I enjoyed the film and recommend it to all. (Not very young children, however.)
And even if you do trust Bush and Ashcroft, will you trust their successors?
And beware of giving people or institutions too many limitations on their power lest they be incapable of decisive action when it it really needed. Checks and balances are ok, but don't tie the hands of your leaders to the point where they cannot lead.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
He and Tolkein were both devout Catholics - as well as highly regarded intellectuals at a time when intellectuals were largely "classical liberals", which means they were largely traditional and Christian. Not the left wing nutty "liberals" of this century.
As to whether or not we can trust GW with the power he requires to defeat the evil that threatens us, we'll just have to see what happens AFTER we've defeated it.
However, since presidents are elected to 4 year terms with an 8 year maximum, and since we have both a judicial and a congressional branch to offer checks and balances, I don't really think we have very much to worry about.
We have more to worry about if we hamstring our leaders and refuse to allow them to weild a weapon when they are trying to defend us.
I had a woman manager like that once, that back stabbing, shoe buying.... well nevermind.
The first time I heard the speech, I though Galadriel had said the b-word, but I guess it was just me.
Interesting article, has nothing to do with LOTR. Rousting some alien, sleeper agents does not a tyrant make. Sorry!
Cyber Liberty's message: Well, DUH!
Interesting to note that, in the very last line of the article, the author compares Bush and Ashcroft to Sauron. Breathtaking.
Freeper thoughts?
I think we need to be wary of a new ring--the ring of absolute stupidity. It rules over other rings, like the ring of relativism and the ring of passivity, to name only two.
Thanks for the post Marianne.
The use of power is a game and if you choose not to use it, then others who do acquire power will use it against you. I am reminded of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince ...
"Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires."
Politicians have too much power in our Republic. And whose fault is that? When we chose not to particpate in the system, we get what we deserve.
One way in which it makes this point is that Frodo is only able to get the Ring because he does not want to use it, but wants this instrument of power to keep others from misusing it, a very conservative principle.
Oddly, the same theme shows up in Harry Potter. He is able to find and secure the Sorceror's Stone precisely because he has no intention of using it, but intends to keep others from doing so, because using it corrupts you, just as using the ring does.
Amazing that such a conservative theme is common to the books that are the sources of the two blockbuster movies our now. How did this get past the Hollywood establishment?
One way in which it makes this point is that Frodo is only able to get the Ring because he does not want to use it, but wants this instrument of power to keep others from misusing it, a very conservative principle.
Oddly, the same theme shows up in Harry Potter. He is able to find and secure the Sorceror's Stone precisely because he has no intention of using it, but intends to keep others from doing so, because using it corrupts you, just as using the ring does.
Amazing that such a conservative theme is common to the books that are the sources of the two blockbuster movies our now. How did this get past the Hollywood establishment?