“Be fruitful and multiply,” the Book of Genesis commands. Unfortunately, many modern nations are on the opposite track. Once worried about a phony “population bomb,” countries as diverse as Russia and South Korea are now wondering if they will shrink into irrelevance. Kevin Schmiesing looks at the cultural, religious and economic forces that produce healthy, hopeful societies.
Jack Black stars as the title character in this campy salute to Lucha Libre, or freestyle wrestling, a hallmark of popular Latin culture. In Nacho Libre, Black’s character begins as the lowly Ignacio, an orphan who grew up at a Catholic mission, and who has now become one of the mission brothers. Ever since his youth, Ignacio has dreamed of becoming a luchador, a flamboyant and famous wrestler.
Instead, Ignacio serves at the mission, caring for a new generation of needy orphans. When Sister Encarnación (Ana de la Reguera) arrives to be the orphans’ new teacher, Ignacio has even more incentive to become successful and wealthy so that he can impress the attractive young nun. Thus, Ignacio’s motives are not entirely pure, and indeed, he must keep his burgeoning young wrestling career a secret, because Lucha Libre is condemned by the Catholic mission.
Lucha Libre, it seems, is seen as a form of idolatry, as the wrestlers seek only praise and wealth for themselves. Indeed, Ignacio’s interaction with the luchadores confirms this, as Ramses, who Ignacio acknowledges is “the best,” turns out to be a less than charitable figure.
But Ignacio will not be denied his destiny, and so he dons the persona of Nacho Libre once a week to wrestle with his tag team partner Esqueleto, well-played by Hຜtor Jiménez. The pair are rather inept wrestlers, but are such lovable losers that they become crowd favorites and are well-paid despite their incompetence. But this is not enough for Nacho, who has visions, perhaps delusions, of greatness. He wants to win.
Ignacio’s desire to reach his own destiny can been seen as a response to his perceived calling in life, otherwise known as his vocation, an idea which has a rich tradition in Christian theology. Vocation is literally “a calling,” and it is clear that Ignacio’s desire to become a luchador has been deeply implanted with him since his youth.
The dramatic tension enters into the equation because of the Church’s disapproval of Ignacio’s dream profession. This speaks to the difficulty faced when a person is convinced of a calling that is in an industry that is wholly condemned by ecclesiastical authorities. To be sure, there are some professions in which it is impossible to be both a Christian and remain in that line of work. But perhaps, thinks Ignacio, wrestling is not one of them. He can see some clear good that luchadores might do, not the least of which is in providing hopeless orphans a positive role model.
Is Ignacio’s perceived calling merely his own vain self-seeking ambition or a legitimate vocation from God? In some ways, Ignacio’s efforts can be seen as done by one who seeks to reform the Church’s understanding of this worldly profession. In this way Ignacio/Nacho acts as a more mundane and contemporary analogue to the more famous reforms advocated by Martin Luther in the sixteenth-century. When Luther left the Augustinian monastery and the celibate priesthood, in the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, it was a “return from the cloister to the world,” and “the worst blow the world had suffered since the early days of Christianity.” To be sure, Ignacio’s attempts at reform are far less dramatic and consequential, but we can see a parallel in the effort to carve out some validity for the Christian pursuit of a secular calling.
But it is only when Ignacio comes to the realization that his calling is not simply about his own edification but the service of others that he enjoys a measure of wrestling success. Ignacio’s epiphany seems to truly come home as he acts out a Jonah-like trek into the wilderness, constructing a makeshift shelter on the edge of the village after his wrestling exploits are exposed and he is ejected from the monastery (see Jonah 4:5).
This illustrates another truth about the Christian concept of vocation, in that this calling is in every case a calling to serve others rather than simply yourself. In this sense Bonhoeffer also writes, “Only in so far as the Christian’s secular calling is exercised in the following of Jesus does it receive from the gospel new sanction and justification.” At first Ignacio’s selfish ambitions overshadow his desire to do good for the orphans and the mission, but his calling to serve is finally affirmed by the Church when he makes it clear that he is intent on sacrificing and serving the best interests of the orphans.
Those viewers who are fans of Jack Black will not be disappointed, as the movie in large part serves as a vehicle for his brand of dynamic and madly physical comedic stylings. The film is directed by Jared Hess, made famous by his direction of the cult hit Napoleon Dynamite (2004). Nacho Libre shares some of the same quirkiness of dialogue as the previous film, although it is not quite so charming and entertaining the second time around. Some of the scenes do not noticeably advance the plot, and seem more like excuses for Jack Black to be entertaining than to fit seamlessly into the flow of the film.
Even so, Nacho Libre is an entertaining movie, although fans of Jack Black and those at least familiar with Lucha Libre will have much more to enjoy. In the end, Nacho Libre rates as not a quarter, nor a half, nor a full, but rather a three-quarter nelson (3 out of 4 arms).
This post has been crossposted to Blogcritics.org.
It’s hard to believe that it’s been nearly a year since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which seriously damaged the institution of property rights.
The Institute for Justice marks the occasion with a series of reports that contain bad news and good. The bad news is that Kelo does appear to have had a deleterious effect, emboldening local governments to seize private property at increasing rates. The good news is that Kelo backlash has resulted in a number of legislative attempts to curb eminent domain abuse.
HT: John J. Miller at The Corner on NRO
Things are looking grim for the rule of law in Bolivia. An article in today’s Washington Post outlines the growing conflict between the minority of Bolivians who own land and the landless majority. As Monte Reel writes in “Two Views of Justice Fuel Bolivian Land Battle,” this month the Bolivian government, under the direction of the “agrarian revolution” of president Evo Morales, “began a project to shuffle ownership rights affecting 20 percent of its land area, giving most of it to the poor. And tensions are starting to boil.”
Choei Yara, a Japanese immigrant to Bolivia whose family has lived there since the end of World War II, says, “No one respects private property anymore, not even the government.” Groups of landless Bolivians are constantly threatening to forcibly take posession of private lands, and Morales’ policies have only encouraged them.
“Emboldened by the recent government announcements,” the landless “are taking over more properties on their own, without government approval,” writes Reel. The rationale is simple for those who live in poverty:
“God created the resource of land,” said Luciano Winchaca, a local campesino advocate who has helped the Landless Movement with its quest for land. “It should be divided equally for everyone, not be given to somebody because they speak better Spanish or come from a certain family. We all have the same rights. These people don’t understand the will of God.”
But how about this for God’s will? “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15 NIV).
To be sure there are real and dire problems of poverty in Bolivia. But the class warfare and rhetoric of socialist revolution advocated by Morales and his ideological partner Hugo Chavez, in the name of God’s will, can only exacerbate the situation and undermine the legitimate functions of government: to justly administer the rule of law and to safeguard private property.
As we can see in the case of Bolivia, when these roles are ignored and subverted by the government, anarchy ensues. Yara knows this all too well, as “now about 50 members of the group, the Landless Movement, are occupying about one-fourth of his property. They keep telling him they’ll take more soon, he said, and they promise bodily harm if he doesn’t let them have it.”
Mark Cuban, billionaire and owner of the NBA franchise in Dallas, announced that he is “starting a website that focuses on uncovering corporate crime.” He continues, outlining the business model for the site: “I have every intention of trading on the information uncover[ed], and disclosing exactly what i do. The ultimate transparency.”
Another of Cuban’s ventures, HDNet, the first all high-definition TV network, is “talking to Dan Rather and we hope to do a deal where he produces a show that uncovers news. Information with a payoff.” Perhaps some of the news Rather uncovers will be of interest to the Cuban corporate corruption site.
Cuban defends his decision to trade on the corruption and crime information: “You may not like that I will trade on information we uncover and then publish it. I think reporting what we find is better than not reporting it. If we can uncover fraud. Thats a good thing. That profiting on the information we find is the smart thing to do. It beats the hell out of trying to remake the site every year to maximize advertising or subscriptions. It changes the newsenomics, which need to be changed.”
One conceptual difficulty I see is that for Cuban to “trade on” the information he gets, he’ll already have to own shares of stock in the affected company. Indeed, to trade on the news seems to mean that he’ll only be selling. That is, unless the news he breaks is in some cases about the lack of corporate crime in a case where it is suspected…then he could buy, I suppose.
In any case, Cuban’s plan certainly takes the idea of investment research to a whole new level.
TCS Daily writer Larry E. Ribstein, a law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, writes about the Cuban plan and confirms that “presumably this means that he will sell ‘short’ the stocks the journal investigates, and then buy them after the revelations puncture the price.”
Radley Balko, blogging at Cato@Liberty (he also blogs at The Agitator), writes about the creeping campaign in Washington state to crack down on internet gambling. A new law would impose “up to a five-year prison term for people who gamble online,” but since passage has also been used to “to go after people who merely write about gambling.” Citing an editorial in the Seattle Times, the law prohibits not only online betting but also transmitting “gambling information.”
The legitimacy of the state government’s efforts against gambling are undermined by the fact that Washington state itself runs and promotes a lottery: “It’s good to play.” The motives of the government are clearly mixed…gambling is acceptable but only if sanctioned and promoted by and enriching to the state. It’s when gambling dollars flow out of the state’s borders, or anywhere other than the state’s coffers, that the activity becomes truly troublesome to the politicians.
The world’s largest prize for technological innovation was awarded this year to Professor Shuji Nakamura, curently at the University of California Santa Barbara, for his development of bright-blue, green and white LEDs and a blue laser. According to the prize website, “The world’s largest technology prize, now being awarded by Finland’s Millennium Prize Foundation for the second time, has a value of one million euros.” Prof. Nakamura’s advances “were things that other researchers in the semiconductor field had spent decades trying to do.”
Says Pekka Tarjanne, Chairman of the International Selection committee: “The lighting applications now made possible by his achievement can be compared with Thomas Edison’s invention of the incandescent lamp. In the course of time, energy-efficient light sources based on Shuji Nakamura’s innovation will undoubtedly become predominant.”
Before reading the rest of this post, let’s try a little experiment. Here are a set of quotations…your job is to decide who said it, a real-life scientist or Agent Smith from the Matrix trilogy (see answer key below the jump):
1. Humans are “no better than bacteria!”
2. “Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.”
3. “There is no denying the natural world would be a better place without people. ALL people!”
4. “Planet Earth could use another major human pandemic, and pronto!”
5. “Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but humans do not. Humans move to an area, and multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed.”
Murdock cites William Burger’s letter to Acton’s Jay Richards, in which Burger says, among other things, “From where I sit, Planet Earth could use another major human pandemic, and pronto!” Check out the full text of Burger’s letter in PDF form here. (more…)
A recent NYT article outlines some recent research showing that many people who give to charity “often tolerate high administrative costs, fail to monitor charities and do not insist on measurable results — the opposite of how they act when they invest in the stock market.” Tyler Cowen writes in “Investing in Good Deeds Without Checking the Prospectus,” about the research of John A. List, a professor at the University of Chicago, which “implies that most donors do not respond when they have opportunities to be more effective in their giving.”
Cowen, who is a professor of economics at George Mason and blogs here, concludes, “If donors do not abandon failing causes, those efforts will continue. Perhaps the content of donor pride needs to change. Rather than taking pride only in their generosity, donors should also take pride in their willingness to confront unpleasant news.”
The bottom line is that when you give to charity, you have a responsibility to give to charities that are good stewards of the money, thereby rewarding good charities and punishing bad ones. Doing this gives the proper incentives for charities to work well.
Part of the problem is that people may not really know how to measure the effectiveness and stewardship of a given charity. The Acton Institute’s Samaritan Guide is a tool designed to assist donors in meeting this responsibility.
Indeed, Acton’s effective compassion initiatives, based on Marvin Olasky’s seven principles for effective compassion, are largely based on providing the education that donors need to find out the sort of issues and questions that they should be asking.
I’ve noted before the ballooning and bipartisan feeding at the public trough conducted by this Congress, for projects of dubious value.
Brian Riedl reports on NRO today that there is at last some good news. Some of the pork from the latest spending bill has been plucked, credit due not least to a strong veto threat from the president. One might speculate that Republicans are rediscovering the benefits of spending restraint just in time to impress voters in November—but that doesn’t explain how President Bush suddenly found the gumption to do something he should have done many times before.