Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Saturday, 24 March 2007

Karen sent me another Townhall.com article on the movie “300”.  It’s by Megan Basham.  I’m not doing a paragraph-by paragraph response this time because I’m kind of bored with the subject.  I left off most of the gratuitous “liberal” bashing because with stuff from the Townhall site, that just rapidly approaches the level of punctuation (ubiquitous, and only meaningful when done well).

Despite its hard R rating for nudity and violence, there’s good reason for this. Where last year's despicable, pro-terrorist comic-book-based flick, V for Vendetta, made pathetic claims for cultural relevance, 300 is the real deal. The filmmakers didn't have to impose parallels with today’s geo-political reality; history had already done it for them.

Careful Megan, you said “hard” and we all know what that does to poor Ben Shapiro’s brain.  He won’t be able to see beyond your terrible affliction of anti-subtlty. 

Wait…DESPITE the “hard” R rating for nudity and violence?  Who in their right mind saw the previews for this movie and went to see it in the hopes that it would offer something besides eye candy and frame after frame of spectacular, Technicolor slayage?

V for Vendetta; did we watch the same movie?  I thought conservatives LOVED terrorism when it was aimed at totalitarianism?  Did I mis-read the flag-waving adulation for Red Dawn and that Rambo movie when he went and fought for the Taliban?

Sparta's Ephors, the cloistered academics of their time, claim that the gods don’t want war and won’t support Leonidas' stand.

Actually, it’s pretty clear that Leonidas was the scholar, with his appeals to rationality and logic.  The Ephors were superstitious, religionists pretending at mystic power while indulging their human desires with young, easily manipulated prey.

In the meantime, back in the city, an oily politician (Dominic West of The Wire) undermines the King's mission at every turn, arguing for diplomatic resolutions and claiming that Leonidas has started an "illegal" war that will draw destruction down on all. Leonidas wife, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey), counters that it is Persia who began the war and urges the Spartan congress to commit more troops.

What Ms. Basham fails to mention in the above summary was that the “illegal” war involved an ACTUAL invasion on Greek soil.  So, a war to destroy the actual people who were involved in an attack on the nation’s soil was appropriate.  Had Leonidas gone off an attacked a country that had nothing to do with Persia’s invasion attempt, it would have been right to call it madness.

Not the least of which is that that a people that honors its artists and scholars above its warriors eventually becomes a weak, effeminate people. The grim efficiency of the Spartan career soldiers stands in stark contrast to the brave but incompetent Athenians who hack away at the enemy like, well, like a bunch of actors and craftsmen.

I’m shocked!  Shocked!  I tell you to hear a conservative commentator show such disrespect and such a dismissive attitude of the contributions to our “citizen soldiers” in the National Guard who are serving in Iraq.  Truly, “support the troops” means something different to the ilk of Megan Basham.  But on the other hand, there are worthy things in her review as well, such as this nugget that can only be read to be a criticism of able-bodied armchair cheerleaders:

Going hand in hand with this is the demonstration that high military standards must be kindly but firmly maintained, regardless of the hurt feelings such standards might engender. When a well-meaning but physically unfit applicant is turned away from battle, it is clear that Leonidas does not mean to be cruel but to preserve strength of his troop.

Yes, Megan, I agree, we should not tolerate arm-chair cheerleading from able-bodied, service aged young men and women who cheer for the war yet neglect to enlist and fill our ranks.  They say they support the war, but if they REALLY did, the army would not have had to lower its’ recruiting standards.  At least we can find one area where we can agree.

Saturday, 24 March 2007 19:12:31 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [3] | #
Saturday, 24 March 2007 20:55:55 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I'm not quite sure about your interpretation of the last bit that you quoted. I thought that she was saying that the military has to insist having the best, strongest, best trained soldiers and not just raw, unfit recruits who would just get in the way of themselves and others.
Saturday, 24 March 2007 21:16:47 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Karen,

Sorry, I was being deliberatly obtuse...for fun.

Although the fact of the matter is, that recruiting has been down, able-bodied young people aren not volunteering enough to meet the needs, and the army lowered it's standards. It lowered the education requirement, raised the recruitment age, and relaxed some of the physical standards for recruitment...and there are plenty of strong, hearty, pro-war conservative yougnsters who have neglected to sign up...and I'm just sure that if every able-bodied College Republican of service age lined up to volunteer, they'd have more than enough to keep the army from having to lower its' stanadards.
Sunday, 25 March 2007 14:12:48 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Gottcha.
Comments are closed.
Search
Archive
Links
Categories
Admin Login
Sign In
Blogroll
Themes
Pick a theme: