Regulating freedom so we can be free?

So, the question might be, then...how do we regulate "freedom" so that we can be free? Has to have something to do with teaching ourselves and others (kids) how to access what we need from the physical and social environment without impinging on others and without exhausting the carrying capacity of the world. What rules would support this kind of social organization?

Live and let live

Create what you need and if you want, share whatever you have in excess

Develop sustainable products and production methods

No initiating harm to others; avoid harm from others if at all possible

Be honest in your exchanges with others

Exchange is voluntary

How free can we be?

I've been reading a lot about liberterianism and anarchy lately. I find it really interesting stuff. I like the idea of being free from formal regulation of the governmental kind. I do think that humans are capable of regulating ourselves without the need for a formalized governmental system. In fact, most of us do most of the time. In other words, most of us regulate ourselves (in terms of doing the "right thing" without the need of government intervention) fairly well. To be sure, there are some who would do the "wrong thing" without any sort of fear of punishment (although most anarchists agree that there would be some form of "punishment" even in an anarchic society) that are currently doing the right thing, but it seems that this number would not be that large, proportionally. An, of course, those that currently act without regard for governmental (or any other) kind of consequence, will continue to do so.

The question, though is can we be free from any kind of regulation?The answer to this is no. Years of research have clearly demonstrated that humans need regulation of some kind. In other words, we don't know how to live with others innately; we need to learn how to do this. This learning is a life-long process and we are subject to it until death. This is not a bad thing, however (or it doesn't have to be). It is obvious that any interaction with the world results in some kind of outcome. Humans are designed to respond to the environment. We have evolved to survive through the use of our senses to make contact with the world and then modify our behavior based on the results of that contact (basic conditioning). Years of collective and cumulative human contact with the world results in "rules" about behavior ("don't touch a hot stove or you will get burned"). These rules are passed down from generation to generation and are modified due to changes in the environment; new rules are also generated due to changes in the environment. These rules result in continued and (coordinated) regulation and behavior.

more later...

Email to my older brother

Thought you'd like to know that I have been reading much about Austrian economics lately. I am not completely convinced that a truly free market, absent govt regulation, would be all that much better. I am leaning that way, though. I have always been critical of the govt and corporations because of their fascism and subsequent criminal use of power and am definitely in favor of ridding the world of both. I like Rothbard's work the best, so far. I think Mises is misguided with his notion of human action (not supported by empirical evidence; not surprising, tho since he eschews science in general). I usually love what Lewis Rockwell writes.

Funny, I think I know why people think I'm a liberal. I dislike the consolidation of power and the inequality (restriction of freedom) that it creates. Because of that, people seem to think I am in favor of govt intervention to alleviate that condition. I'm not and never have been. I wasn't sure what the answer was, but I knew govt wasn't it. I firmly believe that people need to work. In part because they don't need to leech off of others, but mainly because work leads to individual success and accomplishment and is a dignified way of living. Give people some education, a chance, and an opportunity to be competitive in an unregulated, fascist-free market, and yeah, I think we would have much less poverty and inequality than we do now. Plus, it would be clear that someone not working was her/his own choice.

Wish I had discovered this literature 30 years ago.

Mind...what a waste

I want to make clear a couple of points I raised in Wednesday class; they have to do with my intellectual orientation to the study of human behavior.

First and foremost, I am a behaviorist. This means that I observe everything that humans do in terms of behavior. This includes thinking, feeling, etc. As such, the purpose of a human science is to explain or account for behavior. I do this by using the evidence generated by research conducted by behavior analysts. Why? Because after years of consideration, I have concluded that they have the best empirical evidence to support their claims. In addition, many claims made by behaviorists have been confirmed through other research.

Second...please don't think that because I reject the notion of "mind" that you have to as you don't. Your acceptance or rejection of this claim has no bearing on how well you do in the course. The reason I reject it is because I believe that the issue is explaining behavior (see above) and I think the addition of something called, "mind" to do that is unnecessary and misleading.

In addition, if we posit that people act because of mind, we have a problem...mind is an immaterial object...this means that it has no empirically identifiable properties (you can't touch, taste, hear, see, nor smell it). As such it is similar to a "ghost" or "spirit" and these notions are rejected by scientists because we cannot verify the existence of them. Put simply, based on what science has demonstrated after hundreds of years of application is that an immaterial object (mind) cannot control a material object (body). If we accept this premise, we have no reason to use the scientific method anymore because it is rendered useless since it is based on empirical observations.

So, what does work to control human behavior? This is still not well understood, but we know that the brain plays a part (if not THE part). Notice how a brain is not the same as the "mind." The brain has an empirical reality, whereas mind does not. So, if we want to find out the role that brain plays in human behavior, we have something to work with. Many people will say, "mind" when they are really referring to brain; I prefer to just say, "brain" if that is what I am being referring to.

Not me

I realized today that I am not the source of my own life. I don't animate myself. I did not create my life. I am something that's been created. Consequently, I am a fiction.

Recent rant on a list-serv...

RE: students not being able to pass the citizenship test and/or not being aware of current events...

 

I, too think that this is disconcerting, however, I am not that surprised. Given that our economy is one of consumption, it makes sense that students (and others) are busy consuming...entertainment, food, time through the ubiquitous use of social media, etc., at the expense of "school." School inevitably loses in the competition for attention, if for no other reason, our marketing budget is far, far less than that of the entertainment (read "product sales of any kind") industry. Let's be realistic, they out-spend us annually by billions of dollars. Who can compete against Xbox? Facebook? iPhones? Chili's? American Apparel? Consider that students are exposed to thousands of ads on a daily basis for these "products" and weigh that consideration against paying attention to stuff that is decidedly NOT entertaining...politics? social unrest in other parts of the world? genocide? nuclear meltdowns? "Nah, pass the chips and salsa, the remote for the Tivo, and the Corona...I got better things to do (like entertain myself) than watch this depressing crap."

 

Don't forget, we are also dealing with the leftover (now reheating) "culture wars" which equated being educated with being an elitist or, God forbid, a liberal (several years ago I had a student in class state that, "Science was a liberal endeavor"). And many states are cutting funding for education in a hopeless attempt to balance budgets, AND the unemployment rate is still high, AND the feds are cutting education funding...makes sense to me that more kids are opting for entertainment VS reality -- hell, reality sucks. Entertainment is...entertaining!!!

 

Last time I heard about "job creation" it was the creation of lower-paying (i.e., not much education required) jobs, so who needs to "waste time" getting an education when it isn't going to pay off? I have seen articles in various mediums discussing how getting a college education isn't worth the money! Plus, most of my students work AND go to school, so when they are not busy with family, school, entertainment, they are working (consequently "entertainment" is most appealing).

 

In sum, I think we are fighting the proverbial uphill battle; I don't know how we are faring in the war, but it sure seems like we ain't winning.

Email to some friends...

Mother Nature is awesome...I think she does these things to remind us humans that despite all of the BS we tell ourselves, we ain't runnin' shit, SHE is in charge.

For better or for worse (worse in this case), nuclear power IS the best solution (currently) to the massive energy needs that we, China, India, Japan, et al have right now. If you set aside the dangers (hard to, I agree), it IS the cleanest form of energy production that we have on the scale that we need (and we ARE going to run out of oil someday). Sure, passive is great, but it is not at the capacity to replace traditional forms of energy just yet. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason solar and other sources are not more available is BECAUSE of oil companies, nuclear energy companies, etc. But unless we want to return to a pre-industrialized form of society (i.e., no electricity), then this is what we are stuck with. At Dharma Farm (our place), we are try to live with the least amount of energy, but not easy to do.

War...I have come to respect the people in the military -- they are all brave people (far braver than I). What pisses me off is how American Presidents use these people in such a cavalier fashion -- doesn't matter what President. I also think that our choice of wars reveals the duplicity of our government. There are "humanitarian" crises in many places around the globe (Darfur, Ivory Coast, etc.), but we don't give enough of a shit about them to enact a no-fly zone. Here we come back to the energy issue again -- sure seems to me that we only decide that a conflict requires military intervention when our "national interests" (read: access to energy resources) are threatened. I would have far more respect for leaders if they were at least honest with populations -- "We really don't give a rat's ass about the Libyan people, we are kicking the shit out of Gaddhafi because we need the oil underneath Libyan soil." And the reason for increasing gas prices around the world is NOT due to a lack of oil from Libya (Saudi is making up for any reduction), it is ONLY because of speculators -- the same assholes who brought us the financial meltdown that we are still reeling from. Of course, THEY get the bailouts while we get the shaft.

From the mouth of the babe

My son went to an Xmas event at church the other night. He told me that some girl was bothering him, so he called her a "dumb ass." Then he clarified that what he really called her was a "dumb asshole."

My first thought was, "Son a bitch, son, you can't say shit like that at church!!!"

How I wish I could speak the truth.

It's the behavior, NOT the revelation about the behavior

I heard on the news on the way into work today that some folks are claiming that the Wikileaks cable release about the Yemeni President lying to his country about U.S. bombs dropping in Yemen might serve as a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. This immediately reminded me of when I worked with substance-abusing felons...

Part of my job as a counselor was to challenge them about their behavior and to encourage them to be honest about any behavior that violated the rules of the treatment center. This was in keeping with the treatment philosophy of "honesty is integral to recovery from substance abuse." If they admitted to a violation, however, they would receive a consequence. Needless to say, it was indeed challenging to get them to fess up. What was interesting was their main reason for NOT fessing up; it is essentially the same thing that is happening with the above situation.

Their argument was that being honest (i.e., fessing up) would cost them...and indeed in one sense, it would and it did. As such, it was in their best interest to lie. I pointed out that this was in fact incorrect. It was not their HONESTY that resulted in the consequence, it was their BEHAVIOR that resulted in the consequence. In other words, it was not the revelation about the behavior that was consequential, it was the behavior itself.

Put simply, don't do stupid shit and you don't have anything to lie about; you can in fact be honest with people about what you have been doing.

Who knew that people in power could act like felons?

( Some comments I made at an Honors Reception)

Beware the Glittering Generality

I want to start by asking you to consider the following three statements from three different individuals, all made within the last decade…

1) “I think our core businesses are extremely strong. We have a very strong competitive advantage. Of course, we're now transferring this very successful business model and approach to a lot of new, very large markets globally.”

2) "The fundamentals of our economy are strong,"

3) "There is a reasonable chance that the biggest part of the housing correction can be behind us in a number of months -- I'm not saying two or three months but in months as opposed to years,"

Now before I tell you who made these statements and when, I want to ask if you noticed any similarities among them? Aside from their assessment of the economy and/or their business?

If, when asked to notice similarities, you thought of the use of the words strong, successful, competitive, correction, advantage, all different in form, but similar in type (they all speak to something that is good, a “virtue”) then you are on to something. The question is, of course, what are you onto? The answer is…propaganda. And more specifically, a specific form of propaganda termed, Glittering Generality.

I can hear some of your thoughts (Sociologists are imbued with psychic powers, so beware what you think in our presence) Propaganda you say? In America! In the 21st century! Nyet! Can’t be so! You’re lying!

Um, yeah, afraid not that I am lying and afraid that what that is…is propaganda. In America…in the 21st century…so common…so much a part of our culture…so integral to the discourse of our culture (especially political discourse)…that we don’t even notice it.

And why should we notice? Very few of us have ever been educated about propaganda. We might hear about it and the word might conjure up images of soldiers with rifles, charging a hill or decrying bad habits during wartime, but most of us have never been educated on recognizing the more subtle, linguistic, discursive forms…the forms that dominate our social world.

Believe it or not, there was, at one time in our national history, a brief 5 year period during which a concerted effort was made by a national organization to do precisely that…to educate the general public on propaganda in general, and seven specific forms it takes, in particular.

This work was conducted by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Inc. A non-profit organization founded in the United States in 1937. Its aim was to educate the general public on recognizing and then refuting propaganda. It produced pamphlets, newsletters, even a few books, all intended to raise public awareness about propaganda, which they defined as

“…expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends.”

Or to put it another way (my words)

“Specifically designed linguistic and visual efforts to rouse people to respond in precise ways without requiring their conscious acknowledgement”

Or perhaps, even simpler…getting people to do stuff without thinking about what they are doing.

Now, as I mentioned, the institute actually identified seven forms of propaganda. Time does not permit me to explicate each form, but briefly, we have:

Glittering generality

Name-calling (So and so is a communist, socialist, Marxist, etc.)

Transfer (all members of the Tea Party are patriots)

Testimonial (Wear Hanes underwear because Michael Jordan does!)

Bandwagon (Don’t be the last one to join! Have! Get!)

Card-stacking (Gay marriage will destroy the moral fabric of America!)

Plain folks (You betcha! I’m not a witch, I’m you!)

All of these share several features...

First, they are designed to shape public opinion

Second, they are designed to inhibit consideration, i.e., thinking

Third, they are designed to get people to respond in specific ways

Fourth, recipients (i.e., the public) are not supposed to notice that they have been designed nor are they supposed to notice their effects; they are simply supposed to respond.

Powerful stuff, eh?

So what about the statements that I started this with? What was the form of propaganda they employ? Oh, yes, as mentioned, they use something called, Glittering Generality, which is:

“…associating something with a ‘virtue word’ [it] is used to make us accept and approve the thing without examining the evidence.”

Let’s hear those statements again and this time listen for the “virtue words,” the Glittering Generality

1) “I think our core businesses are extremely strong. We have a very strong competitive advantage. Of course, we're now transferring this very successful business model and approach to a lot of new, very large markets globally.”

2) "The fundamentals of our economy are strong,"

3) "There is a reasonable chance that the biggest part of the housing correction can be behind us in a number of months -- I'm not saying two or three months but in months as opposed to years,"

Did you hear them this time?

Remember, I pointed them out earlier; they are:

strong, successful, competitive, correction, advantage

Notice that they all are “virtuous” and suggest “good” things… strong, successful, competitive, correction, advantage

These are things that we all want, right? Only a fool would not want them!

Do you see how they almost immediately stop any questions, any discussion, any consideration of their accuracy? We are supposed to take the people who said them at their word. We are supposed to say, “Okay, nothing to worry about, we can relax…”

The problem is that at the time each one of these statements was uttered, there WAS something to worry about, things were not going “swimmingly.” Who said them and when?

The first, was something Ken Lay, CEO of Enron said during a conference call with employees right before Enron tanked.

The second statement was made by John McCain during his campaign for Presidency at the beginning of the financial crisis, and

The final statement was made by Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary during the Bush Administration at the start of the housing crisis.

And how was the public supposed to respond when hearing these statements? Were they supposed to question them? To challenge them? To attempt to refute them? It doesn’t seem so; rather, it seems that they were uttered in an attempt to allay any fears about what was occurring to our economy.

So, why talk about propaganda? Why give examples of glittering generality? Is it to bring everybody down? Poke our society in the eye? No. It is a small attempt to continue the work started by the IPA back in 1937. A brief, however limited, endeavor to educate us about the efforts of other people to direct our attention, our thinking, and ultimately, our behavior. It is to increase critical analysis of social discourse and social interaction. It is to invite everyone to develop a healthy skepticism about what is being said by whom and perhaps most importantly, WHY something is being said. Our world has always needed well-educated, thoughtful, people. We need those same kind of people today. We desperately need a well-educated public in this country. We have a future that is like so many other futures of years past…uncertain. We need to take action to make sure that all people are prepared to respond effectively to that uncertain future, to respond in ways that will ensure a better world for all of us, to increase the chances of us individually and collectively living to our fullest.

Building character for whom?

Just dawned on me that the "build's character" adage has been usurped by corporations. Historically, it made sense to work hard and build character because the individual benefited from that labor. Today, however, it is the corporation that reaps the rewards from the sacrifice of the individual.

Hmm, that sounded kind of Marxist...

PETA and Propaganda Analysis

I recently became interested in the study of propaganda and more specifically the analysis of propaganda in the media and in written/verbal discourse. In searching for sources on propaganda and the analysis of same, I came upon materials developed by the Institute of Propaganda Analysis, Inc. (IPA) This organization, established in 1937 (and dissolved in 1942) in response to the recognition of the impact that propaganda had on populations during the first World War and subsequently in the development of public relations, advertising, and marketing, identified seven techniques that propagandists use to influence individual and group behavior. Six of the techniques are listed here (name-calling, glittering generality, testimonial, transfer, plain folks, bandwagon); the seventh, card-stacking is defined as “…the ordering of facts or falsehoods, illustrations or distractions or distortions, logical or illogical statements, in such a sequence that the best or worst possible impression will be made (Lee & Lee, 1939).” I wanted to see if there was any evidence that any/all of these techniques were still in practice today, some 70 years after their identification. I discovered that they were; in fact, I think it is reasonable to conclude that they dominate much of the political, marketing, advertising, public relations discourse that we are immersed in today.

One example of their application comes from an analysis of a document on the PETA website; itis an argument for the recognition of animal rights. I used a qualitative analysis software package to identify any uses of six of the seven techniques (I conducted this analysis before I learned about the technique of card-stacking; primary source material on the seven techniques developed by the IPA is difficult to obtain). I developed codes (a methodological element of content analysis) for each of the six techniques; they were: PF (plain folks), Tran (transfer), GG (glittering generality), Test (testimonial), BW (band wagon), and NC (name-calling). A screen shot of the coding of the PETA document using the software is below:

Using one of the features of the software package, I was then able to determine the frequency with which each of the codes appeared in the document; this is represented by this graph:

As you can see, the techniques of transfer and glittering generality were used most often. The reason why is probably due to the nature of the argument. Recall that the document is attempting to argue for recognition of animal rights. In other words, the argument is attempting to suggest that animals have rights just like humans have rights. As such, one would expect seeing the technique of Transfer used as there are repeated concerted efforts to get the reader to equate animal rights with human rights, i.e., transfer the notion of inalienable rights, historically associated with humans to animals. Similarly, Glittering Generality is used to make the Transfer easier. This is accomplished by associating “virtue” words that are normally used in reference to human beings with animals. In fact word, “right” is an example of Glittering Generality all by itself.

From this analysis, it is apparent that the propaganda techniques identified by the IPA are still alive and well.

Reality is relentless

I have been on anti-depressants on and off for the last fifteen years (mainly on). During the summer, when I am not teaching, I will stop taking them to give my body a bit of a rest. I am doing that this, summer, too. I have been off for four weeks or so. What I have noticed is that reality, the actual experience of life, is intense; in your face, 24-7. It is not unbearable, but it is relentless. I could start taking them again for some relief, but I no longer want relief; rather, I want freedom. I know that if I persist, I will learn to live with all of the sensations of life. When I am comfortable in my own skin, I will be free. I guess relentless is how it is going to be from now on. I need to learn how to ride it and not get involved with it; detachment is the word, I await the result.

The Buddha says...

That we have six sense organs...eyes, ears, nose, tongue, touch and...mind. So those thoughts that run through my head are just sensory data...they are not me. Cool.

Humans are verbs...

Not nouns. Their is no listener, there is only listening. There is no thinker, only thinking. There is no -er, only -ing.

Freedom isn't free...

It's highly regulated. Posted this notion on my Facebook page and got into a cyber shouting match with a friend of mine. Some conditioning is very hard to overcome (for both of us).

To me, it seems patently obvious that we are not truly free in the U.S., despite claims to the contrary. I understand that power of conditioning, but this seems like a fairly mundane observation. We cannot do “as we please” in this country (or any other for that matter). Of course, we can do some things, but if freedom means the ability to engage in behavior without consequences or fear of consequences, then no one is free. The physical environment limits our freedom...I am “free” to walk through a wall, but I will be stopped as soon as my body makes contact with it. People don't seem to have a problem understanding this one.

What is more intriguing and apparently much harder to see, is how we are regulated by our social environment, too. Funny thing...many people claim to dislike the federal government and all of the regulations on our lives (I being one of them), but we gladly regulate each other (“Hey, cover your mouth when you sneeze!”). Prime example is our wearing of clothes. I don't know the history of clothing, but I suspect that it originally was borne out of body decoration and/or necessity for protection against the elements. Either way, today it is a requirement, not an option, when we are out in public. Today, it seems the reason we are required to wear clothes has nothing to do with either decoration, nor protection, but to cover up our “privates;” (after all, there are laws against going nude in public) again, absurd...who has never seen him or herself without clothes on? Are we unaware of what we look like nude? Similarly, I would suspect that at a fairly early age (especially if one has siblings) one sees a person of another gender nude. So, really, is there a need to cover our “privates” when a) we all have them and b) everyone has seen at least their own and in all likelihood, someone else's too? Sure, there are situations in which nudity is “legal” (truly an odd idea...our bodies being, “legal”), but we learn at an early age that we “...have to put on [your] clothes before leaving the house.”

Of course, the prime irony is that we have made the culture that we live in. We may have little control over who gets elected to write our laws (We don't get to “choose” our candidates, they are chosen for us and we get to vote for whomever is left after the weeding out process), but we sure do like to vote for regulatory legislation. To be sure, not all regulation is bad, and some of it makes sense in terms of protecting ourselves and each other; but to claim that we are free or that we are the “free-est” country on earth (whatever that means) is at best inaccurate and at worst a nice tool to get people to act against their own best interests.

Let's see, where was I?

On the road to perdition or was it liberation? It was both, that's right.

I've noticed just how insane my (I'll keep it local) brain is. There is absolutely nothing wrong in my life at any given point in time, yet if the activity and resulting emotional sensations in my brain were the sole source of evidence, I would be convinced that my life was terrible, horrible, really no good. Not me, per se, but my life. Astonishing how brains become conditioned and retain that conditioning.

The upside (I suppose) is that the neural insanity prompts me to be free of it. Not simple relief from (which is always temporary), but freedom from forever. There are many who have taken action to achieve a similar freedom, but I am not interested in ending my life. That is not what I am talking about. Due to karma, God's grace, serendipity, whatever, I KNOW that there is an alternative that can provide that permanent freedom. I don't know much about it and knowing about it is really irrelevant. What is relevant are the actions that I can take to align this body with it. Challenging? To be sure. But not challenging like many, many other people are challenged on a daily basis (my life is good, remember? I AM one of the lucky ones). It seems to be the most (at least right now) compelling task before me; I am lucky that it is this way.

So, how do I know that such an alternative exists? Because I trust what certain people have told me and continue to tell me. These people are incapable of lying. First is my (Divine) Mother; there is absolutely no way in hell the She could, nor ever would, lie to me or anyone else. I know, I have looked Her in the eyes and She has returned the look and when you peer into infinite patience, compassion and love, you are more than convinced. Second, Eckhart Tolle; another person incapable of telling a lie. Where Mother loves me no matter what I do, Eckhart explains the freedom that I seek and does it in an approachable, understandable way (for me). All sanity, all freedom.

The others...the Buddha, Christ, Adi Shankara...have shown me the way out and God does know that the day will come when I step through that door.

In the meantime....where was I? On the road to perdition or on the road to liberation?

America...land of the scared shitless

Went to the SS office today to order a new SS card as I lost mine over 10 years ago. While waiting in the lobby, my wife calls me on my cell phone. I answer and start talking to her. The security officer comes over and tells me that I can't talk on the cellphone in the lobby and I need to go outside if I want to continue the conversation. I hang up.

It comes my turn to actually meet with a SS employee, I am polite, but not talkative. She starts asking me about my weekend, where I went, why the conference I went to was over Memorial Day, etc. This, of course strikes me as odd because I have not noticed any of these people (including her) carrying on this kind of conversation with anyone who has gone before me. Again, I am polite, but not real forthcoming.

I ask her why you can't use cell phones in the lobby. She looks quizzical and says she doesn't know why. She then offers a possible reason...people might get distracted (from what?? the stunning interior of a federal building?). I tell her that there are no signs posted about no cell phone use in the lobby. She pauses and says, yes there is one by where I had to get a number (to wait in line to see her).

On the way out, I notice the sign she is talking about. It is one of those that someone prints off of a PC, about 8.5 X 11 that has a cell phone with a crossed-circle over it. It is barely noticeable. There is another, similar sign that indicates that you cannot take any photos in the building either.

Now, let's see...who paid for the construction of that building? Oh, that's right we did. So who owns that building? Oh that's right, we do. So we pay for and own a building where we can't use a cell phone and take pictures of the interior (as stunning as it is) and the people who work there don't know why we can't use the cell phone to talk to anyone. I figured if I ask why we couldn't take pictures, I would end up in hand-cuffs for asking too many questions.

America, once the land of the free, now land of the scared shitless and suffocatingly regulated.

Tarpocalypse

Definition: The collective outcome of the BP spill...

James Cameron...epic tool

My review of Avatar (from a couple of days ago): Cruel, exploitive fantasy; some reasons 1) takes a "white" guy to save the indigenous people, 2) the indigenous people are victorious in the end, 3) military personnel are depicted as blood-thirsty dumb asses. Cameron is a tool. He should have just made a history of dominant-minority group relations throughout the world, that would have made him LOTS of money as there is plenty of blood, destruction and misery...not fantasy, either. What a colossal waste of money and time at the expense of indigenous people everywhere. Anyone with courage will just read, Bury my heart at wounded knee (Brown) and My life on the plains (Custer) at the SAME time -- no one has the courage to make those two into a movie because they are TOO !@#$% real.

Update (today)...Let's see...why the f*ck does James Cameron have to make a g-d cruel, exploitive fantasy when it is playing out before our very own eyes, again? Oh, that's right, fantasy makes money and reality...makes people wonder...can't have that, right?