'Lions for Lambs': Liberal Fiddling (by Gareth Higgins)
In some senses Robert Redford is the father of modern independent filmmaking, not to mention the patron saint of Hollywood liberalism – his Sundance Film Festival has launched a couple of dozen major careers, and his concern for progressive environmental policies is well known. And United Artists used to be known for making the kind of movie that entertained and provoked at the same time – from 'In the Heat of the Night' to 'Being There' to 'Rain Man'.
After a decade or more in the doldrums, the studio has been resurrected by Tom Cruise, and the first film released under this banner is the Redford-helmed 'Lions for Lambs' – a tub-thumping intellectual thriller that pits brains against brawn as a liberal university professor, a neo-conservative senator, and a smart journalist duke it out for the prize of 'who gets to direct the war on terror' - which the film shows still to be fought by the poor.
Such a film could have been a thoughtful exploration of the nature of American liberalism post-9/11, a call to action, or an intelligent treatment of the questions of how to respond to injustice without repeating it (or overcoming evil with good, as the New Testament would have it). Yet sadly it ends up a wasted opportunity - with mostly old arguments being rehearsed once more in a film whose performances are flat and is without visual interest.
There is, however, some merit in 'Lions for Lambs'. There is a chilling moment where a missing soldier is confirmed to be alive when he fires his gun – suggesting that we live in an era where threatening the lives of others is what gives meaning to ours. There is a brief moment when two of the characters suggest that resurrecting the idea of a year's voluntary service between high school and college might be the key to developing a generation of socially engaged citizens who care more about the needs of the poor than the brand names on their shirts. And it does at least ask why it is that most of us do nothing in response to the grinding wheels of yet another empire's decline and fall except complain and go on the odd protest march. But in contending with the principalities and powers of this world, the film does not realize that there is more to be done than merely protest.
Sometimes, to be sure, we need to protest against the powers. And sometimes we need to work with the powers – for they are capable of good (such as, for instance, the fact that in some parts of the world whole cities are now adapted for the needs of people with physical disabilities, or that abandoning the death penalty has become a condition for membership of the European Union). Protesting the powers when they mediate evil, and affirming and renewing the powers when they are good are two sides of a coin. But deeper than this, and what 'Lions for Lambs' falls short of understanding, is that the prophetic incarnation of a creative alternative to economic injustice and war without end is the task of this generation. At one point Cruise's character is shown to assert, with Theodore Roosevelt, that he would choose 'righteousness' over 'peace'. The film is not smart enough to recognize that if you understand righteousness in its ancient Hebrew context as 'justice', then you don't actually have to make that choice. I don't know what level of activism Robert Redford is personally engaged in, and I welcome the fact that he did at least try to make a film about something meaningful; but 'Lions for Lambs' left me yearning for our popular culture to start asking us to actually do something instead of fiddling while the emperor burns Rome down.
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I think that if you want a progressive movie that advances the gospel, you need to write one. I guess the question is "how well did the movie do at being a secular movie about social issues?"; unless I miss my guess altogether. Gareth poses a bigger issue; is it enough for believers to be "modern culture critics" or perhaps it would be more effective to add something to the mix ourselves.
Posted by: Mike Grello | November 12, 2007 11:27 AM
I'm less interested in the film and its failings than in the broader question that Gareth raises: why don't more of us do more?
As an old and tired activist, I'm dispirited and depressed, but still manage to do a little to organize, agitate, and educate on civil liberties and civil rights, immigrant rights, labor rights, peace, global corporatization, etc. But I can see the fatalism and a metaphorical public clinical depression all around me. The unspoken question is "what's the use?"
Although Nixon didn't appear to listen to protests, he actually did listen and was affected by them. The present crew gives off a strong sense that they hear the noise but don't care at all. The disaffected public seems to have no leverage in the political process.
The Democrats' congressional victories are felt by dissidents to be a great disappointment, having meant little in terms of policy change. The cave-in on Mukasey by a few Democratic Senators is just about the last straw, at least for me.
All that may be left to do is to prepare for a massive protest when the attack on Iran starts -- and then go home to wait out the great repression.
So what's to do now, Gareth and others? Besides keeping on keeping on...
Posted by: Bill Peltz | November 12, 2007 12:11 PM
"A creative alternative to economic injustice and war without end as the task of this generation" makes sense to me. Not only are war and injustice evils in themselves; they continually distract us from focusing significant attention and resources on other pressing problems such as the environment.
Paul - originalfaith.com
Posted by: Paul M Martin | November 12, 2007 12:41 PM
Redford should stick to movies like 'Ordinary People'.
Prayers were offered for our military people all around the would and in the Mideast. That there will be a victorious end to the war in Iraq and our brave men and women can come home.
I did believe Sojo would do anyting for Vets. Day - dones not fit the Wallis Mode. So I also said prayers for our Vets and their families asking the Almighty to bless them for their service.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | November 12, 2007 1:58 PM
Why is it Liberalism's responsibility alone? What about the responsibility of the neocons, the conservatives, the Christians? Why is it Redford's responsibility alone to address these issues? It's a movie, not a documentary, and frankly, if the movie is lousy it's because of poor writing and the fact that it has Tom Cruise in it.
Posted by: Tess | November 12, 2007 4:20 PM
moderatelad - There is no such thing as peace in Iraq. The US made a critical error in thinking that we could overturn 3000+ years of history and actually bring peace or stability to that region. It's not going to happen, no matter how good our intentions. I't alot like saying, "well, we'll make Catholics and Protestants worship the same way in the same church everyday, and they'll just like it and get along." We aren't dealing with any precedent of peace, and definitely not stability. So, our troops are there, and have been there, working for nothing or almost nothing. I said it before we went there, and I'll say it again: any war in Iraq is dealing with forces that no nation can control, and that no nation or group of nations can harness. The only thing to do is to let them deal with it on their own. Does that mean they will have a "civil" war(it won't be civil, but it will be a war)? Yes. Is there any way we can stop that? Not unless we want to install another ruthless, bloodthirsty, mentally unsound dictator, and hope for better results than the last time we helped that happen.
There are some places on this planet that cannot and do not function unless they have strong, ironhanded leadership. The Middle East is one of them. The point here being a little more obscure than simply: we can't win. It's more along the lines of, we don't understand the people of the region and we don't know what makes them tick or what makes them work. We can't obtain victory because we refuse to acknowledge that our methods, our way of life, etc. simply don't hold water and don't have any merit in the eyes of everyone everywhere. It's time we stopped pouring money into an effort that, while noble in intention, is futile and always was.
Posted by: Christopher Mohr | November 12, 2007 4:29 PM
> start asking us to actually do something instead of fiddling while the emperor burns Rome down
But wasn't that what Redford's character was asking students to do. To engage with authorities and become part of power structures in order to bring about change. Not just to protest.
His disappointment with the two students who went into the army was tempered with the knowledge that they realised they'd have more chance of being listened to as "veterans" than as cocky new kids on the block with ideas.
Wouldn't they have made very different senators to Cruise?
And watching from the the front row of the Strand in East Belfast - you'll be glad to know that the sticky floors seem to be a thing of the past - there was a visual simplicity, at times nearly play like - as we focused on the words and the body language and the contrasts between the different situations.
I liked it a lot more than you did!
Posted by: Alan in Belfast | November 12, 2007 5:52 PM
Posted by: Christopher Mohr | November 12, 2007 4:29 PM
Your kind said the same about Japan too. Thank God we didn't listen.
Blah - Blah - Blah
Blessing -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 12, 2007 9:49 PM
Ordinary People was a great movie.
My appreciation for good movies hit me around 1992-93. Unforgiven, The Crying Game, Schindler's List, The Age of Innocence, The Piano, Glengarry Glen Ross, Remains of the Day... These were films that were about something, though none of them tried to thump the audience over the head with it. If you want to be subversive, you cannot be consciously so.
Could these films even make it now, surviving in a cinematic marketplace in which every film must appeal to what is familiar (by way of sequel, parody, politics, or blatant mimicry) to the viewer. The last great film I saw was Brokeback Mountain, which didn't appeal to anybody's anything. That wasn't he only worthwhile film of the last few years (go see Half Nelson, George Washington and Junebug if you have not yet done so), but ugh...
I have come to expect little even from those movies that are hailed by critics.
end rant
Posted by: kevin s. | November 13, 2007 12:15 AM
Posted by: moderatelad | November 12, 2007 1:58 PM
"Prayers were offered for our military people all around the would and in the Mideast. That there will be a victorious end to the war in Iraq and our brave men and women can come home.
So I also said prayers for our Vets and their families asking the Almighty to bless them for their service."
So tell me, I am curious. Whose side of this war do you think God is on?
Posted by: Lonnie | November 13, 2007 9:55 AM
Posted by: Lonnie | November 13, 2007 9:55 AM
Cute question:
I would hope that we would be on God's side. That going to the defense of oppressed people, removing a murderous dictator, assisting in the rebuilding of an infurstructure that was neglected for years. These would be things that God would ask us to do. So now - go ahead and do the Sojo thing (blamme Bush) and then we can discuss how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin or how we are going to miss 'D-Housewives' and will have to suffer with the reruns. (I personally will not miss it as I watched the first few shows and found it very boring)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | November 13, 2007 10:16 AM
No infrastructure has been rebuilt in Iraq. It's been bombed back to the stone age. Except maybe the new embassy, strictly for ourselves to administer the oil distribution.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2007 1:05 PM
"So tell me, I am curious. Whose side of this war do you think God is on?"
Considering that we are fighting to stabilize a region, and that those opposing us are trying to destabilize it by way of murdering civilians, I would have to conclude that he is on our side.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 13, 2007 1:25 PM
Kevin, do you really believe that our intent was to "stabilize a region?" We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, stirred up ethnic strife, and dismantled the little infrastructure that did exist there, all of this based on known misinformation. This is sin and there is no way God condones this.
Now does that mean that Saddam was a man after God's own heart? I don't think so, he was a dictator for sure but his actions of injustice do not make our actions just. Especially when our intent was unjust.
Posted by: Will H. | November 13, 2007 1:42 PM
"Considering that we are fighting to stabilize a region, and that those opposing us are trying to destabilize it by way of murdering civilians, I would have to conclude that he is on our side."
So, how's that working out for "us"?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2007 2:59 PM
Posted by: Lonnie | November 13, 2007 9:55 AM
Question for you:
Who do you want to win? The US and Allied forces that are trying to bring stability to this region or the Islamic Radicals that are causing terror all around the world.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 13, 2007 3:37 PM
Posted by: Christopher Mohr | November 12, 2007 4:29 PM
There is no such thing as peace in Iraq. The US made a critical error in thinking that we could overturn 3000+ years of history and actually bring peace or stability to that region. It's not going to happen, no matter how good our intentions.
This is the kind of logic that makes me believe that we should bring our troops home. Disband the military and declair 'peace in our time' and see what happens. The US should not go to war, should not have a military as all acts of aggression are evil and against the will of God. So just 'don't worry - be happy' and let anyone and everyone come into our country and see how things work out.
The world would be a better place if the US was not the military might that we are today. So - lets not be that country and just let others determine our future.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 13, 2007 3:44 PM
Moderatelad:
You seem to think that the war in Iraq fits into the Just War Theory. It doesn't plain and simple. We are the aggressors there and we have no just reason to be there.
Posted by: Will H. | November 13, 2007 6:12 PM
Posted by: Will H. | November 13, 2007 6:12 PM
That is your opinion. People like Chuck Colson have written several articles address the 'just war' and why we have the right to be there.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 13, 2007 6:13 PM
"Kevin, do you really believe that our intent was to "stabilize a region?"
That is the only thing we are trying to do, at present.
"We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens,"
No we haven't.
"stirred up ethnic strife,"
How did we stir up ethnic strife? It would seem that the strife was already there, but that factions say an opportunity to grapple for power. You can argue that Saddam was the only thing keeping these elements on check by virtue of his totalitarian leadership style, but eventually Saddam would be displaced by some force, natural or otherwise.
"and dismantled the little infrastructure that did exist there, all of this based on known misinformation."
There is no evidence that we knew it was misinformation. And this is not an argument that we should stay, nor is it an argument that God opposes our present effort, which is, in fact, to bring stability to the region.
"Especially when our intent was unjust."
What was our intent, in your view?
Posted by: kevin s. | November 13, 2007 6:21 PM
Don't forget that we were expressly told by our leaders that we were not going into Iraq to remove a brutal dictator. We we sold the war with the threat of "mushroom clouds" over our land. If Iraq did not have oil would we be there? Was Saddam worse than Kim Jong Il, Stalin? The same arguments were made in the 50's by people trying to get a war started with the USSR as were made by our leaders in the runup to the Iraq war. Would the world be better off now if we had tried to remove him? I am also troubled by the knee jerk "Why do you hate America" response to every criticism of our policies. Do you right wingers really believe that we are without fault? Surely one of our strengths is our ability (limited no doubt) to be self critical and learn from at least a few of our mistakes.
Posted by: don gisselbeck | November 13, 2007 8:30 PM
" Moderate lad wrote: "Your kind said the same about Japan too. Thank God we didn't listen.
Blah - Blah - Blah
Blessing -"
Hmmm - as I remember it, the USA imposed trade embargoes on the military empire of Japan, which then retaliated by striking at Pearl Harbour. The reason for the embargo was to stop Japan's horrendous invasion of, and rampage through, China. A bit different to the current administration's attitude to Iraq.
As I also remember, the warnings against invasion of Iraq included Saddamist and foreign milita forces retreating to urban areas to wage guerilla war on the occupying troops, with consequent horrible casualties to the civilian population. Maybe because they are not Americans, that does not matter?? Different war, different risks.
Posted by: Feargal | November 13, 2007 8:33 PM
We are the aggressors there and we have no just reason to be there.
Posted by: Will H.
Will ,
You really believe if people stopped killing people , we would not be on our way out ? That President H Clinton or whoever would not have outr butts out of there pronto ?
From your position it sounds like you want to the United States to fail because we are the bad guys ? I am against this war being started , but I would clearly see it as a good thing if the opposing side stoped murdering folks with the methods they use , and that would allow us to leave . The one good thing is now the Iraq people have access to information outside of their governments distates . They have direct TV , even CNN . They have access to Jim Wallis type of information even . This is one good thing that has come out of this mess. You believe Saddam was a person who was committed to Human Rights ? No he was a eveil dictator , murdered thousands of people for power sake , and yes I do ay honor for the motives our troops and the reason they believe they are there . I support their victory because it will bring them home quicker , I wish like you they were never sent . I hope and pray for the innocent civilians over there also . But I hope for vicotry so we can come home .
Would not that be a good thing , if this surge deal actually worked , lowering deaths and such , is that not a good thing ?
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 13, 2007 8:42 PM
Christopher Mohr: There are some places on this planet that cannot and do not function unless they have strong, ironhanded leadership. The Middle East is one of them.
Yes, those children, still going off to school everyday admidst the daily chaos...Those people - they are people, you know - struggling to keep hope and families and futures alive...this part of our world that has seen more than our nation's relatively pampered minds could possibly hope to comprehend with mere imagination...Yes, all they need is the ironhand of, say, a Saddam Hussein to keep them in line. They like it like that. And you use the term "places". These "places" have flesh and blood people, like you and me. Try to remember that before you claim to know what such "places" need in order to - ehem - "function". Have a care, man. "They" are more like "us" than our slanted media and leadership would have you believe.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2007 10:49 PM
"So tell me, I am curious. Whose side of this war do you think God is on?"
kevin s.: Considering that we are fighting to stabilize a region, and that those opposing us are trying to destabilize it by way of murdering civilians, I would have to conclude that he is on our side.
Hmm...Well, if we use the Bible as a litmus test...You think God is up there going, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" Yeah, Sean Hannity's God, maybe. But, not any God that I'd be willing to kneel before. My God, I'd like to believe, is getting pretty sick of all our self-serving Rambo sh**, right about now.
BTW: I'm the same guy who posted the above reply to Mr. Mohr, I just posted too soon, without adding my name first. I appologize for any confusion and mental anguish this may have caused anyone.
Posted by: J. W. Randall | November 13, 2007 11:06 PM
Posted by: Feargal | November 13, 2007 8:33 PM
Save me the history lesson.
The US was not the only country to impose embargos against Japan, there were several other countries that we more concerned than we were.
The attack on Pearl Harbor according to Japanese history was in retaliation for what Adm Perry did to the Emperor back in the day. That according to school books in Japan.
So lets agree to let the evil world leaders have their way and we will just sit on our lilly white backside with Mr Wallis.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 13, 2007 11:15 PM
“That is your opinion. People like Chuck Colson have written several articles address the 'just war' and why we have the right to be there “
If it is just my opinion maybe you can explain to me what clear danger Iraq posed to the US prior to our invasion. We waged a preemptive war against Iraq without them posing a real threat to us, and that does not fit into Just War Theory. I would like to read the Chuck Colson articles you refer to, do you have a link?
"We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens,"
“No we haven't.”
My mistake, I meant to say tens of thousands not hundreds, nevertheless this does not change the basis of my argument. Innocent people have died because of our actions in Iraq, that is what I have a problem with.
“How did we stir up ethnic strife? It would seem that the strife was already there, but that factions say an opportunity to grapple for power. You can argue that Saddam was the only thing keeping these elements on check by virtue of his totalitarian leadership style, but eventually Saddam would be displaced by some force, natural or otherwise.”
Shiites and Sunni death squads were not out murdering people on a weekly basis before we dismantled the Iraqi government. That is how we have stirred up strife. You are right that Saddam was a dictator, and it was his oppressive style that kept the Shiites at bay. However this does not make our actions just. You can't base the validity of our actions based off of how someone else acts. Our actions weighed objectively against what Jesus teaches are not Christlike.
“There is no evidence that we knew it was misinformation.”
There is plenty of evidence that we knew there were no WMDs. The source that we used from Iraq was not trustworthy and we knew that before the war. And this doesn't change the fact that we supplied Iraq with the chemicals to make weapons to use against Iran in the 80s. The way we have dealt with Iraq over the last 20 years is completely wrong.
“What was our intent, in your view?”
This is a good question. I have a really hard time figuring out what exactly the Bush administration wanted to do in Iraq. There is the generic answer, we went for oil, but that seems simplistic to me. I know it was not to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, and it was certainly not to find WMDs. I am still trying to figure out why we went in.
Posted by: Will H. | November 14, 2007 12:13 AM
Do you right wingers really believe that we are without fault? Surely one of our strengths is our ability (limited no doubt) to be self critical and learn from at least a few of our mistakes.
Posted by: don gisselbeck
Huh ? I suggest you read the posts above Don. Without fault , cetrtainly not , ALL OF OUR FAULT ,is what the left wingers promote .
Just as centrist to thinking the world evolves around Americans I think even we conservatives are guilty of at times , the left appears to believe all the wars , all the problems in the Middle East , all the injustices of the last few hundred years have come out because of America .
No don , we have brought out much of the help and promoted much of the peace also . And we show our pimples so every one can see , the left makes them look like we need plastic surgery to re do our face . No thats not right either .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 12:14 AM
You really believe if people stopped killing people , we would not be on our way out ? That President H Clinton or whoever would not have outr butts out of there pronto ?”
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What I said is that our actions, weighed objectively against what Jesus taught us to do, are unjust. Iraq did not pose a threat to us and we had no reason to invade Iraq.
“From your position it sounds like you want to the United States to fail because we are the bad guys ?”
How so, I never said I want the US to fail.
“You believe Saddam was a person who was committed to Human Rights ?”
No in fact I said the opposite of that. I said that he was a horrible dictator.
Posted by: Will H. | November 14, 2007 12:24 AM
That President H Clinton or whoever would not have our butts out of there pronto ?”
"I'm not sure what you mean by this. What I said is that our actions, weighed objectively against what Jesus taught us to do, are unjust. Iraq did not pose a threat to us and we had no reason to invade Iraq."
Posted by Will
Will ? The Previous Administration stated that Iraq did pose a threat to us , that regime change was necessary to the security of this nation , not to mention the world . Hillary Clinton husband , not to mention herself thought this , stated it , and sounded the alarm to Iraq's danger before 9/11 .
How you do not consider that with the lefts assertion of the present lying administration and the WMD issue. We all thought Saddam has WMD. Iran thought it , other countries in the Middle East thought it . Nations that did not want us invading Iraq thought it . I thought it ,a did not want this war . Sadamm himself said he wanted the world to think he had them , especially IRAN , as to deter them from attacking . He never calculated it would cause us to . To think Iraq did not cause this war , is just loony . They were shooting at our planes , they were Under Un resolutions after attacking and invading another nation , and still shooting at part of the PEACE KEEPING FORCES . Come on , show some balance besides blame the United States .
“From your position it sounds like you want to the United States to fail because we are the bad guys ?”
How so, I never said I want the US to fail.
No , but you have mis stated the positions to prepose we are guilty and Iraq was innocent . They are not , they are a nation that used terrorism as a means to survive and prosper , they have a chance to choose peace now , decide among themselves the best way to go in their own self government . Elections !!! The truth of the matter is maybe they do not want it as much as the rest of us do , they rather for their own culture stay in their comfortable shoe , just like an old shoe that leaks and lets the cold come in , but its familiar . So keep it .
“You believe Saddam was a person who was committed to Human Rights ?”
No in fact I said the opposite of that. I said that he was a horrible dictator.
Thats excellent Will , we goofed I agree , Saddam was a scum bag . What would been your solution , just allow that to continue . That was my solution , but excuse me for saying it sure does not make me sound like a Bibical expert and worthy to put conservative Christians down or mis represent their views as war mongers . I was more concerned for our own boys actually , our planning was wrong , no exit plan . I am a Vietnam era x Hippie . We should have known better to go where we not wanted with a country that lives in sound bites .
Sometimes the world is just a sorry place where bad people rule . I don't believe that of the United States .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 4:12 AM
You seem to be missing my main point here. It became clear after the invasion that the US/UK worked together in a misinformation campaign to blur our intentions in Iraq. The now famous "Downing Street Memo" shows that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq. Iraq did not pose a threat to the US, we created this threat with brilliant propaganda. Furthermore as I said before you can't judge our actions based on what Iraq has done. If Iraq uses terrorism and tyranny to control people, how does that make it alright for the US to aggressively invade the country? What we did was still wrong, and Jesus would not be o.k. with that.
Posted by: Will H. | November 14, 2007 10:28 AM
So snatching innocent people off the street, holding them without trial and torturing them are "pimples"? Not to mention paying moderately competent athletes $10000 a pitch while actively denying people working 80 hrs a week decent food, clothing, housing and medical care. In a society which did not believe that justice was "what is in the interest of the powerful" that would be called stealing labor. I am happy to see the occaisional right winger who is able to acknowledge our faults, but they, even on this site, are far from the norm.
Posted by: don gisselbeck | November 14, 2007 6:17 PM
So snatching innocent people off the street, holding them without trial and torturing them are "pimples"?
posted don gisselbeck
Don I have not heard of this I am sorry . Who did we snatch off the street ? Are you talking about Iraq ? Waterboarding ?
Not to mention paying moderately competent athletes $10000 a pitch while actively denying people working 80 hrs a week decent food, clothing, housing and medical care.
don gisselbeck
Don can you give me an example of this ? I once worked a 80 hour week for a summer . It certainly got old . But I really think you are going for emotions here , this is only a blog . Working 80 hours a week , how often do you think that is done ?
"In a society which did not believe that justice was "what is in the interest of the powerful" that would be called stealing labor. I am happy to see the occaisional right winger who is able to acknowledge our faults, but they, even on this site, are far from the norm.
Posted by: don gisselbeck
What ?
Where would you rather live ? Under what kind of government ?
Of course we have faults , we are run by people , and holy cow , some of them Dear God are conservative . Of course we goof , of course we have , and unfortunately of course we will . I am for limited government myself , so what do you suppose we do ? Are you advocating for a change of government style , or just tired of Americans who don't live to your expectations ? I don't get your rant Don . Our nation has done many good things also . or is that not something you accept as truth ?
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 7:06 PM
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 13, 2007 3:37 PM
Blessings -
Would you stop closing your posts to me in this way? You do not mean it and I find it offensive for you to address me in such a way.
Thank you in advance.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 15, 2007 10:11 AM
Posted by: Lonnie | November 15, 2007 10:11 AM
Sorry - No...
I sign off that way 99% of the time and it is genuine. I may not agree with you but believe that God can bless you as well as anyone else. I can not remember who and who not to 'sign off' with what.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 12:27 PM
So we are there to free people from an oppressive dictator by killing them?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !
Methinks Mr. Mod, Mr. Sheldon and Mr. S ought to go over there and put their own lives on the line. Or send their kids if they're too old. Or better yet, try to put themselves in the shoes of folks who live day to day wondering if their "liberators" are going to destroy their homes and families and then blame it on Blackwater.
I don't buy for a moment that you guys care about Iraqi lives and freedom.
Posted by: Bailey "Boobs" McWilliams | November 15, 2007 4:28 PM
A fine suggestion, but what studio would really produce a film about God's values? Narnia and Lord of the Rings are exceptions, but our society is becoming more and more hostile to ethical monotheism.
If you're a filmmaker, yes, go and make such a film. But the religious left is far too timid to confront mainstream liberals over their blatant hostility to anyone who believes the Bible, Jew or Christian. Secularism is our new religion, and the state establishes it with shameless vigor, regardless of the occupant of the White House.
Posted by: Darrell | November 15, 2007 5:15 PM
A fine suggestion, but what studio would really produce a film about God's values? Narnia and Lord of the Rings are exceptions, but our society is becoming more and more hostile to ethical monotheism.
If you're a filmmaker, yes, go and make such a film. But the religious left is far too timid to confront mainstream liberals over their blatant hostility to anyone who believes the Bible, Jew or Christian. Secularism is our new religion, and the state establishes it with shameless vigor, regardless of the occupant of the White House.
Posted by: Darrell | November 15, 2007 5:16 PM
The competing views as to how to conduct our foreign policy are at the core, disagreements about when to stand by and when to take action. The difficulty in getting to a shared sense and disposition toward action is how much is not acknowledged by each side. It's a gross oversimplification to put things down to two sides, but it makes for a manageable contrast. The classic Liberal believes that our actions should be based on fundamental values regardless of the apparent disadvantage of "playing by the rules". The Conservative believes that he sees the world "as it is". In reality, the weakness of the Liberal is in fear and avoidance of conflict period even if it is inevitable, whereas the Conservative fears the consequences of relinquishing the initiative in favor of principle, which they see as only relative to the behavior of their perceived foe.
Posted by: Scott | November 15, 2007 5:23 PM
Thanks, Scott.
Oversimplified, as you said, but a thought provoking comment.
For the liberal, one problem would be: what are fundamental values? Do such exist?
For the conservative, is it better to go around the world doing good, according to values different from the liberal. Or to wait for the problem to come to our shores directly, if it ever does. I think the latter is Ron Paul's position, the only Replublican candidate against the war.
Posted by: Darrell | November 15, 2007 11:59 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?