A Tolerable Measure of Inconvenient Free Expression

“When men exercise their reason coolly and freely on a variety of distinct questions, they inevitably fall into different opinions on some of them. When they are governed by a common passion, their opinions, if they are to be called, will be the same.”
-Alexander Hamilton

Anyone else tired of having to have an opinion about everyone and everything under the sun? An especially contradictory proposition for a (former) opinion columnist, it nonetheless is ridiculous if not exhausting - frankly, even more so during the last few years. Simply attempting to stay informed among the ever-changing landscape of the news cycle, let alone forming and then expressing one's opinion concerning it, can be enough of a multiverse of madness at times. Seemingly no topic is off limits or goes unscathed in this post-rationality era of perpetual hyperventilation and outrage.

Naturally, engagement and discourse are central elements to actively participating in modern society. Such activity only serves to cultivate and advance civilization, with any abandonment of it equally decimating and a hindrance to progress. Of course, one will more than likely opine anyway even when consciously attempting to avoid doing so. Human nature dictates casting our personal beliefs and thoughts into the void, listening either for the echo chamber of acceptance or the deafening chorus of repudiation. Therein lies the current problem with the system, and the consequential devolution of this dynamic - engagement has become enragement, while discourse has become disregard.

Furthermore, censorship and silencing are rampant given the ease with which to do so through the medium of social media. No longer must one produce a counter pamphlet tacked up in the town square or shout down another in the salon. Instead, an online complaint at the click of a button - whether buoyed by any worthy gravitas - with self-anointed arbitrators of “truth” dictates what is allowed in these modern digital squares and salons. Even the most foresighted dystopian prognosticators could not have predicted such a circumstance, nor the propagandists who could only dream of having such means at their disposal.

At the heart of the issue, trustworthiness is key. Without trust, legitimate engagement and discourse by those on opposite sides is futile; no matter how fervent the debate, bipartisanship is hollow if it is not based in honest understanding. Likewise, suppressive tactics allow for only a singular truth, rather than a melded composite agreed upon by such bipartisanship. Believing that all voices should be heard, no matter your own particular viewpoint, is recognized as a necessary component to a healthy and prosperous society. Those who believe otherwise see this as a hindrance to their clearly underhanded agenda, which undoubtedly cannot endure scrutiny.

This is only my opinion, though - you very well, and rightfully so, may have a different one.

©2022 Steve Sagarra

Sorry Charlie, Tricks Are For Squids

“Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.”
-Thomas Paine

Democrats wish for everyone to forget their past sins including, but certainly not limited to, slavery, lynchings and, especially, their own longstanding history of disenfranchisement. Yet, they also demand that all of us collectively pay the consequences for their guilt, through such means as obfuscation and projection rather than self-flagellation. Question that really needs to be asked - what exactly does your party stand for, President Joe Biden? Denigration, inflation, misinformation, stagnation, victimization, to name a few. With poll numbers lower than any president in recent memory in only their first year in office, it almost seems disrespectful and insulting, even if pertinent, to compare the Biden administration to the last one-term Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. Almost.

Another idea Democrats stand for is fundamental transformation to “save our democracy.” Couched in such language, it subtly reveals their entire misunderstanding of our established system of government for one they want to truly implement. As repeatedly must be reminded, the United States is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. For this reason, they have zero qualms concerning their incessant quest to dismantle certain safeguards (Electoral College, filibuster) aimed at maintaining the former over simple majority, e.g. “mob,” rule that a democracy invites and feared by the Founders. When the French Revolution erupted not long after American independence, those fears were validated by the actions of France’s revolutionary leaders once in power.

In an era of arbitrary pronouns to assign desired non-biological genders, segregation deemed appropriate supposedly to educate about racism and enhance diversity, and burger and chicken joints selling plant-based “burgers” and “chicken,” it is little wonder that the twisting of language is at the forefront to propagandize and mainstream controversial ideas. This has warped the very fabric of society to the point that a majority of individuals have no clue that they are being fooled and sent hurdling into catastrophic folly. In no other instance can this be better illuminated than during the global pandemic, definitions of “immunity” and “vaccinated” changing daily as power over the world’s population broadens and wanes. As George Carlin eloquently stated, echoing Orwell, “government wants to control information and control language because that’s the way you control thought, and basically that’s the game they’re in.”

Recently watching Netflix’s Munich: The Edge of War, the movie unexpectedly, and startlingly, brought current events into prescient focus. A doddering, aloof leader engaging in high-level diplomacy and negotiations with a determined, charismatic one in the attempt to stop the latter’s aggression and avert war - the former naively believing they have the wits to match. One could be forgiven for failing to distinguish between the dealings of Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler with those of Joseph Biden and Vladimir Putin (or any other world leader, for that matter). As has been the situation for decades, inexhaustible threats from hostile adversaries continue to loom throughout the globe. Yet, the gravest danger lies with an American president unable to coherently recite from prepared notes to undemanding questions from a prearranged cadre of reporters, while simultaneously failing to adhere to their sworn Constitutional duties with policies not only undermining national sovereignty but also endangering allies.

An overarching theme in Alan Moore’s influential graphic comic series, Watchmen, is the forewarning to anyone who willingly sacrifices personal responsibility by placing their faith in those entrusted to guard - whether by consensus or self-anointment - the world's fate. To some characters, establishing themselves as god-like saviors, the ends justify the means to rescue humanity from itself; for others, even in the context of an increasingly secular and nihilistic worldview, compromising morals to attain such goals is objectionable if not contradictory. In the end, those who proclaim themselves to be acting for the “greater good,” no matter the unforeseen consequences of their actions, not only must be held accountable but also never allowed to hold such a position again. Failing to do so is nothing less than complicity. 

©2022 Steve Sagarra

Bonded in Bond

Before delving into other matters, let us get one item out of the way. In anticipation of No Time to Die finally being released into theaters after an overextended delay, I recently engrossed myself in a James Bond marathon from Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan. Concluding with Daniel Craig’s masterpiece, Casino Royale, little time was left to binge the remainder of his entries before heading off to the theater. Although having seen all of them numerous times before, it nonetheless was an exhausting task watching twenty-one movies over several weeks; without spoilers, it nicely prepared me for the latest installment with those evocative and indelible scenes and plots fresh in my mind. As such, more so in chronological order than personal preference, here are my current top ten 007 films:

Dr No
From Russia with Love
Goldfinger
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
The Spy Who Loved Me
For Your Eyes Only
The Living Daylights
GoldenEye
Casino Royale
No Time to Die

Now, you might be wondering about a few missing from this list or, perhaps, even some included on it. You probably keep staring at On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and, undoubtedly, The Living Daylights, perplexed by their inclusion. In regards to the former, I honestly was not a fan of it in my youth; George Lazenby was not, and still is not, Connery. Yet, I have joined the chorus in recent years of those who appreciate and believe it deserves a place among the pantheon, along with Lazenby’s laudable performance, for one simple reason: its presence is felt, both overtly and subtly, throughout the rest of the franchise that follows. As forgettable as A View to a Kill is, OHMSS is anything but forgotten by its successors. As for the latter, Timothy Dalton’s Bond simply was, at the time until Craig, the closest to Ian Fleming’s vision, thus TLD meriting a spot.

When Brosnan took over the role, he instantly shot to the top as a favorite. Nevertheless, the majority of his entries are a hot mess...which is not an exclusive opinion all my own. Although GoldenEye makes the cut, it suffers from the same issue as the subsequent movies: every villain and/or henchman increasingly more parody than plausible. Where Famke Janssen would be sufficient distraction in a good way, Xenia Onatopp is exhaustingly over the top in a bad way; megalomaniac Elliot Carver, enthusiastically portrayed by Jonathan Pryce, elicits nothing less than consternation over his middling “diabolical” plan…to control the narrative and increase his media group’s influence/ratings by igniting a war?! Actually, this preposterous scheme appears improbably prescient given the current state of the news industry combined with concerns over social media, thus the proverbial life imitating art. Other than to reference it, let us not concern ourselves with everything awful in Die Another Die.

While the all-too-brief Dalton era was intended to be more grounded than the preceding ones, this comes across as an attempt to maintain that level while simultaneously recalling the absurdities of the Roger Moore era, e.g. Moonraker and the aforementioned AVTAK, with mixed results.

Which brings us to Brosnan’s third film, The World Is Not Enough. This is a good, if not great, movie...except for one, albeit tiny, blemish that, in my opinion, ruins it more than anything in its predecessors. Unfortunately, neither the villain nor henchman is to blame in this instance; instead, it is Dr. Christmas Jones. Not Denise Richards’ portrayal, per se, but rather her character’s name. Perhaps if she had been introduced as “Chris Jones,” not only would Richards possibly come across more believable as a nuclear (hot supermodel) scientist but, as I can still recollect when seeing it the first time, one would not be detracted from the rest of the movie wondering about why that is her name and the assuredly terrible quip to come.

Again, this is not an exclusive opinion all my own.

Further, Jones even informs Bond upon their first meeting that she has heard all the jokes, implying that she not only dislikes them but also her full name. In that case, why use it if both obviously bother her? Simply to set up Bond’s dreadful closing punchline, which could have been framed in dialogue much differently, and possibly agreeably better received, if we find out her full name only at the end. Between that and Dr. Molly Warmflash (seriously?!), it is so groan-producing ridiculous that it triggers eye-rolling cringe rather than the typical adolescent response induced by the gloriously named Holly Goodhead or, especially, Pussy Galore.

All which leads us back to the aptly titled, No Time to Die. A film that, again without giving away any spoilers, embraces and homages the franchise's past, both recent and in its origins, while serving as an excellent conclusion to the Craig era that hints at the future. What Dalton almost had achieved if given better storylines and more time, Daniel Craig accomplished (this side of Connery) in his own time as Bond. James Bond.

©2021 Steve Sagarra