Idiot neocons

The administration gestured and David Frum barked. Now he’s rethinking the wisdom of lapdoggery:

This over at the FT [Financial Times] is rather more disturbing. The story deals with the emerging attempt within the Bush administration to rename the “Global War on Terror” as the “Struggle Against Violence Extremism.” When I first heard the new term, I thought it had a lot to recommend it. I was cheered to note that Victor Davis Hanson thought so too, and for similar reasons: The new language seemed to expand the problem from the what of terrorism to the who behind the terrorism.

Okay, anyone who actually thought this latest bit of incompetence by the Bush administration had a lot to recommend it should be forced to turn in his pundit’s card immediately. This is a level of monumental cluelessness usually only approached by Maureen Dowd. Now, I understand that it is very, very difficult for the Three Monkeys – even a single-issue Three Monkey like VDH whose work I generally like – to admit to the mere possibility that St. George’s jihad is less than divinely inspired, supremely strategized and brilliantly realized.

But still… if you did not respond to the announcement of The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism with at least a snort of disbelief, if not a contemptuous guffaw and shake of the head, then you need to have your head examined. If you’re still supporting administration and its conduct of the war – sorry, I meant to say struggle – the mere fact that its loudest cheerleaders are thinkers of this abysmal quality may make you want to reconsider a few things yourself.

What was once tragic but arguably necessary has been transformed into parody piled on top of farce.

The need for reality

Hollywood, as always, is full of merde:

FX’s new drama OVER THERE about an Army unit in Iraq is well produced and visually arresting but takes a sharp left turn from reality. After watching the Pilot episode of ‘Over There,’ I conclude that the only thing they got right were the uniforms which, right down to the black socks used to cover goggles, were spot on.

Unfortunately, the costume designer is the only person who seems to have actually studied the war, pictures of the war or video of the war. As someone who has been over there it was easy to see that if Steven Bochco hired a military consultant, he didn’t pay attention to him or, if they did listen to him, that consultant should be fired. In Bochco’s depiction of the war, the tactics are wrong, the dialogue is wrong, the set-ups are wrong and the scenarios are ridiculous….

In the fake war on FX, a high-tech communications unit is brought in to transmit the negotiations. In the real war, this would result in a secure coil/compound being set up. With the addition of another Platoon sized element and possibly an outer cordon.

In the real war, one, five-man fire team would not be the only grunts on the scene. A fire team may be in an area off on their own for a while, but once the bullets started flying, every swinging soldier in the area would be converging on the action.(1)

In the FX war, the soldiers are given orders to advance towards the building. So, in keeping with the ‘reality’ of this ‘gripping’ drama, they all stand up on-line and walk towards the building. Wrong.

A fire team advancing over open terrain towards a building they took fire from would be in 10 yards sprints, one team member at a time.

Finally, there is the shoot-out. The terrorists rush out of the buildings in a mob and the Hollywood tacticians have members of the fire-team rush at them as if recreating a scene from Braveheart.

In real life, the grunts would just sit back and pick the terrorists off. But, evidently that isn’t dramatic enough for FX.

What’s annoying is that the producers and their defenders will tell you that it’s necessary to highlight sex, violence and foul language because it’s “true to life”. But the truth is that whenever reality gets in the way of what they want to show, they toss it out the window without thinking twice.

It’s just a free trade zone

From the Telegraph, via NRO’s Corner:

“A wealth of evidence has come to light to show how, over the next two decades, the British Army will have been almost wholly reorganised and re-equipped as part of the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF), directed from Brussels, using equipment supplied almost entirely by other countries in the EU. No longer will it be technically or politically possible for Britain’s Armed Forces to fight independently, or in alliance with those of the US. Yet the scale and the speed of this astonishing transformation has been deliberately concealed by the Ministry of Defence – to the point where British firms are being instructed to buy foreign-made defence equipment which can be relabelled to look as though it is British-made…Britain’s abandonment of its military co-operation with the US in favour of integration with our European “partners” has been prompted by the forthcoming revolution in warfare centred on satellites, electronics, and a new generation of vehicles, unmanned aircraft and weapons systems. Almost across the board, the MoD is turning its back on joint defence projects with the US, even where these involve British firms, in favour of equipment supplied or developed by firms in France, Germany, Italy and Sweden.”

You may wish to keep this in mind this as NAFTA+CAFTA morphs insensibly into the American Union. It wasn’t all that long ago when people told me that I was being paranoid by insisting that the European Common Market was a dictatorial political entity in the making – it’s just a free trade zone, they protested, that’s all. They’re not saying that anymore.

I seem to recall a certain saying about fooling someone twice….

Truth in parody

The Chick Magnet, from the Onion:

Hey, I don’t want to brag, but when you got it, you got it. And when it comes to picking up women with severe personality disorders, I’ve got it. Seems like whenever I’m in the same room with a sexy young nutcase looking for some hot dysfunctional action, we lock eyes and I gaze right into the twisted, abnormal recesses of her psyche, and then—bam! We make an instant, undeniable, and incredibly unhealthy connection….

I know what you’re thinking: “Who is this guy to sound so full of himself?” I’m not being egotistical—it’s just true. Hey, I know I’m not perfect. Who is? We’ve all got problems. I’m sure I’ve got some myself. But here’s one problem I don’t have: the ladies. When it comes to charming every borderline psycho in a skirt, I take second place to no man. I guess I just give off that “Hey there, pretty lady with the lifelong unresolved emotional issues” vibe. It can’t be taught—you either got it or you don’t. And I got it….

The sex is great, too. Believe me, all these highly unstable women have so many self-esteem issues, identity crises, and subconscious needs for approval from absent or emotionally abusive father figures, they’ll do practically anything to try to please a man, no matter how self-destructive it is. Sweet!

It is one of the great mysteries of life, and to be honest, a theoretical variance that I find somewhat difficult to fully comprehend. For in contrast to the above theme, nearly every church teaches that true love is more fulfilling and sex in a married relationship is much better than that experienced by those sad, hedonistic unfortunates philandering their way through life.

However, it seems that most of the married Christian men I know could easily pass for Woody Allen in Annie Hall, while every predator-at-large is aware that the whackjobs with mental health issues are not only more available on a regular basis, but are much more enthusiastic about the business than the average woman, religious or otherwise.

I’m not saying this is any justification for running off with the nearest bipolar yoga instructor on Prozac or anything, only that the church may be doing a real disservice to both men and women by creating false expectations through focusing primarily on the self-fulfillment aspects of marriage instead of the sacrificial ones.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if John Norman turned out to be correct and this entire Sexual Revolution turned out to not only be physically and societally damaging to women, but erotically ruinous as well? The mysterious appeal of his wildly un-PC novels to women would seem to hint that this just might be the case.

Perhaps there is hope

Chuck Colson writes on Townhall:

Recently, a Wall Street Journal poll announced that both political parties—Republicans and Democrats—are now held in low regard by the American people. Usually if the fortunes of one party decline, the other party increases—sort of a zero sum game. Now, however, for the first time in polling history, both parties come up in negative territory.

It’s good to see that not all Republicans are the Three Monkey variety. Now, if those people who are rightly disgusted by the faux-conservative Bush administration can manage to withstand the temptation to give into the quadrennial “vote for x is a vote for y” deception, perhaps we can see one of the third parties begin to gain some traction.

As some have noted in light of what appears to be the recent CAFTA chicanery, arguments that change must come through the two-party system are increasingly dubious, since those in power have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to break the rules in order to maintain their position of primacy.

In any case, I find the strategic arguments for voting two-party to be irrelevant. Only if you vote your conscience are you properly fulfilling your responsibility as a free citizen. Pragmatists are merely intellectual whores by another name, and as Governor Schwarzenegger is currently demonstrating in California, it’s clear that their methods are ultimately doomed to failure anyhow.