Elysium Trailer 2 from Mark Sniffen on Vimeo.

With the advent of social networking, for many people conversation seems to have become an asynchronous activity, rather than a synchronous one. Rather than engaging in a conversation, someone will compose a wall post instead, and wait for whatever response happens to come, eventually.

Perhaps I’m reading too much in to this, but hasn’t this changed the face of conversation, and friendship? It seems like more people are now choosing to ‘post’,  rather than to converse. This may not only lead to some kind of connectivity addiction, but doesn’t it have the potential to lead to continuous, empty conversation? Conversation without meaning?

I’m not trying to downplay the benefits. Social networking is a great way to stay in touch. It just seems like there is less of a human connection in an asynchronous conversation. Not really sure if this is good, bad, or whether it’s inconsequential. I really just stumbled on the idea the other day, and wanted to explore it.

If the healthcare debate has been any indication, it would seem so. The growing sentiment seems to be that Congress simply takes too long to do anything. We looked to the President to take action and ‘reform’ a broken system. But, isn’t that Congress’ job? Shouldn’t we value the deliberation that argues each side of an issue, rather than becoming restless while the debate goes on?

How often do we make decisions in our own lives without thinking them through? And when we do, how well do they usually turn out? Doesn’t immediate action without deliberation only lead to mistakes?

The Declaration of Independence was written with the principles of Equality, Consent, and the existence of Natural Laws that are endowed to every human equally, as guiding ideals of legitimate government. The Declaration goes on to say that a legitimate government will only come from the consent of those that are to be governed, and no other place. If you’ve never read the Declaration, I highly recommend it. It contains some of the most inspiring words about government and humanity that I have ever read.

Our Constitution expands upon the Declaration of Independence, and goes on to create a framework for legitimate government that is to uphold these natural rights by way of a strong central union. This government was to be made up of 3 distinct branches, with the legislative branch being supreme. Evidence of that supremacy is strewn throughout Article 1 of the Constitution, especially Section 8.

Now, with that in mind, let’s examine the current state of our government. Over time we have slid away from fully representative government, and now seem to be headed toward some form of Caesarism. American self understanding has changed from a desire for self government, to a desire for one leader. All our eyes have become focused on the President and his actions. How can one person represent a population of 300 million? Do we not profess to employ a representative form of government? Should we not be demanding more of our representative body rather than putting all of our eggs in to the basket of one leader? We have unfortunately allowed our representatives to hand over some important powers to the President, through legislation such as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (an unnecessary law which restated the constitutional division of power and unfortunately gave the President power to send troops in to conflict for 60 days without an official declaration of war). By giving up powers designated by the Constitution, Congress has over time become a somewhat illegitimate branch, a formality of sorts, a conduit for the President’s will to become law and the will of special interests to be honored, while our eyes are blindly fixed upon our fearless leader, which goes against the very principals of representative government. I suppose that it’s not entirely the people’s fault. After President Obama was elected (along with a new Congress I might add) the news media offered little, if any, mention of Congress’ agenda, but instead focused on ‘President Obama’s First 100 Days’. The idea of Presidential Supremacy has caused that to be the biggest subject of political information coming from the news media. While we were all busy thinking about the President, our representatives in Congress were preparing their agenda, to perpetuate and exacerbate Demosclerosis.

Demosclerosis, a term coined by Jonathan Rauch, is the loss over time of a government’s ability to adapt. To read the full scale of this problem check out Rauch’s book of the same title, but I will lay out some of the major points here. At one time it was believed that special interest groups were the guiding strength of the American Experiment. Through the partial interest of small groups throughout the country, it was believed they would collectively accelerate government toward an overall good. As the number of lobby firms have soared in Washington, so have the number of government subsidies, federal programs, tax loopholes, etc. Once a federal program is created, it seemingly never goes away. It seems almost impossible to try new versions of these programs, or to remove ineffective ones, because any attempt to do so draws out the special interests supporters who fight to ensure that what they have does not change or disappear. As a result, the budget becomes an ever increasing debt, that only grows larger with time. This phenomenon will lead us to a bulging government, unable to adapt, the weight of which will be carried on the backs of every citizen.

There are no greater examples of the bastardization of our constitution that we now call our government, than the proposed $410 billion spending bill that is currently before Congress, and the recently ratified economic stimulus bill, lobbied for by President Obama. The new spending bill is more than 1,000 pages long, and contains somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 earmark spending provisions (H.R. 1105), while the economic stimulus plan of somewhere around $850 billion is loaded with programs that were promised by President Obama during his campaign, such as healthcare reform (H.R. 1). I mean not to make an opinion on the justification of Obama’s social programs, but purely to point out that these two pieces of legislation support my point. Congress, our representative body, has become a conduit for the President’s goals and the goals of special interests, not the goals of the people they are supposed to represent.

So what can be done about the direction in which our government is headed? Perhaps Congress really is a true representation of our people. We, politically, have no idea what we are doing or what’s best for the country, so it would make sense that our representative body doesn’t either. We are rapidly approaching a cliff, a “no turning back now” scenario where once this new regime has been permanently etched in to the political minds of our people, there will be no going back. The only clear solution that comes to my mind, is to educate ourselves about the Constitution that we seem to have forgotten. The founding fathers wrote an amazingly adaptable document, which can be applied to any era. We must insist that our government abide by its principals, and not presume to know when ‘times have changed’ enough to render the Constitution an illegitimate document. Despite the ideas of many a President, our world is not that new. Our Constitution is perfectly applicable to a modern world, and as evidenced by it’s 27 amendments, can be altered as times necessitate. It seems laughable that every modern President has recited the oath of office, stating that he will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, when no modern President has upheld that promise. We need new representatives that carry the utmost affection for our Constitution, and its principals. We must take it upon ourselves to restore the luster that was once the American Experiment, if our way of life is to survive.

Elysium Concept Footage from Mark Sniffen on Vimeo.

I felt that the film’s theme was rather generic, and that overall the drama was nothing special. A few short glimpses at a brilliant story were always followed by long scenes that felt awkward and crudely pieced together. The only characters I truly believed were Walt and his would-be pastor. The only enlightening scenes were between the two of them, and occasionally the character Tao would bring some splendor to the table.

I guess my biggest problem with Gran Torino was that I felt no vested emotion in any of the characters until the film’s climax, which left me with a sense that the movie really started at the climax, and that the entire beginning had just been filler. I’d like to see it again to confirm my initial reactions, but for now Gran Torino leaves me feeling like I’ve just had a Sour Patch Kid: sour with a hint of sweetness.