Mr. Spielberg has said that he will be buying 250 video cameras and distributing them to Palestinian and Israeli children so they can share films about their own lives

Sure, like the day of staged outtakes that produced Al Dura. Way to put out a fire with gasoline...

The theory is never applied to right-wing terrorism - whether of the brown-shirt or Timothy McVeigh variety

Right. Wing. Terrorism.

Here comes the Hurdy Gurdy man... singing songs of loooove!

Communication is the magic solution to all conflict.

It has always worked on television.
Two men from each side of the conflict find themselves stranded on an island, a desert, or an elevator. They fight until they are exhausted. Then they start talking a little bit.

They soon agree the only way off this island, desert or elevator is to work together to find a solution.

I hate you. You hate me. But let's work together and hate each other later.

After they "McGyver" their way out, the two men share a smile.

What were we even fighting about?

I don't know. For generations we have hated each other and no one remembers why.

*extend hands

*close-up on handshake

*fade out

Peace.

Fin.

And that, my friends, is how to solve problems with art.

Communication is the magic solution to all conflict.

It has always worked on television.

It didn't work on Star Trek with the half-white/half-black guy and the half-black/half-white guy.

Although it did work on the original Battlestar Galactica when Starbuck and a cylon were stranded on a planet.

I'm just so confused. I don't know what to believe...

What about all those Redstate and Christian terorrists! The Methodist Liberation Army? The Adam Smith Brigade?

All kidding aside, I have a pretty politically diverse set of friends, and one trend I noticed is the liberal ones tended to read much more fiction and to form some of their belief system based on it. One friend in particular read virtually no non-fiction and yet had very strong and liberal political beliefs. When I found out he read fiction almost exclusively, I asked him how he had developed his belief system without taking many actual facts into account. I then got the old "there are many truths expressed in fictional writing" speech, complete with many examples of how issues had been addressed in books he had read (and we was a very well-read person).

My counter to that was that, yes, a work of fiction can have a lot to say about an issue, but they can make things work out any way they want. That is not a minor problem. Do generous welfare benefits create a disincentive to find work? In nonfiction, the issue can be studied and conclusions can be reached. In a fictional treatment, it can work out any way the author chooses, so what do you learn aside from the author's opinion (which may be based on nothing solid)?

...right-wing terrorism - whether of the brown-shirt or Timothy McVeigh variety...

Timothy McVeigh... Wasn't he the guy who: 1) opposed US military intervention in the Middle East; 2) thought blowing up civilians and kids was a political statement; and 3) wasn't too crazy about Joos? I think I smell another Spielberg epic in the making.

"Right-wing" and "left-wing" don't mean anything, other than "thugs we don't like" and "thugs we like." (Apologies for the racist overtones.) This all dates back to the Thirties, when the left had to come up with some bullsh!t explanation for insisting that Hitler was a bad guy, but Stalin was a good guy, a completely different kind of political thug.

One more thing, while we're on the issue: When I first heard about the direction this movie was taking, I was surprised that this could come from the person who made Schindler's List. I have heard many other people express the same sentiment when reviewing and commenting on Munich.

But when you think about it, Schindler's List had some of the same elements. Yes, it was a movie about the Holocaust, but its central character was a German working to save Jews. In that case, Spielberg's ridiculous need to show an "evenhanded" approach to everything, no matter how vile, was masked by the fact that Schindler was a real person who really did those things (though he was shined up a little for the movie). I suspect if there had been no actual Schindler then Spielberg would have felt it necessary to invent one.

I can second Bob's comments about fiction. I was raised by liberals, was a liberal, and probably still would be a liberal if their ideas worked. But they just don't work in real life when it's people you're dealing with, rather than character archtypes. I've tried re-reading some of the pap I enjoyed as a kid, and most of it is just escapist liberal fantasy. Kind of like West Wing, but not as obvious.

utron,

...right-wing terrorism - whether of the brown-shirt or Timothy McVeigh variety...

Timothy McVeigh... Wasn't he the guy who: 1) opposed US military intervention in the Middle East; 2) thought blowing up civilians and kids was a political statement; and 3) wasn't too crazy about Joos? I think I smell another Spielberg epic in the making.

If you have to fit him into one group of the other, I think he'd fit much better in "right wing" (unfortunately). #1 and #3 are right out of Pat Buchanan's playbook, and at the time PB was considered very right-wing. (#2 is a description of his actions more than the motives behind them so doesn't help categorize him.) While I think the Right has been a better friend to Israel, especially in recent years, Jew hatred appears on both sides.

McVeigh, if I'm not mistaken, was very socially conservative and may have had some ties to the Christian Identitiy movement, which are extreme Christian fundamentalists (ie, they explicitly call for a theocracy, stoning of homosexuals, etc.) McVeigh also believed the government had gotten too big and had too much power, which also fit more with the Right.

Look, I don't want any association with the guy either, but if you have to pick a "wing" for him I don't think it's really a contest.

"Right-wing" and "left-wing" don't mean anything, other than "thugs we don't like" and "thugs we like."

Often very true. I was actually taught in high school that that liberal and conservative were labels that referred to who was trying to how much change from the current system was desired and so could stand for different positions but right and left referred to a political continuum and meant the same thing everywhere (at least when relating groups to each other). Then I noticed the media referring to Soviet hardliners that opposed glasnost as "the extreme right wing" and so on. The terms as popularly used are often worthless.

This all dates back to the Thirties, when the left had to come up with some bullsh!t explanation for insisting that Hitler was a bad guy, but Stalin was a good guy, a completely different kind of political thug.

Yep. This one always struck me as particularly absurd as it is transparently clear that Hitler and Stalin were basically doing the same damn things 95% of the time, and yet they are presented as somehow opposite ends of the political spectrum. The explanations for this are hilarious: "The communists wanted to socialize industry, but the fascists sought to nationalize it." Huh? What's the difference? "Under communism it would be owned by the people; under fascists, by the government." OK, what is the practical difference there? "Um...Hitler was a right-winger! Nah nah nah, nah nah nah!"

Bob/Cautiously Pessimistic,

I take your points about fiction, but there is some truth in what Bob's friend says. Although an author may base his plot on opinions that are complete bullshit, he can just as easily do so with ones that are sound. The point, after all, of reading the so-called Great Books is that they tell us something profound about ourselves, something timeless. That's why they're still around.

As for nonfiction, it too can proceed from faulty assumptions. I personally believe that lower tax rates help the economy grow faster, but I'd bet that five minutes on amazon would find me any number of books that argue against that proposition.

Some of the "great books" have achieved the status of great and timeless simply because of the professors including them into their syllabus or schoolboards including them into their curriculum.

Sure, Bart, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't deserve to be there.

In my view, the only true hope for world peace is the Ace of Spades Lifestyle™. Can you really hate someone with whom you have just shared a bottle of Val-U-Rite, and who then gave you the courtesy of a reach-around?

AOSHQ -- the last and best hope for mankind.

If you have to fit him [Timothy McVeigh] into one group of the other, I think he'd fit much better in "right wing" (unfortunately).

Buchanan and his allies are a minuscule element in American politics, anyway. He gets by as a conservative because that was his starting point, but realistically he's a more lunatic version of Zell Miller or Chuck Hagel. There are plenty of people and plenty of views in American conservatism that make me uncomfortable, but the element of denial on the left regarding the nature of their allies is absolutely ginormous. That's the point I was trying to make. I think.

Back to the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives address wrong-doing with ass-kicking, while liberals address it with empathy. While in many situations there's room for both approaches, empathy requires more rationality from evil-doers to be effective. Since radical Islamists are completely irrational by Western standards, reform strategies based on empathy would appear to be poorly chosen.

Andrew, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying fiction is useless. I'm saying that fiction isn't necessarily based on reality, and looks no different from fiction that *is* based on reality. Forming opinions and making judgements based on fiction is thus less rigorously 'reality-based' than doing so based on fact.

And yes, you can form faulty opinions and judgements based on fact, but that's not an argument for using fiction instead. It's an argument for sharpening the critical thinking skills and/or gathering more (factual) data.

utron wrote:

If you have to fit him [Timothy McVeigh] into one group of the other, I think he'd fit much better in "right wing" (unfortunately).

Bob, I think I'll stand by my statement that "right-wing" and "left-wing" are rhetorical, not meaningful political distinctions. Yes, points 1 and 3 are shared by Pat Buchanan, but they're also widely shared by the "progressive" left in both Europe and the US, as well as their ideological allies in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere. I think that actions are more significant as motives, so the fact that McVeigh chose a tactic used terrorists in Israel and Iraq and excused by their apologists is a legitimate point.

I think "right-wing" and "left-wing"still have some meaning when used for internal politics. Once you get out of the country, though, it seems to the media "right-wing" means "bad guys" and nothing more.

In the U.S., "ring-wing" generally means smaller government and social conservatism. McVeigh fits on both counts, especially the first.

But, yeah, you're correct that the labels are pretty imprecise, so it's probably not worth arguing over.

I muddled my point on the Jewish issue. My main point there is anti-Jewish sentiment is not the exclusive domain of the Right or the Left in this country, so that doesn't help classify someone politically. McVeigh's anti-Semitism probably stemmed more from the Christian Identity movement, as that group feels they are the true Jews and the people living in Israel are evil imposters, so that would a (defective and distorted) "right-wing" version of anti-Semitism.

There are plenty of people and plenty of views in American conservatism that make me uncomfortable, but the element of denial on the left regarding the nature of their allies is absolutely ginormous. That's the point I was trying to make.

I agree. And that's why I'm glad we on the Right on finally rid of Buchanan (although I'm embarrassed that he more left the Right rather than the Right kicking him out).

geoff wrote:

Back to the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives address wrong-doing with ass-kicking, while liberals address it with empathy.

See, utron, that's more proof McVeigh is from the right wing.

(OK, OK, I'm sorry. That was horrible. I don't know what got into me. It was just too obvious to pass up.)

While in many situations there's room for both approaches, empathy requires more rationality from evil-doers to be effective. Since radical Islamists are completely irrational by Western standards, reform strategies based on empathy would appear to be poorly chosen.

Maybe. I guess it depends on where that rationality fits in. If you can slide it in all the way at the top and get some kind of "we should all live together in peace" thing going, then that would work. But if it's taken as a given among most Muslims that all Jews should be driven from Israel or killed, then they may be proceeding fairly rationally in accomplishing that vile objective.

Andrew wrote:

I take your points about fiction, but there is some truth in what Bob's friend says. Although an author may base his plot on opinions that are complete bullshit, he can just as easily do so with ones that are sound.

Yes, so you get no information other than the author's opinion. How can you tell if his opinion is worth a damn? You'd have to read some nonfiction to do that, wouldn't you? Which gets back to my point that you should get your information from nonfiction in the first place.

As for nonfiction, it too can proceed from faulty assumptions. I personally believe that lower tax rates help the economy grow faster, but I'd bet that five minutes on amazon would find me any number of books that argue against that proposition.

At least there you're arguing facts and stats and basing it on something. A nonfiction author that is lying or seriously twisting data can be called on it. A fiction author has the artistic liberty to prove whatever he wants.

While we're talking about fiction/nonfiction and our friends on the Left, look at what even some of their "nonfiction" is. Take Michael Moore, their big "nonfiction" author/director before Election 2004. His movies and books are, at best, a highly fictionalized version of the truth. When called on it, he even said his movies are meant to be humor and so how can a joke be a lie (paraphrasing there).

I had friends on the Left tell me I had to see Fahrenheit 9/11. When I explained them them the serious factual distortions, dismantling things they believed after seeing the movie, I got the "deeper truths" lecture. I think this mindset is dangerous, especially for those in the alleged "reality based community".

I'm not saying fiction is useless. It can bring empathy to certain subjects by giving you a better feeling for how it would be to go through situations in a way that straight facts and figures cannot do. What I am really saying is that you should not base your beliefs and actions solely on fiction. If you are moved by a fictional story, that's fine, but you need to ascertain the facts behind it if your belief on the subject is important to how you live, vote, etc.

i saw munich on sunday, and i really didn't think it was that bad. at one point a member of the PLO explains his beliefs, but it's not really a big surprise to hear that the terrorists want to take back israel. and it's really not like an "ah, so they have a reason to kill all these innocent people, maybe their not so bad after all". it doesn't justify the terrorists so much as just add to the inner conflict of the main character.
i read one review, either on here or powerline, that complained about how the terrorists families were shown and sympathized with, but not the israeli olympians' families, but that's just not true. they show some of the family watching the news broadcasts as the whole thing is happening and crying. only the family of one of the terrorists is portrayed, and that is when an assassination attempt is stopped to prevent blowing up the guy's young daughter. it's just like in scarface when tony refuses to kill the guy cause his family is in the car.
another big thing seems to be that one of the moussad says "the only blood i care about is israeli blood" and that's supposed to show some evil sort of jingoism that is apparently universal to all israelis. but the quote comes from a guy who is a pretty typical "don't fuck with me, i'm not gonna take your shit" kinda character, and the other agents argue with him about it.
the inner conflict of the main character doesn't seem to validate the people he's going after either. it seems to me something that would probably be typical from a guy who was suddenly made a covert assassin.
all in all i thought it was a pretty good movie. it was real long, and after the action died down, they should have wrapped it up a little quicker. but still, very well put together

The rightwingers are the ones who used Michael Crichton, fiction writer, as their expert on terrorism.

Liberals essentially deny the idea of conflict.

Okay, you can now go read the names of the liberals who died in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. That will take you the next few years. Bye now. FOAD.

Wow. Convicing argument you've got there, asswipe.

Really got us stumped, you do.

Okay, you can now go read the names of the liberals who died in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

Is there, like, an asterisk or something... a little "L" next to the name?

Hey, anonymous, I think you mean Tom Clancy, not Michael Crichton. Michael Crichton. M.D. is our environmental expert.

Again hollywood twists the truth to suit its revionists history

Okay, you can now go read the names of the liberals who died in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

I wonder what the % breakdown between draftees and volunteers looked like for that group, as compared to the same info for conservative casualties?

I think you'll find that the majority of liberal military casualties occured in conflicts where their presence was mandated - in the decades since the draft was last used, liberals have increasingly resorted to outdated Chicken Little politics like this to try and stay relevant, instead of taking a serious approach to contemporary security issues, as demonstrated in your post.

I'd ask for a more recent example of force-as-a-solution-to-conflict in the liberal mindset but I'm not going to hold my breath as I suspect your post to have been more an attempt at cute drive-by snarkism rather than serious commentary.

Have you ever seen the movie BATTILE OF THE BULDGE? i like the part where they roll the fuel drums down on the german tanks