Posted by Curt on 21 December, 2006 at 9:25 am. 2 comments already!

Jules Crittenden found this article in which they interview the director of the new movie "Babel".  The movie that led the nominations at the Golden Globes and will probably lead the pack in the race for oscar:

Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu talks with Bert Rebhandl about his third film "Babel", what it’s like to shoot with Brad Pitt in places where no one knows him, and the Latin American Left: "I represent the Left today, a post-ideological Left. Ideologies divide things into black and white, superior and inferior. Bush is a fanatic, a nutcase who sees an axis of evil everywhere he looks. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who stylises himself as Bush’s adversary, is also a radical, not a leftist. He too sees an axis of evil wherever he looks, and in that he’s just like Bush. He produces anger, that’s disturbing. Earlier politicians were useful to society. That’s no longer the case. Nowadays they just use society for their own cult of fame, as a platform for eccentric appearances. In that they’re no different from Paris Hilton."

Post-ideological lefty huh?  Does that mean a lefty who still insists on being a lefty even though every single cause your side championed was wrong and a failure?   This kind of left is a myth.  It was a myth in 1994 and a myth now.  Take a look at this article written 12 years ago about the politics in the 90’s:

In the last several years, it has become a cliche among political analysts that the old ideological categories don’t mean much in the post-Cold War world. With right and left in disarray, we have supposedly entered a "post-ideological age" in which "pragmatism" will dominate, giving us rule by a "vital center" with no guiding principles. That way lies the cynical campaigning of the California governor’s race, in which Pete Wilson and Kathleen Brown sling insults at one another in a desperate attempt to disguise the fact that they differ hardly at all.

The post-ideological age is a myth, however. The current period of ideological flux has in fact exposed deeper divisions than the ones to which we have long been accustomed. Rather than a post-ideological age, we are now in a radically ideological age, in which ideas are taken to their roots, to their fundamentals, in which the categories are broader and deeper, and the divisions more sharply defined, than the old left and right.

You think anything has changed?  Not on your life.

But I digress.  A typical hollywood type lumping Bush, Hugo Chavez, and Paris Hilton together and we’re supposed to be surprised.  I mean according to this fellow there is no real evil in the world right?  Bush is a nutcase because he see’s danger from Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.  In other words, if we had just left everyone to do as they please the world would be full of lollipops and silly putty.  One big happyfest.

And they call Bush delusional?

>