Brings a Tear to Your Eye, Don't It?

Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government

Antistate Holidays

I'm borrowing this from my friend Joel Smith over at thenewmrsgunderson.blogspot.com


Sign me up for this selection of new holidays by Michael Rozeff. Some of them sound like a realistic way to starve the kleptocratic government.

Unelection Day. This is the day on which voter turnout became zero. Well, not really zero, but such a small number that voting became meaningless. It is the day when oodles of people pressed so few levers and buttons that they de-legitimized the State and it withered away from lack of support.

Unregistration Day or Unpermit Day or Unlicensing Day. This is the day when oodles of people stopped registering with the State. They stopped registering for political party affiliations. They stopped registering their vehicles, from automobiles to bicycles to boats to snowmobiles. Youths stopped registering for public schools. They stopped registering for the military draft. They stopped registering for passports and driver’s licenses. They stopped registering for Social Security and Medicare. Businesses of all kinds stopped registering for licenses. Inventors stopped registering for patents. Doctors stopped registering for medical licenses. People stopped registering for professional licensing of all kinds, from accounting to architecture to lawyering to zoo-keeping. People and businesses engaged in transportation and communications no longer applied for licenses. Hunting licenses stopped. No one registered their pets. Immigrants no longer had to register. No one registered to vote. No one got a tax registration or identification number. No one registered guns, from handguns to automatic machine guns. People stopped getting marriage licenses who did not want them. No one registered for jury duty. No one who did not want them had to get permits or licenses from the State.

Uninspection Day. This day commemorates when people stopped getting inspections done by State order. This is the day when State inspectors were barred from entering anyone’s premises unless they wanted them on there. On this day, State inspectors had nothing to inspect. They could not hunt for environmental infringements, safety violations, or anything else.

Unrequirement Day. On this day, manufacturers, shippers, wholesalers, retailers, and all other businesses from the smallest to the largest stopped obeying State requirements having anything to do with labor, hours worked, pay, overtime, workweek, hiring and firing, safety, and unions. Businesses chose the hours they wanted to. Manufacturers no longer paid any attention to State regulations concerning products. They freed themselves to produce whatever they wanted to. They no longer obeyed regulations on energy, safety, the environment, product size or design, or anything else they wanted to ignore. Retailers sold whatever products they wanted to. Whoever wanted to transport mail in any form could do so. Whoever wanted to provide judicial services could do so. Whoever wanted to provide police or defense services could do so. Whoever wanted to produce drugs could do so.

Unholiday Day. This day celebrates the day when people stopped celebrating official national holidays.

Uncensus Day. This is the day when oodles of people stopped sending in their census forms and stopped answering doorbells and knocks at the door when census takers came around.

Untax Day. This is the day that a network of programmers launched software that enabled anyone to stop paying withholding tax. This is the day that people in great numbers vetoed the income tax by using software that disabled automatic tax deductions. This is the day that people gained the capacity to disable paying sales and excise taxes and did so in large numbers. This is the day that government was brought to a grinding halt.

Unlaw Day. On this day, people en masse ignored the drug laws. Because of Untax Day, the State authorities could no longer enforce the drug laws. All people charged with victimless crimes demanded jury trials, and the juries stopped convicting people of victimless crimes.

Airport Freedom Day. This comes under the rubric of uninspection day, but it is such a special annoyance that it is separated out here. This is the day when oodles of people refused to undergo any inspections at airports. They bulldozed past airport inspectors. They lifted them bodily and carried them outside the air terminals to the parking lots where they fed them with hot dogs, potato chips, and soft drinks. No one was hurt. Inside the terminal, all machinery for inspection was dismantled by scores of people with the appropriate tools and blowtorches.

Ridicule Day. This is the day when oodles of people showed up at the offices of elected officials and jeered at them. They carried them from their offices and unceremoniously tossed them into portable swimming pools before escorting them to their vehicles. They locked them out of their offices. The rest of the day was spent celebrating.

Ungovernment day a.k.a. Independence Day. This is the day when the State no longer forced anyone to be under its rule who did not want to be. Also known as Freedom Day.

The Minstrel Boy

I originally signed into my blog to post one of my favorite songs, but instead while searching for a good recording, I became thoroughly pissed off. Why the hell do people think Saving Private Ryan is an anti-war film? Seriously, what the bloody deuce is wrong with people anymore? Congratulations internet society, you've successfully spat on the graves of your ancestors by completely missing the point. How anyone can watch a movie that graphically displays the horrors of war and the sacrifices made by soldiers and walk away thinking they've just seen an anti-war movie? It's in the bloody ending! Hanks' character, Capt. John Miller, tells Private Ryan point blank the point of the whole movie: to earn his right to the freedom that the deaths of his fellow soldiers bought him by living a good life; the movie ends with Ryan tearfully asking for validation of his worthiness of such sacrifice at Miller's grave. How can you misinterpret that!?

I give up. I'm 95% convinced there's no hope left for humanity as long as they refuse to operate on an objective level. As long as people practice deconstructionism, determining meaning by their own one-sided biases, there's no point in even trying to speak any kind of logic, as everything will only ever agree with them. Logic was slain with our patriotism and any sense of individual honor we have left.

I feel like Will Smith in I Am Legend.

If there's anyone left out there, anyone at all, here's something to maybe help keep hope alive:

"Never in the field of human conflict have so many owed so much to so few." - Sir Winston Churchill [House of Commons, August 20, 1940]

"Minstrel Boy" - traditional Irish song

The minstrel boy to the war has gone
In the ranks of death you'll find him
His father's sword he has girded on
His wild harp slung behind him

"Land of Song," said the warrior bard
"Though all the world betrays thee,
One sword, at least, thy right shall guard
One faithful harp shall praise thee."

The minstrel fell, but the foeman's chains
Could not bring that proud soul under
The harp he loved ne'er spoke again
For he tore its chords asunder

And said, "No chains shall sully thee
Thou soul of love and bravery
Thy songs were made for the pure and free
They shall never sound in slavery."

Lest we forget...
Brave men who carried the greatest virtues:
Love. Honor. Patriotism.

-Miles Veritatis

A Tirade

I say this without reserve and admittedly without tact: I am currently quite furious with the Baptist church. Not a specific church (though several specific churches have evoked my ire), but the denomination as a whole. This is not to say there are no good Baptists out there, that is quite untrue; my friend Joel over at this blog is the shining example of the contrary. However, currently I am more than a bit miffed over the practices I see taking place with commonality within Baptist circles, and have seen for twelve years of my life spent in affiliation with Baptists. I will address a few of these practices without apology (and noting that Baptists are not the only ones perpetrating many of these issues), and if you feel offended by anything that follows, I request only that you ask yourself if the offense is because I have truly spoken out of line, or if it is because, subconsciously, you know that either you or your own church have perpetrated some of these ills.

1. Neglect of the body -- the church is meant to be a place of sanctuary for its members, and yet this function has been abandoned in all but the name of the worship room in most Baptist churches I have attended or observed. From the time of the early church, the meeting place has been the place for the church to come together, be encouraged, prepared, strengthened, and refreshed for their outward ministry in their community. In the modern day Baptist church, the meeting place has become the place of evangelism, and because of this, very little real growth occurs. It seems that the entire denomination has become so consumed with "winning souls" that no other concern may bother them. They evangelize in the church and send people out as missionaries to other countries to evangelize there. The problem with this evangelism-driven system is that the members of the church themselves become neglected, being dealt with only in ways that will keep them in line and keep appearances good so that non-believers who visit might be more receptive to the message. When this occurs, the body withers from the inside out, and most of the church becomes apostate. Attendance and tithing dwindles, the church grows stale, and the administration wonders why, usually opting (much like our government) to start new programs and open new branches of the church in order to get more people involved; but, in the long run, the heart of the issue remains untouched, and the church either dies or converts itself into a glorified social club. Has your church reached this point? Ask yourself, and you must be honest, do people go to Sunday school and Bible studies because of the excellent, thoughtful teaching going on, or because they get free pizza (or coffee and donuts, depending on the age) and they get to hang out with their friends? Once a church has hit this stage, members are encouraged to cover up their problems in order to keep everyone comfortable rather than address them that they may be solved with the aid of their spiritual family. Marriage issues are overlooked, drug problems are swept under the rug, behavioral and disciplinary issues are ignored, and people simply put on their church faces once a week to smile for Jesus. However, if a soul prays for Heaven, yet lives like Hell, for which destination is it headed? If a church can't even maintain the faith of its own flock, how can it hope to bring others successfully into the fold?

2. Trivialization of the Gospel -- Growing up in a Baptist school, I cannot tell you how many times I was witnessed to. We had chapel services every other week, and every single service was either evangelistic/revivalistic or oriented on foreign missions (and sometimes both, just for good measure). Everyone had a different take on the Gospel, everyone had their own opinion, and everyone challenged us to do our best for God. Basic psychology tells us that any repeated action is normalized by the brain in order to remove distractions and remain alert. If someone pokes himself with a pin repeatedly in the exact same spot, eventually that spot will become numb to the poking. It's not that the sensation is no longer taking place, instead it's that the brain is ignoring that impulse that says "pain" so that it can be alert and ready for other things. The same as when you enter an area with a foul or strange smell, or spray on strong cologne or perfume, after a while the smell seems to vanish, when in reality the smell is still there, but your brain has stopped recognizing it so that if a new element is introduced, it is recognizable and not masked by the previous odor. In the same way, by repetition over the years, the Gospel becomes commonplace, and it becomes progressively harder to inspire people to react to the message. By feeding young people the same message over and over, the church effectively drives them away. I believe that this is the primary reason for the rates of young Christians leaving the church when they leave their parents and go to college or move out on their own. The Apostle Paul says that mature Christians must leave behind milk and move on to meat and solid foods (spiritually speaking, of course). By never moving past the basic Gospel, the church deprives its members of the deep theological truths that they need to explore in order to grow and become strong in their faith, and so some leave because they are simply sick of the same old story again and again with no real substance, and the rest leave because they are confronted with new ideas and have no way to combat them, which leads me to my third point.

3. Inadequacy of education -- A common modern-day stereotype of a Christian is an ignorant bigot with unfair prejudices and no reason or rhyme to their beliefs except the mantra, "The Bible tells me so." To many, to be a follower of the Bible is to be ready and eager to buy bull. While stereotypes can be unfair, it seems to me that oftentimes this one is far from incorrect; however, this is not the fault of the individual believer so much as the fault of the church as a whole, primarily its administration. Often it is the cause of a heavy missions focus which spawns a neglect of the body, yet it is also frequently caused by the simple ignorance of church leaders (and sometimes all of the above). Modern day Christianity is a perfect display of the inadequacy of seminary and doctorates in the education of the men and women of God. One can be well versed in the knowledge of the Word and still mishandle it horribly. How much a man knows is greatly undermined by how much he understands, and this is the dividing line between not only knowledge and wisdom, but wisdom and application. Ancient Israelites knew the scriptures intimately, and yet they constantly strayed; Solomon was gifted with great wisdom, and yet he also strayed. Man is not infallible, and he must never forget that God always knows what to do better than he does; yet, in our arrogance, we abandon the Word of God Himself in favor of our own ideas. Our churches operate largely on decisions of men based on church mission statements based on ideas of men based on the Bible. By the time the original Biblical thought passes through to where it is carried out, it has often departed far from its original intent; and so we carry on and on about whether to baptize by submersion or by sprinkling and we never even realize that we are ignoring the broken hearts and wounded souls seeking the love of Christ. They come seeking Salvation, and find only squabbles and legalism, then they are met by Muslims or Buddhists or members of some other religion actively seeking self actualization, and they move on from our doors. We never equipped them to understand the Bible and its facets, we never equipped them to understand other religions, and often we teach them only to fear what is unknown, so whenever new ideas come around, good or bad, rather than engaging them with the truths of Scripture, the members of the church either abandon Christianity in light of new things or they retreat into their hidey hole never to emerge.

4. Emotional overdose -- Where in the Bible does it say that Christianity is an emotional experience? I want desperately to know, because I still haven't found it. In fact, whenever the scriptures speak in reference to themselves, our instruction is to meditate on them, as in, with our brains. Christians from the early church to the Rennaissance were scholars of the faith, avidly studying and divining the nature of God and His relationship to mankind. This is where the vast majority of our modern doctrines and traditions come from: the work of our ancestors, because we no longer do this work for ourselves. Rather, in the modern church, we have thrown intellectual matters to the wind in favor of something emotional, something we can feel, and it is these feelings that we pursue above all else. This is understandable, considering how inadequately the church educates its followers, because people don't know what there is to know about Christianity anymore. In fact, many of the old doctrines have become infamiliar to the modern church, and thus have become an object of fear rather than part of a proud heritage. If a Christian minister were to offer to teach his congregation about the conflicting natures of Christianity and Islam as the world's premier monotheistic religions, most of his congregation would either stop listening seriously, feeling intimidated, or be shocked and offended that he was about to talk about a false religion in their holy sanctuary. However, if a Christian minister were to tell the people to stand to their feet, raise their hands, close their eyes, and pictures themselves in the arms of Christ and try to feel His presence, rather than feel as though they were being treated as lunatics, most would either follow along eagerly, hoping to feel close to Jesus, or remain seated uncaringly. By robbing Christians of the knowledge and understanding of Scripture, they are left only with an emotional attachment to the church, seeking feelings that may or may not be elusive, depending on the person, and spawning only two kinds of followers: the emotional, obedient servant, following and never really knowing why, but not caring because of their conditioning not to; or the apostate "follower" who comes to church but never really shows much interest in anything but doing fun things with friends afterwards. Neither is equipped to handle themselves in the real world, surrounded by people of different beliefs, as is exemplified by this, this, this, this, and many others.

These are merely some of the factors that lead to the rampant spiritual apostacy we see in our churches today; however, we can do nothing about them until we see a reform in the leadership of the church. Followers are generally only as good as their leaders, and the Bible calls spiritual leaders to a higher standard than laymen. In order to instruct, one must be readily and constantly instructed, not by men, but by the Word (which can be gleaned from the Bible and from rubbing brains with other Christians, but the Bible is the ultimate, final authority). Christ spoke to sinners with nothing but love, yet He openly rebuked and chastised the Pharisees and Sadducees for their legalism and hypocrisy. The church is in desperate need of tough love from the top down, and unless it receives some, lowers its pridefully bloated head and allows itself to be instructed once more, it will continue its blistering fall into the pitfalls the Bible warned us about, yet we stumbled right along into anyway. If God is to speak to us, how will we ever know it if we refuse to quiet our own noise and bustle long enough to hear?

I LIVE!

Since I'm now home for a semester I really should update this more frequently... I need to not be lazy. I decided I'm going to try Twitter and see if anything comes of it: www.twitter.com/deALPHAmale (as is par with my course).

And now, a poem to lift the spirits:

Immortality
by: Miles Veritatis

‘Twas hour doom of wintry night
In castle dungeon deep
Locked away in fest’ring cell
Did lonely pris’ner sleep

When with a start, his eyes sprung wide
At startling, frightful sound
The shrillest wail pierced through his heart
Made loose his terror bound

Trembling, he turned his head
To cell’s gate standing wide
And in the gap, a figure stood
Om’nous in dim, flick’ring light

The dark man cloaked in cape and hood
Slipt silently through the door
Reaching out cold hands of death
To pris’ner on the floor

Slowly turning key in lock
The pris’ner’s chains fell free
Yet no more for freedom did he long
But for sweet captivity

With grip of stone, the figure seized
This quaking pris’ner’s wrist
Then pulled him to his feet and led
Out from his safe abyss

This demon nigh would be his end
Our pris’ner did know well
He’d hang his body by its neck
And drag his soul to Hell

Poe would weep for joy.

-Landon

Cawlij Daiz

So, I've been neglecting to post for a while. My apologies for that, but I've been a bit preoccupied. My major is in Theology and Philosophy, thus I do lots and lots of writing, as I write this I've just completed yet another 5 page paper. Needless to say, it's enough that I don't often get the inclination to do any additional writing in my leisure time. So, to tide you all over, here's an example of the sort of thing I've been doing here at college:

Mere Christianity Review

The moral argument discussed by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity is potentially one of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God that we have. Although the argument in and of itself does not require the existence of the God of Christianity, it does, however, point very strongly in His direction. The premise behind the argument is that every human being is born with some sort of inner sense of morality; therefore, there must be a source of this sense beyond nature or society. While many atheists hold to relativistic forms of moral theories, placing the blame for morality on either individual feeling or societal consensus, this does not explain the early development of morality in children who have not been alive long enough to either consider the impact of their actions on others or learn from those around them what is generally accepted as right and wrong. Lewis begins his book by pointing to the sorts of things said by two people who are quarreling, indicating that they say things which are not derived simply from a personal displeasure, but are appealing to a standard higher than either of the two involved in the quarrel. Everyone from educated adults to young children make claims as to the fairness or equity of situations, and it is a person's natural bent to become offended when their sense of what is fair or equitable is broken against their favor. Lewis argues that if there were not truly a standard of behavior outside of personal preference, then there would be no sound basis for such arguments; however, throughout history disagreements from small quarrels to full-scale wars have been fought over no less than such arguments. Lewis also points out that participants in a quarrel never argue simply that their stance is what they prefer; rather, each participant contends that their preference is what is correct for the situation, and that their opponent's preference is wrong. This distinguishing mark is what adds an element of objectivity to the quarrel, and as such, appeals to an objective standard of what is correct and what is incorrect. When a child argues that it is not fair that his brother has taken away his toy, he is not arguing that he prefers that his toy may not be taken; although that is most likely true of the situation, it is not an argument, it is simply a statement of preference. The argument comes in with the assertion that the taking of the toy was not simply an unenjoyable action, but it was an incorrect action and thus should not have occurred. This appeal to an objective moral standard from a child who is not mature enough to have been intellectually influenced by the world around him indicates, not a subjective standard of morality imposed either by the child or his peers, but an objective standard established within the very nature of the child and by which he is intentionally inclined to judge his actions and those of others. The very fact that those who argue most adamantly that right and wrong are subjective ideas are not generally murderers or rapists or thieves or polygamists seems to indicate that there is some sort of substantive morality that encompasses even those who deny it the most fiercely.

Upon the establishment of this moral law comes the recognition of, as Ravi Zacharias puts it, a moral lawgiver. Just as men draft each of our criminal laws, each law of nature has to have a lawgiver. For every creation, there must therefore be a creative entity. Evolution can attempt to explain the material, but it can never explain the insubstantive, for there is no way to rationalize the establishment of a metaphysical, universal tool of order by the formless, finite theory of chaos. While Chance may have, by a very loose allowance, the capacity to create some extremely simple form of life, there is no chance that Chance may create a non-material, all-encompassing entity, as Chance is neither of those two. No creator can ever contrive of a thing with properties outside of its own grasp, hence why no man can create a spiritual angel or demon; the spiritual realm is not one open to the dabbling of physical man, no science of ours can touch it. In the same light, a metaphysical, universal standard cannot be crafted by the chance collision of physical particles, as the realm of the metaphysical is not one open to the “dabbling” of the physical. We can no more genuinely create a law of nature as we can genetically engineer a spiritual deity. Therefore, in this light, the existence of a metaphysical, universal law of any sort denotes the existence of a metaphysical, universal lawgiver, for there is no other way that such a standard can even come into being. From this position, one can easily access the idea of the Christian God simply by continuing the examination of the traits of this objective moral standard. Once the existence of such a moral law has been established, one can easily see that this law is not only universal, but also it has been throughout all of recorded history. This moral law is eternal. The law is not only eternal, but each and every human born has the same moral instincts as the last, no matter how hard men have tried to destroy the “traditional” sense of morality and order. At some point, this sense must be broken from a person, there has never been someone simply born without it. This moral law is immutable. These attributes of the law, being indicative of the nature of the lawgiver, narrow the field of available choices greatly. In fact, the only deity that possesses the necessary traits to create a universal, metaphysical, eternal, and immutable law of any sort is Jehovah. No other god of any other religion possesses such traits; the only one coming close is Allah of Islam, and even he does not possess the necessary consistency to establish a law that is eternally immutable. The fickle nature of Allah discounts his ability to make consistent judgments, and thus discredits him as the potential author of any sort of universal, immutable, and eternal law. Though some modern Muslims have attempted to explain this inconsistency by establishing the claim that the Qur'an itself is eternal, this creates even more dissension within the religion, as unanswerable questions must then be raised as to the inconsistency of an uncreated, impersonal thing with a reality that always dictates the opposite, and the adherence of Allah to the Qur'an if it is not his own creation. Through simple process of elimination, one can deduce that there is only one religion with a deity consistent with the nature of the moral law, and that religion is Christianity.

Once the veracity of the consistency of the Christian God with the moral law becomes evident, then one can begin to examine what makes the Christian system of moral thought different than the rest of the world's religions and ideas. Within the realm of Christianity, all of morality hinges on the distinction between selfishness and selflessness. When you study the Christian Bible, you notice that each and every command and directive from God was given out of a selfless interest in the well being of the people and to assist the people in keeping a selfless bent to the nature of their daily life. Christ diagnoses the love of money as the root of all evil, and it is easily discerned that the root of the love of money is greed, which is the most direct incarnation of selfishness. Money is the only material on the planet with the ability to acquire all other materials. Practically anything can be bought with money, from possessions to pleasures, even to people; wealth is the universal distributor of power. The more wealth one has, the more powerful they are. Thus, to love money is to be dedicated to the amassing of power and all of its attributes for oneself. The focus is to build up the self and the self-alone, for to gain power for power's sake can be considered nothing but selfishness. If selfishness, then, is the root of all that is evil, and evil is the direct opposite of good, then the nature of all that is good must be selfless. Each of the Bible's commandments is oriented to immerse oneself in selflessness, so although the greatest portion of the text focuses on the self and the improvement of such, it does so in the interest of a better interaction with the other individual selves, which surround the personal self. It does not deny the nature of man to be introspective, while at the same time using that introspection in order to transform that man into something that is primarily concerned without rather than within.

Recognizing the distinction between the good of selflessness and the evil of selfishness that is found in Christianity, we also notice that the same distinction is found in the very nature of the moral law inherent in the hearts of men. Even through the example of the children's quarrel do we see the inherent bent of selflessness in the appeals being made. Although the child's priority is to right the wrong done to himself by his brother taking away his toy, the nature of the appeal is to a law primarily concerned with the equitable treatment of others. The child may be primarily concerned with his own well being in making his appeal to this objective moral standard, but the standard is in place to ensure that that equitable treatment happens to begin with. The law protects the individual rights by focusing on other individuals rather than the self. It outlines one's treatment of others, giving the impression that it is wrong for one not to take the possessions of another, rather than focusing on one's own reaction to such. This is expressed even in the laws constructed by men, which are contingent on their inherent moral sense. For example, the law states that it is wrong to kill. The wording itself betrays its intent; it is concerned with the well being of the receiver of one's actions, outward rather than inward. It establishes that one person is not to mistreat another person, despite his own interests. It forces that person to act selflessly, considering the well being of another man, even though he may not personally want to. Expounding on this, Jesus gives a more introspective position for self-management based on the established, outward-centered law, but this is in order to reinforce its standard in behavior, rather than supplant it. When Jesus summarized the law into “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself,” He was simply stating the attitudes of the human will which make the following of the law the most feasible. By orienting yourself in a selfless manner, it makes the application of oneself to the selfless law much more attainable.

The Prestige and The Reveal... Two Things Nobody Gets

I wonder sometimes if movie producers get as frustrated as I do that no one seems to understand the deeper points of their art. It seems like every time I go see a great movie with all kinds of moral, political, or otherwise engaging dialogue presented through metaphor and underlying themes, I come home and read reviews (curious of what other people thought of it) and discover that not a single person drew the same conclusions that I did. In fact, often nobody else comes close. Now, in many instances, this could be justifiable proof of one's own insanity, however in this case it's because apparently nobody understands symbolism in art anymore. The best reviewers seem to have only a rudimentary understanding of the dialogue that goes on underneath the surface of any given form of entertainment, and even then the conclusions drawn often only scratch the surface of the deep well of thought and reason that all artists put into their work.

Anyway, enough of my ranting, on to the movie and more spoilers than a formula one race...



The Prestige was a movie that at first I hated, kept me from sleeping for a night (The result of watching it for the first time at 2 AM) and then through a mind-warping process of consideration came to adore. My greatest cinematic love is a marvel of writing that keeps one guessing and leaves him astounded, amazed, dumbfounded, and otherwise tickled by the ending. The Prestige nicely delivers on all counts. I've read numerous other reviews that arrogantly sprayed the typical "oh it was too predictable, it was obvious halfway through, blah blah blah" that follows any genuinely intelligent movie. I would just have you know that all of these people are frauds who feel afraid that by admitting that they were surprised by the ending they will somehow lose the other half of their manhood.

Insults aside, what intrigued me most about the movie wasn't the plot twist (as spectacular as it was); rather, it was the incredible moral implications and ethical statements being made. As with all my reviews, I'm simply assuming you've already seen the movie, as to avoid cluttering my blog with the same tired summaries that everyone else's reviews already contain. If you want that, just type the movie into Google and you'll get a page-full of them. The Prestige carried some rather hefty points to consider in the realm of ethics: from cloning to life itself, but the most interesting was on the depravity of man. I found it fascinating to compare the two magicians' approach to the Transported Man (which, in essence, was no more than a glorified version of the birdcage trick... and both methods became evident in both the birdcage and the Transported Man).

The allure of the birdcage with the dove was that the dove never actually was harmed. The dove in the cage was the same as the one in the prestige, this was the envied and desired effect... the question was what would be sacrificed to achieve it?

Borden's method of the illusion of the Transported Man involved a Tesla clone of himself. In order to satisfy both men's need for the spotlight, they sacrificed every other performance in order to be the one in the prestige the next night. Also, in doing so, they sacrificed half of their lives. Each loved a different woman, and in the end, neither was with the woman he loved. Borden was ultimately the man who made the most personal sacrifice. He gave up all his pride, his public image, everything he had in order to protect what was precious to him... life. His sacrifice cost him his marriage, his happiness, and his reputation, but it provided for the life of his daughter. He didn't want to get his hands truly dirty, and he didn't, even though he gave the illusion of doing so. He only repayed what was dealt out to him through even terms of revenge (though the ethical ramifications of revenge are an entirely different matter) and never went further than his opponent.

Angier, on the other hand, was different. His sacrifice was greater physically, but less personally. His pride would not allow him to be the man behind the curtain, he couldn't handle being the man in the box that "nobody cared about." He needed, craved, being the man in the prestige, and when everything else was stripped away from him by his pursuit of this obsession, he decided he could not live without it. So, when he came into possession of Tesla's machine and the ability to replicate himself, he opted instead to drown himself nightly rather than live with "taking his bows under the stage." In Angier's case, he could not bear to lose his reputation, and so decided to sacrifice his life in exchange for his pride.

This brings us to the issue of human depravity. If all evil in the world is contingent on man's selfishness, then the ethical dialogue of the movie is rather clear. Despite both of their grievous losses, Borden is the only man who lives to see another day. Borden's daughter is saved, he never dirties his hands any more than his opponent already has, and he exhibits a clear value of life. Angier, on the other hand, in his selfishness--his desire above all else to claim the prestige of his act--sacrifices his own life nightly in order to preserve the pride of his accomplishment. The entire show, as he reveals in the end, is nothing but an ego trip for himself, "don't you understand why we do it? For the look on their faces..." Angier dies alone, surrounded by the horrors which he wrought--a victim of his own greed. However, ironically, by his willingness to sacrifice himself and essentially murder Borden by allowing him to hang, the pride he fought to preserve dies with him, and Borden, by sacrificing his own pride and his own personal happiness, retains his life by that sacrifice. Where Angier's slaughter of his clones only kept him "alive" one day at a time, Borden's willingness to share his life with his one clone allowed him to survive execution. Selfishness was the ultimate destructor of man.

That's what it comes down to really... what is the point of all your endeavors? Why do you do the things that you do? What motivates you to make sacrifices?

...are you willing to be the man in the box?