It’s easy to make fun of the Live Earth concerts – with all these pampered, puerile performers consuming prodigious amounts of energy in order to pontificate about the desperate need for “little people” to do their bit to conquer Global Warming. The Al Gore inspired inanity that played out in every corner of the globe seemed to concentrate on the message that the billions (literally) who watched these events on the tube couldn’t do anything on their own, but needed to wait for government to change policies in order to make a real difference. In other words, Live Earth managed to re-cycle one thing, at least – the old liberal mistake that says that citizens can’t do anything to help themselves (or their country, or their world) and their only hope involves changing government. In other words, to liberals (like all the well-intentioned bozos who participated in Live Earth) change only matters when it’s government initiated and government mandated. In truth, bottom-up changes in private, individual behavior (which are eminently possible on this issue) brings far greater impact than any top-down bureaucratic demand.

Conservatives may provide such obvious responses to the seven-continent-concerts, but in the long run it won’t stop the left from making Global Warming and energy conservation into major political issues in the Presidential Election of 2008. There’s no doubt that “Saving the Planet” will constitute one of the three big imperatives that Democrats will emphasize endlessly between now and Election Day – the others being “Ending the Iraq War” and providing “Health Insurance for All.”

Republicans may snicker at the left’s political posturing but this triad gives the Dems a huge advantage in the forth-coming race. They promise – no matter how implausibly – three big changes that will impact the lives of every American.

And Republicans are promising….what, exactly?

So far, our only response to the Democratic promises on Peace, Health Care and the Environment is that liberal solutions don’t work and tend to make situations worse than before. These arguments need to be made, and the public should be appropriately frightened by the huge increase in the size and cost of government implicit in liberal plans. But these warnings hardly constitute the sort of positive program or soaring vision that can energy a cynical and dispirited electorate.

In a sense, the two natural issues for Republicans – fighting terrorism and protecting economic growth – have been taken off the table by the remarkably successful administration of George W. Bush (regardless of his low approval ratings). The President has done such an outstanding job of keeping the nation safe from major attack, and keeping the economy chugging reliably forward, that most Americans take this success for granted. They assume that prosperity and domestic security represent some natural state of affairs, and Republican candidates will score few points by promising to continue these good times.

Instead, Republicans must counter the grand schemes of the Democrats with some thrilling visions of our own. The obvious possibilities involve saving Social Security (everyone knows it’s broken), radical tax simplification (Fair Tax, anyone?) or a guarantee of free choice in education for every American. Dramatic legal reform might also generate energy and enthusiasm – with pledges to reduce he crushing cost and profound drag on the economy of nuisance lawsuits.

And what about an across-the-board reduction in federal spending and a shrinking of the size of government? If Republicans make an aggressive pledge to slash the bureaucracy, including written commitments from both the Presidential and Congressional candidates, it will be up to the Democrats to defend absurd programs like the Teapot Museum or the millions for “mood altering lamps” at the Centers for Disease Control. The Republicans could—and should – publicize some new outrageous example of asinine federal spending every one of the hundred days between their convention and the election. Maybe they should begin right now – there are certainly enough wasteful examples to go around.

So far, our candidates have done a miserable job of seizing control of the national debate and the campaign’s agenda. If they don’t start talking about major changes that might actually electrify elements of the public then we’ll spend the entire campaign talking about “Health Insurance for All” and “Energy Conservation to Save Drowning Polar Bears” and, of course, “Bringing the Boys Home from Iraq” (which no Democrat and no Republican will actually be able to do… but that’s another story).

In other words, if we continue our internal bickering and allow the other side to determine the terms of the debate, Republicans will lose – and we may lose very badly.

Occasionally, the formulaic Saturday radio addresses by the President and his designated Democratic “responders,” provide telling glimpses of our current political follies.

This past weekend, the Democrats chose Washington State’s junior Senator, the embarrassingly inept Maria Cantwell, to deliver their partisan preachment.

In the course of her dreary address about energy policy, she revealed her underlying contempt for her fellow citizens. “America deserves more fuel-efficient cars,” she announced with peerless eloquence, and then added: “But the only way consumers are going to get more out of a tank of gas is if the president and his party help deliver votes in a narrowly divided Congress.”

In other words, hard-pressed Americans who note the high price of gas at the pump, can’t do anything for themselves to save money? We can’t purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles until the Republicans vote for new regulations forcing us to do so?

And auto designers and engineers and inventors can’t possibly create the “more fuel efficient cars” Senator Cantwell says we deserve, unless bureaucrats give the orders? The prospect of earning billions in profits by building such vehicles won’t be enough without a vote of Congress?

Senator Cantwell no doubt speaks for many of her fellow Democrats in her startling suggestion that the American people can’t be trusted—even on an important and very personal decision like buying a car – and instead need to count on politicians to make wise choices for them.

 A new CBS News/New York Times poll reveals profound confusion about governmental versus personal responsibility in protecting the environment. When asked about prospective federal laws “requiring car manufacturers to produce cars that are more energy efficient,” an astonishing 92% of the public supported the idea! With this near-unanimous public backing, why should government get involved at all? If people really do want more fuel-efficient cars, they can choose to buy them—thereby forcing manufacturers to build more of them, without bureaucratic compulsion. No government policy prevents greater fuel efficiency --in fact, generous tax breaks already encourage consumers to buy hybrids. Polls indicating a preference for influencing auto makers through government mandate rather than the power of the market indicate that people don’t trust themselves- or their neighbors – to make the right purchasing decisions unless regulations force them to do so. When the people trust government more than they trust themselves individual liberty diminishes and, potentially, disappears.  

Those who pay regular visits to this neighborhood of “townhall.com” know that I’m fairly reliable with my daily posts on a wide variety of subjects. That’s become especially difficult in the last few days because of the windstorms that struck the entire Seattle area on Thursday night – knocking out power for more than a million homes. We lost our power shortly after ten p.m. and as of this afternoon (Sunday) it still hasn’t returned --- leaving us franticly lighting candles and building fires in the fire places to try to keep warm (the temperature outside is close to freezing). We’re conscious of our good fortune: the level of devastation in the Puget Sound isn’t anywhere near Katrina levels, of course, and our home was mostly undamaged (except for one skylight that was blown clear off the roof and which has already been repaired thanks to an excellent roofing company – Haider Construction – that advertises on my show). On Friday, I managed to drive into work (detouring around some of the huge, downed trees that blocked major roadways) and did the show and I’ve gone back into the radio studio in downtown Seattle today (Sunday) in order to use the computers and the power and to catch up on writing. Last night (Saturday, obviously) we welcomed more than 30 friends to our home for a pre-scheduled Hanukah party and the atmosphere (with every corner lit by some flickering candle) of improvisation and defiance (along with free flowing spirits, in every way) made for an especially joyful mood. Our daughter even brought seven girls from her sorority at the University of Washington (most of whom had never experienced anything about Chanukah before) and they got caught up in the spirit of celebrating this holiday of “dedication” in spite of inconvenience and minor adversity.

Two lessons suggest themselves about these days without electricity:

Most obviously, we’re reminded of the amazing power (of communication, home heating, cooking, microwaves, lights (!), refrigeration, music reproduction, computers, communication, opening garage doors, and so forth) that depends on electricity and which we take so utterly for granted. It’s impossible to avoid walking into some dark closet and instinctively reaching for the light switch – even though that’s useless at the moment. A loss of power for three days (it could be several days more before it’s returned) should be a profound lesson in the amazing opportunities, choices, conveniences and comforts that a typical American family enjoys – a standard of living unimaginable even to aristocrats of, say, 100 years ago. With electrical crews working around the clock to restore power (of a million homes in our region that lost their power, 750,000 have already been brought back into the grid), it’s a reminder of our utter dependence on the economic system that pays these guys to spend time away from their own families, to brave the cold, to compile abundant overtime in the midst of holiday season, to try to allow thousands of strangers to live safely (and comfortably) in their homes. There’s nothing like a natural disaster to remind us of the fragility of our busy lives, and the intricate webs of interdependence that make them possible.

The other lesson involves power displayed, as opposed to power denied. Between midnight and three a.m. on Thursday night/Friday morning the howling winds that struck the island on which we live reached levels close to 60 miles an hour – not hurricane force, of course, but more than enough to terrify us as we huddled in the dark, trying to sleep, listening to huge branches crashing against our metal roof or our windows. We also watched the huge trees that surround our home bent like tooth-picks by the ferocious winds; than God, none of them blew over, but neighbors suffered major damage from 100 foot high Douglas Firs knocked down and into their homes. A windstorm like any showy natural display – tsunami, earthquake, hurricane, major flood - brings a message of our puniness and vulnerability in the face of the truly awesome might of nature (or, if you prefer, God).

Yeah, I know it’s a cliché to talk about the insignificance of human beings in the face of a big blow that destroys literally thousands of beautiful, noble, sometimes ancient trees and smashes countless homes and power-lines. But as we await the restoration of our normal comforts, as we celebrate the third night of Hanukah (tonight) in our dark home, part of the dedication of the festival (yes, “Hanukah” means “dedication”) will be to keep a more clear, unwavering focus on our own tiny, modest position in the overall scheme of things – both natural and spiritual. Happy Hanukah – and Merry Christmas – and may we all cherish the natural light that’s a gift from God, as well as the precious man-made light and flame and warmth that stem from human ingenuity and cooperation.

Mel Gibson’s “Apocalypto” is an audacious, unforgettable triumph and, undoubtedly, one of the richest, most electrifying cinematic experiences of the year. In that context it’s unfortunate that the filmmaker has coupled his brilliance as a writer-director with a display of unalloyed idiocy as a commentator on his own work.

The stupidity began in September when he spoke to an audience in Austin, Texas after an early screening of his still unfinished film. At the time, he succeeded in getting advance attention for his work by drawing parallels between the fantastically brutal and dysfunctional Mayan civilization he portrays on screen and the current political situation in the United States. “The precursors to a civilization that’s going under are the same, time and time again,” he explained. “What’s human sacrifice if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?”

His comments came across like an unexpected punch-in-the-nose to many of the conservatives across the country who had rallied to his defense during the furious dispute over “The Passion of the Christ,” and even pleaded for forgiveness and reconciliation in his behalf in the wake of his toxic combination of drunk driving and anti-Semitic drivel.

Nevertheless, with his film finished, ready for its Friday (December 8) release, and overwhelming audiences everywhere with its eye-popping visual splendor and relentless narrative energy, the Gibsonian interpretation of his own work has gotten, if anything, even more inane.

The official press kit from Touchstone Pictures (a division the Disney Company) quotes Gibson as saying: “Throughout history, precursors to the fall of a civilization have always been the same, and one of the things that just kept coming up as we were writing is that many of the things that happened right before the fall of the Mayan civilization are occurring in our society now. It was important for me to make that parallel because you see these cycles repeating themselves over and over again. People think that modern man is so enlightened, but we’re susceptible to the same forces – and we are also capable of the same heroism and transcendence.”

The press kit also quotes Farhad Safinia, who co-wrote the screenplay with Gibson, making similar observations: “We discovered that what archeologists and anthropologists believe is that the daunting problems faced by the Maya are extraordinarily similar to those faced today by our own civilization, especially when it comes to widespread environmental degradation, excessive consumption and political corruption.”

On the one hand, these fatuous remarks distort the situation in the United States today--far from “widespread environmental degradation,” for instance, the quality of our air and water has improved dramatically over the last thirty years, at the same time that reforestation has substantially enlarged the acreage of our already impressive woodlands.

Even more startling is the vast, unbridgeable gap between the politically correct comments by Gibson and his collaborator and the raw integrity of the film they actually made. Their observations about the “extraordinary similarity” between Mayan decadence and degeneracy and the realities of American life in the 21^st century receive no support whatever from the thrilling adventure story that unfolds in the nearly two-and-a-half hours of the final version of “Apocalypto.” In fact, their interpretation of the project bears so little connection to the film itself that you wonder not only whether they truly made the movie, but whether they’ve ever actually seen it. Nothing—not one scene, one character, one set, or one passing detail in the film – in any way echoes contemporary America, even as seen by this society’s most embittered critics. The movie contains no sequences emphasizing “environmental degradation” (unless you count a heart-pounding chase through a corn field where the stalks look somewhat withered) or “political corruption.” (The spectacle of enslaving primitive tribesmen, binding them with ropes and sticks, marching them to your capital and then slashing open their chests to rip their hearts out in human sacrifice can’t rightly be described as “political corruption”—nor does this pagan savagery connect in any way with current controversies in our society. No matter how much Mr. Gibson may disapprove of the Iraq war, it’s a stretch to suggest that sacrificial victims captured very much against their will, and after their spirited struggle (and after their village has been utterly destroyed) bear any relationship to the volunteers who chose to fight in the Middle East.

The cruel, sadistic, masochistic, deeply demented culture of the Mayas, with its self-destructive emphasis on mutilation and mysticism, slavery and superstition, emerges with conviction and flair on the screen but will cause no one to think, “Oh, wow, that really reminds me of New York and LA!”

So why would a brilliant artist like Mel Gibson insist on ludicrously describing his masterpiece as a commentary on today’s social, cultural, political problems, when no sane viewer of his picture would note or even suspect those messages?

Perhaps Gibson is so eager to transcend the humiliation of his drunk driving incident, and to bury the lingering suspicions that “The Passion” (despite its huge commercial success) was a right-wing, hate-filled screed, that he’s saying stupid things that he believes will endear him to the “progressive” Hollywood establishment.

Clearly, the film (with dialogue in the ancient Yucatec language, with subtitles) represents a major risk and he needs great reviews to get the attention required for decent box office performance. By cooking up some preposterous lefty interpretation of Mayan collapse (is the big chieftain with the body scarring and the elaborate tattoos and the distended ears and the carved piece of jade in place of his nose supposed to represent George W. Bush?) Gibson may be trying to position his adrenalin-soaked, breathlessly paced chase picture as an “important, daring” message movie that indicts the U.S.

Even if there’s no basis whatever in the substance of the film for Mel’s alarmist, we’re-all-guilty-and-doomed commentary about US society, the attempt to fabricate a political subtext for a visceral, straight-ahead action-adventure may prove an effective strategy. The positioning of a relentlessly fast-moving thriller set in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula more than five hundred years ago as some searing, timely indictment of “over consumption” and “political corruption” in Bush-era USA, may force some high brow critics to take “Apocalypto” more seriously than they would without the pretentious preaching surround it’s release. There’s another advantage concerning the movie’s distribution overseas: Gibson’s comments will help to produce the warm reception in France that’s all-but-guaranteed for any work plausibly classified as anti-American.