DENNIS CLAYSON | Posted: Sunday, June 15, 2008 12:00 am
I like Ben Stein. I not only like him, I respect him. So when I saw a syndicated review of his new movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," I read it with interest.
The review made an excellent case, but I don't think it was the message intended by the writer.
One of the differences between conservatives and liberals is their reaction to the concept of truth, spelled either with a small "t" or a capital "T."
To the left, the truth is generally seen as a utilitarian concept. It is a tool to be used to advance an agenda. The ends justify the means, and one of the means is the truth. This has become so accepted by the left that they have forgotten that the orientation is not universal.
To conservatives, for example, President Clinton lied under oath, which is against the law. The chief executive officer should obey the law he has sworn to defend. It was as simple as that.
To liberals, the resulting controversy was meaningless and mean spirited. They could only see the entire episode as a political ploy, and they swore revenge. So for eight years, anything President Bush did was a lie. If he said that a rock will fall if dropped, some liberal would leap to her feet and scream that he was lying.
Stein has created a film that defends people who question evolution.
I've not seen the film, nor do I know if I would agree with it. The reviewer says that it is an "amply budgeted Michael Moore-styled production." Moore produced "Sicko" and "Bowling for Columbine." These films must be wonderful because the libs in Hollywood gave him an Academy Award, and he was invited to make a high-profile appearance at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Creating a "Moore-type" production must be very good, if the left agrees with the topic. Evidently it is very bad if they don't agree.
Stein, who was the valedictorian at Yale Law (the very same place where Bill and Hillary didn't become valedictorians), a successful actor (Emmy Award), professor, writer and lecturer, is, according to the reviewer, "droning," "cynical," uses "loaded" language and "loaded" imagery and is "disingenuous" and "dishonest."
When he is not "droning," he "blurts out" questions. And oh, by the way, did you know that he was a Nixon administration "functionary?" Actually he was a speech writer for both Nixon and Gerald Ford, but what does that have to do with a film on evolution, except that he is literate and can write, even for presidents of the United States?
What does the film actually say? I don't know. The reviewer never gives us any details of the film's arguments. We do learn that the film is a "cynical attempt to sucker" in certain backward people (Christians). It does present "creationist crackpottery," and relies on "the viewer's inability or unwillingness to wrestle with a complex corner of science."
It is an attempt to "undercut 150 years of peer-tested research," and "credentialed" scientists. It seems that "academia, the courts, (and) the opinions of the educated" all disagree with Stein.
What is even worse, Stein arranged the film to "make them look foolish."
No!
How is that possible? And could you imagine that Michael Moore, or "60 Minutes" would ever do a thing like that?
So, why can't the left allow others to use the truth the way they utilize it? In a strange psychological twist, why do they see liars behind every tree and rock? There are two reasons.
First, as mentioned above, the truth is a tool. Second, the leftists are so isolated within their culture that they no longer realize that others do not use the truth in the same fashion. It is difficult to understand the Democrats' consistent reaction to Bush, the media's reaction to political candidates, certain weird letters to the editor, and movie reviews in the newspaper unless you understand these two points.
Stein once wrote, "You can show the most extreme violence and pornography imaginable to anyone with a computer, to any ten-year-old, but you cannot even talk about global warming or evolution or racial political correctness without being branded a criminal."
At least the movie reviewer didn't call him a criminal; just a dishonest, disingenuous, Nixon functionary who, when he is not blurting out something, is droning.
From reading the review, I still don't know what the film actually says.