Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Breaking the Cowboy Spirit
Cowboys have been known for many decades by their independence, their bravery and willingness to confront evil in a land where law and order was only on the far eastern horizon. They represented Romanticism as heroes of the silver screen for many decades. Men who displayed competence, determination, bravery, honor summed up with a vision of “manliness’. The heroes were never portrayed as “vulnerable”, feminine, cowardly or deceitful unable to control their destiny and way of life. Not until now.
Broke Back Mountain is aptly named. For breaking the back of the “mountain” that was the cowboy image has certainly been an attempt to re-portray the cowboy. It is a despicable idea that the man who lived , fought and died in the wild west of old could somehow be a coward who hid his desires for aberrant behavior. No doubt there were homosexual cowboys but they were seen as deviants and certainly not heroes that could face down danger, stand up to the crowd and fight for justice. The heroic cowboy had no hang-ups. There was no whispering behind his back nor whispering on his part. He faced all kinds of dangers but the disapproval of his peers was not a concern he bothered with. The cowboy has always in the past brought up the vision of the man who would be admired. He would be seen as the best a man could be in the environment he chose to abide. He would be most of all an individual and not a “pair”. He was not all about relationships. He was not confused about his sexual identitiy. When the true cowboy rode off in the West leaving the girl behind it was not because he was looking for a man. He was portraying his love for this life as an independent drifter that could not be compromised. He had no ties and wanted none. This was the individual portrayed in the character of the cowboy. The villains could be perverts, deviants fops, crooks, thugs and sissies but the cowboy was not. His character demanded the virtues of independence and strength. Imagine the bar room scene where the villain threatens the cowboy hero with shooting his male lover. The hero would be only a pawn of his dependency to his desires for sexual gratification. He might drop his gun for a friend or a girl, but a male lover just doesn’t fit . This is not a cowboy hero that America can respect or admire. Why? Because no matter how you rationalize the equivalence of heterosexuality with homosexuality there is a difference. And that difference is the same difference as sex between humans and animals. It can be done but it is not normal. It requires an identification of the nature of man and woman. It requires discrimination of the differences in both anatomy and function. If one cannot help their desires they have not looked at values they are relying on to trigger emotional responses. A woman who falls for the same kind of bum repeatedly also says ,”she can’t help it”. As long as she ignores the identification process she’ll make the same wrong choices. The same phenomena is the reason for homosexuality. If it is clouded with emotional desire, it does not change the fact of the identity. But Hollywood is all about feelings and forget the facts.
So what motivates Hollywood to destroy that which is the best of America. What makes the writers look at the past and instead of seeing the value of the portrayal of a hero see only how can they sneak the shock power of homosexual activity into mainstream acceptance? It can be explained but it isn’t a pretty sight. They hate John Wayne. They hate the image he portrayed. Their view of the universe is paramount in their politics and now in their productions. They hate George Bush and because he has been portrayed as a cowboy, if you can denigrate the vision of the cowboy you can denigrate George Bush. The logic works this way. Portray and promote cowboys as less than heroic and it will be one more blow that will eliminate future George Bushes. They think and portray the following: Cowboys can’t be macho because that is so passe’. Cowboys are no longer bigger than life, but a mishmash of human frailties. Cowboys weren’t so hot. Cowboys can be vulnerable too. This is the swill that they rave about and give awards to. And it all comes from a grimy little vision that says heroes don’t exist, life is a cess pool of dependency and we want to rule . We want to rule with the free wheeling whims of the Clintons and we don’t want any tough guys standing up to enemies. We can make friends, be sensitive and be all inclusive except for the heroes which we don’t want people to turn to and admire. That’s why we don’t make good westerns any more, why our TV sitcoms are filled with snide innuendo and unless a production has shock value it isn’t in sync with our vision of what might and ought to be which excludes heroism. Our feelings tell us that if it feels good then do it. We don’t ask or seek where our feelings come from and we despise those who would attack us for our feelings. We want emotional rule and we’ll stoop to any level to achieve it. If it is shocking and denigrating we will praise it. If it destroys that which is a threat to our free wheeling distortions it must be ignored or denigrated. We will not succumb to hero worship but we will elevate our feelings to prominence,. Our feelings are our heroes. This is the unspoken creed of today’s Hollywood and those who admire and support its notions.
There have been writers in the past who admired and portrayed heroes. They recognized the possibilities of their art to show the best of humanity and the inspiration it had. They were heroes for their recognition and portrayal. Today’s writers are supporting the opposite notion and they too mirror their creation.
Broke Back Mountain is aptly named. For breaking the back of the “mountain” that was the cowboy image has certainly been an attempt to re-portray the cowboy. It is a despicable idea that the man who lived , fought and died in the wild west of old could somehow be a coward who hid his desires for aberrant behavior. No doubt there were homosexual cowboys but they were seen as deviants and certainly not heroes that could face down danger, stand up to the crowd and fight for justice. The heroic cowboy had no hang-ups. There was no whispering behind his back nor whispering on his part. He faced all kinds of dangers but the disapproval of his peers was not a concern he bothered with. The cowboy has always in the past brought up the vision of the man who would be admired. He would be seen as the best a man could be in the environment he chose to abide. He would be most of all an individual and not a “pair”. He was not all about relationships. He was not confused about his sexual identitiy. When the true cowboy rode off in the West leaving the girl behind it was not because he was looking for a man. He was portraying his love for this life as an independent drifter that could not be compromised. He had no ties and wanted none. This was the individual portrayed in the character of the cowboy. The villains could be perverts, deviants fops, crooks, thugs and sissies but the cowboy was not. His character demanded the virtues of independence and strength. Imagine the bar room scene where the villain threatens the cowboy hero with shooting his male lover. The hero would be only a pawn of his dependency to his desires for sexual gratification. He might drop his gun for a friend or a girl, but a male lover just doesn’t fit . This is not a cowboy hero that America can respect or admire. Why? Because no matter how you rationalize the equivalence of heterosexuality with homosexuality there is a difference. And that difference is the same difference as sex between humans and animals. It can be done but it is not normal. It requires an identification of the nature of man and woman. It requires discrimination of the differences in both anatomy and function. If one cannot help their desires they have not looked at values they are relying on to trigger emotional responses. A woman who falls for the same kind of bum repeatedly also says ,”she can’t help it”. As long as she ignores the identification process she’ll make the same wrong choices. The same phenomena is the reason for homosexuality. If it is clouded with emotional desire, it does not change the fact of the identity. But Hollywood is all about feelings and forget the facts.
So what motivates Hollywood to destroy that which is the best of America. What makes the writers look at the past and instead of seeing the value of the portrayal of a hero see only how can they sneak the shock power of homosexual activity into mainstream acceptance? It can be explained but it isn’t a pretty sight. They hate John Wayne. They hate the image he portrayed. Their view of the universe is paramount in their politics and now in their productions. They hate George Bush and because he has been portrayed as a cowboy, if you can denigrate the vision of the cowboy you can denigrate George Bush. The logic works this way. Portray and promote cowboys as less than heroic and it will be one more blow that will eliminate future George Bushes. They think and portray the following: Cowboys can’t be macho because that is so passe’. Cowboys are no longer bigger than life, but a mishmash of human frailties. Cowboys weren’t so hot. Cowboys can be vulnerable too. This is the swill that they rave about and give awards to. And it all comes from a grimy little vision that says heroes don’t exist, life is a cess pool of dependency and we want to rule . We want to rule with the free wheeling whims of the Clintons and we don’t want any tough guys standing up to enemies. We can make friends, be sensitive and be all inclusive except for the heroes which we don’t want people to turn to and admire. That’s why we don’t make good westerns any more, why our TV sitcoms are filled with snide innuendo and unless a production has shock value it isn’t in sync with our vision of what might and ought to be which excludes heroism. Our feelings tell us that if it feels good then do it. We don’t ask or seek where our feelings come from and we despise those who would attack us for our feelings. We want emotional rule and we’ll stoop to any level to achieve it. If it is shocking and denigrating we will praise it. If it destroys that which is a threat to our free wheeling distortions it must be ignored or denigrated. We will not succumb to hero worship but we will elevate our feelings to prominence,. Our feelings are our heroes. This is the unspoken creed of today’s Hollywood and those who admire and support its notions.
There have been writers in the past who admired and portrayed heroes. They recognized the possibilities of their art to show the best of humanity and the inspiration it had. They were heroes for their recognition and portrayal. Today’s writers are supporting the opposite notion and they too mirror their creation.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Politician's Purgatory: No WMDs, No Big Deal
No WMDs, No Big Deal
Let’s suppose for a moment that a country ( like Iran) with a fanatical leader that has been known to lie and threaten extermination of nations, issues a statement that they have no intention of building or dispatching a nuclear weapon. What would be a rational response? Certainly skepticism as to his veracity comes to mind. Now to carry that skepticism a little farther, let’s suppose we are suspicious that nuclear capability is progressing although we do not have hard proof. Since we are not sitting in a court room with the burden of proof on us as prosecutors, how important is it that we give the fanatic the benefit of the doubt? If we only act to defend ourselves or our allies if we can conclusively prove that a country has WMD’s and will definitely use them in an aggressive manner, we can never act preemptively and can only act after we have been attacked. The attack proves intention but it does not prevent the killing of innocent lives. And this I submit is the government’s primary function,to protect the lives of it’s citizens. The government created by its citizens to protect their individual rights is expected to fulfill this obligation. It cannot do so if it must carry over the legal propriety in protecting its citizens to dealing with a nation that potentially could wipe out the proprieties along with the nation itself. The United States does not owe our standards of proof to those who we do not trust. Our system relies on an oath of honesty and this we know is not what we can expect from those who will not submit to inspections. Sure they may not have what they want to have and are willing to pretend they have, but unless they are willing to show us what they do have or do not have, we have little recourse.
This cry for proof has been a cry for the impossible and the irrational. If we would have had proof it would have been easy to target the locations and eliminate them. But what we had was a strong suspicion that Sadaam might have WMDs. With Iran we have more than a suspicion that they are intent on enriching uranium and that their leader is willing to threaten the extinction of Israel. Because Sadaam lied is no reason to give Iran a pass. If the world realized that our suspicions were not something we were going to ignore, the would be tyrants and conquerers would consider long and hard before they instigated a threat of military or terrorist action against us or our allies. Our current position is trending toward such a timid approach to confrontation with our enemies that we are giving them the impression that they have time to show us otherwise. This may be all they require to hit us with an attack that will leave us reeling. We should be smarter than that. An athlete doesn’t wait for his opponent to score and then respond, he begins by trying to score and score repeatedly until the contest is won. Likewise our foreign policy should follow this principle. If you want to win, don’t give your enemy any advantage either before or during an encounter. It is totally naive to assume that nations enriching uranium and issuing threats are going to suddenly change their course via persuasion or diplomatic bribery. If they threaten, what is to prevent us from returning the treat and if necessary following up on it. Now when we receive a threat we downplay it as something we can talk away. This hasn’t happened nor will it happen. People who are willing to recruit and send their followers to suicide in the name of conquest have no concern about the good intentions we are attempting to portray to the “world”. Once they make a successful attack you will see dancing in their streets whether it was an honorable attack or not. Japan, a country that talked heavily of honor, pulled off the most cowardly attack in history. The words of the tyrants are not to be treated as insignificant nor gospel. Eternal vigilance requires a suspicious attitude when confronting foreign adversaries. Their doctrines indicate their intentions and since they are not interested in rejecting these doctrines we must not surrender our lives and country to that which we know they are capable of.
The answer is really quite simple. Answer every threat with a bigger threat. If we are threatened we need to point out that we will not dismiss the treat but prepare for all out war. If our citizens are captured and held hostage that is an act of war. If weapons are being pursued that could endanger our citizens or our allies ,that is an act of war. We need to define the initiation of war as any action that initiates any force or threat of force against us. When we receive these threats we need to point out the consequences. Just as a boss’s bottom line to a subordinate is the loss of their job for ill behavior so should our nation warn the threateners that the bottom line is war and we will begin immediately to prepare, with a full outline of the consequences should we prevail which we have every intention of doing.
No nation should arise and let its tyrants pursue slavery of its citizens, threaten its neighbors or its perceived “ enemies” with impunity. We have let this happen and the boldest of the tin horns have attempted to show how defiant they can be to our wishes to be left alone and at peace. We need to change this attitude. We need to let it be known that bullying is not something we as the strongest nation of earth are willing to tolerate. We built this country on the supremacy of individual rights and we mean to defend them from all quarters , foreign and domestic. Only when the bullies understand we will not tolerate their behavior will we have a truly lasting peace; enforced by a police action that shows no mercy for tyrants and threats. Just as law enforcement must take a hard line domestically to be effective so too must our foreign policy reflect this same attitude. WMDs or not we will not be cowered.
This cry for proof has been a cry for the impossible and the irrational. If we would have had proof it would have been easy to target the locations and eliminate them. But what we had was a strong suspicion that Sadaam might have WMDs. With Iran we have more than a suspicion that they are intent on enriching uranium and that their leader is willing to threaten the extinction of Israel. Because Sadaam lied is no reason to give Iran a pass. If the world realized that our suspicions were not something we were going to ignore, the would be tyrants and conquerers would consider long and hard before they instigated a threat of military or terrorist action against us or our allies. Our current position is trending toward such a timid approach to confrontation with our enemies that we are giving them the impression that they have time to show us otherwise. This may be all they require to hit us with an attack that will leave us reeling. We should be smarter than that. An athlete doesn’t wait for his opponent to score and then respond, he begins by trying to score and score repeatedly until the contest is won. Likewise our foreign policy should follow this principle. If you want to win, don’t give your enemy any advantage either before or during an encounter. It is totally naive to assume that nations enriching uranium and issuing threats are going to suddenly change their course via persuasion or diplomatic bribery. If they threaten, what is to prevent us from returning the treat and if necessary following up on it. Now when we receive a threat we downplay it as something we can talk away. This hasn’t happened nor will it happen. People who are willing to recruit and send their followers to suicide in the name of conquest have no concern about the good intentions we are attempting to portray to the “world”. Once they make a successful attack you will see dancing in their streets whether it was an honorable attack or not. Japan, a country that talked heavily of honor, pulled off the most cowardly attack in history. The words of the tyrants are not to be treated as insignificant nor gospel. Eternal vigilance requires a suspicious attitude when confronting foreign adversaries. Their doctrines indicate their intentions and since they are not interested in rejecting these doctrines we must not surrender our lives and country to that which we know they are capable of.
The answer is really quite simple. Answer every threat with a bigger threat. If we are threatened we need to point out that we will not dismiss the treat but prepare for all out war. If our citizens are captured and held hostage that is an act of war. If weapons are being pursued that could endanger our citizens or our allies ,that is an act of war. We need to define the initiation of war as any action that initiates any force or threat of force against us. When we receive these threats we need to point out the consequences. Just as a boss’s bottom line to a subordinate is the loss of their job for ill behavior so should our nation warn the threateners that the bottom line is war and we will begin immediately to prepare, with a full outline of the consequences should we prevail which we have every intention of doing.
No nation should arise and let its tyrants pursue slavery of its citizens, threaten its neighbors or its perceived “ enemies” with impunity. We have let this happen and the boldest of the tin horns have attempted to show how defiant they can be to our wishes to be left alone and at peace. We need to change this attitude. We need to let it be known that bullying is not something we as the strongest nation of earth are willing to tolerate. We built this country on the supremacy of individual rights and we mean to defend them from all quarters , foreign and domestic. Only when the bullies understand we will not tolerate their behavior will we have a truly lasting peace; enforced by a police action that shows no mercy for tyrants and threats. Just as law enforcement must take a hard line domestically to be effective so too must our foreign policy reflect this same attitude. WMDs or not we will not be cowered.
