Friday, September 11, 2009
APOCALYPSE NOW?
This writer was never a fan of Viet Nam era war movies. Perhaps that is because he was never a fan of the Viet Nam war. That whole period seems to have been a sordid, ugly time in our lives and in the life of our nation. Young men were dying without really ever having a cause for which we could unite and believe.
I saw the highly acclaimed film “Apocalypse Now,” back during its early release time. I was not impressed. In fact, most of the film seemed to be very much a jumble of confusion and mixed messages. It was neither a patriotic war movie nor an exciting adventure film. It was a drab, confused array of scenes and mumbled conversations that defied comprehension.
I have often wondered just what the point of that movie was supposed to be. I know what it meant to me. It carried the message that war is a dark, dismal experience, full of pain and gore, and that often it has little meaning for those in the middle of it. In which case, those fighting often come up with their own sense of meaning, which begins with staying alive and surviving.
I have often wondered if the movie had an intended “moral” to it, other than its depiction of war as an ordeal in receiving and inflicting terror. I have my own notion as to the moral of the film. It hit when the renegade American colonel character played by Marlon Brando came into the drama.
He was the leader of a renegade army of his own, answering to no higher brass and not playing by any civilized rules of war. The Vietnamese feared him. He was cruel beyond imagination, stopping at nothing in fighting, capturing, torturing, and killing the Vietnamese – soldiers or civilians.
There was a conversation between the Colonel and the young American officer, still struggling with his conscience and the activities of war. The Colonel’s brief lecture was Machiavellian in nature, as “the end justifies the means.” That is, in war all actions taken to win are justified. There are no rules. (It is similar to the same justifications now offered by Mr. Cheney for torturing prisoners.)
The Colonel pressed his point that in order to win against a cruel enemy, one must become even more cruel. The enemy must fear you. The young officer then raised a question, “But if we become more cruel than our enemy, then who has won?”
The Democrats face such a dilemma in this country today as they face foes who show little sense of decency, civility, or morality in the conduct of politics.
Democrats have endured bullying by angry, shouting, gun-toting mobs, They are accused of being Nazis. Their proposals to help with health care are used to ignite all kinds of lies and suspicions. The president’s pep talk to school students has brought out unbelievable accusations of indoctrination of children with socialism (or even homosexuality and abortion by some). Programs to rehabilitate the economy have met with some success, but are loudly condemned. Democrats have as yet passed no taxes, but rather a reduction for average payers, and yet they are accused by angry, seditionist “tea party” crowds of raising taxes and running up outrageous deficits. Preachers are shouting, “I hate Obama!” and publicly praying for him to die.
Republican leaders declared that if they could defeat Obama’s health bill, they could ruin his presidency. They have joined powerful lobbyists and rich corporations in this effort. It matters not that the people need it.
Sometimes it would be easy to understand if Democrats started shouting back, if they went out in force and pushed those unruly mobs out, and if they carried guns and brought things to a fight or a “Mexican stand-off.” What if Democrats started shouting back at loud-mouths dominating the conversations on TV talk shows? It would be easy to understand if there was a huge effort to coordinate a boycott of all sponsors of Limbaugh’s program and such programs on Fox News. It would be easy to understand if Democrats formed pickets and demonstrations outside radio stations carrying Limbaugh, and outside the Fox studios and program sponsors.
It would be easy to understand if Democrats started calling lies what they are, if they started calling those who believe them “dummies” and “crazies,” and if they started called the tellers of falsehoods “liars and hypocrites.”
But then the question arises if Democrats fight back in these ways, have they sunk to the same low life behavior of pond scum, such as practiced by actors in the opposition? Are we in a new apocalyptic age, with no compass of “right” and “wrong?”
The answer is “No, not necessarily, but close.” If democrats use unacceptable, inappropriate, dishonest, or unethical methods, then they become similarly culpable. If they simply and plainly counter and rebut what is said and done, if they “call out” the perpetrators of lies and unethical conduct, and if they forcefully advocate their own ideas and programs -- they are engaged in appropriate tactics. If they tell the truth as best they discern it, they are okay.
During the President’s speech before joint houses of Congress, one Republican, in a breach of ethics and conduct, rudely disrupted with a shout, “You lie.” Such conduct is bad enough from an ignorant lout, but from a Congressman it is despicable. Worse than that, this lout was stupidly wrong in his assertion. Ignorant and stupid people should keep their mouths shut, and should never be elected to Congress.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
I saw the highly acclaimed film “Apocalypse Now,” back during its early release time. I was not impressed. In fact, most of the film seemed to be very much a jumble of confusion and mixed messages. It was neither a patriotic war movie nor an exciting adventure film. It was a drab, confused array of scenes and mumbled conversations that defied comprehension.
I have often wondered just what the point of that movie was supposed to be. I know what it meant to me. It carried the message that war is a dark, dismal experience, full of pain and gore, and that often it has little meaning for those in the middle of it. In which case, those fighting often come up with their own sense of meaning, which begins with staying alive and surviving.
I have often wondered if the movie had an intended “moral” to it, other than its depiction of war as an ordeal in receiving and inflicting terror. I have my own notion as to the moral of the film. It hit when the renegade American colonel character played by Marlon Brando came into the drama.
He was the leader of a renegade army of his own, answering to no higher brass and not playing by any civilized rules of war. The Vietnamese feared him. He was cruel beyond imagination, stopping at nothing in fighting, capturing, torturing, and killing the Vietnamese – soldiers or civilians.
There was a conversation between the Colonel and the young American officer, still struggling with his conscience and the activities of war. The Colonel’s brief lecture was Machiavellian in nature, as “the end justifies the means.” That is, in war all actions taken to win are justified. There are no rules. (It is similar to the same justifications now offered by Mr. Cheney for torturing prisoners.)
The Colonel pressed his point that in order to win against a cruel enemy, one must become even more cruel. The enemy must fear you. The young officer then raised a question, “But if we become more cruel than our enemy, then who has won?”
The Democrats face such a dilemma in this country today as they face foes who show little sense of decency, civility, or morality in the conduct of politics.
Democrats have endured bullying by angry, shouting, gun-toting mobs, They are accused of being Nazis. Their proposals to help with health care are used to ignite all kinds of lies and suspicions. The president’s pep talk to school students has brought out unbelievable accusations of indoctrination of children with socialism (or even homosexuality and abortion by some). Programs to rehabilitate the economy have met with some success, but are loudly condemned. Democrats have as yet passed no taxes, but rather a reduction for average payers, and yet they are accused by angry, seditionist “tea party” crowds of raising taxes and running up outrageous deficits. Preachers are shouting, “I hate Obama!” and publicly praying for him to die.
Republican leaders declared that if they could defeat Obama’s health bill, they could ruin his presidency. They have joined powerful lobbyists and rich corporations in this effort. It matters not that the people need it.
Sometimes it would be easy to understand if Democrats started shouting back, if they went out in force and pushed those unruly mobs out, and if they carried guns and brought things to a fight or a “Mexican stand-off.” What if Democrats started shouting back at loud-mouths dominating the conversations on TV talk shows? It would be easy to understand if there was a huge effort to coordinate a boycott of all sponsors of Limbaugh’s program and such programs on Fox News. It would be easy to understand if Democrats formed pickets and demonstrations outside radio stations carrying Limbaugh, and outside the Fox studios and program sponsors.
It would be easy to understand if Democrats started calling lies what they are, if they started calling those who believe them “dummies” and “crazies,” and if they started called the tellers of falsehoods “liars and hypocrites.”
But then the question arises if Democrats fight back in these ways, have they sunk to the same low life behavior of pond scum, such as practiced by actors in the opposition? Are we in a new apocalyptic age, with no compass of “right” and “wrong?”
The answer is “No, not necessarily, but close.” If democrats use unacceptable, inappropriate, dishonest, or unethical methods, then they become similarly culpable. If they simply and plainly counter and rebut what is said and done, if they “call out” the perpetrators of lies and unethical conduct, and if they forcefully advocate their own ideas and programs -- they are engaged in appropriate tactics. If they tell the truth as best they discern it, they are okay.
During the President’s speech before joint houses of Congress, one Republican, in a breach of ethics and conduct, rudely disrupted with a shout, “You lie.” Such conduct is bad enough from an ignorant lout, but from a Congressman it is despicable. Worse than that, this lout was stupidly wrong in his assertion. Ignorant and stupid people should keep their mouths shut, and should never be elected to Congress.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
