Exhausted by the seemingly never-ending political season, frustrated by Republican repudiation of the brand of conservatism that led to victory and a brief stint as the majority party, seeking refuge from the shoot 'em up, slash 'em up world of Hollywood entertainment, I decided to get away from it all, relax, clear my head and enjoy the innocuous cartoon flick, ''Happy Feet.'' Alas, it was not to be! Within 30 minutes it became clear that the cute leading character portrayed in the commercials was little more than a front penguin for the left-wing environmental agenda.
Meet the newest spokesperson for the politically correct crowd. He is the type one can appreciate regardless of personal biases: warm, affable, loveable, and cuddly. He has a smile that would elicit the trust of even the most cynical in the audience. His charm is so disarming there is no necessity for subtlety. Unsuspecting movie goers have reason to be suspicious this holiday season.
His name is Mumble, a dancing penguin who doesn't fit in a world of singing contemporaries. Mumble cannot cut it at singing school and quickly finds himself isolated and alone. Out of nowhere, the plot takes a sharp verge to the left. The movie goes off on this rant about how the penguins are starving because man comes with his machines, takes away their fish, abuses the birds, and imprisons the malcontents in glass cages. Mumble ultimately is transformed from loner to advocate for prohibiting fishing and preservation of the habitat. Pardon the pun, but there is something fishy about ''Happy Feet.''
The message is part in parcel of an indoctrination that pervades our entire society from the earliest teachings. It is why even when conservatives win elections, in a larger sense they are merely prevailing in a battle, but losing the war. Nothing in the movie's marketing blitz that propelled it to the number one grossing film in the country in its initial week of release, gives a hint to its true agenda. Much like liberals masquerading as fiscal conservatives. The movie does raise legitimate debatable issues. The problem is there is no debate. It is presented as black and white, a fait accompli: fish good, fishing bad, pristine wild life good, machines bad, penguins with food good, people seeking penguins' food bad.
Whether the issue is global warming, drilling for oil, or pruning the forests, the drumbeat is constant, deafening, unrelenting, overwhelming, ubiquitous, and primarily one sided. Hollywood elites, the mainstream media and academics spin their leftist ideology as gospel, failing to even acknowledge that there is another side. In a world where many are starving, people need food to eat. People fish to earn a living, to support their families, pay medical expenses for a sick child, and to provide housing. Of course, that argument is never mentioned, not even in passing. People don't watch a cartoon with a critical eye, so even a subliminal lesson has no trouble being absorbed. Impressionable youth and many adults take it at face value. People grow up brainwashed thinking this or that is bad, unless, of course, they are the ones who lose their job because of the spotted owl or have to move because of the sucker fish.
I don't know if humans cause global warming or not, but I do know that no one can predict with any degree of certainty tomorrow's weather, let alone the temperature 50 years hence. Fifty years ago experts were predicting a new Ice Age. I know if one seeks grant money, the odds on favorite to get it are those who basically support the proposition. Furthermore, when the argument is that a warm winter is evidence of global warming and a rough winter in another part of the country is also a reflection of atmospheric conditions consistent with global warming, it's pretty much a heads you win, tails I lose situation; all the bases are covered.
I also don't know when alternative energy can come on board in sufficient volume and in a cost effective form, but I do know that California has had those windmills twirling on country hillsides for many years. Similarly, I don't know how much oil is available off the continental shelf or in penguin country to the south, but I do know if President Clinton had not vetoed the bill in the 1990s ANWAR would be online, lowering gas prices and reducing foreign dependency today. Life encompasses a series of choices and when one is in a position of leadership, decisions require long term foresight. Priorities must be set. Yes, it's nice to have happy caribou and pristine visages, but not at a cost of relying on terrorist nations and their sympathizers for the lifeblood of our industrialized society.
I feel sorry for the penguin, but the truth is there are other issues. You can't fault environmentalists and their sympathizers for continuing to use the indoctrination strategy to support their position, even though using a fluffy friend to appeal to still younger disciples is absolutely shameless. It is the obligation of those with a contrary opinion to be more vocal in pointing out its cost in jobs and inordinate gas prices. Now is a good time for concern, before Carrie the Caribou strolls down the red carpet to accept the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy.
The point is there are real issues here deserving of objective discussion and analysis. But until that debate occurs, what is presented is the usual left-leaning politically correct rhetoric which is not merely preaching to the choir, but regrettably stacking the pews.
As one of the lead characters in Happy Feet observes, ''It's just not penguin!''
Related story:
Teen reveals Clintons 'destroyed a village'
Jason D. Fodeman is a medical student at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.