Tony Stark, left; Jack Abramoff, right

In the second “Iron Man,” Tony Stark is the same cocky hero that we know from the first film. Towards the beginning of the film, Stark is asked by an elected official to give up his Iron Man suit. Not only does Stark refuse to give it up, he openly cracks jokes with the official and makes him look like a fool. Even when his life is threatened, Stark does not lose his self-assuredness. However, despite his overt cockiness, Stark remains a strong hero that people can relate to. He may be arrogant but he is still a hero who fights against the villains in this movie and he uses his suit for the good of man.

Ann Hornaday, from the Washington Post, does not see it that way, it seems. In a recent review of Iron Man 2, she refers to Stark as a “scoundrel,” focusing on his failings rather than his strong and noble qualities. In that review, she writes that “watching ‘Iron Man 2’ earlier this week, it became soberingly clear that the film protagonist whom Tony Stark most resembles isn’t fictional, but the star of a documentary that also opens Friday.” That documentary is not about a flawed but brilliant genius who strove for world peace. That documentary, entitled “Casino Jack and the United States of Money,” is about Jack Abramoff, the currently-imprisoned corrupt former lobbyist.

Later in the article, Hornaday adds to the comparison one of the villains of “Iron Man 2,” Justin Hammer, who works with a maniacal Russian to create an army of Iron Mans. Hornaday writes, “when you put ‘Iron Man 2’ and ‘Casino Jack’ side by side, you see that Stark, Hammer and Abramoff share the same brand of moral arrogance that creates mayhem out of single-minded, by-any-means-necessary expediency.”

Unlike Stark, though, Abramoff is not well-known for his nobility or his serving the world at large. Abramoff is well-known for his criminal record.  A January 4th 2006 article in the Washington Post about Abramoff noted that he “pleaded guilty… to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress.” Abramoff is now in prison serving time. Even though he has been in jail for several years, he is still considered a symbol of corruption and greed. Few of those people who look disparagingly on Abramoff would compare him to a superhero trying to do good for this world.

Admittedly, I had issues with “Iron Man 2,” as Hornaday did. I thought the movie was weaker than the first film and that it included too many extraneous subplots. However, I continue to enjoy watching the main character fight against the bad guys and works to promote peace.

He may be cocky and he may be selfish but he is no Jack Abramoff, and Ann Hornaday should have realized that.

—–

While the film delved into numerous issues, from bloated salaries to lack of oversight in spending, two of them were the most infuriating.  The first is the fact that the teachers’ union vehemently opposes any meaningful reform that it sees as a threat to its power.  While, as the film expresses, there are plenty of individual teachers who care about their students and put forth their best effort in the classroom, the NEA has become a bloated political organization that is interested only in protecting its power rather than in educating the students it pretends are its highest priority.  For instance, the NEA and its state chapters exert massive political influence over who is chosen to fill administrative posts that will negotiate contracts with them.  This enable them to keep policies in place such as the tenure system that manifests itself in a ridiculously unbelievable 99.97% teacher retention rate in New Jersey.  Watching Joyce Powell, head of the NJEA, try to spin her way around the facts presented to her is both laughable and maddening.  Until this mammoth self-serving organization can be dismantled, reforming public education will continue to be futile endeavor.

Equally vexing is the fact that New Jersey, like many states, continues to resist the successful introduction of voucher programs into its educational system.  While many charter schools such as North Star Academy and Hope Academy boasted better test scores than their public school equivalents, while spending less money, the Education Department of New Jersey approved only 1 of 22 applications to start new charter schools in the state.  Although there are many facts and figures that can be used to show why charter schools provide a superior education, the film made its most powerful argument by juxtaposing two pictures: one of mothers celebrating that their children now “have a chance” after they had won spots in the charter school lottery, and the other a heartbreaking visual of  a sobbing child who did not win that chance.  It is insane to think that we lack the political will to carry out such a simple solution, especially when there are so many who desire this change, and so many who are willing to implement it.

The political interests of the NEA, coupled with an educational bureaucracy that refuses to allow reform, enables this scenario to play out across our country again and again, as more and more students fall through the cracks of a severely corrupted school system.  It would seem obvious that the quality of our childrens’ educational experience would be our primary consideration when evaluating our educational system, but “The Cartel” unveils the corruption that allows our children to instead find themselves almost entirely ignored.  The film will begin playing in New York City and Los Angeles on April 16, and roll into other cities in the following weeks.  Check out the website for a detailed schedule of screenings and to find an action center where you can get more information on how to fight for the best possible education for your child.  If there is one thing we can all agree on, regardless of political background, our children deserve better.

Thursday night’s episode, “Medea,” ended the program’s first season on a high note in terms of the ideas and attitudes it expressed. FBI science consultant Jacob Hood (Rufus Sewell) investigates the case of a woman who appears to be suffering from delusions caused by schizophrenia.

Naturally, given that this is a drama, there’s a good deal more to the story than that. The woman (Melissa Sagemiller) has had an affair with a very powerful married man who wants to keep it secret. She claims to have had a baby recently, fathered by him, but he denies it, and at his instigation she is institutionalized and put on an anti-schizophrenia drug regimen.

Two interesting angles arise. One is that the powerful man tried to talk her into having an abortion, but she refused. In the course of the drama we see a powerful depiction of the natural bond between a mother and her child, and the show refuses to make any obeisance to feminist notions that if men don’t show strong attachment to the children they father, women shouldn’t either.

On the contrary, the episode makes a strong case for individual self-sacrifice for other people’s good, regardless of whether others are willing to fulfill their obligations. That certainly accords with religiously based moral codes and resonates strongly with Christian teachings in particular.

The second laudable aspect of the story is the fact that the villain is, as in some other episodes of the series, a government employee, and in fact a very powerful one. This person uses his power in government corruptly, employing it to personal ends in trying to keep his extramarital affair from being revealed.

This vivid depiction of the powerful temptation for people to abuse government power is a welcome cautionary tale noting, as many wise thinkers have pointed out over the years, that a government powerful enough to do you much good is a government powerful enough to do you much evil. And as this episode points out, governments, being run by human beings, naturally manifest all the sins to which the flesh is heir.

—S. T. Karnick