“Hunger Games” – A Lesson in Totalitarianism

Frank DeMartini

Hunger Games TotalitarianismImagine a time when people all work for the State and have been split into designated districts representing certain industries.  Imagine a time when The State controls all we see and do.  Imagine a time when hope is dribbled out in small doses so that the masses don’t get too much of it.  Imagine a time when food is rationed to the public and extra food submits one to a bigger risk of losing his/her life.  This is the time depicted in Lionsgate’s mega box office smash “The Hunger Games”.

The film, which opened to a record breaking 152 million dollar weekend last week, depicts all of this and more.  However, this is not how the film was marketed by Lionsgate.  The film, based upon a bestselling trilogy, was marketed to teens and young adults in a way you would never know its true theme which is the dangers of a totalitarian (communist/socialist) society.  It was marketed as the story of a young women who puts her life on the line to protect her younger sister and is forced to participate in a yearly gladiator style event known as The Hunger Games.

totalitarianism usaThe 54% over 25 audience in the opening weekend shows this film is not just appealing to its core young adult crowd.  The box office results show that Lionsgate has a four quadrant hit on its hands and one, which is appealing to a large audience with a mind. In my opinion, that should be a conservative mind, as the film shows all of the dangers inherent in where the current administration is trying to take the country.  The same current administration that wants to “fundamentally change America,” and apologize for all of the evils America has pushed upon the world.

Katniss EverdeenIn the film, Katniss, exquisitely portrayed by newcomer Jennifer Lawrence, volunteers to participate in the Hunger Games for her district when her younger sister is the unfortunate winner of the lottery which chooses the victims.  The Hunger Games is a brutal battle in which one male and one female from each of the 12 districts must compete in a gladiator style of combat until one survives.  The kicker which makes this different from most other movies of this genre is that all the participants must be between 12-18 years old.  In other words, the movie depicts children killing children:  Not something you would anticipate to draw large numbers to the theater.  Lionsgate, in its marketing genius, has managed to not only turn this into a box office mega hit, but has also managed to market it so that absolutely none of the politics of the film were known to the general public that hadn’t read the books.

Donald Sutherland in a small but pivotal role, portrays the dictator who resides in the Capital which is District 1.  District 1 is depicted in the film as rich and colorful.  The outlying districts, which include the home of our heroine, District 12, are almost portrayed in black and white.  They are basically the forgotten peasants whose labor is used to support the government and who must beg the government for extra food just to survive.  Sutherland in the few short scenes he has shows how absolutism can be an aphrodisiac.  He uses his power to dish out small amounts of hope and to squash it if it grows too large.  His ideal of the Hunger Games is merely to remind the masses that the State controls all and any defiance of the state will be quashed in the most horrific of ways.

Death Race 2000This film is strangely similar to the 1975 camp classic from New World Pictures, “Death Race 2000,” which starred a young Sylvester Stallone and David Carradine at the height of his career.  In that film, contestants in a cross-country road race, not only had to finish in first place, but were given points based upon how many people they could kill with their vehicles during the race.  Children and Senior Citizens were worth more as kills than a middle-aged adult white male.  The society depicted in that film was totalitarian in nature as well and the race was the way in which the masses were kept under control.  David Carradine represented the government and was paid by the government to keep winning year after year.  In the same manner, “The Hunger Games” shows the participants from District 1 and 2 are trained by the government from birth to represent their districts and to keep the outer districts from being successful.  In fact, we are told early in the film that District 12 has never had a winner and Katniss may be its first true chance.

Lech Walesa

Lech Walesa

In the 1975 feature, there already is a strong opposition to the State which is sabatoging the race and slowly killing off the competitors before they can get their body counts up.  This opposition has the participants fearful and the State worried because if the race can be stopped or one of its participants can be shown to be with the opposition, they will lose control and democracy may again be within the hands of the populace.  This is only touched on by “The Hunger Games” as we are in the early stages of revolt against the State.  The are small skirmishes in the outlying districts, but nothing is organized.  In fact, we are led to believe by the end of the film that Katniss may be the driving force toward freedom’s return in the same way Lech Walesa, through Solidarity, eventually was responsible for the overthrow of the communist state in Poland; an overthrow which eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union a few short years later.

All in all, “The Hunger Games” shows the danger of freedom being taken away from the people and the underlying current that a small amount of hope can give to the populace that such freedom can be returned.  I am fearful that as the Obama Administration continues to slowly nip at our freedoms, a time in which this type of government will not be in the distant future.  In fact, as seen by Obama’s comment this week to Dmitri Medvedev on a hot microphone, “I’m one election away from having more ability to negotiate with you on arms issues.”  It is quite clear he is also one election away from being able to fundamentally change America so that it comes closer to resembling the State depicted in “The Hunger Games.”  And this is something we cannot allow.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses to “Hunger Games” – A Lesson in Totalitarianism

  1. Matt on March 30, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Dear Mr. Frank,

    I don’t think you should put words in the author’s mouth. I believe that if you had done your homework, you would have realized that said “politics” of the story is not what Suzanne Collins intended. You also may have realized some other small details of which I won’t spend much time on. But to name a few, you may have spell-checked: Capitol is spelled with an O and it is not District 1, the government takes no part in training kids in District 1 and District 2 (this is in fact illegal, if you were paying attention to the movie) and “has shows” is incorrect grammar. Furthermore, I would like to point out that not all forms of Totalitarianism are Communist. This is only one form of government that could involve it. Socialism, quite frankly, has nothing to do with Totalitarianism. Moreover, the government that Collins describes does not involve any Communism; there are no signs whatsoever of collectivization and distribution of land by the government. If you want to spread your conspiracy theories about Obama, please do not do it at the expense of sabotaging a good piece of art work by a brilliant author.

    • Frank DeMartini on March 31, 2012 at 8:46 am

      Matt: I am only speaking of the movie and not Ms. Collins’ books as I have not read them so I am not trying to put any words into her mouth. I’m sure the filmmakers changed her vision considerably as is what happens on the film making process.

      • Matt on March 31, 2012 at 1:26 pm

        Her vision was not changed very much at all. It is not a very strong argument to be pushing that the filmmakers completely changed the moral of the story. As you mention in a number of posts below, you are not speaking of the books and only of the movies since this is what you have seen. (I still believe that if you wanted to make any kind of argument here at all you would have actually researched a little bit on the topic and read the book instead of just pulling these random thoughts out of your head.) I have to point out to you that it is still the same story and the reason Gary Ross (director) wanted to work on this movie so much was because he loved the books and wanted to make a movie that was a good representation of how great the books were. Therefore, your arguments that Haymitch is not a previous victor (as the inevitable, following movies will make clear that he was, since this becomes a relatively important character and plot point) does not stand. Furthermore, I would like to point out to you that this story was being written well before Obama had even considered running for president. Once more, I would like to ask that you withhold from spreading incorrect assumptions about the narrative of a piece of artwork.

        P.S. I would also, once again, strongly suggest that you revise your spelling and grammar mistakes, as this will certainly help you appear at least slightly more intelligent. I’m sure, as a writer, you would understand this notion.

        • Frank DeMartini on March 31, 2012 at 1:46 pm

          I never said that Haymitch was not a winner. That was clear. I said he was not from District 12 which was also clear.

          As for the spelling and grammar mistakes, once it’s out there it’s out there. I should have checked it a little more carefully, I’ll give you that.

          • Matt on March 31, 2012 at 6:27 pm

            That is incorrect. Haymitch is from District 12, I promise you that.

          • Frank DeMartini on April 1, 2012 at 7:18 am

            Well, Matt then you should see the movie because they say specifically in a number of scenes that District 12 has never had a winner.

  2. Angelonline on March 30, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    “In fact, we are told early in the film that District 12 has never had a winner and Katniss may be its first true chance.”

    This is incorrect, District 12 has had one winner previous to Katniss Everdeen. It is Haymitch Abernathy(Played by Woody Harrelson).

    Other than that, great piece! As a young conservative and Hunger Game fan, I was very pleased with your analysis. Nice job.

    • Frank DeMartini on March 31, 2012 at 8:50 am

      Angel: I disagree. Although, it was unclear about where Haymitch was from and your interpretation could be feasible, there are scenes in the movie where the characters discuss openly that Katniss is the first person from District 12 to ever have a chance. In fact, the hero, in a scene before the games begins tells her and Haymitch that his mother believes there was finally a chance for District 12 and it wasn’t him.

      • Katie on March 31, 2012 at 10:38 am

        Hi Frank. This was a great piece but Haymitch being a winner is not something you can “disagree” on. Whether or not you heard it in the movie, tributes are trained by past victors, known as their mentors. Since these people have been in the arena and won, they are the only ones suitable for training current tributes. In the book this is explained more, as well as the fact that Haymitch lives in District 12. You should read the books, they are excellent and show a much deeper storyline :)

        • Frank DeMartini on March 31, 2012 at 11:58 am

          I don’t disagree with you, except that it was pretty clear in the movie, as I have not read the books, that Katniss would have been the first from District 12.

          • Bella on April 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm

            Dear Frank,

            Please watch the movie again… they specifically say Katniss would be the first one from District 12 to win since Haymitch won… there were in fact two winners from District 12 (one of whom is dead and the other is Haymitch).
            Also, the type of government shown in the books and the movie is a non-democratic government… most likely a dictatorship. This is very different from a democratically elected government. This is definitely not Socialism. It might be closer to communism (North Korea/ China) without the redistribution of lands. In fact, socialism is a concept that you don’t really seem to have the ability to grasp.. because if you did you would not equate it with this movie. A dictator with an army that oppresses people, starves them and murders them at will, is not socialism or the direction that America is going towards. This kind of ignorance is what is leading to the class divide that tax breaks to the rich are leading to. And by the way… there was a HUGE class divide in Panem… the direction in which the Republican party is trying to veer the country towards with its “free market”, “no tax”, “no social security”, “no health care”, “no medicaid/ medicare”, “death panel”, “no freedom of speech”, “no freedom for contraception/ abortion” policies.

          • Frank DeMartini on April 11, 2012 at 5:22 pm

            Bella: Believe me I know the difference between Socialism and Communism. They are different extremes of the same side of the political spectrum. Communism believes in the Dictatorship of the Working Class because the working class are not smart enough to run things themselves. That’s ideology in its most simplistic form. If you would like, I will say they movie had aspects of both Communism and a Fascist Dictatorship as elements of both are in Panem (????). If you think there is no class divide in a Socialist or Communist country, you are out of touch with reality. Why do you think the Romanian Dictator was executed in the same way Mussolini was in 1990. He was living in a lavish palace and people within walking distance of the palace were starving. The point in the movie and in reality is that Big Government is bad.

            The importance of the film is that is shows the strength of the individual (Katniss and Petter) over government which is a belief of the right, not the left. The left believes that the government is the solution to every problem. Also, the right does not believe that government is not necessary. We just believe that limited government gives more freedoms and more power for the individual to excel. If the individual excels, that is good for the whole. Giving people the easy way out such as through welfare and entitlements, does not create wealth or government revenues. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time for government payouts, i.e. short term unemployment, national disasters, etc.

            As for your previous comment relating to certain things the government provides. I suggest you read Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. You might then understand the difference between American Federalism and a Strong Central State. Most of those things you mention of items that the State Government has power over and that the Federal Government is specifically prohibited from doing, i.e. numbers 1-4 and parts of the rest. Please do not confuse what the Federal Government can do versus what the state governments can do. We are a Federal Republic. Remember that.

            Lastly, I have seen “Hunger Games” multiple times now because I am fascinated by its politics. They film makers specifically changed the situation with Hamitch and the books. There is nothing in the film that says Hamitch was from District 12 and there is specific dialogue between Petter and Katniss that indicates there has never been a winner from District 12. Many people are getting that confused from the books.

  3. George Wolke on March 31, 2012 at 5:07 am

    Read all three books and then we can have a conversation about the 1% who live in the Capital vs the 99% who live in the 12 Districts…..

    Take Care Frank!

    • Frank DeMartini on March 31, 2012 at 8:49 am

      George: If you read the article carefully, you will see that I am only speaking of the movie. I am not making any commentary on the books. The movie is separate entity completely. Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, you are seeing the filmmakers vision of the book and not that of Ms. Collins. Accordingly, your comment, if based upon the books, is not part of the arguments portrayed in the books. I did not read the books and have no opinion of them.

  4. Morgan Gibson on March 31, 2012 at 7:13 am

    The dystopian totalitarian society depicted in the books and film is distinguished by consumerism and corporate control of public decision-making. This is state capitalism and fascism you dolt!

    • Frank DeMartini on March 31, 2012 at 8:45 am

      Unfortunately, that is not the case. I don’t see any consumerism anywhere except in the Capitol. In fact, there is speak of having to beg the government for extra food and therefore, having more chances to lose in the lottery. Further, there is speak in the movie of central planning and government control of business. This is not fascism, but the opposite which is communism.

      Lastly, I am not speaking about the books at all. I am making an impression of the movie as that is all I have seen.

  5. Spaceghost on March 31, 2012 at 9:27 am

    >> I am fearful that as the Obama Administration continues to slowly nip at our freedoms, a time in which this type of government will not be in the distant future.

    Sorry, which freedoms are those? What exactly do you have less freedom to do than you did in 2008? What exactly does ANY American have less freedom to do than they did in 2008? I’ll be right here.

    >> In fact, as seen by Obama’s comment this week to Dmitri Medvedev on a hot microphone, “I’m one election away from having more ability to negotiate with you on arms issues.”

    Okay, a) Quotation marks really should be reserved for, you know, DIRECT QUOTATIONS, which that isn’t. That’s not what he said at all. Nice try. b) WTF does that have to do with your (unjustified) fear of your loss of freedom? Obama said he’d have more flexibility after the election. How is that any more controversial or “scary” than Bush saying, after HIS second election, that he’d just been given a bunch of political capital and was intent on spending it?

    >>It is quite clear he is also one election away from being able to fundamentally change America so that it comes closer to resembling the State depicted in “The Hunger Games.” And this is something we cannot allow.

    Oh, I see. Yeah, that’s exactly what he wants. Nailed it. Paranoid much?

    • KT on April 1, 2012 at 1:18 am

      @Spaceghost: But, was Bush able to spend his political capital? What, exactly, was he able to capitalize on during his second term. The way I remember it, he was hounded by the media and the left (sorry, that was redundant) 24/7; BDS was rampant. Do you really believe that you are better off since Obama has been in power? I’m not, I’ve been unemployed for 2.5 years total since this guy has been in office and I just want him gone. His hot mike moment just confirms it for me. @Mr. DeMartini, I appreciate your perspective on the Hunger Games and will read the trilogy and see the movie. @Matt, remove the stick out of your Butt; you’re coming off as prissy, uptight and self-righteous. Maybe that’s just you but you should be ashamed!

      • Spaceghost on April 1, 2012 at 8:11 am

        >>But, was Bush able to spend his political capital?

        Irrelevant question. It’s not about what Bush was able to do, it’s about reading sinister motives into a person’s remark about his intentions post-election. But go on?

        >>What, exactly, was he able to capitalize on during his second term.

        Um…Getting two conservatives on SCOTUS? Vetoing stem cell expansion? Record amounts of signing statements on laws he didn’t like? Continuing two pointless, endless wars? Should I go on?

        >>The way I remember it, he was hounded by the media and the left (sorry, that was redundant) 24/7;

        Ignoring your idiotic regurgitation of the “liberal media” myth…Gee, did the media and the left hound him? Huh, maybe its because his second term was probably the worst term a President ever had, one so bad that it made his incredibly awful first term the GOOD one? It started with basically sitting on his hands while one of our great cities got destroyed by a hurricane, and went DOWNHILL from there. Remember now?

        >>Do you really believe that you are better off since Obama has been in power?

        Yes, but that’s not the question, because it’s not about ME. Is AMERICA better off? About a hundred times better off. Start with the improving economy and job market, and go from there.

        >>I’m not, I’ve been unemployed for 2.5 years total since this guy has been in office and I just want him gone.

        That you’re blaming the economic slump and your unemployment on him, is just messed up. Then if you get a job tomorrow, should he take credit? Yes, unemployment is bad, but it’s getting better. Know what got us into this mess? Bush’s two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy were a big part of it. Know what kept us out of another great Depression? Obama’s stimulus. You’re welcome.

        >>His hot mike moment just confirms it for me.

        Then you’re just weird. You want the guy gone because he said that he’ll have more flexibility after the election? It doesn’t get much less OBVIOUS than that. Who in America is unaware that Presidents change after their re-election and they don’t have to worry about another election ever again? If he’d said “I’ll let you bomb Los Angeles after the election”? Time to worry. But “I’ll have more flexibility”? Yawn.

        Bush said far, far worse shit on PURPOSE into a live mic than Obama will ever say accidentally. Deal with it.

  6. max on March 31, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    Your analysis is ridiculous. Who are the ones pushing through authoritarian laws: Republicans. Who are the ones who believe in competition past the point of it making sense: Republicans. Who seeks to marginalize vulnerable groups (gays, minorities, Muslims, any one who isn’t white and christian): Republicans.

    Terrible terrible excuse for a logical argument. It too bad that conservatives refuse to even attempt to make and real sense. That is believe things that are based on facts and reason and not political expediency.

  7. Laura Freed on April 1, 2012 at 4:59 am

    Frank,
    I’ve learned that Liberals are blind when it comes to understanding common sense. It’s impossible for them to actually read an article. Almost every reply to you is correcting you about what the books portray when you mention your observations are about the movie, NOT the books.
    For Spaceghost who is obviously living in space, the a few of the freedoms that Frank is referring to: NDAA (signed quietly on 12/31/2011), H.R. 347 which takes away Freedom of Speech, & on the heels of that, expanded and upheld National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order. Google 218 Reasons NOT to vote for Obama and you’ll find 218 more examples.
    Thanks for this Frank. Obviously some people are blind, deaf, and politically dumb,but I’m hoping the movie will make an impression on young minds and warn them about the dangers of Big Gov.

    • Spaceghost on April 1, 2012 at 8:25 am

      >>NDAA (signed quietly on 12/31/2011),

      Not a fan, but both parties are to blame for it, and most of its most odious provisions are basically continuations of laws the BUSH administration created during the War on Terror.

      >>H.R. 347 which takes away Freedom of Speech,

      Seriously? The only people I’ve heard saying that are Occupy protesters. You’re siding with Occupy now on that? Have you told them what you think of those damn liberals and common sense and all that?

      >>National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order

      Negligible. And nothing new.

      I repeat: What freedoms do you no longer have that you did in 2008? All you did was name a bunch of controversial bills. Tell me something specific that YOU no longer have the freedom to do.

      >>218 Reasons NOT to vote for Obama and you’ll find 218 more examples.

      Yeah, no, you won’t, actually, you’ll just find 218 talking points hammered out by some right-wing blogger. I’m not doing your homework for you. Tell me something you can’t do now that you could do in 2008. Obama such a fascist, this should be easy, right?

      Whenever you’re ready.

  8. James on April 10, 2012 at 7:39 am

    I have to disagree with your attempt to.draw comparison with The Obama Administration. I think the bigger point the books and the film in general are trying to convey is that government as a whole is dangerous. We as Americans forget that this country isnt 300 years old and that at any moment, we could plunge back into the way things were in previous history. As you can see in the film and the book, the large majority poor, while the small percentage controls the wealth and opportunities. Whether you deny thats 1 percent vs 99 percent, the current trend in politics of Corporate control thru lobbying and a constant villainization of the poor is extremely allegorical. This administration does not have as much power as our Republican controlled house, which caters to the rich and wealthy while attempting to lower the glass ceiling on everyone except the upper class.(cutting education, more taxes on working and the remainder of the middle class etc) Class is the big.theme in the movie. Just my thoughts

    • Frank DeMartini on April 11, 2012 at 8:26 am

      If you are comparing Hunger Games to the Occupy Movement, I just don’t get it. Hunger Games is a totalitarian regime that seems to have some similarities to Socialist and Fascist. I am making an analogy that some of Obama’s policies are leading us towards a totalitarian regime and that, as depicted in “Hunger Games” is what we should be fighting.

      • CVJ on April 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm

        The story and the Obama administration one would really have to push yourself to see a comparison. If anything it is about concentration of power in any one direction and how whoever gets it wants to control it for themselves. If you take the time to read the books you will see clues as to why and how the Capitol has its own best interests in mind.

        District 2 in the books is the military side of the Capitol. They are treated better because the rich need them to be their troops. Politically one could say it is how the GOP treats the US military, they need them so they get preferential treatment with defense spending and in return they usually are more loyal to the GOP.

        If you make it to the third book one could say that even the people that are in charge trying to overthrow the Capitol end up just being the other side of the coin, the same thing just they use the poor to fight their fight so they themselves can be in control. Sort of like how the Democrats go against the GOP but in the end both parties are fighting for their own best interests.

        Also the Hunger Games are meant to cause division in the Districts because the celebration tours for the victors through each District is supposed to cause the Districts to view each other as hostile not as sharing anything in common.

        So by you thinking this is an “Obama” thing and others thinking its a “GOP” thing by the third book really its the 1 percent trying to use all of us to protect what they have, failing to realize in the end they need us as much as we need them.

    • Bella on April 11, 2012 at 3:42 pm

      “I think the bigger point the books and the film in general are trying to convey is that government as a whole is dangerous.” Government can definitely be dangerous… but the in Panem.. there was no real government… it felt like a dictatorship … almost like a military controlled state with no democracy.

      Moreover… we need government. Government is responsible for the following things:
      1) Maintaining law and order- yes, the police, sheriff’s dept, FBI are all paid for by the Government
      2) Public prosecutors office- paid for by the Government to protect the interests of people and prosecute civil and criminal cases
      3) Fire Dept- yes, if there is a fire.. they put it out
      4) Public schools and universities- free day care for your children
      5) Roads and highway development- your freeways don’t sweep themselves and they don’t appear out of nowhere
      6) Travel and Safety Administration- who will pay for that if not tax payers dollars? Are you ready to get rid of air safety altogether?
      7) Social security and Medicare- let grandma and grandpa die of starvation

      We need government… we need taxes… because only the government is likely to perform all those tasks that are pretty much not for profit and would not be performed by private companies because no one would pay for them. Taxes are like individual mandates for the working people to pay for services that they use through the course of their lives.

      And finally… a comment to Frank DeMartini… I have only watched the movie (have read only 10 pages of the book… and what really angered me about the movie was the nonchalance of the rich at the plight of the poor. They were not even watching the “hunger games”.. they didn’t really care. The only people who cared were the people in the Districts and the production team. The movie ends with a victory.. a hollow victory because it portrays the futility of their win. Nothing changes.. they will still have Hunger Games next year… District 12 will get some gifts.. but not enough to stop starvation from leading to death. There is no revolution, no real solution and definitely no inspiration. The movie (standing alone without any hope of a sequel)was a disastrous failure that had the opportunity to be a truly inspirational experience.

  9. James on April 10, 2012 at 7:48 am

    I mean seriously, Which presidents spear headed the war on terror and the war on drugs? Did Obama sign the patriot act? One who gives up liberty for safety deserves neither and conservatives seem all to Willing to give up their freedom while claiming to love small government. Obama is just carrying the torch that was handed to him. The problem is neither dem nor repub, its a lack of.understanding of.the nature of government, which is.for.control of a population of people.

    • Frank DeMartini on April 11, 2012 at 8:24 am

      James: Let’s start with the facts. We were attacked by a terrorist organization on 9/11. Should we have ignored it and let them attack us again? Since the beginning of the “War on Terror”, there have been no other attacks on American soil and Al Quaeda has been dismantled almost. Secondly, Obama for all of his faults on domestic and foreign policy, has succeeded in taking down Bin Laden who was public enemy number one. He has virtually continued and extended the famous Bush Doctrine. So, don’t start blaming Republicans which seems to be the way most liberals seem to go.

  10. Bella on April 11, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    >> “We just believe that limited government gives more freedoms and more power for the individual to excel. If the individual excels, that is good for the whole. Giving people the easy way out such as through welfare and entitlements, does not create wealth or government revenues. ”

    Erm… I don’t see how individual excellence leads to good for everyone… This is very much like the trickle down prophecy that has absolutely no evidential basis. Welfare and entitlements (including health care) are necessary for society. It is an extremely convenient stand for someone to take and say “I have never taken any government handouts” when in truth… if you lose your job, have a family to feed, have no health care, lose your house… you will be glad that the government has some provisions laid out. Cutting out food stamps and welfare checks and unemployment checks in lieu of a small 3% tax raise on the rich… that is ridiculous.

    I ask you one question Frank… As a solution to the national deficit- Would you rather take away food stamps or WIC from a single unemployed mother OR would you rather raise taxes by 3% on the rich?

    >> “As for your previous comment relating to certain things the government provides. I suggest you read Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. You might then understand the difference between American Federalism and a Strong Central State. Most of those things you mention of items that the State Government has power over and that the Federal Government is specifically prohibited from doing,”

    And who do you think pays the State Government for all this??? It is partially funded by the Federal Government and is completely funded by TAXES. Does that surprise you??? And whether it is state government or federal government.. Government is government… Even State Govts pass laws that take away the freedom of its citizens (Arizona law on illegal immigrants, Florida’s Stand your ground law where you can’t even walk home without getting shot).

    The problem is not government… it is a government that rules with striking fear at every chance that they get… Like the Bush government… that had everyone afraid of all kinds of imaginary threats. Inciting fear in citizens instead of managing threats in a sensible manner is the kind of government that should be avoided.

    Lastly, if you saw the movie a bunch of times and missed the scene in the train where the fancy woman introduced Haywitch to Katniss and Peeta by telling them that he was the only person from District 12 to win the games… you need to watch it again (more carefully). Although, it doesn’t really matter… whether she was the first person or not is not that important to the story.

    • Frank DeMartini on April 13, 2012 at 8:30 am

      Just a quick comment, it does matter. If she is the first, she is a rallying cry to the people that the weak can beat the strong and hence the reason why the story why changed. You will see more in the next two chapters.

      • Bella on April 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm

        As opposed to if she is second… then her victory means nothing. Because no one would care that she won.. ??? What kind of logic is that?

      • Bella on April 13, 2012 at 10:39 pm

        I watched the movie again, in the train… there is a scene where Peeta says to Katniss,after asking if she has ever met Haymitch “He is our mentor. He did win this thing once”. Why would a winner from another district help out kids from a different district. It doesn’t make sense. Would he not rather help his own district.
        Moreover.. I did not find any specific dialogue between Peeta and Katniss that explicitly said that she would be the first winner from District 12 ever. Please direct me to a specific scene if that refers to this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

On Last Week's Bill Maher show, an interesting this happened. Liberal Maher took on Ben Affleck and his liberal views on Islam. ...

Gary Oldman Comes Out Libertarian

In a Playboy interview out this month, Gary Oldman puts political correctness to the test and comes out as a Libertarian.