Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« March 2009 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Decline of the West
Freedom's Guardian
Liberal Fascism
Military History
Must Read
Politics & Elections
Scratchpad
The Box Office
The Media
Verse
Virtual Reality
My Web Presence
War Flags (Website)
Culture & the Arts
The New Criterion
Twenty-Six Letters
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
They're the Greatest (2)
Topic: The Box Office

 

It’s  an extremely difficult thing for any native-born American to think himself into the dark heart of tyranny. Unlike Europe, unlike Asia, unlike Africa, this country has never experienced the political, intellectual and moral cancer that goes by the name of totalitarianism. Thus in America, books like Nineteen Eighty-four or One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich tend to be greeted with complacent incomprehension. The paranoia of the police state, the terrors of the Ministry of Love, the cruelties of the Gulag, do not live in us.

 

All the more reason, then, to make sure that you see this movie:

 

Das Leben der Anderen (2006; German, English subtitles). Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

 

The place is East Berlin; the year, appropriately, is 1984. At the instigation of a senior government official, the secret police—the Stasi in the parlance of the German Democratic Republic—place a famous playwright under surveillance. Officially he is suspected of harboring unorthodox political opinions. In actuality, the corrupt official covets the playwright’s girlfriend, a celebrated actress, and seeks to eliminate the competition. An officer of the secret police is given the task of bugging the writer’s apartment. Such is the scenario that sets this marvelous film in motion.

 

The Lives of Others, to give it its English title, is both a taut political thriller and a moving testament to the nobility of the human spirit. In the person of the Stasi officer, portrayed with measured intensity by the late Ulrich Mühe, the moral degeneracy of totalitarianism, the mutilation it is capable of inflicting on the human personality, is made plain. For Captain Wiesler is not an evil man; he is true believer in socialism and a dedicated servant of the state. Little by little, we suppose, he has over the years negotiated with his conscience: “Sometimes, Herr Hauptmann, it is necessary to do evil that good may come, no?” But now, finally and inarguably, his socialist faith has stranded him at the dark end of a moral blind alley. “Remember the oath we took?” he asks his superior after it has been made clear that the object of Operation Lazlo is to further the sexual ambitions of a brutish and corrupt apparatchik. But there’s no choice—or, rather, Captain Wiesler made his choice long ago. As ordered, he wires the playwright’s apartment and commences the surveillance.

 

I shall not spoil anyone’s enjoyment by discussing the film’s plot at length. But I will say that the great jest of The Lives of Others is the manner in which the very apparatus of totalitarianism—the Stasi’s sophisticated technology of bugging and eavesdropping—ends by subverting the very system that spawned it. For as he sits alone in the attic of the writer’s apartment building, headphones clamped to his ears, listening in on the lives of others, the secret policeman with the stony soul experiences a spiritual rebirth.

 

The film’s cast is uniformly excellent, particularly Martina Gedeck as Christa-Maria Sieland, the brilliant but blemished actress, and Thomas Thieme as the corrupt government minister. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (who also wrote the screenplay) directs with a sure hand. After five minutes, you’ll cease to be bothered by the German dialog with English subtitles. The Lives of Others is that good.

 

In its depiction of life in a totalitarian state, The Lives of Others is quietly frightening. In its portrayal of a lost soul redeemed , it is profoundly moving. The late William F. Buckley, Jr., called the best movie he’s ever seen. Who am I to disagree? And why haven’t you seen Das Leben der Anderen?


Posted by tmg110 at 8:21 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 8:31 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Signs of Recession
Topic: Decline of the West

The license plate on the car in front of me as I was driving home from work this afternoon (and I hope this was not a vision of the future):

DOW 104


Posted by tmg110 at 6:47 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 8:30 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Second the Motion
Topic: Decline of the West

Rush Limbaugh has been taking a lot of heat from the Left over his comment that he hopes President Obama to fail. Well, duh. I hope he fails, too. If I wanted to live in Sweden, I’d move there.


Posted by tmg110 at 9:07 AM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 6:51 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
One for the Presidential Suggestion Box
Topic: Decline of the West

 

My daughter is a US Army MP, currently serving in Korea. She happens to be assigned to the Army’s detention facility for Korea, where US military prisoners are held temporarily until the final disposition of their cases.

 

Many of the soldiers in my daughter’s unit have served tours at US military detention facilities for terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. To say that these troops are no fans of President Obama would apparently not be an exaggeration.

 

Unlike the rest of America, these soldiers have had close, sustained contact with the Islamofascist terrorists who’ve been taken prisoner by the US armed forces. And to summarize their impression of their charges is not too difficult: “scum of the earth” will do very nicely. So you can imagine how these soldiers feel when Barack Obama wrings his hands over the evils and injustices suffered by the poor souls imprisoned at Gitmo’s Camp X-Ray.

 

When my daughter and I were chatting about this, she made a suggestion that I thought was brilliant. If President Obama insists on closing Gitmo, the inmates should be sent to Washington, D.C. Perhaps they could be quartered in the White House basement.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:52 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
A Stubborn Myth
Topic: Liberal Fascism

 

One of the great myths of the twentieth century was the alleged superiority of planned economies over market economies. Quite intelligent and worldly people of the sort who might be inclined to mock the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception believed this fairy tale. George Orwell once remarked that under conditions of humane socialism, global economics could be calculated on the back of an envelope.

 

The cult of economic planning received a tremendous boost from the totalitarianism that Orwell reviled on non-economic grounds: Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Nazi Germany. It was widely believed in the 1930s and 40s that the planned economies of the totalitarian regimes were more rational, and hence more productive than messy market capitalism. To read such worshipful accounts of the Soviet state as Sidney and Beatrice Webbs’ Soviet Communism: A New Civilization is to marvel at the self-deceptive capacities of Western intellectuals.

 

In retrospect, of course, we can see that the totalitarian states were anything but efficient. In National Socialist Germany, the institutions that operated efficiently were those holdovers from the old days most reviled by the Nazis: the Army, the civil service, big business. The Nazi regime itself was a chaos of competing power centers in which mutual ambitions and antagonisms flourished—greatly to the detriment of the war effort. To take a single example, in 1942 it was proposed to ameliorate the Army’s increasingly serious manpower problem by transferring some 200,000 surplus Luftwaffe (Air Force) personnel to ground combat duty. Logically, these men ought to have been drafted into the Army and used to bring its existing units up to strength. But no: Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, the head of the Luftwaffe, convinced Hitler that the conservative Army leadership would dampen the National Socialist spirit of his men. So instead the surplus personnel were formed into “Luftwaffe Field Divisions.” These units, poorly trained and commanded by Luftwaffe officers with scant ground combat experience, mostly fell apart when committed to action on the Russian front. Precious manpower and material desperately needed by the Army was thus squandered.

 

It was the same story in the Soviet Union, where such efficiency as existed was mostly the product of police terror. It’s true that the Party effectively mobilized the state’s economic resources to achieve victory in World War II. But after all, war was the environment most congenial to the Soviet regime; the Bolsheviks had always constituted a party at war with its own country. Even so, the USSR would undoubtedly have vanquished by Nazi Germany without the massive wartime aid it received from the US and Britain.

 

In the postwar period, economic planning was attempted in various Western countries, with indifferent results at best. It turns out that without the vital information provided by market signals, modern economies simply cannot function at peak efficiency. Thus every step in the direction of economic planning is a step away from prosperity. That’s something to think about as Barack Obama embarks upon his program of economic planning for America. His heart may be pure but his methods savor of totalitarianism.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:59 AM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 8:40 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Productive America, Feeling Low. . .
Topic: Decline of the West

Never mind President Obama's approval ratings. If you've been watching the stock market's race to the bottom, you will have noticed that productive-and-investing America—i.e. the America that produces all the wealth that he proposes to tax in pursuit of his Utopian vision—has already turned thumbs down on Mr. Hope-and-Change. The markets know what I've suspected all along: that for all his charm and undoubted political skill, when it comes to the economy Obama simply doesn't know what he's doing.


Posted by tmg110 at 6:49 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, 27 February 2009
Whatever Happened to "Ladies First"?
Topic: Decline of the West

 

An incident that occurred yesterday at work got me thinking about the distinction between morals and manners. I was riding up in the elevator with a couple of young ladies and two—well, I can’t really call them gentlemen. When we reached the twelfth floor and the elevator doors opened, I stepped back to permit the ladies to exit first. Not those other two guys, though: they bulled their way through the door, actually shouldering one of the girls aside.

 

Now, it’s obvious that good manners are no guarantee of good character. History, indeed, provides many examples of people with impeccable manners who were cads, criminals or despots. On the other hand, such notorious characters as Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were noted for their rudeness. Seldom does tyranny manage to strike a note of grace. The record seems to show that while good manners are no guarantee of good moral character, their absence can generally be taken as a bad sign.

 

 However that may be, there’s no doubt that manners play—or ought to be playing—an important social role. The habit of consideration in small things is what allows us to get along with one another, and to the extent that modern life is for many people becoming less and less tolerable, bad manners are largely to blame.

 

The cult of “authenticity,” one of our many poisonous legacies from the Sixties, has played a large role in the deterioration of manners. In this view of life, there is no higher good than to “be one’s self.” But like many such notions, this one is more plausible than valid. Human nature being what it is, our selves are not necessarily very attractive.  Besides, consciously being one’s self demands a degree of self-absorption scarcely compatible with consideration for others. Being one’s self means talking loudly on your cell phone in a restaurant; intruding on other people’s privacy without permission, assuming an overly familiar attitude toward people you don’t know well—and pushing past a lady when exiting an elevator.

 

Many people claim to believe that good manners are a form of hypocrisy, as if being considerate to a person you dislike is some sort of character flaw. This tendency is most marked in contemporary political discourse. Recall how viciously George W. Bush was reviled by his political opponents. Many of the charges hurled against him were unsupported by the slightest evidence, and some were demonstrably false, but there seemed to have been no strong feeling against such boorish behavior. “Don’t talk to me about good manners! We’re trying to end a war here!” A sense of moral superiority thus trumped not only respect for the truth, but regard for common decency, e.g. the idea that one ought not to attack a politician by attacking his family.

 

Like anyone, I have my share of shortcomings. There have been times—no doubt many times—when I’ve failed to live up to the code of good manners I learned as a child. But when this happens I invariably experience a pang of guilt. For I’m old enough to have grown up at a time when good manners were still taken seriously, and the roots of tradition strike deep. I don’t claim that better manners would do much to solve the world’s problems. But if more people practiced them, living here in Chicago might not seem so much like a season in Purgatory.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:07 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Second Thoughts
Topic: Decline of the West

 

American Jews strongly supported Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008. This is the thanks they get:

 

In a swift about face from her views as New York's senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

 

[snip]

 

"I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, said. "Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is."

Clinton's decision to hammer Israel comes as the Clintons and President Barack Obama are planning to give the Palestinians $900 million toward the rebuilding of Gaza in the wake of the Israeli offensive that was sparked by Hamas rocket fire.

 

Hmmm, experiencing a bit of buyer’s remorse are we? Well, if American Jews never saw this coming, it was due only to a mulish refusal to look at the facts.


Posted by tmg110 at 6:56 AM EST
Updated: Friday, 27 February 2009 8:07 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Grab Your Wallets!
Topic: Decline of the West

Remember how the Democrats used to fulminate against George W. Bush's gargantuan budget deficits. Check this out:

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a budget Thursday that projects the government's deficit for this year will soar to $1.75 trillion, reflecting efforts to pull the nation out of a deep recession and a severe financial crisis.

In round numbers, Obama is proposing to spend $3 trillion—more than half of which will have to be borrowed.

In retrospect, this ridiculous, almost comically elephantine spending spree will ruin the Obama Administration and probably cost the Democrats their majority. But in the meantime they have the power—and they're using it to demolish the American economy.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:23 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Climate Commies
Topic: Decline of the West

 

A fine example of the disregard for truth I discussed in yesterday’s post is found in the global warming movement. But perhaps I should say cult rather than movement, since this phenomenon bears many of the characteristics of the former.

 

In its blind acceptance of the Gospel according to Gore, in its bullheaded refusal to accept evidence that contradicts accepted dogma, in its vicious attacks on those who dissent from climate orthodoxy, the global warming mob reminds me of nothing so much as Lenin’s Bolshevik Party. (Climate Stalinism will presumably emerge later, if and when the mob achieves real power.)

 

Obviously I’m not speaking here of fair-minded, reasonably well-informed people who may differ over this or that aspect of climate theory. Such people possess the superior virtue of knowing what they don’t know, and this helps them to remain intellectually honest. I mean, rather, those who've become so overwhelmed by their sense of mission that they’ve fallen into the habit of treating facts like Silly Putty, to be stretched and pounded into any shape that the ideological needs of the moment require. Most of them aren’t even scientists, and few seem to understand how science actually works. Al Gore himself is notorious in this regard.

 

Like the Bolsheviks of Lenin’s time, members of the global warming cult are impervious to rational argument. Confronted with facts that might call their beliefs into question, they simply refuse to examine them, instead reviling those who pointed out the facts. It is perhaps no coincidence that many of the people who cling most stubbornly to global warming dogma are not only “progressive” in the political sense but idolaters of Barack Obama. Even before the Goricle came along, they had fallen into the habit of evaluating reality through the prism of ideology. Thus global warming dogma has evolved into a kind of “higher truth,” a revelation so profound that if it contradicts reality, then reality must be adjusted. And all in the name of science!


Posted by tmg110 at 8:17 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older