If you thought, like I did, that the extremely lenient attitude of Americans towards illegal immigrants would be met with at least some grattitue from the latter, the events of the last couple of weeks must have been quite a disappointment. Not only have tens (hundreds, by some accounts) of thousands of the illegales taken to the streets in massive demontrations demanding an amnesty - apparently, without any fear of being rounded up and deported - but their arrogance and contempt for their host country was mind boggling.
First, there were the Mexican Flags, outnumbering the American ones. The message clearly was: we came from another country, to which we remain loyal, and we have every intention of staying in your country, whether you like it or not. (How is this different from an invasion?) Then, there were Mexican flags placed on the flagpoles in front of schools, sometimes together with the American flag hanging upside down as an act of mockery. (Ironically, an upside-down flag is a signal of distress. The demonstrators inadvertently signalled to us that our country is in trouble...)
There were signs that proclaimed, "This is stolen land", or: "My ancestors were here before your ancestors" - a disturbing indication that at least some in the crowd fantacised about "re-conquering" the parts of the United States that belonged to Mexico before 1847...
There was, of course, the customary spitting on police. The police that in most other countries in the world would see this as an oportunity to arrest and deport a large number of the demonstrators. Then, there was Rudy Rios, a coach and, get this: English-as-a-second-language teacher in Chavez High School, who copied (on the schools equipment, at the American taxpayer's expense) and distributed a flyer that read:
"We gots 2 stay together and protest against the new law that wants 2 be passed against all immigrants. We gots 2 show the U.S. that they aint (expletive) with out us (sic)," [Hat tip: James Taranto.]
I can't quite decide whether this is tragic or funny, that a semi-literate moron teaches "English" and, most likely, contempt for the United States, to the the kids of illegal immigrants. I guess a little bit of both.
Saturday, April 8, 2006
Angry and depressed
I haven't been so angry and depressed since the weeks following September 11, 2001. I'm starting to lose faith in democracy. Watching the clowns in the US Congress trying to shove the amnesty for illegal immigrants down our collective throat is a sorry spectacle. Why are they doing this? I can't figure that out. It's hard to imagine that this is just to gain a few measly "Latino" votes. Did they look at the polls and decided that, hey, since Congress is one of the most disdained institutions in America, what do they have to lose? Let's show these disdainful Americans that we can still spite them and pass a law that may, in the long term, destroy this country, and there is nothing they can do to stop us! I don't get it, I really don't. Nothing sensible comes to mind.
I'm an immigrant myself and have nothing against immigration. If this country needs millions of low-skilled workers to do the jobs that Americans allegedly don't want to do - by all means, bring them in. There are millions all over the world, who would gladly accept an invitation to come and work in America. But why reward those that broke the law to come here? One of the great things about democracy is that it is - presumably - based on the rule of law, rather than a whim of a dictator and his cronies. But what if our democratically elected "representatives" make a mockery of our laws? You are not supposed to sneak accross our borders and stay in this country however long you please, get a job, send your kids to school at our expense - but if you do, we will not only make it easy for you by not asking too many questions, but will eventually give you an expedited path to citizenship. And those suckers who wait for months and years to go through the legal, bureaucratic channels in order to emigrate to the US - well, screw them! Hell, some even say that there is nothing wrong with people from Mexico breaking our laws - after all they are Mexicans, and these are American laws - get it? - so why should they be obligated to obey them?
Oh, the myriad of ways logic and truth are getting twisted in this "debate" about illegal immigration! We're told, for example, that the illegal immigrants pay more in taxes that they get back in services. How is this possible? These people are here illegally, afraid (presumably) to be discovered, but they fill out tax returns?? What the hell for? And with what - fake social security numbers? Besides, most of them make so little that they wouldn't pay any taxes anyway. Oh, maybe their employers pay taxes on their behalf, like the 7.5 percent of the Social Security tax? Again: with fake SS numbers?? They can get busted and fined by the INS, so why would they risk getting discovered? I'm certain that most of them pay their illegal employees under the table, often below the minimum wage (another thing they would rather keep hidden from the authorities) - no tax witholdings. Pretending that it is otherwise is as stupid as the question on the tax forms that asks you to report income obtained through illegal means. How many drug dealers do you think will avail themselves of the "opportunity" to declare income from selling dope?
Or the other ruse, that the illegals take the jobs Americans don't want to do. Sure, not at the wages being offered, which, unless you share a rented room with five other men and eat regularly in charitable soup kitchens, you won't survive on. And why are the wages so low? Because the availability of dirt-cheap labor of the illegals keeps them down. So if you're a low-skilled American worker looking for a job, you can go screw yourself - your elected "representatives" don't give a rat's ass. (You probably don't vote anyway.)
We're told that it would be impossible to send the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants back to where they came from. And why not, pray tell? Nobody's proposing packing them in train cars and tranporting them en masse to Mexico (or wherever). All that's required is to start enforcing the damn laws, like making it difficult and costly for employers to hire undocumented workers. At the same time, opening a way for people to apply for work permits in the US, but only from within their country of origin, and awarding those permits fairly and expeditiously. Nobody would have to deport the illegal immigrants - I predict that most of them would rush back to their home countries and apply for those permits.
I'm an immigrant myself and have nothing against immigration. If this country needs millions of low-skilled workers to do the jobs that Americans allegedly don't want to do - by all means, bring them in. There are millions all over the world, who would gladly accept an invitation to come and work in America. But why reward those that broke the law to come here? One of the great things about democracy is that it is - presumably - based on the rule of law, rather than a whim of a dictator and his cronies. But what if our democratically elected "representatives" make a mockery of our laws? You are not supposed to sneak accross our borders and stay in this country however long you please, get a job, send your kids to school at our expense - but if you do, we will not only make it easy for you by not asking too many questions, but will eventually give you an expedited path to citizenship. And those suckers who wait for months and years to go through the legal, bureaucratic channels in order to emigrate to the US - well, screw them! Hell, some even say that there is nothing wrong with people from Mexico breaking our laws - after all they are Mexicans, and these are American laws - get it? - so why should they be obligated to obey them?
Oh, the myriad of ways logic and truth are getting twisted in this "debate" about illegal immigration! We're told, for example, that the illegal immigrants pay more in taxes that they get back in services. How is this possible? These people are here illegally, afraid (presumably) to be discovered, but they fill out tax returns?? What the hell for? And with what - fake social security numbers? Besides, most of them make so little that they wouldn't pay any taxes anyway. Oh, maybe their employers pay taxes on their behalf, like the 7.5 percent of the Social Security tax? Again: with fake SS numbers?? They can get busted and fined by the INS, so why would they risk getting discovered? I'm certain that most of them pay their illegal employees under the table, often below the minimum wage (another thing they would rather keep hidden from the authorities) - no tax witholdings. Pretending that it is otherwise is as stupid as the question on the tax forms that asks you to report income obtained through illegal means. How many drug dealers do you think will avail themselves of the "opportunity" to declare income from selling dope?
Or the other ruse, that the illegals take the jobs Americans don't want to do. Sure, not at the wages being offered, which, unless you share a rented room with five other men and eat regularly in charitable soup kitchens, you won't survive on. And why are the wages so low? Because the availability of dirt-cheap labor of the illegals keeps them down. So if you're a low-skilled American worker looking for a job, you can go screw yourself - your elected "representatives" don't give a rat's ass. (You probably don't vote anyway.)
We're told that it would be impossible to send the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants back to where they came from. And why not, pray tell? Nobody's proposing packing them in train cars and tranporting them en masse to Mexico (or wherever). All that's required is to start enforcing the damn laws, like making it difficult and costly for employers to hire undocumented workers. At the same time, opening a way for people to apply for work permits in the US, but only from within their country of origin, and awarding those permits fairly and expeditiously. Nobody would have to deport the illegal immigrants - I predict that most of them would rush back to their home countries and apply for those permits.
Saturday, March 4, 2006
They hate us? Great!
A couple of days ago I caught the last few minutes of a radio interview with Francis Fukuyama bemoaning the fact that, “the United States have never been so unpopular and even hated around the world.” (Quoting from memory.) Of course, I’ve heard it before, many times – after all, it is one of the favorite mantras of the American Left, almost as popular as “Bush lied!” – but it never fails to bring a nasty expletive to my lips. It is such a meaningless statement and yet most of the time accepted at face value, as if it were, indeed, an undeniable and very unfortunate fact.
Even assuming that this is true, that the unpopularity of the United States has never been greater, why is this necessarily a bad thing? It might be a bad thing if everybody in the whole world liked the US less (or disliked it more) than before. I’m certain that this is not the case – that there are plenty of people whose admiration and respect for this country increased in recent years. Of course, I’m also certain that there are plenty of those, who hate us more than before. But before we start wringing our hands and pondering how to make ourselves more lovable, let’s consider for a moment who is hating us and why. I’ll take a stab:
The radical Left worldwide is not about to forget and forgive the fact that the wrong side won the Cold War. There is no way we can placate these people unless the US adopts socialism. I hope this will never happen, even if these people end up stewing in their hatred till the day they expire.
The Islamists want us all to die slow and painful deaths, but even if we were to do that in order to please them, I really doubt that this would diminish their hatred of us – only add contempt to the mix. Even scoundrels like Michael More, whose disdain for his own country receives such applause from the enemies of America, would probably have his head sawed off, too.
There are those, who are envious of our success and prosperity. Especially in countries that used to play the first fiddle on the international scene but now are finding out that their voice matters as much (or as little) as that of any other country. Russia and France immediately come to mind. These countries’ elites – and a significant portion of their citizenry – feel that the United States somehow “stole” their power and influence, basking in the spotlight that belongs to them. As Sylvain Galineau so eloquently put it:
The Palestinians. Ah, but then they hate almost everybody. Apparently they hate the Europeans, who for many years have been pouring money and support for their cause, even more than us. Go figure.
Authoritarian regimes, especially those in the Middle East, have good reasons to fear and hate us. They used to be courted by both of the great adversaries in the Cold War, but now, with only one of those adversaries still standing, their usefulness has diminished to zero. In fact, their continued existence is against the interests of the United States. Their resentment is hardly surprising.
Now, let’s ask ourselves: would we really want these people to like us? Would Francis Fukuyama feel better about America, if newspapers abroad carried news items like these:
We ought to be proud and happy that people like that hate us – the alternative would be unbearable.
Even assuming that this is true, that the unpopularity of the United States has never been greater, why is this necessarily a bad thing? It might be a bad thing if everybody in the whole world liked the US less (or disliked it more) than before. I’m certain that this is not the case – that there are plenty of people whose admiration and respect for this country increased in recent years. Of course, I’m also certain that there are plenty of those, who hate us more than before. But before we start wringing our hands and pondering how to make ourselves more lovable, let’s consider for a moment who is hating us and why. I’ll take a stab:
The radical Left worldwide is not about to forget and forgive the fact that the wrong side won the Cold War. There is no way we can placate these people unless the US adopts socialism. I hope this will never happen, even if these people end up stewing in their hatred till the day they expire.
The Islamists want us all to die slow and painful deaths, but even if we were to do that in order to please them, I really doubt that this would diminish their hatred of us – only add contempt to the mix. Even scoundrels like Michael More, whose disdain for his own country receives such applause from the enemies of America, would probably have his head sawed off, too.
There are those, who are envious of our success and prosperity. Especially in countries that used to play the first fiddle on the international scene but now are finding out that their voice matters as much (or as little) as that of any other country. Russia and France immediately come to mind. These countries’ elites – and a significant portion of their citizenry – feel that the United States somehow “stole” their power and influence, basking in the spotlight that belongs to them. As Sylvain Galineau so eloquently put it:
“In a way, the U.S. position today is that of a geopolitical Microsoft : hugely successful, rich, powerful, sucking up the best talent, fast and nimble despite its massive size, ruthlessly efficient in crushing its opponents. Hated, insulted and derided more for it successes than its failures, the favorite subject of conspiracy theories, urban legends and other lunacies. Surrounded by lesser powers and interest groups all vying for its attention and a piece of the action. Harrassed, stalked and sued by a constellation of once great dwarflings who will never admit their diminished position has at least as much to do with their own stupidity and mistakes as it has with the giant's deft cunning. Feeling entitled to greatness and influence on the sole basis of their past, they claim what should be theirs has been stolen from them. The U.N. is their Department Of Justice. Chirac fancies himself as their David Boies. With more expensive suits. And he loves the attention.”
The Palestinians. Ah, but then they hate almost everybody. Apparently they hate the Europeans, who for many years have been pouring money and support for their cause, even more than us. Go figure.
Authoritarian regimes, especially those in the Middle East, have good reasons to fear and hate us. They used to be courted by both of the great adversaries in the Cold War, but now, with only one of those adversaries still standing, their usefulness has diminished to zero. In fact, their continued existence is against the interests of the United States. Their resentment is hardly surprising.
Now, let’s ask ourselves: would we really want these people to like us? Would Francis Fukuyama feel better about America, if newspapers abroad carried news items like these:
“Representatives of Hamas expressed their gratitude to the United States for providing them with much needed cash and weapons.”
“French president Jacques Chirac acknowledged today that since the US had started seeking France’s approval for all its international initiatives, the relationship between the two allies has never been better.”
“Mullah Omar and his Taliban supporters praised their former enemy for restoring them to power in Afghanistan and for providing tens of thousands of burkhas for the Afghan women.”
“Socialist parties around the world applauded the United States for abolishing private land ownership and promoting farm collectives in all 50 states.”
We ought to be proud and happy that people like that hate us – the alternative would be unbearable.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Bottom-feeding in Hollywood
I really am not into conspiracy theories but sometimes I do wonder whether Hollywood is running a secret experiment to see how far (or, perhaps, low would be more appropriate here) they can go before movie viewers notice that they are being made fools of. The recent decline in movie theater attendance may be an indicator that the public is waking up and starting to smell the rat. But then, maybe not – depending on whether there is a similar decline in DVD and VCR rentals.
The films that have been coming out of Hollywood for many months now have been so incredibly bad that one can’t help but wonder: what the bloody hell is going on?? Take for example the “critically acclaimed” comedy (huh?) “The Life Aquatic” with Bill Murray. This film is dull, pointless, and totally unfunny (I smiled at most a couple of times, and never actually laughed…), and yet one that was most likely a lot of fun to make. The film crew traveled to all these beautiful places on the Mediterranean, staying in charming little hotels, eating great seafood, and very leisurely making the film, probably without any sort of script – the dialogs and situations looked like they were improvised, perhaps after a few glasses of wine. Who would not like to “work” like this? Obviously, the assumption must have been, that, no matter how lousy the final product was going to be, it would be released in theaters and on DVD, and maybe even earn some money, at least covering the expenses of this heavenly trip. Give it a handful of big name stars and most people will end up scratching their heads, thinking that perhaps the humor was a tad “sophisticated”, and so they better keep their mouths shut and not complain, lest they be taken for simpletons.
Another example of the same “genre” is the film “Sideways” (also a “comedy”) in which two middle-age guys, highly unsympathetic and not in the least funny (ridiculous, pathetic, yes, but that’s different from “funny”, isn’t it?), travel through California tasting wine, talking about wine, and trying to pick up women. I love humor and I’m quick to laugh, but I don’t remember doing that while watching this movie. I remember doing some cringing, though – feeling embarrassed for the characters.
Again, I imagine the whole crew moving from one picturesque “wine country” town to another, drinking a lot, and having a swell time, while every now and then engaging in some casual, relaxed moviemaking, building the script in late night brainstorming sessions, when no lines are bad and no jokes lame, because we’re all so totally cool, talented, and creative that movies are what happens when we’re simply having fun. Besides, as Michael Moore so eloquently put it, American are likely the dumbest people on the planet (he’s got a point here – after all, so many of them flock to his “documentaries” and “talks”. But then, the supposedly more cultured and intelligent Europeans are nearly kissing the ground he walks on… Go figure) and so enamored with their “celebrities” (i.e. us) that they will eat anything our bowels can produce.
Of course, the simple explanation is that Hollywood just happened to run out of talent and ideas. The fact that they started recycling old cartoons into movies (“X-Men”, “Fantastic Four”, “Spiderman”) seems to confirm that, but I somehow find it hard to believe. After all, there are interesting books still being written, so it’s not like some sort of a brain virus started eating away people’s creativity… It also does not explain the bizarre stuff like “The Aristocrats”. This movie (about to open in theaters, or already opened – I don’t follow) is basically one long, exceptionally vulgar, exceptionally lame joke being told again and again... and again... and again… with some modifications by well known, contemporary American comedians throughout this “film”. This joke is supposedly some sort of an “insider” joke, told by comedians to other comedians while the public isn’t listening. It isn’t hard to guess why they would not want to tell this joke in front of a live audience: nobody would laugh and some people would probably get up to leave. There might even be foodstuff thrown on the scene...
It’s relatively easy to find at least one version of this “joke” on the Internet, so I won’t spoil your “fun” if I tell you what it is about. (Although, if you’re going to actually spend money to see this movie, you are a joke.) A family consisting of a father, a mother, a daughter, and a dog visits a talent agent to pitch their act, which consists of farting, sexual intercourse involving all the characters (yes, the dog and the agent, too), slipping on dog shit, performing fellatio and cunnilingus, etc. (The etc. part is where the different “versions” come in). The “punch line” is this: when the agent asks what this fantastic act is called, the troupe shouts: The Aristocrats!. That’s it. That’s the joke. Are you rolling on the floor, howling with laughter? Me, neither.
Obviously, this is not about the lack of talent – after all, some of these comedians are pretty darn funny in their own acts. It’s really hard to explain this without invoking the idea of some sort of a weird psychological experiment on the unsuspecting public. (Something tells me they did not apply for a permissions to use human subjects. This can potentially be litigated. If you’re a lawyer contemplating a class-action lawsuit, please contact me – I want to be among the plaintiffs.) This is just too crazy to have a benign explanation.
The films that have been coming out of Hollywood for many months now have been so incredibly bad that one can’t help but wonder: what the bloody hell is going on?? Take for example the “critically acclaimed” comedy (huh?) “The Life Aquatic” with Bill Murray. This film is dull, pointless, and totally unfunny (I smiled at most a couple of times, and never actually laughed…), and yet one that was most likely a lot of fun to make. The film crew traveled to all these beautiful places on the Mediterranean, staying in charming little hotels, eating great seafood, and very leisurely making the film, probably without any sort of script – the dialogs and situations looked like they were improvised, perhaps after a few glasses of wine. Who would not like to “work” like this? Obviously, the assumption must have been, that, no matter how lousy the final product was going to be, it would be released in theaters and on DVD, and maybe even earn some money, at least covering the expenses of this heavenly trip. Give it a handful of big name stars and most people will end up scratching their heads, thinking that perhaps the humor was a tad “sophisticated”, and so they better keep their mouths shut and not complain, lest they be taken for simpletons.
Another example of the same “genre” is the film “Sideways” (also a “comedy”) in which two middle-age guys, highly unsympathetic and not in the least funny (ridiculous, pathetic, yes, but that’s different from “funny”, isn’t it?), travel through California tasting wine, talking about wine, and trying to pick up women. I love humor and I’m quick to laugh, but I don’t remember doing that while watching this movie. I remember doing some cringing, though – feeling embarrassed for the characters.
Again, I imagine the whole crew moving from one picturesque “wine country” town to another, drinking a lot, and having a swell time, while every now and then engaging in some casual, relaxed moviemaking, building the script in late night brainstorming sessions, when no lines are bad and no jokes lame, because we’re all so totally cool, talented, and creative that movies are what happens when we’re simply having fun. Besides, as Michael Moore so eloquently put it, American are likely the dumbest people on the planet (he’s got a point here – after all, so many of them flock to his “documentaries” and “talks”. But then, the supposedly more cultured and intelligent Europeans are nearly kissing the ground he walks on… Go figure) and so enamored with their “celebrities” (i.e. us) that they will eat anything our bowels can produce.
Of course, the simple explanation is that Hollywood just happened to run out of talent and ideas. The fact that they started recycling old cartoons into movies (“X-Men”, “Fantastic Four”, “Spiderman”) seems to confirm that, but I somehow find it hard to believe. After all, there are interesting books still being written, so it’s not like some sort of a brain virus started eating away people’s creativity… It also does not explain the bizarre stuff like “The Aristocrats”. This movie (about to open in theaters, or already opened – I don’t follow) is basically one long, exceptionally vulgar, exceptionally lame joke being told again and again... and again... and again… with some modifications by well known, contemporary American comedians throughout this “film”. This joke is supposedly some sort of an “insider” joke, told by comedians to other comedians while the public isn’t listening. It isn’t hard to guess why they would not want to tell this joke in front of a live audience: nobody would laugh and some people would probably get up to leave. There might even be foodstuff thrown on the scene...
It’s relatively easy to find at least one version of this “joke” on the Internet, so I won’t spoil your “fun” if I tell you what it is about. (Although, if you’re going to actually spend money to see this movie, you are a joke.) A family consisting of a father, a mother, a daughter, and a dog visits a talent agent to pitch their act, which consists of farting, sexual intercourse involving all the characters (yes, the dog and the agent, too), slipping on dog shit, performing fellatio and cunnilingus, etc. (The etc. part is where the different “versions” come in). The “punch line” is this: when the agent asks what this fantastic act is called, the troupe shouts: The Aristocrats!. That’s it. That’s the joke. Are you rolling on the floor, howling with laughter? Me, neither.
Obviously, this is not about the lack of talent – after all, some of these comedians are pretty darn funny in their own acts. It’s really hard to explain this without invoking the idea of some sort of a weird psychological experiment on the unsuspecting public. (Something tells me they did not apply for a permissions to use human subjects. This can potentially be litigated. If you’re a lawyer contemplating a class-action lawsuit, please contact me – I want to be among the plaintiffs.) This is just too crazy to have a benign explanation.
Saturday, May 1, 2004
On "The Quiet American"
This movie (and book, apparently) is about Vietnam and American engagement there, but Vietnam could very easily be replaced with Iraq, with just a few changes in the plot. Fowler (the British journalist) personifies the attitude of the old Europe: he wants to float above the events, even as they begin to engulf him. Europe today wants to stay out of "America's" war with islamofascism, even as the bombs are starting to go off in Europe's capitals. That's not "their" war Yes, the bombs and the grenades are going off quite close - "After a while you learn to tell the difference between a grenade and an engin misfire", says the seemingly stoical Fowler to the startled Pyle - but as long as the hotel is comfy and they can sit for hours at a cafe, they can't be bothered.
All Fowler wants is comfortable life, a young, exotic lover, his dose of opium, and money from London. To get this he will bend his moral spine (if he has any left) and lie - to his boss at the newspaper and even to his lover. He doesn't see (well, chooses not to) any difference between the communists, the French colonialists, and the emerging Vietnamese nationalists backed by the Americans. Just like Europe today, which fools itself into appearance of "objectivity" by refusing to draw a distinction between the actions of the insurgents attacking American soldiers and civilians in Iraq, and of the American soldiers themselves. (Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Europeans actually do often appear to be "on the other side"...)
Pyle, on the other hand, wants to take sides, to act. His actions seem to be causing harm in the short run, but he presses on, believing that he sees "the big picture". He is young, naive, and idealistic, and he genuinely wants to make things right: to make Vietnam a better place, to marry Phuong, whom Fowler's selfishness placed on the fringe of the Vietnamese society. (She'll never get to marry a Vietnames man.) Obviously, this is not all pure altruism: Pyle's ultimate goal is to halt the spread of communism, prevent it from destroying Western civilization. Helping Vietnam is a mean to this end, not an end in itself. He also wouldn't be so generous to Phuong, had she been an old, toothless widow... ;-) Can you see the parallels with Iraq? The US genuinely wants to remake the Middle East, starting in Iraq. Not because of some great love for the Iraqis, but because it believes that by doing that, it (the US) will become safer from terrorism and rogue dictators in the future. The Americans really want to install democracy in Iraq and make it a prosperous model for the rest of the region. Can it succeed? I increasingly think that it can't. On the other hand, this idealistic attitude seems closer to me that the European cynicism and the "leave it alone, just show sympathy when something really bad happens" philosophy.
Fowler (end Europe) at times seems more humane than Pyle. He kneels down to give comfort to a terribly injured victim of a bomb attack, while Pyle wants to ensure that the photos of the massacre reach the Western press. He also is shaken by thy carnage, which Pyle sees as "collateral damage". However, Fowler's sympathy for the victims is temporary and superficial. He's happy to return to his comfortable hole of detachment, to his lover, and his opium. Can this be a better portrayal of Europe, which always offers words of sympathy and a trickle of aid, while doing nothing to help elliminate the causes of suffering? As long as the cafes stay open late and you can buy pot cheaply - what is there to get worked up about? There will always be misery around - this is life. And you get to sleep with willing, third world women, without having to mary them. Life's good for us, Europeans, let's keep it this way.
The end of the movie is quite telling, too. Pyle gets stabbed and dies. Fowler didn't kill him, but he knew this might happen and did nothing to prevent it. In fact, this was quite convenient for him, as it allowed him to keep Phuong, who now had no alternative. Was it deliberate? Who knows. It certainly looked this way to me - conscious inaction is, in fact, action. Europe wants America stabbed. She doesn't have the guts to do it with her own hand, so she silently counts on the islamofascists to do it. She won't openly call or pay for it, but she will look the other way when this happens. Europe is quite resentful of American youthful energy and the influence it has on the world. American pop culture and ideals permeate so many aspects of life in so many nations, replacing the European dominance. More people around the world listen to Eminem than to Beethoven today. It drives the European elites nuts.
What I like about this movie is that this clash of worldviews is not painted in broad brushstrokes. In fact, it is quite subtle and it does not seem that whoever wrote the script took sides. Yes, I tend to identify strongly with Pyle, but I can imagine that lots of people would find Fowler's actions and attitude more appealing. I'm afraid that, just like in Vietnam, the resolution of the Iraq crisis will again be ambiguous, and the story will replay itself again some other time, in some other country. (Well, to many people, especially in Europe, the resolution of the war in Vietnam was anything but ambiguous: the imperialist Americans lost, the Vietnamese won. I beg to differ, and so did the thousands of "boat people".)
Thursday, March 18, 2004
On Spanish appeasement
After what happened in Spain I'm gonna go into headscarf making business... The French are trying to play hardball with their Muslims at the moment, but once a few bombs go off in Paris they will too - like the Spaniards - put their tails between their legs and go for appeasement. Pretty soon women in "old Europe" will be advised by their governments to wear headscarfs so as to be "sensitive" to their Muslim neighbors. Already the French police are turning a bling eye to the "culture" of rape and intimidation in the Muslim slums near Paris, where girls who act "western" are punished with gang rapes. Isn't this so typical of Western Europe, where the prevalent mode of thinking seems to be: "feed the crocodile, so it will eat you last"? It happened with fascism and now is being repeated with islamofascism... I feel sorry for Poland that it is about to enter this club of totally fucked up nations.
Friday, January 2, 2004
Moral and intellectual suicide of the American and European Left
The American and the European Left are committing moral and intellectual suicide before our very eyes and this is not a pretty sight… Their idiotic pronouncements over the last couple of years have forced me to move so much to the right of the political spectrum, that I now feel a sense of shame that I once considered myself a “liberal” (in the American sense of the word). I admit, I do feel a bit of Schadenfreude every time actual events make people like Susan Sontag, Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Gerhard Schröder, Jacques Chirac, and other viciously anti-American manipulators of public opinion, look particularly stupid. I also, however, feel a bit of sadness. One needs reasonable opposition in a democracy, but the way things have been going so far, the Democratic Party will crash and burn in November, and the “old Europe” will make itself so ridiculous in its hypocrisy that nobody will take it seriously any more[1].
It all started, of course, with September 11, 2001. First came the voices telling us that we should not fight the terrorists who murdered thousands of innocent people in a spectacular act of barbarism, but rather look inward, asking, “why do they hate us?” For it was us, the Americans (in particular, but the “West” in general), who brought the wrath of these brave, young Muslim men upon ourselves. (“These people were not cowards”, said Ms. Sontag, evidently appalled by G.W. Bush’s characterization of the terrorist attacks as “cowardly acts”.) The genocide of the American Indians, the war in Vietnam, the support given to Augusto Pinochet, the economic embargo on Cuba, the sins of the CIA during the Cold War, etc. – all this somehow culminated in passenger planes smashing into skyscrapers. The murderous fanatics became the Avengers, modern Robin Hoods wrecking the party of the arrogant Sheriff of Washington. After a very brief outpouring of solidarity and sympathy coming from Europe and the rest of the world, came accusations and hatred, because it soon became evident that America would not turn the other cheek or, better yet, roll over and die, but was going to hit back. And hard. That’s when I started to suspect that the moral compass of frighteningly many people was seriously screwed up[2]. I began to feel exactly like James Taranto: “If the rest of the world likes Americans only when we're dying, the rest of the world can go to hell."
Then came the war in Afghanistan and anti-American hysteria engulfed much of the world like a bushfire. There were the nonsensical accusations that the war was “colonialist” and “racist”, and the predictions that it would turn into a “Vietnam-style quagmire”. European “experts” were reminding the American “cowboys” that no other country ever succeeded in conquering the battle-hardened Afghans. Not the British Empire, not even the mighty Soviet Union. Defeat and humiliation of the US was inevitable and the terrible Afghan winter would turn the country into a humanitarian catastrophe. (The poor Europeans would be heart-broken seeing this misery and, once again, unable to do squat in order to alleviate it.) It was quite surrealistic to see American feminists[3] marching against the war alongside Moslem fanatics, who would happily stone them to death, if not for the rule of an entirely different set of laws in the US.)
There was no quagmire and no defeat of the US. The sadistic Taliban regime collapsed and the American soldiers were greeted in Kabul as liberators. There was a brief moment of confusion among the European “experts”, but not for long. Soon they were pointing out that the main target (?) of the whole operation, one Osama Bin Laden, escaped. (Personally, I strongly suspect that his DNA is scattered all over the stones of some collapsed cave in Afghanistan, but I’m not an “expert”, so what do I know…). The liberation of Afghanistan mattered little – Americans failed to capture Osama! (Heh, heh!) The Afghan women could get an education again? Well, yes, but Osama was still a free man, so all this effort was WASTED. (Heh, heh!) What the hell is wrong with these people??
Then, the “cowboy in the White House” (will the Europeans ever realize that the term “cowboy” is not an insult to Americans?) decided to go to war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. The world’s Lefties went berserk. Millions of people took to the streets to protect a murderous dictator. President of the United States was compared to Adolf Hitler (unfavorably, one must add. “Hitler at least could speak”, said one commentator, whose name now escapes me.) A few dozen particularly rabid nincompoops went as far as to travel to Iraq to serve as “human shields”, in the strangely inconsistent belief that the “fascist” United States would be humanitarian enough to call off the dogs of war in order to spare their pathetic lives[4]. Here are a few pictures from the orgy of anti-American hatred from that period:
Oh yes, the Ultimate Satan juxtaposed with the Three Good Men:
Marx, Stalin, and Mao... (Well, Stalin and Mao might have
killed millions, but at least not for Ooooooil!!!)
Right… Remind me, what was the outcome of World War II?
Good point. Buses, as we know, run on peanut butter.
This one - from London? – is precious. Did this moron know that he was
quoting Neville Chamberlain?
I don’t know what was more disturbing: the hatred or the stupidity? Especially coming from Europe… For goodness sake, Europe was always so proud of her education. Where then all these ignoramuses came from? Oh, and let’s not forget the “experts”. I quote from a document (statement? report?) issued in March 2003 by SPD in Germany, entitled: “Eminent German Historians Predict U.S. Defeat” (sorry, I don’t have access to the German original):
Professor Manfred Messerschmidt, chief historian at the Research Centre for Military History (University of Freiburg) until 1988, who retired in 1999, is considered Germany’s top military history researcher. He believes it probable that the allies will be defeated if the Hussein regime holds on to power. The conquest of Baghdad is impossible unless the allies intend to burn and destroy the capital totally. World War II, and especially the 900-day siege of Leningrad, showed that street fighting always leads to complete destruction and the most horrible human losses.
Even the German wehrmacht had originally hesitated to conquer the major Russian cities, until Hitler ordered that they must either be totally destroyed or starved out. In Leningrad, as well as in Stalingrad, this concept did not work. A city of millions cannot be secured. At best, invading forces can hole up in certain locations. When streets are filled with rubble and ash, even tanks cannot move. [..] One cannot conquer a major city “cleanly.” One effect of the bombardment is that the population will support the dictator all the more. Nothing united the German population around Hitler more than the allied bombs.
[The military historian Bernhard Kroener of the University of Potsdam] recommends to British and American militaries a reading which, though old, nevertheless describes well how Iraqi commandos will behave in the defence of Baghdad: the collected works of Mao Tse Tung. The guerilla fighter moves within the sympathetic population like fish in water.
(One semi-related, semi-rhetorical question: will the Germans ever free themselves from the specter of Hitler and Nazism? Will this forever be their main frame of reference?)
If this kind of nonsense is being spewed by “eminent German historians”, one fears to imagine what is being produced by “lesser” minds in Germany. However, while the Germans appeared rather silly but benign, like an old, sclerotic uncle, who keeps repeating the same stories from his horrible childhood, the French were genuinely wicked, actively working to do damage to U.S. interests. The Germans merely wished that the U.S. would be defeated; the French did all they could to make sure it happened (including delaying American invasion as long as possible, so as to give Saddam a chance to prepare.) I hope this will not be forgotten. Alas, one definite problem America has had in the past, was that it often failed to reward its friends and punish its enemies sufficiently. Maybe she learned from her mistakes. We’ll see.
To be quite honest, when the possibility of the war in Iraq was first mentioned, I was rather ambivalent about it, to say the least. I really did not see Iraq as posing any imminent, or even mid-term danger to the US. I thought (and still think) that this whole “WMD” issue was a pretext. I don’t know about Tony Blair – maybe he truly believed that Saddam had WMD – but what G.W. Bush was after, was remaking the Middle East. He wanted to put the dictators and the fanatics over there on notice: “You better start behaving now, because our patience has run out and you may be the next ones we’ll be after”. It was a crazy idea, with not a very big chance of success. Nevertheless, it was a right thing to do, and much, much better than doing nothing, waiting for another September 11, whether in New York, Paris, or Berlin. Yet, this was precisely what the Europeans (and many others, to be fair) wanted America to do: nothing. This drove me insane. I could see clearly through the hypocrisy of the “old Europe” and became livid every time the statements coming from Berlin or Paris were taken at face value, as if these weasels really “cared about the Iraqi people”, while any idiot could see that they didn’t give a rat’s ass about the Iraqis. It was all about not allowing America to become even more powerful. If it means leaving the sadist in power and children in his prisons, so be it.
I felt I had no choice but to support this war and hope with all my heart that the “old Europe” would be, again, proven wrong. It happened. I can now say, after Voltaire, "I have only made but one prayer in my life: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And it was granted." For a moment, I was a happy man. Seeing the Iraqis topple the statues of the hated dictator right onto the heads of the European commentators (alas, in the metaphorical sense only) was one of the most beautiful moments of my life. Then, the stories began to break out: about the torture chambers, prisons for children, mass graves of Saddam’s victims. The European and American “peaceniks” kept strangely quiet. Of course, not for long. Soon the shrieks: “You didn’t get Saddam, nyah, nyah, nyah!” became the dominant voice of the liberal press, right after the stories about bomb attacks on American soldiers (the hoodlums of the old regime planting these bombs became “resistance fighters” in the Newspeak of the European press...) The mood in Berlin, Paris, and Moscow soured considerably, but there was still hope that Americans may be caught in a “quagmire” in Iraq, after all.
The deaths of American soldiers were mounting. Over 80 in November, the worst month so far. (There are approximately 50 murders per month in Chicago alone, and as far as I know the city is not under military occupation… There are also no calls for getting the UN more involved in running the affairs of Illinois. J This perspective, however, is never taken in the comments made about the situation in Iraq.). In December came the biggest blow to the Axis of Weasels (as the Unholy Alliance is known here): the mighty Saddam Hussein was found cowering in a hole in the ground. (I didn’t see it, but I heard from people who saw the French TV news report of Saddam’s capture that the commentator was visibly unhappy and tried to deflect the power of the images with some lame, anti-American sarcasm. How pathetic.) Of course, it did not take long for the Idiotarians to find a way to spin this off as another error of the Americans:
"The same men who are going to carry on attacking the Americans will, of course, be making a secret holiday in their heart over the capture of Saddam. Why, they will argue, should they not rejoice at the end of their greatest oppressor while planning the humiliation of the occupying army which seized him?" — Robert Fisk in the Independent.
What’s the point of even paying attention? It is pretty evident that there is nothing that can change the minds of some people. Ideology, after all, is false consciousness and once you learn that reality can be bent to fit your viewand not the other way around, what’s going to stop you? It’s intoxicating. One could argue (and some people do) that this is out of desperation, that the Left seems so embattled and bruised that it is starting to behave like someone who has nothing to lose and only wants to vent his anger and inflict as much pain as possible on his enemy, even if this means going down in flames. Hence the Democrats here are likely to make Howard Dean their presidential candidate for this year’s election. They know they have little chance to beat Bush, so they just want to have this angry man speak for them, even if this means offending and alienating a lot of independent voters. This is not a strategy – this is political suicide. As much as I came to disdain the Democrats for their spiteful rhetoric, I’m not looking forward to a one-party system in the US. I’m afraid, however, that this is what we’re going to get.
In (“old”) Europe, slightly different dynamic is at play. I can’t put it more eloquently than Sylvain Galineau:
"In a way, the U.S. position today is that of a geopolitical Microsoft : hugely successful, rich, powerful, sucking up the best talent, fast and nimble despite its massive size, ruthlessly efficient in crushing its opponents. Hated, insulted and derided more for it successes than its failures, the favorite subject of conspiracy theories, urban legends and other lunacies. Surrounded by lesser powers and interest groups all vying for its attention and a piece of the action. Harassed, stalked and sued by a constellation of once great dwarflings who will never admit their diminished position has at least as much to do with their own stupidity and mistakes as it has with the giant's deft cunning. Feeling entitled to greatness and influence on the sole basis of their past, they claim what should be theirs has been stolen from them. The U.N. is their Department Of Justice. Chirac fancies himself as their David Boies. With more expensive suits. And he loves the attention."
I don’t mean to imply that all Europeans (“old” or “new”) think alike. In fact, there was (and is) a lot of public opposition in Poland against Polish soldiers’ participation in the peacekeeping in Iraq. There are also quite a few rational voices being heard from Europe, although some of these voices are having a difficult time trying to break through the lock-step of the political and cultural elites controlling the media. Here’s a good illustration (from the International Herald Tribune, December 29, 2003):
Alain Hertoghe believes that in covering the Iraq conflict, French newspapers recreated "the war they would have liked to have seen." That meant concentration on the Vietnams and Stalingrads that didn't take place, he said, and so many more accounts of U.S. difficulties rather than advances that it was "impossible to understand how the Americans won."
.
For making assertions like these in a book called "La Guerre ŕ Outrances," subtitled "How the press disinformed us on Iraq" and published by Calmann Lévy, Hertoghe was fired this month from his post as deputy editor at the Web site of La Croix, a respected Roman Catholic daily newspaper.
These elites are largely out of touch with the “common man”. I’d go as far as to venture that these elites feel quite a bit of disdain for the “common man” they fashion themselves to be champions of. As it was for the communists, for these people the “working classes” are stupid and need to be governed and directed by those who know better what’s best from them.[That’s why most of the ordinary Europeans may long for the death penalty for some crimes, but they will never get such a law passed, because the elites (who are much less in danger of violent crimes) decided that it was “barbaric”. Same with gun ownership.
This makes me very worried about countries like Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic entering the EU. They have recently shown that they have enough guts to disrupt the show as run by the French and the Germans and assert themselves. How long will this last, however? I’m afraid that the EU bureaucracy will eventually grind their resistance down and they will become just a few more cogs in the giant scheme to produce a European version of socialism. (The idea that Marxism was right but only poorly implemented is still very much alive among European elites and the resentment that the “wrong” side won the Cold War drives a lot of their actions.) I’d be much more in favor of establishing some sort of TAFTA (Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement) and inviting the Eastern European countries to join. I think they would benefit much more from this than from putting on the straitjacket offered by the EU. Alas, Washington has enough on its plate at the moment to worry about this sort of thing. Besides, splitting EU before it (inevitably) splits itself from within would create just more anti-American venom.
Please don’t get me wrong – I’m not seeing this in black-and-white terms: good guys (the Americans) vs. bad guys (the Europeans). The United States is no paradise on Earth, a country that can do no wrong. But neither is it a Great Satan, an Evil Empire ruled by Hitler-like G. W. Bush, the “greatest threat to peace”, whose defeat and humiliation is worth making alliances with enemies of civilization (or at least rooting for their success). But I also don’t believe that “truth lies in the middle”. In fact, I abhor moral equivalency that proclaims: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. This is bullshit, invented by liberal “intelligentsia” in order to confuse. Bush was ridiculed for including in his speeches “simplistic” references to evil (axis of evil, evildoers), a concept long banned from the language of the chattering classes, in whose relativistic, postmodernist world, evil does not exist. (“It’s so… I don’t know… preachy…”) Yet he was much closer to the truth and much more dignified than the BBC honchos, who, in the name of “objectivity” ordered their reporters to refrain from calling Saddam Hussein a “dictator”, and instead refer to him as the “former Iraqi president”. (Why not “democratically elected former Iraqi president”? – one might ask. After all he obtained 99.9% of votes in an “election”, didn’t he?)
We’re in the middle of not one, but two civilizational wars: one with the Islamic fanatics, who dream of destroying the West and establishing a caliphate ruled by sharia. The second with those elements in the West itself, who, because of a variety of grievances, would also like to see the West destroyed. They are too weak to do the destruction themselves, so they are perfectly happy with letting the murderous thugs of Al Quaida do the job. (What these idiots don’t realize, is that because they often represent ideologies particularly hated by religious fanatics, like Marxism or secular humanism, they would be the first to be slaughtered when sharia rules the world.) The second war, I’m afraid, will be longer and more difficult to win than the first one. It also can move from hateful words and posters to Molotov’s cocktails and bombs, just like it happened in the 70’s, where the most radical elements of the “student revolution” of 1968 decided to form underground groups like RAF in Germany or Brigate Rosse in Italy. Years of mayhem followed.
The current schism between (“old”) Europe and the United States is making both wars, but especially the second one, more difficult to fight. I put the blame for this schism squarely on the European leaders like Chirac and Schröder, who try to deflect their respective countries’ attention from domestic problems by riding the wave of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism that has engulfed much of Europe like sewage from a backed-up drain. (It’s so convenient to get people so worked up about America’s “hegemony” that they forget about rising unemployment, growing crime, restless Muslim immigrants, etc.) Unfortunately for them, you can’t ride this wave for long – sooner or later it will deposit you on the beach, exposed and vulnerable. The day of reckoning for these leaders is coming, and faster than they realize. It will be interesting to watch. Not without Schadenfreude, of course.
[1] “As events since 9/11 have shown, in much of Europe the fire in their souls has gone out, and the steel in their spines has been replaced by a yellow stripe. But they proclaim this as a demonstration of their superiority to us; our attitudes are atavisms, dangerous artifacts of a terrible past which they have now transcended. They claim to have gone beyond that to a new level of sophistication beyond our violent and primitive directness. They've found a better way, and don't understand why we don't agree with them or choose to follow them. They think they have risen to an entirely new plateau of sensibility and sophistication. I think most Americans think they're rationalizing their own decadence and decline, if Americans even pay any attention to them at all.” – Steven Den Beste
[2] “My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war. She tells me I'm wrong--the flag means standing together and honoring the dead and saying no to terrorism. In a way we're both right.”. – Katha Pollitt, a columnist for the lefty magazine “The Nation” soon after September 11. No they are not “both right” – the daughter has much more sense that her mother.
[3] "As far as I'm concerned it's equally disrespectful and abusive to have women prancing around a stage in bathing suits for cash or walking the streets shrouded in burkas in order to survive." – Jill Nelson. Yes, no difference whatsoever, Ms. Nelson…
[4] I bet it never occurred to these people that their actions were fundamentally racist. They believed that their lives were much more important than the lives of Iraqis. So much more important, that their presence in Iraq would deter the United States from going to war. I feel a bit sad that these “brave souls” decided to bail out before the action began. Stupid as they were, they must have sensed that the Iraqis they wanted to “protect” would love to slash their throats once the opportunity presented itself.
[5] The Bias-R-Us Broadcasting Corp. (otherwise known as the BBC) recently gave its radio listeners a chance to express their will, but did not want to hear the result. The great unwashed mass, who cough-up the license fees which pay the Beeb’s freight, were asked to suggest a piece of legislation to improve life in Britain, with the promise that an MP would then attempt to get it onto the statute books.
Listeners to BBC 4’s Today program (the very same show which claimed that intelligence on Iraqi WMDs had been “sexed up”), responded with a suggestion that would allow homeowners to defend themselves against intruders, without facing legal liabilities. The winning proposal was denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation" - by Stephen Pound, the very MP whose job it is to try to push it through Parliament. – Based on a piece in The Independent, January 2, 2004
