Making Racism Part of the Presidential Debate

It seems like a lot more than usual is riding on the presidential debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  Before the first debate, we were told that the debates historically did not affect the outcome of the election.  But after the first debate, where Obama had a weak performance, the polls showed that the lead in the popular vote had changed hands.  It went from an almost insurmountable lead by Barack Obama, to a small lead by Mitt Romney. So for the second debate, Obama needed to perform better or possibly lose the election.

When the pundits and experts analyze the debates, it seems to me that they pay a lot of attention to the style, and very little to the substance.  This does not make much sense to me.  As a teacher, when marking essay questions, for example, I would first of all look for facts that show the student knows what they are talking about.  I would pay much less attention to style - e.g. handwriting neatness, spelling, grammar (Unless it was a course in handwriting spelling or grammar of course.)  And I would try to not be influenced by racism or prejudice against certain a students. (Yes some students are way more likeable than others, in case you were wondering).  And most of all, I would be looking for B.S.  Here is an example.  "For ten marks, write a one page essay about how you would improve the US economy."  One students writes "I understand the US economy, so obviously I would know many ways to fix it". And then proceeds to fill the rest of the page with the same thought stated over and over.  That would fetch him or her a zero regardless of neat penmanship.  If another student goes ahead and lists ten different points, that all seem perfectly valid possible actions to take that might improve the economy, and correspond what was discussed in class, even though I may not agree with them personally, I would probably give a 10/10.

Apparently in Presidential debates, style matters more than substance, especially this time.  I wonder why?  One answer I can think of, is that people are looking for someone they can trust to lead the country into prosperity.  Since nobody really knows how to fix the economy, the substance is unimportant.  The important thing is: Do you trust this person to make the right decisions, do you think his entire world view is basically right, is he a deluded stooge who people will not respect?  Is he or she a real leader who can get things done?

Unfortunately, if we are going to start valuing style over substance, it also means that prejudice takes hold, and in a country like the USA, which has a history of racism right up to present day, that means Barack Obama has a  handicap in the election.  But this handicap is reinforced by pundits who take up a lot of space arguing about who has better style, instead of doing some much needed fact checking.  Also the Republicans insist they are "Not going to be dictated to by fact checkers".  If style is valued over substance, another casualty is the truth.

This is what I see in the first debate, if style is the only standard.  Debate one: Stereotypical wealthy white man yelling at black man about what a bad job he did.  Black man avoiding eye contact and saying "yes massa". Nobody questions the truth of what the massa says, or his right to say it. Apparently this style resonated very strongly with some parts of America, and immediately after the debate, the polls indicated Romney (the white guy) had wiped out Obama's lead in the popular polls.

Now what do I see in the second debate?  The black guy is not going to take any more crap, and basically says "You are lying."  To which the white guy stares him in the face and says "You dare to question me, boy?  For this you will be punished."  Then the moderator jumps in and says "Well basically he is right." And then all the white supremacists go crazy.  That is my summary of the style of the second debate.

If you would like to watch it again, in this light and see if it makes sense, here is the debate video - fast forward to one hour and 13 minutes, for the 2 minute part part where Romney tells Barack Obama how bad he was for not calling the attack terrorism right away. Obama says, but I did call it terrorism right away, and Romney flashes his eyes about being challenged on a fact, then the moderator jumps in "But Obama is right".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpCrcMF5Ps   (The second debate)

Then read about the attitude displayed by Mitt Romney's son, about this "President" essentially calling his father a liar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9617247/Tagg-Romney-wanted-to-take-swing-at-Obama.html

In the old south, if a white gentleman made a statement like "On September 12th in the Rose Garden, I said it was terrorism", and another white gentleman said "No you did not", the rest of the conversation would go like this: "Sir, are you calling me a LIAH?"  second southern gentleman. "That I am, sir."  first gentleman "Bring your duelling pistols and your attendant tomorrow at dawn.  Good day.".

Picture: Romney's best "You dare to speak back to me, boy?" face.  Style over substance.

Stephanie Cutter Wades into the Consular Attack Debate

Last month, there was an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed the US ambassador and several other people.  This attack is now becoming part of the Republican campaign to win the US presidential elections.  Because making a political football of this attack seems like a strange tactic, I decided to investigate.

It seems strange to me that this attack would become a campaign issue.  How is President Obama responsible for the death of the ambassador?  The attack took place in Libya, where President Obama has little capacity to guarantee the safety of anyone.  Of course, the Ambassador himself would have been guarded, and would try to stay safe, but security is a gamble in any war zone.  I will need to research the Republican arguments to find out why they think Obama is to blame for the attack, and why Obama deserves to lose the election because of it.

I read this web page, which is a right wingers point of view, I don't really have time to read all of them.  So I'll assume this is representative.  It is at Townhall.com, by Guy Benson, political editor.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/10/02/whoa_obama_administration_denied_repeated_requests_for_increased_security_in_benghazi

The main thrust of this is that Ambassador Stevens has made repeated requests to the white house for more help, which were denied, leading to his death.

How are we to interpret this?  Well, for one thing there is no documentation at this point saying what the requests were, who they were made to.  Was he requesting a transfer out of the danger zone? A request for more money to hire local guards?  Was he requesting a US military presence in Libya?  Not likely, as the entire Libyan operation was being done without an overt US military invasion.

Here is the statement on this by Guy

"More security for US interests would have meant more US forces in Libya -- which could be perceived as escalating a new war of Obama's doing.  Couldn't have that politically, so we proceeded with an exceedingly "light footprint," to a lethal fault." - Guy Benson

I guess this brings us the the essential point - all bullshit aside.

The Republicans want US soldiers on the ground in Libya, and they think that will make everyone safer, including the US ambassador. The Democrats do not want the Libyans to think that the USA is invading their country.  That is the basic difference between the two political points of view.  One is to invade the foreign country, the other is to not invade, but to try to manage with diplomacy and intelligence gathering.

Which approach to foreign war is better? I believe this is a point where we separate right wingers from liberals in foreign policy.  My own opinion is that Obama has done a remarkably good job in foreign policy, even though he has the right wing extremists hampering his every move.  But then, I thought the war in Iraq was also a mistake, and we could actually live in a safer (and wealthier) world if it had never happened.  The only country to benefit dramatically from that Iraq war fiasco was Iran, a sworn enemy to Saddam Hussein.  Anyway, that's just my opinion, we'll never know.

Recently the momentum in the presidential election race has apparently been on the Republican side.  The best news for the Democrats recently was Joe Biden's vigorous defence in the Vice Presidential Debates (Laughing aside).  And one other bit of good news, a new hero emerging from the Democrats ranks, Stephanie Cutter.

Here is Stephanie Cutter being attacked by right wingers

http://conservativewatchnews.org/?p=29844

Here is why Stephanie Cutter is being attacked: this video (below) where she accused the Republicans of making a campaign issue out of the attack in Benghazi.  Her accusation has resulted in a storm of protests from Republicans demanding her resignation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrWPUlbKcAE

Is a God Gene More likely than a Scientific Gene?

I looked up "God Gene" in Wikipedia, and I'm kind of puzzled about why it got the name "God Gene", unless God Gene is just a catchy name which helps get people thinking.
As the author admits, even if a God Gene exists, it is not proof God exists.

Looking for a God Gene is based on an incorrect, unspoken assumption, which is that humans are rational.  So apparently we need a genetic code to explain why some humans have faith in God.  The simple fact is that most humans are quite irrational in many ways, driven by their passions, habits, and desire to impress others, that our senses are not only imprecise but often totally wrong.  Our memories are fallible, and we sometimes cannot distinguish dreams from reality, or even hot from cold.  All these things should be considered before we start talking about a "God Gene".

It is true that religion has been part of many, if not all human cultures through history.  This can easily be understood if we realize that humans are not perfect thinking machines, and are subject to illusions and distractions. In that case, do we really need a gene to explain why people believe things that other people tell them without any proof?

From Wikipedia, here is what the God Gene is supposed to do.

" the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences "

The mystic experience can be

•  feeling the presence of God
•  tendency to be totally absorbed in some activity such as reading
•  a feeling of connectedness to a larger universe
•  an openness to believe things not literally provable, such as ESP

And there are also some other religious phenomena such as faith healing, miracles, visions etc.

Maybe we should be looking for a "Scientific Gene" instead of a "God Gene".  For one thing, it would be much easier to define.  A Scientific Gene would predispose people to ask questions, to know the difference between truth and delusion.  An ability to look at the world and see things as they really are. The ability to see both sides of a story, and shades of grey in the middle. It would include the ability to compromise and use reason and logic.  I believe the scientific gene is much more rare than the God Gene.  Actually, it is logical that if the Scientific Gene exists, then so would the God Gene, in that the God Gene would simply be the off state of the Scientific Gene.
 http://blog.beliefnet.com/astrologicalmusings/2009/11/jupiter-and-the-god-gene.html
Picture from and of course, Time Magazine

Free Speech that Helps Terrorists

So here we come to the latest free speech argument, the anti Moslem movie called "Innocence of Muslims" that has apparently provoked a storm of violence in the Muslim world, and resulted in the death of the US ambassador to Libya.  It is not really clear in my mind, who made this movie, but it seems very clear that the movie is ideally suited to ruffling the feathers of  Muslims.  As far as I can see, the movie has no other value, as it us unfunny, inaccurate, and uninteresting.

One thing that no one else seems to be willing to mention about the movie "Innocence of Muslims":  Was it made for the specific purpose of helping Al Quaida?  The reason I ask, is because it has no other useful purpose due to its low quality and crudeness.  And if its only purpose is to promote terrorism, couldn't we start by investigating the background of the people who made the movie, to find out if they are secret Al Quaida sympathisers?  I'm not in favour of torture, but with a little waterboarding you could probably make the director confess to being a member of an Al Quaida sleeper cell, then record his confession and play it on TV.*  That should quell the violence and rioting a little.

But now let's take a closer look at the free speech issue, which is used to defend the movie. I believe free speech is becoming one of the right wing conservatives favourite values.  Why do they favour free speech, and why do liberals seemingly oppose free speech?  Well, first of all I don't think liberals oppose free speech.  But liberals take a dim view of racist propaganda that encourages violence against women and minorities.  Actually, everybody regardless of their political persuasion hates people who shout fire in a crowded theatre, (unless there really is a fire).  So liberals are actually in favour of free speech, but don't really know how to handle intolerant, racist, and violent opinions of others.  Conservatives do not really believe in free speech, and use the current tolerant social climate favouring free speech to push boundaries, and by so doing, prove free speech does not really work.

Here are some ways to push the boundaries on free speech.  Phone in a bomb threat to an airport, and call it free speech. Call for the extermination of some minority group, then claim you were exercising free speech.  Write articles encouraging men to beat their wives.  Speak out about the right to lynch Negroes.  Set up a TV station that knowingly broadcasts slanderous, false, and misleading information every day, and fight the lawsuits with the "Freedom of speech" defense.  Use the free speech argument to allow unlimited money to be used in political campaigns.

One reason why conservatives are so much more vocal about free speech than liberals, is because conservative run afoul of the hate laws more frequently.  Conservative rhetoric against muslims, abortionists, and homosexuals tends to draw fire from human rights groups, from anti-racist organizations.  Their main defence is their right to "Free speech".

Liberals understand free speech, so they do not generally abuse it.

* Is this sentence protected under the free speech principle?  If not, I was only kidding, of course.

Picture from the movie and from this blog: http://reynaelena.com/2012/09/17/innocence-of-muslims-and-the-freedom-of-expression/

Did Canadian High Schools Fail Justin Bieber?

A story came out a few days ago that needs some comment.  Not so much because of what happened, but because of the reaction in the media.

vancouver sun

Story: Justin Bieber says "Sixteenth Chapel" instead of "Sistine Chapel" on Letterman show.  Letterman says  "Canadian High Schools", implying that they are no better than American high schools (I guess since David Letterman went to an American high school.)

Facts: While David Letterman did attend high school (Broad Ripple High School in Indianapolis, USA), and describes himself as an average student, Justin Bieber does not go to high school at all due to his star status, show business, and travelling (mostly in the USA but also world wide and a few trips back to Canada).

Backup Stories: Two year ago, Justin Bieber got in another another spot of trouble in an interview where Bieber replied "I don't know what that means" in response to the question "Is Bieber German for Basketball, true or false?".  At that time there was another media storm of controversy, but not about Canadian High schools because it is a fairly well known fact that Bieber does not go to school, but has a tutor that follows him around on his travels.  Actually, if you saw the mobs that form wherever Bieber goes you would realize there is no chance for him to actually learn anything in a normal school setting.  Anyway, apparently it was another false media thrash, in that Bieber actually did know what "German" meant, and could prove it with previous video interviews and clips.  Not surprising, since Bieber's home town is near the most German part of Canada.  But an exceptionally stupid question has the potential to stump the interviewee, thus making a bigger story than the sensible questions.  That's why there are so many stupid questions in media interviews.

http://www.examiner.com/article/justin-bieber-goes-on-the-defensive-about-home-schooling-video

Speculation: Now I'm going to do some speculation of my own, since the media seems to not have that ability.  What could have caused Bieber to say Sixteenth Chapel?

- Loss of hearing.  Dave Letterman clearly said Sistine Chapel first, Justin was repeating what he said.  Maybe Bieber is going deaf.

- Making a Joke.  Bieber trying to be funny.

- Maybe Justin really does not know the name of the Sistine Chapel, but maybe it was because he was not listening, or asleep, when the subject was taught.  Not because the tutor or teacher taught "Sixteenth Chapel" by mistake.

- Maybe Justin's concentration was put off by the little wrestling match that had just finished between him and David Letterman.  The wrestling match was started by Dave, probably surprised Justin.  Makes me wonder more about David Letterman losing his marbles than it does about Justin's home schooling effort.

Now for my response to Dave.

I am not really trying to defend Justin Bieber, my interest is in defending education in general, and Canadian high schools in particular. I don't know about all high schools, but I'm guessing that art history in not "core curriculum" in most North American high schools. When I was a high school history teacher, I'm sure I could not tell you how many of my students knew the name of the Sistine Chapel.  And I could not tell you where I learned the name myself, but I have heard of it.  But one of my blogs has a photoshop of God on a motorcycle, and I used the face of God from a picture of the Sistine Chapel that I found online.  So I must have know about it by then.

And, this question is directed at you Dave: Where did you first learn about the Sistine Chapel?  Did you really learn about it in high school? Maybe they should have been concentrating on math, science and maybe media studies instead.

Is the entertainment business partly to blame for poor quality education, by taking youngsters out of school and making them role models and downplaying the need for education?

A good education is about the ability to think for yourself and ask questions.   It should not be all about memorizing names.

Dave was simply doing his job.  Asking stupid questions to try and get a reaction, (and when that does not work - physical assault).  And yes, it is a stupid question to ask Justin Bieber if he is going to get a tattoo of the Sistine Chapel.  Instead, do some research, find out he is home schooled, and ask him if he is getting a good quality education outside the school system.

Picture: Part of the Sistine Chapel art work. I think it's on the ceiling, but I'm not sure as I've never been there, and I was not taught about it in school.

Review of "People of a Feather" a Joel Heath Documentary

I went to a new film last night called "People of a Feather" by Joel Heath.  It is a documentary about the Inuit people of Belcher Islands, and about the Eider ducks that make a year round home there.

I was not very keen to go because I read in the review that Hydro Quebec was being blamed for the disappearance of the Eider ducks.  The review I read was kind of confusing, both accusing Hydro Quebec of causing more ice, and accusing it of melting the ice in Hudson's Bay. I was not looking forward to seeing an emotional movie of dying ducks juxtaposed with massive dams, even if there was a logical scientific connection being made between the two.  But Mary Ann convinced me to go anyway despite the chance of it being more about Quebec bashing than about science.

My own history is very close to this subject.  I grew up in Baie Comeau, during the time that Hydro Quebec's first massive dam was being constructed, and Baie Comeau is at the mouth of two rivers that were dammed by Hydro Quebec, and on salt water too.

Before the movie, I tried to look up some scientific studies connecting the Eider ducks with Hydro Quebec, but didn't find any.  I did find a study on the decline of the Eider duck, and a different study on the effect of the dams on salinity, ice, and currents in Hudson's Bay.  Both these studies were filled with numbers, measurements, and devoid of emotional hysteria.  The second study concluded that the dams might add about .2 % more ice to Hudson's Bay in the winter, which resulted from equalizing the seasonal flow of water.  Apparently the undammed rivers flowed more water in the summer and less in the winter.  With the dams, the seasonal flow is about equal.

I realized at the end of the movie, that at no time had Joel Heath made any explicit statement about blaming Hydro Quebec.  But he quoted Unuit as saying that it was when the hydro Quebec dams were built that the Eider ducks started to disappear, and the ocean currents weakened.  And along with that narrative, we see pictures of dying Eider ducks.  It was not made clear to me why the Eider ducks in the movie were dying.  But I think to many other people in the theatre, it was obvious: the dams were flooding Hudson's Bay with warm fresh water, that caused the ducks to die.

Most Canadians should know how big Hudson's Bay is, it's that big round thing that takes a bite out of the top of the country.  James Bay is the smaller Bay at the bottom of Hudson's Bay.  James Bay is 200 km across, and that's where the massive Legrand River empties, and has poured fresh water for hundreds of thousands of years, I assume.  About 200 km from the mouth of the river are the Belcher Islands.  Any effect of the LeGrand Dam felt on the Belcher Islands there would be very subtle and hard to measure.  I'm not saying that it does not exist, and there are new dams being built, but I think the film gives the impression that the islands are much closer to the mouth of the river.  I did notice that despite the Belcher Islands being only about 50 km from Quebec, thay actually are part of Nunavut territory.  Nunavut apparently owns almost all the islands in both Hudsons Bay and James Bay, a fact that I was not aware of. In the picture, you can see how close Nunavut's border is to the Quebec and Ontario shoreline, but especially Quebec.  And if you use Google Maps and zoom in, it is even closer than would appear in the large scale map, cutting off what appears to be thousands of little islands right next to the shoreline of Quebec.  Then the border of Nunavut disappears at Labrador, on Google maps anyway so I have to look that up later.  That area has to belong to somebody.

Now back to the film. The most extreme statement in the film was from David Suzuki, but it was taken off an old TV show he made, probably long before the Eider duck problem surfaced.  David was quoted as saying that 300 times the amount of water was being released due to these dams.  I have no idea what the context of this snippet was, but the fact is that the dams, averaged over a season, do not release 300 times as much water.  Hydro dams do not create water, they regulate the flow.  The biggest disruption the dams could ever make would be during the years that it takes to fill the reservoir, when the river flow is stopped.  It is not in the later ongoing release of water to produce electricity.  But because the David Suzuki documentary was not officially part of this movie, the number 300 was never explained.

The film maker, Joel Heath, did make his own statement about the ducks and the ice.  I can't remember it exactly, so to paraphrase: "It is not about more ice or less ice killing the ducks.  We don't really know what is killing them.  It could be the unpredictability of the ice."  Or something like that.  And that's the closest he came to blaming Hydro Quebec explicitly.  But this statement is played over images of ice shifting, crashing, moving about at high speed, and of course dead ducks.

I'm not at all sure that people at the Princess cinema who do not live on icy salt water shores would even know that the images were speeded up.  Maybe they did know.  But do they also know that ice shifts around all the time, with wind, tide, waves, and currents?  Any animals or birds living in this harsh type of environment have to deal with ice all the time.  And as far as I know, birds do not "predict" ice patterns.  They look for holes and use them until they disappear, then look for others.  If they don't find any holes in the ice, they may die. It's sad but true, that nature is cruel.  Ducks die all the time, with or without dams.

When I see a picture of a dead duck covered with crude oil, I am pretty sure I see a connection with the oil spill.  But when I see a picture of a duck dead under or on the ice, I'm really not that sure it was caused by Hydro Quebec releasing fresh water from a river 200 km away, especially since that river has been releasing fresh water for thousands of years before that.

It would have been useful to talk a bit more in the movie about global warming, which is an effect that is strongly felt in the arctic, far away from the Hydro Quebec dams, from Alaska to Labrador, but very little was said about it.  The lasting impression of the film is that global warming is not a big problem any more, now the real threat is the Hydro Quebec dams.  And actually, the Hydro Quebec dams minimize global warming, by producing renewable power without releasing CO2 into the air.  Why not talk about that?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/people-of-a-feather-life-on-thin-ice/article2408055/

Subliminal Message of The Hunger Games

Although this was not a typical movie for her, Mary Ann wanted to see "The Hunger Games" because several of her friends recommended it.  One difference for us is that this movie was being shown in a modern cineplex instead of a small old fashioned cinema in downtown Waterloo.  The cineplex charged $12.50, and asked for a donation to some dubious charity on top of that.  Then they bombarded us with loud wall-to-wall advertising after we sat down inside, something we both have a low tolerance for.  But the movie itself was good, the time passed quickly.

I was struck by the potential for propaganda in this movie.  Like many movies I have reviewed recently, "The Hunger Games" has some powerful hidden messages.  But the messages are a little too well hidden, and open to various interpretations.

I will not have any spoilers, because the important messages are all in the set-up.  There is a dystopian future for the USA, where the new country called Panem is ruled by a capitol set somewhere in the Rockies.  75 years before the time period of the  movie, a rebellion was ruthlessly crushed by the people of the capitol, who brought the other 12 districts of the country under control so harsh that people are still starving. To add insult to injury, the Capitol district insists on "reaping" new victims each year for the "Hunger Games", a reality TV show that pits children from each district against each other in a fight to the death, for the amusement of the people of the Capitol, but all the districts are forced to watch, in order to remind them of their past naughtiness and to intimidate them into submission.

I am not questioning the likelihood of a system like this ever working, as it is simply the basis for the movie's action.  But upon watching the movie, and then googling some comments, this question come up. Is it possible that Obama's policies lead in this direction?

Here are links to two different looks at the movie, one from an extreme right wing conservative website, "Voting American", with the title  "Hunger Games: Is this a Peek into a Future in which the Liberals Rule America?"

http://votingamerican.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/hunger-games-is-this-a-peek-into-a-future-in-which-the-liberals-rule-america/

I have one other website, from a Libertarian, titled "The Hunger Games movie review - a glimpse of our own future if the cancerous growth of government is not checked"

http://www.naturalnews.com/035443_The_Hunger_Games_movie_review.html#ixzz1tQpslNwK"

The right wing extremist states that the "elites" are in fact liberals, while admitting that it is not stated in the movie whether the elites are liberal or conservative.  And actually, not much more is said.  So while the movie does not claim any right or left wing bias, apparently right wing people are able to somehow see Obama's hand in the downfall of America leading up to this dystopian society.

The Libertarian review is much more thought out, actually.  In point form, we are given a list of the ways that big government will lead to this new country.

I can list them here from the Libertarian point of view

- control over food (limiting what people can eat)
- control over land (setting up huge nature conservation areas where people are not allowed to live, or hunt.) -yes blame the environmentalists
- control over the media
- control of technology (medicine, weaponry, etc.)
- control of DNA (to identify humans, and to genetically modify species)
- control over life

I actually have a harder time understanding libertarians than understanding conservatives. It seems to me that Libertarians are less connected with reality, maybe that's because they have never been in power except in their own minds. The main libertarian idea is that government and corporations are both evil, and that people must be free to do whatever they want, like the cowboys of the 19th century, when America was really great.  And most puzzling, Libertarians think the best way to achieve this freedom is to vote Republican if no actual Libertarian is on the ballot.

However, I do not agree with the analysis that says "The Hunger Games" are about socialist or liberal ideas leading to dystopia.  Let's start with "Government Control".  In general, the Conservative catchphrase "Government control" refers to taxing the rich to give to the poor.  And while conservatives don't consider military, police or harsh punishments being part of "Government control",  it's quite obvious that the problem in Panem is primarily to do with police, military, and harsh punishments.  These are not liberal policies, as liberals are often criticized by Conservatives for being too lenient.  These are Conservative militant policies.  One only has to look at the conservative support for Israel against Palestine to see the they have no problem with the basic idea of punishing a whole people for a past rebellion, with poverty, districts walled off, control of food, land and technology.

If anything, Liberals are in favour of giving health care to the poor, giving welfare and unemployment insurance, government pensions, subsidized colleges and housing etc.  Then liberals are in favour of taxing the rich to do this.  I'm pretty sure if the people in Panem District 12 were allowed to vote (another "liberal" policy - conservatives like to prevent poor people like Palestinians from voting), they would in fact vote for Obama.

The one clear indication I see in the movie of Liberal control is that the environment seems to have been saved from the destruction of global warming.   But then since conservatives believe that global warming does not exist anyway, this would only have meaning to environmentalists.

My own view is that this movie is not so much about conservative ideas of government control or regulation, as it is about liberal and socialist ideas of the class war between rich and poor.  And apparently the message is hidden well enough that many conservatives and libertarians don't get it.