Arnold Kling writes about a movie too subversive to be shown in the public schools:

As a Jew, I am certain that I missed a number of the religious aspects of the movie. There were subtle references to Christian doctrine that went right past me. Perhaps there are Christians who would be more aware of the context and, based on their knowledge, might even take offense at the film's stance. I imagine that passionate atheists would tend to be turned off. But I think that a typical high school student could be exposed to the religion in "Call of the Entrepreneur" without being permanently scarred or corrupted.

I would argue that "Call of the Entrepreneur" and "An Inconvenient Truth" are both religious films. However, unlike Al Gore's movie about global warming, "Call of the Entrepreneur" steers clear of sensationalism, dogma, and misleading half-truths. It is ironic that public teachers and parents are happy to see "An Inconvenient Truth" in the classroom, but "Call of the Entrepreneur" would probably be greeted with protests if it were shown.

Yes, times have indeed changed. And not in all ways for the better.

Pfft, times haven't changed. There's always been an absolutely awful movie marketing itself as "too subversive to be seen in schools."

If it stresses personal responsibility, faith in what you're doing and competition the NEA will be against it.

And just what is it that's "absolutely awful" about it? Have you seen it, and are providing a brief review? Or just talking out of your...hat?

Haven't seen it, can't see it. No local distribution.

I think Kling makes a small mistake in his reference to Deng Xiaoping. If I am not mistaken, Deng is rightfully, in some sense, a hero to the Chinese people because he undermined Mao's priggish rigidity in matters of Communist doctrine and allowed the establishment of a functioning Chinese economy. In essence, he said as long as we can still call it "communism," it can be as capitalistic as necessary to make it work. To him we owe modern China, which is about as "communist" as 1950s Britain, perhaps less so.

Had Deng not been on the scene when he was, it's likely China would have collapsed into economic ruin and social chaos in the mid 1960s. (Although perhaps in the long run this would have been a good thing, exposing the cruel illusion of the socialist theory of life for 1 billion people a little earlier.)

That said, I found his review lukewarm. He tends to swallow uncritically the Marxist dogma that history is almost entirely the result of impersonal mass forces, and only "rational" types can swim in its mighty currents. He seems to view the Reaganesque/Burkean veneration of the entrepreneur as something mildly illogical -- religious, he says. He doesn't sound like he understands that the entrepreneur is the sole mainspring of economic wealth and social success, and that nearly all top-down social engineering is a parasitic drain on that power source. As an apostle his name is Thomas, I'd say.