The Royal "We"
May 13, 2008 10:31 AM | Permalink
"It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,'" Obama said in an interview with The Atlantic.
Okay, I'm not even going to comment on the fact that he "understands" why Hamas has thrown the terrorist support his way. Just note how he speaks of himself in the third person and sees himself more "worldly" than the rest of us. But calling him elitist is just a distraction.
|
Nick Cominos
March 21, 2008 02:02 PM | Permalink
In the mid to late eighties, I attended the University of Texas film school. I managed to accumulate enough credits to get my BS in only three years, and was permitted to spend my fourth year as a master’s student. I got a peek at academia and was actually paid to serve as a teacher’s assistant for a professor -- Nick Cominos. The faculty at this time was filled with wannabe’s, almost were’s and never-was’s. Then there was Nick. He was a tall gangly man with a thick shock of black hair now seriously streaked with grey. He had a wizard’s deep-set eyes. He was older than the rest of the faculty, and a little out of step with the other faculty members and definitely out of step with the students. He actually worked in old Hollywood and would bore us with his stories of working on films like The Girl In The Red Velvet Swing and how he was actually the guy pushing Joan Collins in the swing… Most students would either roll their eyes or worse yet, have them glaze over (It was the 80’s and we were punks). It wasn’t until I saw the speed and dexterity with which he handled a stand-up Moviola filmstrip editor that I realized Nick was someone to be revered.
All the other professors and students preferred the Steenbeck flatbed editors that allowed the filmmaker to sit and wallow in the angst of putting together their supposed works of art, whereas the Moviola required the filmmaker to stand and use his hands and even his feet. It was more of a tool for a craftsman attending to his craft. I realized that Nick was the only faculty member that understood that filmmaking was not just an art form but was also a craft. An important lesson unheeded by most students.
Although Nick was clearly rooted in the past, he was not falling into irrelevance. The eighties was a time of great technological changes in the motion picture industry, where electronic editing, videotape, and time-code started to replace the filmstrips, moviolas and lab work. Nick was on top of the revolution and actually taught the school’s electronic editing class where the students learned to perform A-B roll edits in a roomful of massive overheating electronic equipment. All this equipment was necessary to perform frame accurate repeatable dissolves from one image to another – you know, the same sort of thing that any given laptop computer can do today.
My favorite story about Nick was when I was attending one of his afternoon classes as his teaching assistance. He was wearing his trademark black turtleneck sweater with a grey pullover sweater over that. I was dog-tired that afternoon, as I had been up all night working on my pre-thesis film. I was struggling to stay awake as Nick droned on about something I cannot recall. But then I noticed him twitch. He continued with his lecture, and then he twitched again. I wondered if something was wrong. Then he swatted his hand under his arm. He continued his lecture, but by now the whole class was wondering what was going on underneath his sweater. Finally, he apologized, stood up, gave a self-deprecating smile and pulled off the grey sweater. Then he started working something out of his turtleneck. He worked it (whatever it was) all the way from his rib cage to his neck. Then finally he expelled the irritant onto the table that all his students were sitting around. A wasp crawled drunkenly across the table. His students looked on in slack-mouthed amazement.
My first thought was: It’s three in the afternoon. He probably put that sweater on what, eight hours ago? How long had that wasp been in there? But Nick didn’t miss a beat. “That reminds me of these African beekeepers I made a documentary about. These guys would work all day without any protective clothing whatsoever. They would be covered with bees and stings and would just keep working.” My next thought was: Bees only sting once. That was a wasp. Suffice it to say, Nick was quite a character.
Nick especially endeared himself to me during the faculty evaluation of my pre-thesis film. It was a very intimidating scene. All the graduate students and all the faculty members screened each student’s thesis or pre-thesis and the faculty proceeded to rip the film to shreds and explain how they could have done it better. My film was a twenty-minute gangster drama set in the early 60’s. It had impressive production values for a film made for a grand total of $3,500, particularly given the fact that most of that budget went to film stock and processing. It, like most short films, was missing one of its three acts, but all in all, not too bad for a first try. However, every aspect of my film was being completely brutalized by this lesbian professor whose only claim to fame was that she made documentaries about midgets and dwarfs. Then Nick came to my defense. He argued for my film, point by point. He described it as “a morality play for small time hoods.” I’ll never forget that, because he had not seen it before that screening yet he immediately “got” what I was going for. I didn’t finish the master’s program – I went to law school instead – but I’ll always appreciate the way Nick stood up for me and my silly little film.
Nick obviously left an impact on my life, but that was even before I found out that he was the real life freakin’ Gregory Peck in the Guns of Navarone. I did not learn until much later, but Nick was a super secret OSS commando who fought the Nazi behind enemy lines in Greece. In 1944, Nick as a member of the Greek / American Operational Group Office of Strategic Services raided Nazi controlled islands in the Adriatic then parachuted into occupied Greece, formed coalitions with local fighters, and harassed the Axis garrisons until they were forced to withdraw. His operation was so super secret that it remained classified until 1988, and serves to this day as a model for operations in Afghanistan.
I do not know how I knew, but I could always tell that the waters ran deep.
RIP Nick Cominos 3/14/08
All the other professors and students preferred the Steenbeck flatbed editors that allowed the filmmaker to sit and wallow in the angst of putting together their supposed works of art, whereas the Moviola required the filmmaker to stand and use his hands and even his feet. It was more of a tool for a craftsman attending to his craft. I realized that Nick was the only faculty member that understood that filmmaking was not just an art form but was also a craft. An important lesson unheeded by most students.
Although Nick was clearly rooted in the past, he was not falling into irrelevance. The eighties was a time of great technological changes in the motion picture industry, where electronic editing, videotape, and time-code started to replace the filmstrips, moviolas and lab work. Nick was on top of the revolution and actually taught the school’s electronic editing class where the students learned to perform A-B roll edits in a roomful of massive overheating electronic equipment. All this equipment was necessary to perform frame accurate repeatable dissolves from one image to another – you know, the same sort of thing that any given laptop computer can do today.
My favorite story about Nick was when I was attending one of his afternoon classes as his teaching assistance. He was wearing his trademark black turtleneck sweater with a grey pullover sweater over that. I was dog-tired that afternoon, as I had been up all night working on my pre-thesis film. I was struggling to stay awake as Nick droned on about something I cannot recall. But then I noticed him twitch. He continued with his lecture, and then he twitched again. I wondered if something was wrong. Then he swatted his hand under his arm. He continued his lecture, but by now the whole class was wondering what was going on underneath his sweater. Finally, he apologized, stood up, gave a self-deprecating smile and pulled off the grey sweater. Then he started working something out of his turtleneck. He worked it (whatever it was) all the way from his rib cage to his neck. Then finally he expelled the irritant onto the table that all his students were sitting around. A wasp crawled drunkenly across the table. His students looked on in slack-mouthed amazement.
My first thought was: It’s three in the afternoon. He probably put that sweater on what, eight hours ago? How long had that wasp been in there? But Nick didn’t miss a beat. “That reminds me of these African beekeepers I made a documentary about. These guys would work all day without any protective clothing whatsoever. They would be covered with bees and stings and would just keep working.” My next thought was: Bees only sting once. That was a wasp. Suffice it to say, Nick was quite a character.
Nick especially endeared himself to me during the faculty evaluation of my pre-thesis film. It was a very intimidating scene. All the graduate students and all the faculty members screened each student’s thesis or pre-thesis and the faculty proceeded to rip the film to shreds and explain how they could have done it better. My film was a twenty-minute gangster drama set in the early 60’s. It had impressive production values for a film made for a grand total of $3,500, particularly given the fact that most of that budget went to film stock and processing. It, like most short films, was missing one of its three acts, but all in all, not too bad for a first try. However, every aspect of my film was being completely brutalized by this lesbian professor whose only claim to fame was that she made documentaries about midgets and dwarfs. Then Nick came to my defense. He argued for my film, point by point. He described it as “a morality play for small time hoods.” I’ll never forget that, because he had not seen it before that screening yet he immediately “got” what I was going for. I didn’t finish the master’s program – I went to law school instead – but I’ll always appreciate the way Nick stood up for me and my silly little film.
Nick obviously left an impact on my life, but that was even before I found out that he was the real life freakin’ Gregory Peck in the Guns of Navarone. I did not learn until much later, but Nick was a super secret OSS commando who fought the Nazi behind enemy lines in Greece. In 1944, Nick as a member of the Greek / American Operational Group Office of Strategic Services raided Nazi controlled islands in the Adriatic then parachuted into occupied Greece, formed coalitions with local fighters, and harassed the Axis garrisons until they were forced to withdraw. His operation was so super secret that it remained classified until 1988, and serves to this day as a model for operations in Afghanistan.
I do not know how I knew, but I could always tell that the waters ran deep.
RIP Nick Cominos 3/14/08
National Intelligence Estimate on Iran -- No Nukes?
December 04, 2007 02:45 PM | Permalink
Here is a link to the actual declassified NIE on Iran. Why the hell was this declassified? Why does the world have to know what our intelligence community thinks on this very important issue? How will this impact our negotiations with the Islamic nation? Why do I know this information only a week after the leader of the free world learns of it? Is this NIE being released for political reasons? If so, by whom and for what purpose?
This is what I take away from the report: To have a nuclear weapon, you need fissile material, you need the know how to assemble the fissile material into a bomb and you need a method to deliver the weapon to a target. We know that Iran is already in possession of missiles with a range sufficient to reach Israel and is working on missiles that can reach Europe. They also have a puppet terrorist organization in Hezbollah that could deliver a suitcase nuke anywhere fanaticism can carry it. So, they already have a means (however crude) of delivering a weapon. They also have a civil nuclear program working furiously to enrich uranium. So, there is no doubt that they are working towards obtaining fissile material. The question addressed by the NIE is the weapons program, and it claims that Iran previously had a covert program but stopped in 2003.
That requires emphasis. The NIE says that until 2003, Iran had a secret undisclosed program developing a nuclear weapon. Iran was hiding a nuclear weapon program, but for some reason they stopped pursuing this program a few years ago. Could it be that their weapons program reached the point that they actually need real fissile material before they could move the weapons program to the next step? Could it be that Iran suspended its weapons program until the disclosed enrichment program succeeds in producing enough fissile material to move its weapons program to the next level?
The nation is still a fanatical theocracy run by a madman that believe the apocalyptic 12th Imam will reappear during our life time. He still thinks Israel should be and will be wipe off the map. This NIE does not fill me with confidence concerning our intelligence agencies, nor does it fill me with confidence about Iran's intentions.
This is what I take away from the report: To have a nuclear weapon, you need fissile material, you need the know how to assemble the fissile material into a bomb and you need a method to deliver the weapon to a target. We know that Iran is already in possession of missiles with a range sufficient to reach Israel and is working on missiles that can reach Europe. They also have a puppet terrorist organization in Hezbollah that could deliver a suitcase nuke anywhere fanaticism can carry it. So, they already have a means (however crude) of delivering a weapon. They also have a civil nuclear program working furiously to enrich uranium. So, there is no doubt that they are working towards obtaining fissile material. The question addressed by the NIE is the weapons program, and it claims that Iran previously had a covert program but stopped in 2003.
That requires emphasis. The NIE says that until 2003, Iran had a secret undisclosed program developing a nuclear weapon. Iran was hiding a nuclear weapon program, but for some reason they stopped pursuing this program a few years ago. Could it be that their weapons program reached the point that they actually need real fissile material before they could move the weapons program to the next step? Could it be that Iran suspended its weapons program until the disclosed enrichment program succeeds in producing enough fissile material to move its weapons program to the next level?
The nation is still a fanatical theocracy run by a madman that believe the apocalyptic 12th Imam will reappear during our life time. He still thinks Israel should be and will be wipe off the map. This NIE does not fill me with confidence concerning our intelligence agencies, nor does it fill me with confidence about Iran's intentions.
Johnny Sutton's got some splanin' to do
November 19, 2007 02:59 PM | Permalink
Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, 27, was arrested Thursday at the Zaragoza Bridge by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and of the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General for alleged incidents in September and October 2005. Davila was the accuser of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean. Davila, a Mexican national, admits that he was smuggling drugs into the US, but claims he was unarmed when Ramos and Compean shot him in February of 2005 while fleeing the border back into Mexico. Davila made it back into Mexico and was not apprehended, making it basically Davila's word verses Ramos and Compean's word as to whether Davila was armed at the time of the shooting. Nevertheless, Johnny Sutton, friend of Geoge W. Bush and US Attorney in Southern Texas, indicted and convicted the two border guards. Ramos is serving 11 years in prison and Compean, 12 years. They are in solitary confinement to protect them from jailhouse retribution. To secure Davila's cooperation with the prosecution of Ramos and Compean, Sutton gave Davila immunity from prosecution for the drug smuggling activities that led to the shooting as well as a federal pass permitting him to cross back and forth over the border.
Of course, Davila apparently used this freedom to smuggle more narcotics across the border in September and October of 2005. All this should cause feelings of outrage concerning Sutton's misplaced priorities. Why take the word of one drug dealer over the word of two border guards? Why give a drug dealer immunity to go after border guards doing their job? Why give a drug dealer a federal pass over the border that was not supervised? Nevertheless, the outrage you feel from reading the above should be dwarfed by the outrage you should feel after reading the following: Davila's further drug smuggling activities took place AFTER the shooting by Ramos and Compean, but BEFORE their trial. However, the evidence of this further drug smuggling activity was withheld from the jury that ultimately convicted the border guards.
Do you think that knowledge of the fact that Davila was using the immunity and border pass granted by Sutton to continue his career as a drug smuggler might have an impact on the jury's evaluation of Davila's credibility? Of course. Anyway, here is Sutton attempted whitewash.
Of course, Davila apparently used this freedom to smuggle more narcotics across the border in September and October of 2005. All this should cause feelings of outrage concerning Sutton's misplaced priorities. Why take the word of one drug dealer over the word of two border guards? Why give a drug dealer immunity to go after border guards doing their job? Why give a drug dealer a federal pass over the border that was not supervised? Nevertheless, the outrage you feel from reading the above should be dwarfed by the outrage you should feel after reading the following: Davila's further drug smuggling activities took place AFTER the shooting by Ramos and Compean, but BEFORE their trial. However, the evidence of this further drug smuggling activity was withheld from the jury that ultimately convicted the border guards.
Do you think that knowledge of the fact that Davila was using the immunity and border pass granted by Sutton to continue his career as a drug smuggler might have an impact on the jury's evaluation of Davila's credibility? Of course. Anyway, here is Sutton attempted whitewash.
It's Not Just A Pin
October 04, 2007 12:44 PM | Permalink
B. Hussain Obama has decided to stop wearing an american flag lapel pin:
Funny, the further away from 9/11 I get, the more patriotic I feel. I guess we are just different types of people. It is not that you have to wear a pin to be patriotic. I don't have one and never wore one, but he did. He wore one as a sign of HIS patriotism. Since then he made the conscious decision to take that pin off, the pin that to him used to represent his patriotism. He took the pin off.
"The truth is that right after 9-11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism...
Funny, the further away from 9/11 I get, the more patriotic I feel. I guess we are just different types of people. It is not that you have to wear a pin to be patriotic. I don't have one and never wore one, but he did. He wore one as a sign of HIS patriotism. Since then he made the conscious decision to take that pin off, the pin that to him used to represent his patriotism. He took the pin off.
Is He Gay?
September 05, 2007 12:54 PM | Permalink
Republican Senator Larry Craig from Idaho insists that he is not gay even though he was arrested in a men’s bathroom for peering into a stall at an undercover police officer then occupying the stall next to the officer and making hand and foot motions consistent with someone soliciting anonymous gay sex. He pled guilty to a lesser charge, but now insists his actions were misconstrued and that he is totally innocent and is not and never has been gay.
Liberal Democrats, of course, are just salivating over the apparent irony. An outspoken critic of gay marriage was arrested in a men’s bathroom soliciting gay sex! Oh, the hypocrisy of it all. However, is it hypocrisy, and can Craig rightfully claim to not be gay?
I do not doubt for a second that the police officer accurately interpreted Craig’s actions and intentions. Apparently, rumors of this type of behavior have followed Craig around for some time. The particular restroom must have been a well known place for this type of lewd behavior -- why else would the police waste an undercover officer’s time in such an unsavory stakeout if there wasn’t a serious problem there? No, there is no doubt in my mind that Craig was there for anonymous sex with other men. But does that make him gay?
It is a truism that the purpose of sex is procreation of the species -- to make babies. Whether by Darwinian evolution or intelligent design or by some combination thereof, the human species was blessed with a bundle of nerves connecting the genitals to the brain which if stimulated just so creates a euphoric release better known as an orgasm. The purpose of this wonderful feeling is obvious -- to incentivize humans (both men and women) to procreate even though they really have much better things they could be doing with their time. This orgasm is a sensation found just as much in the mind as in the body. That is why it is such a powerful force in our species.
The traditional (though certainly not predominate) method of obtaining this sensation is genital intercourse between a man and a woman. You can say that that is the exclusive type of sex that has a rightful claim to an orgasm, because that is the very activity that the orgasm was intended to encourage. However, there are innumerable variations to that theme that can add to either the physical or mental makeup of the sensation. You can call these kinks or perversions -- conduct not necessary for procreation yet intended to enhance the sensation. Kissing is a kink or perversion, and one that I still participate in with my wife. We have other kinks and perversions, but those are better left to the privacy of the bedroom.
Some like latex, others like leather. Some like blonds, others like Asians -- I like my redhead. Some unfortunately like underage girls, others like underage boys. Some like hairy men, others are completely indiscriminate and will have sex with random men in a restroom. That brings us back to Craig. We all have our kinks and perversions -- variations on the theme of sex to enhance our orgasm. Sen. Craig must get some mental boost from the naughtiness and danger of anonymous sex with strange men in a bathroom -- that is his kink, his perversion. It is his way of stimulating that bundle of nerves. It demonstrates a shocking lack of self-control, violates ideals of hygiene and morals, and clearly demonstrates that he is not fit to be a Senator of the United States of America. Nevertheless, does it make him gay?
If your definition is any man who has sexual contact with another man, then of course. However, that is not how it is being used in the media to label Craig a hypocrite. You can be in favor of family values, believe a child is best reared in a family with one father and one mother, be opposed to open homosexuality in the military, be opposed to same sex marriages, be in favor of traditional marriages -- and still have the kink of wanting anonymous sex with other men in a bathroom. One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. Gay sex is just another kink used to stimulate the nerve to create an orgasm. What the media is conflating is gay sex with the so-called “gay agenda.” This agenda, which is overwhelmingly liberal, wants those who participate in a certain sexual perversions to have a governmentally sanction protected status similar to racial, ethnic or religious minorities -- it is sort of like giving a legally protected status to those having a thing for French kissing, sadism and masochism, or autoerotic asphyxiation. They want to tear down cultural norms that have lasted millenniums, just because they believe those norms and their perversion make them an outsider. So, no Craig is not a hypocrite in participating in gay sex while opposing the “gay agenda.” His is a serious freak and is living a lie. He has a whole host of problems, but he is not a hypocrite for the reasons claimed by the media.
Liberal Democrats, of course, are just salivating over the apparent irony. An outspoken critic of gay marriage was arrested in a men’s bathroom soliciting gay sex! Oh, the hypocrisy of it all. However, is it hypocrisy, and can Craig rightfully claim to not be gay?
I do not doubt for a second that the police officer accurately interpreted Craig’s actions and intentions. Apparently, rumors of this type of behavior have followed Craig around for some time. The particular restroom must have been a well known place for this type of lewd behavior -- why else would the police waste an undercover officer’s time in such an unsavory stakeout if there wasn’t a serious problem there? No, there is no doubt in my mind that Craig was there for anonymous sex with other men. But does that make him gay?
It is a truism that the purpose of sex is procreation of the species -- to make babies. Whether by Darwinian evolution or intelligent design or by some combination thereof, the human species was blessed with a bundle of nerves connecting the genitals to the brain which if stimulated just so creates a euphoric release better known as an orgasm. The purpose of this wonderful feeling is obvious -- to incentivize humans (both men and women) to procreate even though they really have much better things they could be doing with their time. This orgasm is a sensation found just as much in the mind as in the body. That is why it is such a powerful force in our species.
The traditional (though certainly not predominate) method of obtaining this sensation is genital intercourse between a man and a woman. You can say that that is the exclusive type of sex that has a rightful claim to an orgasm, because that is the very activity that the orgasm was intended to encourage. However, there are innumerable variations to that theme that can add to either the physical or mental makeup of the sensation. You can call these kinks or perversions -- conduct not necessary for procreation yet intended to enhance the sensation. Kissing is a kink or perversion, and one that I still participate in with my wife. We have other kinks and perversions, but those are better left to the privacy of the bedroom.
Some like latex, others like leather. Some like blonds, others like Asians -- I like my redhead. Some unfortunately like underage girls, others like underage boys. Some like hairy men, others are completely indiscriminate and will have sex with random men in a restroom. That brings us back to Craig. We all have our kinks and perversions -- variations on the theme of sex to enhance our orgasm. Sen. Craig must get some mental boost from the naughtiness and danger of anonymous sex with strange men in a bathroom -- that is his kink, his perversion. It is his way of stimulating that bundle of nerves. It demonstrates a shocking lack of self-control, violates ideals of hygiene and morals, and clearly demonstrates that he is not fit to be a Senator of the United States of America. Nevertheless, does it make him gay?
If your definition is any man who has sexual contact with another man, then of course. However, that is not how it is being used in the media to label Craig a hypocrite. You can be in favor of family values, believe a child is best reared in a family with one father and one mother, be opposed to open homosexuality in the military, be opposed to same sex marriages, be in favor of traditional marriages -- and still have the kink of wanting anonymous sex with other men in a bathroom. One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. Gay sex is just another kink used to stimulate the nerve to create an orgasm. What the media is conflating is gay sex with the so-called “gay agenda.” This agenda, which is overwhelmingly liberal, wants those who participate in a certain sexual perversions to have a governmentally sanction protected status similar to racial, ethnic or religious minorities -- it is sort of like giving a legally protected status to those having a thing for French kissing, sadism and masochism, or autoerotic asphyxiation. They want to tear down cultural norms that have lasted millenniums, just because they believe those norms and their perversion make them an outsider. So, no Craig is not a hypocrite in participating in gay sex while opposing the “gay agenda.” His is a serious freak and is living a lie. He has a whole host of problems, but he is not a hypocrite for the reasons claimed by the media.
Is it better to study war or peace?
August 21, 2007 03:16 PM | Permalink
The City Journal has two very interesting articles this month:
Why Study War? by Victor Davis Hanson
and
The Peace Racket by Bruce Bawer
Hanson's article describes the impending demise of military history in today's universities, while Bawer discusses the emergence of "peace" studies and its founders connection with communism and anti-Americanism. These scholars say in a very literate and well thought out way what I attempted to say in a much more caustic manner here.
There is a serious struggle taking place for the mind and soul of the Western world. Peace is not something to be studied, it is a negative -- the absence of war. War is something that can be studied, understood, and used to improve society. Peace has no real existence or meaning other than the time between hostilities. Always striving for peace, without the ability to resort to war and to win it, is a sure path to destruction.
Why Study War? by Victor Davis Hanson
and
The Peace Racket by Bruce Bawer
Hanson's article describes the impending demise of military history in today's universities, while Bawer discusses the emergence of "peace" studies and its founders connection with communism and anti-Americanism. These scholars say in a very literate and well thought out way what I attempted to say in a much more caustic manner here.
There is a serious struggle taking place for the mind and soul of the Western world. Peace is not something to be studied, it is a negative -- the absence of war. War is something that can be studied, understood, and used to improve society. Peace has no real existence or meaning other than the time between hostilities. Always striving for peace, without the ability to resort to war and to win it, is a sure path to destruction.
This Is Sparta!!! (?)
August 08, 2007 01:16 PM | Permalink
I know that I am several months late on this film portrayal of the battle of Thermopylae, but I have kids. So, I never got a chance to see this film in the theaters, and I had to wait to see it on DVD. However, since I consider myself an amateur / expert on ancient Greek history, I used the DVD release of this film to upgrade my system to HD DVD. I was able to watch this bloody film in all of its blood splattering glory in equally glorious 1080p on a full HD 1080p panel -- delicious.
When this film was first released, there was rampant speculation that there were political overtones. Right wing pundits saw it as an allegory for the West’s confrontation with resurgent Islam. Left wing pundits either disparaged the film as “war porn” or even suggested that it was an analogy alright, but George W. Bush was Xerxes maddeningly trying to finish the war that his father George Sr. / Darius failed to finish. Comic book nerds were rejecting both interpretations and pointing to the fact that the “graphic novel” was published before 9/11. The comic book nerds may have their chronology right, but their analysis is wrong. The comic book may have pre-dated 9/11, but Warner Brother’s decision to green light this movie was not. The studio executives were very aware that this movie would be red meat for audiences while we were involved in one war in the region and another was brewing with Persia itself. The liberals are right -- this movie is glorious war porn, but they are totally wrong with their analogy. The proof can be seen when Xerxes’ messenger rides into Sparta and demands earth and water. All Xerxes asks for is a sign of submission. Leonidas walks into extreme close-up scowls and in a Scottish ramble worthy of Sean Connery says, “Submission. Now, you see, that's gonna be a problem.” Then he kicks the messenger down a well and tells him to help himself to the water and earth down there. The true meaning of the film can be found in that one line. Islam, contrary to the PC crowd’s delusion is not interpreted as “Peace.” Islam literally translates to mean “Submission” as in submission to the will of Allah. There can be no doubt that this film was meant to be an analogy of the free West’s resistance to the East, which was then dominated by pagan Persia but is currently dominated by Islam. All that Islam requires from everyone on the planet is submission -- either in the form of conversion to Islam or recognition of Islam’s supremacy by accepting the inferior position of a dhimmi. The West is truly facing the same dilemma presented to Leonidas -- submit or fight.
The battle was a heroic resistance and act of self-sacrifice to preserve Greece’s freedom. It was just one of many examples of the martial superiority of the free Westerner against the slavish Easterner. But we should not forget that these Spartans were not exactly modern models of behavior. The Spartans practically invented big government where the state controlled every aspect of your life from the time a boy turned eight. Lesbianism was rampant among the women and one can only imagine what took place (other than extreme violence) in the boy’s and men’s barracks. Not only was abortion legal it was state administered up until the ninth trimester -- that’s right they killed babies. Not unlike our founding fathers, the Spartans were racist slaveholders. They had conquered Messenia and turned the Mycenaean population into slaves. There were slaves across the Greek world, but in Sparta, slavery was a race issue where the Dorians oppressed the indigenous population. They even had a secret police, the Krypteia, that literally went around murdering the best of the Messenians so that a Messenian Spartacus would never arise to lead a revolt of helots. They forgot to mention the plight of the helots in 300.
I would have much preferred a historically accurate portrayal of this great battle -- the tight formations, the heavy armor and interlocking shields, the pushing. There were knowledgeable references to all that (except the armor -- more on that later), but the action was portrayed in a Matrix-like style preferred by the younger theater-going audience. I would have preferred more life like action, but I am an old fart, and I understand both artistically and financially why they made the choices they made.
Concerning the armor, as we all know, the Spartans at Thermopylae were hoplites that fought in phalanx. This means that they wore heavy breastplates, grieves and shin guards. Nevertheless, the producers decided to make their Spartans look like underwear models. I guess this was an attempt to get the girls to see the movie as well, because what teenage girl doesn’t like to see men jumping around in loincloths with bulging muscles and six pack abs. My homophobic side thought it made the whole movie look kinda gay, but the portrayal was not totally without precedent. The early Greeks in the heroic age (long before Thermopylae) used to fight nude. You can see plenty of similar portrayals of nude Greek warriors fighting with spears on tomb paintings, sculptures and shards of ancient pottery. Then again, maybe being a sculptor or potter back then was the same as being a hairdresser or interior designer today -- professions populated by homosexuals. That would explain a lot, but that is another discussion. In any event, if you are predisposed to forgive this movie for its faults, you can forgive the nearly nude warriors by saying the filmmakers were portraying the Greek warriors in the heroic style (i.e., like gay underwear models)
I was turned off the Ephors, but I was impressed that they were included at all. Of course, the Ephors were not magical lepers, but they were a corrupt clique of old men running things. So, it was not a far stretch in this movie to illustrate their internal corruption with external disfigurement.
Where was the other king? Sparta had two. I guess that would confuse things.
All in all, it was a fun film to watch. I give it one and a half thumbs up.
Former Guantanamo Inmate Self Combusts
July 24, 2007 12:24 PM | Permalink
If we needed any further proof that the miscreants in military custody in Guantanamo, Cuba are the most virulent cancerous Islamists that need to be excised from the human race, check out this story… 
And he was one of the guys that we thought it was safe enough to let go.
Question: If you blow yourself up but fail to take any Infidels with you, do you still get the 72 virgins?
And he was one of the guys that we thought it was safe enough to let go.
Question: If you blow yourself up but fail to take any Infidels with you, do you still get the 72 virgins?
The Haditha massacre that wasn’t
July 16, 2007 05:20 PM | Permalink
The hearing officer responsible for the military equivalent of a preliminary hearing against one of the marines accused of murdering innocent civilians has concluded that the government’s case was “based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.” The findings of the hearing officer still needs to be accepted by the commanding general but indicates that the rush to judgment against at least this marine was unjustified.
Can a counter-insurgency be won by a military that plays by the modern rules of war against an enemy that recognized no rules at all?
We are relying on the presumption that if we act righteous and the enemy acts barbaric, the people will eventual recognize the difference and side with us. (This may finally be happening in Al Anbar) Nevertheless, realists such as Machiavelli or American Civil War General Sherman might argue that such a tactic is more likely to be seen by the people of Iraq as weakness, which will ultimately lead to them despising us -- better to have them fear us. Or maybe Sherman recognized that the velvet glove approach would take too long and would loose support back home. Thus, the iron fist is required to get the necessary results before the politicians back home went wobbly.
UPDATE: The charges are dropped against two Marines, now a third. Murtha, time to be a good ex-Marine and eat some crow.
Can a counter-insurgency be won by a military that plays by the modern rules of war against an enemy that recognized no rules at all?
We are relying on the presumption that if we act righteous and the enemy acts barbaric, the people will eventual recognize the difference and side with us. (This may finally be happening in Al Anbar) Nevertheless, realists such as Machiavelli or American Civil War General Sherman might argue that such a tactic is more likely to be seen by the people of Iraq as weakness, which will ultimately lead to them despising us -- better to have them fear us. Or maybe Sherman recognized that the velvet glove approach would take too long and would loose support back home. Thus, the iron fist is required to get the necessary results before the politicians back home went wobbly.
"[T]hat we will remove and destroy every obstacle, if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper; that we will not cease till the end is attained; that all who do not aid us are enemies, that we will not account to them for our acts.... I would not coax them, or even meet them half way, but make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it." -- William T. Sherman
UPDATE: The charges are dropped against two Marines, now a third. Murtha, time to be a good ex-Marine and eat some crow.