Diana West has an excellent piece in The Washington Times [hat tip: Michelle Malkin], which she ends with:
"It all begins to make sense, in a leftist, anti-American, open-borders coalition sort of way.
My question: Why does George W. Bush seem to have signed onto this coalition? "
It is my question as well. Why, indeed?
Saturday, April 8, 2006
Chutzpah
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.
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.
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.