Might makes right

I enjoy opening myself to the product of an artist’s labors. Directors are artists, screenwriters, set designers, editors, artists all.

David Lynch is one of my favorite directors. I remember when Mulholland Drive came out, and afterward I summed up my thoughts about the experience of seeing the movie by saying “I felt like a dog, and David Lynch jingled the car keys and asked if I want go for a ride”.

I did want to go for a ride, and I was glad that there was an executive somewhere that was willing to give David Lynch a whole bunch of money, and the trust that his genius would would net a return of some kind.

That is a good experience. There is another type of experience. It is more transparent, you see the tricks they are using, and if you are open to it, you follow along. Generally, I resist tricks I see. I pull back and do not give myself over to the talents of the artists involved. Everything becomes predictable when you do not willfully suspend your disbelief.

I felt the Micheal Clayton was intentionally slow in an effort to seem arty. The acting was good, the action was lacking. The plot was strung out to make it exactly two hours long.

The very last scene, in which George Clooney playing Micheal Clayton enters a cab is perfect. Perfect lighting, perfect pacing, terrific acting, and it gave me the feel that they were trying for throughout the rest of the film.

Another aspect of the film that I thought was great was Tilda Swinton. Casting her was genius, and the fact that she was not hardbody trim, and they showed her without all of her clothes on was a bold move. It was not the point of the scenes where it happened, but I still give credit for the thought.

All in all, I think the movie requires a patient, practical eye to see. Too much emphasis on the artful aspects will make them fall apart, they don’t have the depth required to stand up to that scrutiny. It is not awful, and there are some shining moments of acting. Seeing the movie does not make me want to read the book, but it does make me think it was probably better.

I don’t want to get all puffed up and tell you that I am some kind of war strategist. I am not, but I did play the game of Risk once. In high school.

It is the game of world domination. It’s pretty easy to understand.

One of the things you have at your disposal, to win the game is to divide and conquer. You wait for your opponent to be concentrating on their siege and spread themselves thin, and you cut off their supply line. There force is split, and to get the things they need to fight, they have to figure a way around.

That’s just a game, but I think that the scheme would work in real life. I have seen movies about WWII, and there are people pushing little pucks around on maps with sticks talking about doing the same things. This, to them is reality, and many of these stories were based on actual battles.

The enemy army cannot succeed in marching without food, water, fuel, bullets.

Works good.

So there you go, the entire basis for any narrative I might have about executing a war. Stripped it as I could from popular culture.

Listening to the news, I heard about a group cutting the supply lines to the troops in Iraq. They cleverly sabotaged the only way to sensibly get materiel through.

When the opponent in a war does this, they are called enemy. What is the word for the person who does this when she is the leader your own House of Representatives? I really don’t think traitor is too strong a word.

When you intentionally drive Turkey from our side, when you must know that their land and air-space is the nearest direct route for life-saving supplies, what word do we use to describe you, and what are the consequences for you when you are found out?

We can look to our own history for a precedent.

Benedict Arnold did almost the exact same thing using troops instead of non-binding resolutions.

Arnold led a force of 1,600 British troops into Virginia and captured Richmond, cutting off the major artery of supplies to American troops in the south.

This put the whole effort at risk.

Benedict Arnold is not known as a hero in American history. I don’t think I paid much attention to this tale when I was supposed to learn it. I learned what I must to pass the test. I assumed he was a yellow-bellied double-crosser, but today I looked closer at the man.

He felt bad about what he had done, one has to assume, and he wondered his fate. He inquired to one of the officers he had captured from Richmond about what would happen if he himself fell into the hands of the Americans.

The captured officer replied:

“Cut off your right leg, bury it with full military honors, and then hang the rest of you on a gibbet”

Could we do that? Can we get our hands on a gibbet? What’s a gibbet?

I think we might be watching something occur. Something big. It starts out as Nancy Pelosi getting some political points with the huge Armenian contingent in her district, that move sends the ambassador Turkey packing, we lose the good will of the only Islamic Democracy in the world, no more fly-overs for re-supply, no more need for restraint on the part of the Turks with the Kurds in their country, the Kurds in Iran express an opinion, the Russians are in the pocket of Iran and itching to fight, and there lurks China holding a bag of our dollar bills big enough to collapse our entire economy.

World fucking War.

What do I know, I only played the game once. I bet Nancy Pelosi was a champ.

Watch for these ways out and hope:

1] The non-binding resolution does not pass because it is pointless, and there may still be sensible thinkers in that auspicious guv’nin body.

2] Those sneaky Turks may be just acting offended so that they can squeeze us for more aid.

You can tell a book by its cover, but sometimes it is extremely difficult. I have been wondering for the last 45 minutes whether or not I would fuck with the skinny guy in the ‘Duke Fencing’ t-shirt