will lose in the court of public opinion."

Some of my more conservative readers might find it disconcerting to read such a well-reasoned and responsible statement from a member of the opposing party, and I'm sure some Democrats would be shocked to learn how civil are the vast majority of the tea party protesters.

Carla Bonney, a mother of nine, organizes the largest tea party rallies in Ventura County. She remembers what she told a group of about 75 protesters she led about how to interact with the opposition, and how difficult of a task it is to maintain order during the heat of opposing demonstrations.

"I told them not to respond back, and to ignore them," she said. "The first thing I did when someone got wild was to respond back strongly.  I was not cussing or anything unruly.  I kept eye contact and I held my ground.  I didn't get angry. I was firm and committed and made my point.  When I became bored, I left.  But I had to laugh, as I broke my first rule immediately upon arrival."

She did what we all should do--she stayed composed and she engaged her opponent intellectually.

And that's what this is all about. I probably disagree with Brian Leshon on 90 percent of the issues, but we both agree that if we good-naturedly debate, without shouting each other down, that the best arguments will stand out in the marketplace of ideas. And during the discussion, we might learn that our opponents aren't bad people and they aren't stupid. God forbid, you might even see things from their point of view, as I did with the word "disrupt," and some progress might occur.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the verbal violence that infects political discussion--perhaps it is just as destructive as the physical kind because it is far more prevalent.  I'm confident that anyone reading this has witnessed or participated in a discussion where one or both of the sides was injured with vicious ad-hominem attacks, where personal invective was used as a substitute for rational arguments. Such tactics are designed to silence or even destroy the opposition, and everyone is harmed by it. Few groups are victimized by this vitriol as much as conservatives of late, but neither side is stranger to it. I hope in the weeks and months ahead, we can all refuse to participate in verbal violence in the same manner we have united to condemn actual violence today.

Now that conservatives don't have Martha Coakley to amuse us anymore, we need a new diversion. Fortunately, Evan Sayet is bringing his Right to Laugh conservative comedy tour back to Ventura later this month, after a sellout performance last November.

That's right, conservative comedy. I know some might be skeptical at the thought of funny conservatives, but Sayet comes highly rated.  Ann Coulter, Larry Elder, Tammy Bruce, and Michael Medved have all endorsed him, and he delivered two addresses to the Heritage Foundation. I've personally seen him perform, and I really had a good time. You don't need to be a political junkie to enjoy yourself, either--my wife was right next to me laughing the whole time.

His next appearances will be on Tuesday, January 26^th at Universal City Walk and Sunday, January 31^st at the Ventura Harbor Comedy Club.  

I asked Sayet about his comedy and his philosophy, and as you can see, his responses are so thought-provoking I'm making the interview into a series of posts.

Q. You  spent most of your career working closely with Hollywood types, appearing on Letterman, writing for the Arsenio Hall Show, and writing for Win Ben Stein's Money, and during much of that time you were a Democrat just like almost everyone else in that industry. Then 9/11 woke you up, but most of your colleagues have not followed suit. Considering a devastating terrorist attack didn't get their attention, what is the best way to persuade them to see the light?

A. First, one must not underestimate the number of conservative patriots who work in the entertainment industry.  I suspect -- and have good reason to suspect -- that there are far more of us than goes the conventional wisdom.

That being said, I can't know the true numbers yet and it cannot be denied that the powers that be -- along with those who receive the most press attention -- who are not only on the Left but espouse and support far-Leftist causes and create far-Leftist materials clearly appear to be at present still more numerous than conservatives.

This is for a number of reasons somewhat unique to the entertainment industry.  First and foremost is that unlike any other business, on-screen stars (and to a lesser but no less real extent star directors, agents and writers, etc.) become extremely successful and wealthy (and in turn, powerful) at a very, very young age.

The life lessons that others learn by taking decades struggling with real world issues like personal finances and interpersonal relationships are lessons that so many in Hollywood never experience.  They simply never go through the maturing process that turns Liberal children into conservative adults.

One of the points I make in my series of talks about how the Modern Liberal "thinks" is that when you live in a world without consequences -- and the movie star and the superstar director, et al, live in a world where they are protected from every minor hurt by a team of "yes men" and from every human want thanks to their fabulous riches -- then the right answer to all policy questions is the utopian one.

That is, for example, if there are no costs and no consequences to unfettered immigration than only a xenophobe or some other evil character could support any restrictions on illegal immigration.  After all, if there is no cost and no consequences then why shouldn't anybody and everybody be allowed to come and go as they please?

Well, to the Hollywood Elite, there are no consequences as they don't witness the gang violence from their secluded mansions in gated communities with privately patrolled streets.

If the closing of municipal hospitals because they are being bankrupted by illegal aliens doesn't hurt anyone's healthcare -- as it doesn't hurt theirs since they have an entire floor set aside for "celebrities" at Cedar Sinai in Beverly Hills, then they don't seek out or support sustainable policy but only utopia fantasies.

It's important to get here that I am NOT saying that Bruce Springsteen stands on the veranda of his Beverly Hills mansion (when he's not in one of his many other mansions) and looks down at the "losers" below bellowing "bwahhaha, I'll destroy the public schools because my kids go to private schools."  Instead having lived a life of nothing but wealth and pleasure from the time he was basically still a child -- having been called "The Boss" not at the age of sixty but sometime around the age of SIXTEEN, he and those like him are attracted to the childish utopian philosophy of Modern Liberalism where blessing is an entitlement and one that comes with no costs.

 There are other unique factors about the business of show that allows the Hollywood Elite to remain infantilized forever, not least of them is that they quite literally play for a living.  Springsteen plays the guitar.  Susan Sarandon plays a grown-up in the movies.  Alec Baldwin runs off to New York to be in a play while, if you asked Bill Maher where he was last week, he'll tell you he was playing Las Vegas.  It is, as Springsteen admits: "A life of leisure and a pirates treasure" and it has been so for their entire "adult" lives. (when, before that, they were taken care of by their parents, their food, clothing and shelter both free and an entitlement.)

 All that having been said, I will finally begin to answer your question.  There is one more aspect to Hollywood that has made it a Leftist town since the 1960s which is now changing and that is the unique power of but a handful of "gate-keepers."  To make and distribute a television show or a motion picture or a record album was simply too prohibitive in cost for any individual to do so.  Today, with the advent of lighter, cheaper technologies -- and there's just no way to thank Al Gore enough for having invented the internet -- the process has become far more democratic (lower case "d") and so the filthy rich studio head is no longer needed to give a "green light" to a project.

 With so much power previously (and still to some but nowhere near the same extent) in the hands of but a few -- and with the Leftists having done their usual job of turning dissent into a punishable offense -- it was simply a self-sustaining imperative to not let anyone know that you didn't share their political and philosophical beliefs.  The democratizing of the technology, then, is allowing for the good and decent people in Hollywood to finally have their say.

So, bottom line, there is nothing anyone can do to change the "thinking" of the brain-dead like Rosie O'Donnell, et al.  But the waning of their power has given the voices that always existed but have otherwise been shut out and intimidated to begin to speak up.

Tuesday is the big day for the race to fill Ted Kennedy's longtime Massachusetts Senate seat, and Democrats are worried. Republican Scott Brown is a polished, articulate candidate and Democrat Martha Coakley...isn't. Coakley steps into one gaffe after another--going after statewide hero Curt Schilling, telling people that freedom of religion doesn't really apply in the ER, etc.--while Brown just rakes in more and more support. Even local Republicans are getting involved--a board member of the Ventura County Young Republicans even flew to Massachusetts to help out.

President Obama tried to stop the bleeding by investing some political capital, but he risks to lose not just his 60 votes, but a hefty deal of power.

That must be why Keith Olbermann ratcheted up the name-calling on his MSNBC program.

"In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

"Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the United States Senate."

The Ventura County Democratic Party is planning to disrupt a major candidate forum hosted by a Republican women's group on Friday that will feature gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner and senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina, as well as a bevy of hopefuls for lower offices.

Interestingly, it's the Democrats who derided self-generated local Tea Party protests as "Astroturf," so I wonder what they call it when their party carefully organizes a demonstration down to the details of the appropriate size of the protest signs to use and what to write on them. (They are unknowingly instructing their members to incorrectly spell the name of Afghanistan veteran Jeff Gorell--at least grant him the respect of getting his name right if you're going to disparage him.)

Furthermore, they have the temerity to warn their membership of possible violent attacks at the protest, which will take place less than a mile away from where I broke the story that a Tea Party demonstrator had his finger bit off by a rabid Democrat in Thousand Oaks. The biter then successfully hid among his cohorts, who were too busy using Ted Kennedy's passing as an opportunity to promote universal healthcare to notify police of the assailant's whereabouts. It doesn't add up that the VC Dems are concerned about safety when some of their own are possibly concealing the identity of the mutilator. Or perhaps he wasn't even from Ventura County--I suppose he could have been bused in...

Which brings me back to the Astroturf point.  Do rank-and-file Democrats really care about a candidate forum featuring Republicans stumping in a Republican Primary? Probably not. But I bet their party leadership is hoping the Republican-generated media attention will garner them a few mentions--after all, the Tea Parties beat the Democrats at their own protest game, in which they usually have home field advantage.

I suppose it's possible that they are confused and thinking they're attending a Democratic primary event. After all, it's hosted by a women's club and one of the headliners is a high-profile, successful businesswoman--just the sort of person a Democrat should like, someone who's shattered gender barriers and is a model to all young women.

But the Ventura County Democrats are mustering the most invective for Carly Fiorina, and are eager to portray her as a woman who didn't have what it took to thrive in the business world. And they don't seem to have any fealty for a group of women who wanted to have some candidates speak at their monthly meeting.  I guess gender equality doesn't cross party lines.

I suppose I shouldn't blame the Democrats if their heads are spinning as of late--they must be really confused by recent events. The Republicans are running a woman for governor and another for senator in California.  A black GOP chairman spoke in Simi Valley today. And don't mention Sarah Palin around a liberal. They'll tell you she's got too many kids to run for office--how's that for gender equality?

It was the Democrat Barbara Boxer who was torn apart by a black Chamber of Commerce CEO for condescending to him about his race.  It's Harry Reid and Bill Clinton that are accused of racially insensitive comments. It's the Democrats that are actively diminishing two powerful female CEO's-turned-candidates as "unqualified", just like they did to Audra Strickland when she attempted to run for treasurer.

It seems the Democratic Party is letting politics get in the way of their rhetoric. If it's really as concerned about racial justice as it says it is then why does it stand behind Harry Reid and Bill Clinton? If it really aims to advocate gender equality, why does it encourage its members to attack a prominent businesswoman who speaks at a woman's club?

Of course, the Democratic Party leadership doesn't care quite so much about those petty issues as it does about politics. It will cry and cry about racial and gender equality, but if a minority candidate or a woman candidate dares run for office with an "R" next to their name, they'll send protesters to ridicule them faster than you can say "hypocrite."

Their hypocrisy will be on full display on Friday.

Harry Reid is publicly humiliated about his private remarks on Barack Obama's race in 2008. But sacrificing him on the altar of Political Correctness serves only to feed this modern-day Inquisition with fresh meat. As tempting as it is, Republicans should avoid beheading the Democrats' with their own blood-stained sword.

Torquemada found it easy to brand heretics--a certain keyword or a slip-of-the-tongue might be enough to destroy any man who threatened the existing power structure. After all, that's what the Inquisition was about--preserving power by silencing the opposition through coercion. Often, the heretic was led into a public area where he was persuaded to perform an auto de fe, a ritual involving a public confession and reaffirmation of faith--after which he was executed.

This American Inquisition is the same strain of censorship masking as racial piety, without the violence of its shameful Spanish counterpart, but it performs the same function--to silence opposition. The story is the same, but the stage is different.

Now, when someone violates the orthodoxy--he is no longer called a heretic. Instead, the shouts of "racist!" echo in his ears. No longer is he carted to the town square for an auto de fe--instead a press conference is held where the accused apologizes for his sins and reaffirms his loyalty to the politically correct dogma.  Afterwards, his private life is spared but his public life is burnt at the stake, consumed in a blaze of camera flashes.

Republicans are the preferred prey of this Inquisition, so the desire to wield this powerful weapon in retaliation is understandable, if not justifiable. Certainly they are correct to point out the double-standard of those that would condemn Trent Lott but defend Harry Reid's remarks. If Reid needs a defense for anything , it's for his disgraceful performance as a senator--the man is as corrupt as they come and is not fit for public office.

But branding him as a racist sullies the accuser, not the accused. He made a private, off-the-cuff remark using an antiquated word that was popular for the first half of his life. He said something insensitive and foolish, but racist he is not.

The favorite victims of the American Inquisition must resist the temptation to perpetuate it.  Attack the unjust institution; don't grant it legitimacy by using it to hurt your enemies.

A quick glance at a 10-year chart of cable news ratings reveals that the Fox News Channel is far outpacing its competition. 

Furthermore, FNC was the only major cable news outlet not to experience a post-election drop in ratings. You can thank Glenn Beck for that (or President Obama, if you like).

And yesterday's snapshot program ratings shows just how lopsided the victory is. Here's how the talking heads stack up:

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,919,000

FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,611,000

FOXNEWS BECK 2,609,000

FOXNEWS BAIER 2,182,000

FOXNEWS GRETA 2,154,000

FOXNEWS SHEP 2,005,000

MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,085,000

CNNHN GRACE 983,000

MSNBC MADDOW 983,000

CNNHN BEHAR 689,000

CNN KING 656,000

MSNBC HARDBALL 615,000

CNN COOPER 590,000

Why is FNC so much more popular with Americans? Critics say that it's the flashy graphics, and shallow or jingoistic stories. Admittedly, many of the stories are too tabloid-y for my taste (I can't bring myself to watch the kidnapping du jour featured on On the Record), but FNC bring a refreshing point of view to the news of the day--it is the only major news organization on television not to lean to the left, and millions of Americans that suffered for years with banal, left-leaning PC newscasts finally have something that represents their worldview.

Behind the spectacular special effects in James Cameron's highly entertaining Avatar--his record-breaking masterpiece that's now grossed over a billion dollars worldwide--hides a tired storyline that's now standard-issue from Hollywood. It goes something like this: evil white, male capitalists rape the natural world and abuse the natives that harmoniously inhabit it. In driving this point home, Cameron misses an opportunity to examine important philosophic implications generated by the imaginative world he created, and bores viewers who are weary of directors shoving green themes down their throats--no matter how much they sugarcoat them with unbelievable visuals and thrills.

Environmentalism and Avatar

On Cameron's planet of Pandora, a primitive tribe of very tall blue humanoids exist in perfect symbiosis with the iridescent plants and exotic animals that share with them an ecosystem. The aliens (oh right, humans are the aliens on this planet) live in a giant tree and speak to all organisms, and everything exists in peace in bliss.

A faceless corporation--headed by the versatile Giovanni Ribisi in a dumbed-down role--runs an outpost on the planet that mines for a valuable mineral (analogous to either gold or oil), and soon finds a large vein directly underneath the natives' giant tree. The evil white Ribisi enlists the aid of the evil white Colonel Quaritch who commands the well-armed security detail that protects the compound to remove the natives, because his shareholders hate it when he turns in a bad quarter. The colonel eagerly complies out of a hatred for the giant blue people.

Fortunately, a team of environmentalists--led by Sigourney Weaver, fresh off of her narration of the documentary Planet Earth--are also on the planet studying the flora and fauna, and they brought with them genetically engineered blue people whose bodies can be remotely controlled from the lab. By jacking into a virtual reality pod, the researchers can transfer their consciousnesses to the blue person and study the hostile--yet beautiful--ecosystem.

Here, Cameron misses a golden opportunity to explore philosophic themes on existence and reality that were central to The Matrix. Instead, he chooses to beat the audience over the head with liberal clichés.

The military-industrial machine possesses advanced weapons and runs roughshod all over the natural world, indiscriminately cutting down forests until they are challenged by the natives, who harness nature as a weapon of their own--almost as if the planet itself is fighting back against man-made machines. 

Cameron's aversion to machines and industry can also be seen in The Terminator (where rebel humans fight against robots in a post-nuclear-holocaust), The Abyss (where oil rig workers meet aliens under water), and Titanic, where man's ultimate construction gets taken out by Mother Nature in the form of an iceberg.

Race and Avatar

One of the researchers that plugs into a blue person's body is the protagonist Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-soldier that is soon recruited by the colonel to infiltrate the blue people's tribe so that he might learn how to more easily exterminate them.

The natives accept Sully's blue alter-ego into their tribe, and he is soon torn between his kinship with the innocent blue people and his apparent duty as a member of the white power structure is to pillage, exploit, and destroy nature, which the natives worship as a god.

How can we be sure of the racial overtones present in Cameron's film? The noble blue people tribe possesses characteristics reminiscent of Indian or African indigenous peoples on Earth. Sure enough, the chieftain is portrayed by an Indian actor, and Cameron cast black actors in the roles of other key members of the clan, including the heroine and Sully's love interest. The evil corporation's CEO is white, the evil colonel is white, and just about every foot soldier in his command is white, except for a Hispanic pilot who defects to the "good side."  The white researchers are good guys, but only because they are "tree huggers", as the soldiers repeatedly call them.

The main hero is white--but he only finds redemption when he begins to shun the "white world" to become more "blue".  The importance of the rejection of his American/European identity is apparent when the colonel tells Sully he betrayed his "race". Ahem--doesn't he mean he betrayed his species, considering these are aliens and not humans? Nope, because Cameron's talking about brutal European subjugation of native peoples in Avatar.

Interestingly, Wes Studi, who plays the chieftain, was also in Last of the Mohicans and Dances With Wolves, two films that, like Avatar, dealt with European men who rebel against their countries and adopt the ways of the natives. Unlike Avatar, however, neither movie is so myopic--and racist, if we apply the co-opted meaning of the word that is unfortunately so common today--as to suggest that one culture is always good and one culture is always bad.

Symbolism and Avatar

No artist worth his salt can resist ascribing symbolism to the characters he creates and then naming them as such (e.g. Willy Loman's "low" quality in Death of a Salesman). Cameron does not disappoint.  

Does Jake Sully get his name because he's sullied by his association with the military-industrial complex? The corporation's greedy CEO is named Selfridge--is he a selfish capitalist?

The Hispanic pilot who aids the indigenous population is named Chacon, which is Spanish for "gecko". Geckos are power animals in Polynesian mythology--don't forget, the natives are always the good guys in Hollywood--that are thought to be guardian spirits.

The muscled skinhead-looking soldier that Cameron uses to personify all the troops in Avatar  is Lyle Wainfleet, which roughly translates to "receding river", a possible reference to industry's destructive impact on Earth, which is said in the movie to have no green left on it.

The theologically named Grace Augustine, a researcher played by Sigourney Weaver, is a nod to St. Augustine of Hippo who posited that man can't help but to sin and it's only through God's grace that salvation can be realized. Obviously, it's in human nature to destroy our environment.

Pandora, the name of the planet that coincidentally looks exactly like Earth, is the name of a Greek goddess and the "giver of all things" and the first woman.  The blue natives worship their planet as a god in a way that environmentalists seem to worship nature as a deity.

Colonel Quaritch's name is derived from Colonel Quaritch V.S., a Victorian-era novel by the author of King Solomon's Mines, in which he disapproves of the emasculated state of modern males. Traditional gender roles are often turned upside down in Cameron's movies.

Feminism and Avatar

Strong female characters dominate in Cameron's films. In Aliens, Sigourney Weaver played the tougher-than-tough Ellen Ripley that teamed up with some futuristic marines to take down the queen bee of the alien hive. (One of her cohorts was the female Private Vasquez who, while doing pull ups is asked by a male soldier, "Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?" She memorably replies, "No, have you?")

A beefed up Linda Hamilton took on the T1000 in Cameron's Terminator 2 and set the standard for the fighting heroine.

In Avatar, Sully's love interest is extremely proficient with a bow, saves his life, and shows him how to become a warrior on Pandora. Chacon bucks female stereotypes as a rough-and-tumble pilot, a character almost identical to Aliens' Private Vasquez.

Cameron's emphasis on women's equality with men in his movies avoids the same repetitiveness as other clichés that Hollywood churns out over and over again, like environmentalism and race relations.

Conclusion

As far as the craft of filmmaking is concerned, Avatar deserves all the money it's grossed. It's powerful, pleases they eye with revolutionary special effects, is highly entertaining, and extremely imaginative.

But it's also a hackneyed metaphor for a litany of liberal causes, which would be fine if it wasn't the 300^th movie this year to feature the exact same themes. Cameron should have ditched the one-dimensional  racial and environmental treatment, or at least not beaten us to death with it, and instead focused on the really cool concept of transporting your consciousness into another's body, an idea that is a philosophic and intellectual gold mine that would survive in our memories long after the special effects in Avatar are surpassed.