It's Increasingly Clear Hillary Clinton Doesn't Want to See ISIS Clearly
A couple folks in the comments section of last night's piece contend Hillary Clinton's debate claim that Donald Trump "is becoming ISIS's greatest recruiter" doesn't rank as an insane lie; they suggest it's just garden-variety hyperbole and bashing of the political opposition. Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit points out that these sorts of willy-nilly accusations steer the national discussion about how to handle ISIS away from the truth: How far should this rule extend against saying things that jihadis might exploit? Trump shouldn't have proposed his ban, the theory goes, because ISIS will use it as proof that America hates Muslims. In that case, should Obama have held off on stating his support for gay marriage? I'm no expert but I'd guess most Muslims would be more receptive to propaganda that the infidels are perverting Allah's moral order by letting men marry men and women marry women than that some random politician who isn't the president wants to keep Muslims out (temporarily). In fact, doesn't ISIS agree that Muslims shouldn't visit the filthy Dar al-Kufr known as America (except for purposes of jihad)? They're trying to build a caliphate; the only proper place for Muslims, according to the caliph, is the caliphate itself, I would think. It's a neat trick to try to build resentment at the U.S. for keeping people out when ISIS presumably is trying to keep them in. But to repeat the underlying point: If we're going to let our policy choices be influenced by jihadi reaction, how do we justify legalized gay marriage? Two: Explain to me why ISIS would see Trump's Muslim ban idea as some irresistible propaganda goldmine when they have endless other more seductive grievances, real and imaginary, that they can exploit. If you were suddenly tasked with making an incitement video for ISIS, where would "Trump calls for ban" fall on your depth chart of things that need to go in there? ISIS is not outraged about Trump statements or a potentially discriminatory U.S. immigration policy; they're outraged by the existence of infidels and people who think differently from them. (To simplify a longer discussion, according to the Islamists' interpretation of their holy book, God's on their side, and is supposed to be helping them win. They look around and don't feel like winners. (Boy, after a while we all sound like Trump, don't we?) The Caliphate is supposed to be the most powerful and strongest kingdom, and instead the West is (and China, and Russia, and arguably Israel, and . . .) . . . they're lashing out at what they see as a cosmic injustice, attempting to correct a world where they were supposed to be on the top but feel like they're at or near the bottom. Because they've victims of a demonic injustice, perpetuated by the Great Satan, etc., all means and tactics are justified.) Allahpundit concludes, "The actual thought process here, I think, goes something like this: Cartoonish right-wing populism is the worst thing they can imagine in their own personal Overton window of American politics, therefore any cartoonish right-wing populist proposal must necessarily be enabling ISIS, the world's worst, most dangerous group of people. It may not actually be true, and it might make no sense when you think about it for five minutes, but this is Larger Truth material if ever there was any." The bigger point here is that Hillary Clinton is allegedly running on her experience, her superior knowledge of foreign policy, and her deeper understanding of the threats America faces . . . and now we've seen her blame Benghazi on a YouTube video and pre-emptively blame Donald Trump for any forthcoming ISIS attacks. Remember, she's the only candidate in this race who called for "showing respect, even for one's enemies; trying to understand and, insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view." But even if you think that's a good or needed approach, she doesn't do any of that. Her takeaway from her big speech about the Islamic State was "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism." Again, this is a deliberate effort to avert our eyes from what this group claims to stand for and how it sells itself to potential members and supporters. From the 2015 Global Terrorism Index: One of the most powerful tools of the ISIL is the creation of its brand and image, linked to the notion that it is a modern-day "caliphate". By creating this notion, ISIL presents itself as the vanguard of militant Islam, the only legitimate jihadist movement to hold territory and govern a pseudo state. It claims to offer an "authentic" way of life different from secularism. The ISIL propaganda machine maintains that it is providing medical, social, policing, and rescue services and an effective administration . . . As long as ISIL holds territory, the more plausible its caliphate and its accompanying political, ideological, social and economical pretensions become. Hillary Clinton will insist we need to destroy, not contain ISIS in one breath and then turn around and denounce alleged Republican 'fearmongering' the next. Her thinking is a contradictory mess, her proposals are a vague mess, and her record on fighting terrorism at the State Department was a mess that looks worse and worse over time. Why would anyone expect her to be different as president? The Spoiler-Filled Assessment of Star Wars: The Force Awakens SPOILERS AHEAD J.J. Abrams is a very clever man. By agreeing to direct and co-write the seventh Star Wars movie, Abrams took on on a creative task with epic expectations. The fan base waited to hear about these beloved characters since 1983, and some fans might argue they've been waiting since then for a genuinely satisfying movie in this series. If The Force Awakens had been a bad movie or even a mediocre one, the fans might have walked away concluding that the series was really just lightning in a bottle in the first two films, and running on nostalgia ever since. Abrams knows his biggest advantage as a storyteller is the audience's intense desire to know, "What happened to our heroes in the thirty years since we last saw them?" And in the first four words of the opening crawl, he heightens the stakes: "Luke Skywalker has vanished." What happened? Why? Luke seemed so happy at the end of Return of the Jedi! In other words, instead of looking for Death Star plans or some other object-MacGuffin, Luke is the MacGuffin. And the audience is as emotionally invested in the answer to that question as the good guys (the Resistance) and the bad guys (the First Order). The second advantage J.J. Abrams has is that he has three really good actors to build this new series around. I hadn't seen much of Oscar Isaac, Daisy Ridley, and John Boyega before this movie. They don't have much baggage from past roles; as much as fans may have liked Mace Windu, in their minds, they know it was Samuel L. Jackson up there reciting the lines. Each member of the new trio has a lot of charisma and range. Ridley does a scene with a beeping droid, a growling alien, and she's speaking to them in some alien language -- yet we understand everything from tone and framing and action. Perhaps the single best move Abrams makes is he lets the story play out at its own pace in those first 30 or 40 minutes. There's clear dramatic stakes and tension -- BB-8's got the map to Luke! -- but he also lets the characters breathe, get a sense of who they are, their values. He also drops some important clues. (Boy, the homemade doll in Rey's home sure looks like an X-Wing pilot, doesn't it? She seems to have an X-Wing pilot's helmet lying around, too.) Around the market chase, I realized I was really enjoying the movie, and I hadn't seen any of my old favorites show up yet. The third big advantage Abrams had is that Harrison Ford showed up and just knocked it out of the park. Ford famously groused about believing his character should die though a final act of noble self-sacrifice, and now we know exactly what it took to get Ford to come back and give a great, quipping, grousing, finger-pointing, lovable-rogue performance. Ironically, by this point Han is a really complicated dramatic figure, full of regrets and past pains. The idea that Han, Leia, and Uncle Luke could raise a child and helplessly watch him turn out so terribly wrong is a powerful and frightening idea. (It will be disappointing if in subsequent movies they suggest Ben Solo/Kylo Ren was somehow brainwashed. The Dark Side is a metaphor for all kinds of malevolent temptation, terrifying because it is freely chosen by them (us?) out of anger, jealousy, frustrated ambition, etc. Every villain thinks of himself as a hero, and everyone always thinks they can handle the temptations of power. But it corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Ben Solo must have found the legendary, frightening cautionary tales of his Grandpa Anakin, the man who conquered the galaxy, more appealing than his noble, mundane parents and uncle . . . The fact that Han needs to stop his son, but also still loves him and would do anything to bring him back, gives a lot more emotional weight to this particular good-and-evil tale. But the big twist (LAST CHANCE, SPOILER ALERT)… … … of killing Han is what makes The Force Awakens such a big turning-point story, with real stakes and more emotional depth than the prequels. Suddenly Kylo Ren isn't just another masked villain; he's the man who killed Han Solo . . . his own father! Forget blowing up planets we've never heard of before; this guy's now committed crimes that hit the audience where it counts. Immediately after, Ren (Adam Driver) tells Ridley and Boyega, "It's just us now. Han Solo can't save you." The not-so-hidden-meta-subtext, we can't just run on memories of the original trilogy. It's up to us to continue this story in way that audiences love. By the final reel, the torch has been passed to these new characters – Chewie, Leia and 3P0 are receding into the background. What's fascinating about The Force Awakens is how much it tells, and how much it withholds, even after that strangely haunting final shot. We've finally found Luke, but we don't know why he's stayed away for so long and we definitely get the feeling he isn't happy to be found. We know Ben Solo/Kylo Ren betrayed Luke, but there's a lot of gaps in the tale. We've got a lot of reasons to suspect Rey is Luke's daughter, but nothing definitive. We know almost nothing about Snoke, the devilish figure behind the First Order. Finally, who did Max Von Sydow play? The character is reportedly named "Lor San Tekka" but he sure acts like someone who goes back to the original trilogy -- he's the one who has the map the Luke, he knows Princess Leia from way back, and he knows Ren's true identity. (My favorite theory is that he's Kanan from the Rebels animated series.) ADDENDA: My pop-culture podcast co-host found the most perfectly-titled example of those Hallmark Christmas movies: 
Cookie cutter indeed! Almost every one of these movies features (1) a woman who needs to find love (2) an old boyfriend or nice guy from high school who now runs a hardware store or soup kitchen (3) an evil department-store employee, who's greedy and doesn't know "the true meaning of Christmas" (4) a winking, kindly old man who turns out to be either Santa Claus or an elf (5) implausible coincidences that are attributed to "miracles can happen at Christmas!" (6) a cute kid (7) a picturesque, elaborately decorated town where it always just snowed. These movies are like the Witness Protection Program for actors we haven't seen in a while. (Alan Thicke! I haven't heard from you since you warned me about the IRS on my radio. "Where have you been?" "Oh, I've been making Christmas movies for Hallmark!") | 
Comments
Post a Comment