007 comes full circle

Another James Bond. Can I even name them all anymore? This new guy's blond, fer chrissakes!

While it is, probably, too much to hope that the producers of the next film will make something appealing to a thinking adult, hope springs eternal.

I can't help getting a little excited by the prospect of the new guy, Daniel Craig, returning the character to one Ian Fleming would recognize. I lament many of the changes that have been made to the character of James Bond and to movies in general. Like many of my age, James Bond was a fixture and a lodestar in my life. Along with people like John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds and Charles Bronson - Sean Connery, George Lazenby and Roger Moore (at least in the first couple of movies) instructed young Anglo-American males in the art of being a man. A man dressed well, was polished, suave and polite - until somebody messed with him - then he was an accomplished martial artist and crack shot who dealt death as coolly as he chatted with beautiful women. This sort of model, although tempered necessarily by reality, taught the lesson that one ought to be civil - until it was no longer possible, then you should be prepared to do what was necessary to defend yourself and that in which you believe. A lesson that, based upon that which passes for popular culture and discourse today, is seemingly no longer taught.

When my friends and I watched 007 as kids, we noticed that working for your country against those who threatened you was a risky business. You were likely going to get hurt, or even killed, but you did it anyway. The closest James Bond has come recently to the cinematic ass-whuppin' he took in Dr. No is to have his suit wrinkled (and an Italian Brioni suit at that! Brioni! Don't get me started!). According to those who make movies today, patriotism is considered too juvenile even for teenagers and moral clarity is a sign of intellectual inferiority that could get you kicked out of the filmmakers’ club. Finally, it seems that today thinking is out of vogue - reliance on gadgetry is in.

The foregoing is why an adult treatment of the world of covert intelligence services that lacks the cynical nihilism of a Le Carre would likely stand out - if only because it stands alone.

Another reason for hope is: how hard could it be to make a James Bond movie today? After the events of the last four years, is the idea of a fight to the death against a megalomaniac criminal mastermind and his mercenary henchmen, in an armed hideaway in a remote corner of the world all that far-fetched? Art imitates life, right? The only problem movie-makers have today (and actually it is not an insignificant one) is - how can you top reality?

The decision to return to the first Bond novel Casino Royale for the next movie is another sign that, just perhaps, we may see an adult version of James Bond. Of all the novels, Casino Royale most prominently displays the gaps in the thin veneer of sophistication that only barely covers Bond’s (and generally Anglo-Saxons’) rough and bloody-minded willingness to defend himself and get his way. There is so much potential here.

However, I am fully prepared to be disappointed - again.

For those who care, below is a list of those who’ve played James Bond and a chronological list of Ian Fleming’s spy novels:

Actors

Barry Nelson (1954 [TV]) - Sean Connery (1962-1967) – George Lazenby (1969) – Sean Connery (1971) – Roger Moore (1973-1985) – Timothy Dalton (1987-1989) – Pierce Brosnan (1995-2002) – Daniel Craig (2006- )

Novels

Casino Royale (1953)
Live and Let Die (’54)
Moonraker (’55)
Diamonds are Forever (’56)
From Russia with Love (’57)
Dr. No (’58)
Goldfinger (’59)
For Your Eyes Only (’60)
Thunderball (’61)
The Spy who Loved Me (’62)
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (’63)
You Only Live Twice (‘64)
The Man with the Golden Gun (’65)*
Octopussy & The Living Daylights (’66)*

*-Published posthumously

Words to remember

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
—THOMAS JEFFERSON

Some considerations

In the discussions about the "validity" of our efforts in Iraq, people often forget the following:

1. Unlike 1941, when FDR could wait for the Japanese to attack us before proceeding to kick their collective ass, today any attack would be with unconventional weapons (e.g. airplanes) or WMD and would be against civilian targets. Imagine what those who claim we had no "reason" to invade Iraq would have said had the President sat by while a chemical, biological or nuclear attack against us had killed 50,000 of non-combatant citizens. Remember: Saddam had biological and chemical weapons and had a frighteningly advanced program to develop nuclear weapons in 1991. He made many terrorists welcome in his country. Admittedly, they were welcomed singly and not as groups - a la the Taliban in Afghanistan. Still, his government officially entertained the likes of Ayman Al Zawahiri, whose beliefs earned him Al Qaeda's #2 position. Additionally, he supported Hamas and paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The fact that we didn't know his capabilities in 2003 is attributable, first, to his intransigence and second and thirdly, to the fact that his regime was Hitlerian/Stalinist in its paranoid elimination of anyone even remotely suspected of disloyalty so that his minions told him what he wanted to hear instead of the truth. This led to a precarious situation in which Saddam acted on wildly inaccurate information fed to him out of fear.

2. Any way you slice it, Iraq was a threat to us. First, as a direct threat: Saddam or his sons would have continued to cause military trouble in the region which had already once caused our involvement militarily. A move against Saudi Arabia or Israel or another move against Kuwait - certainly not impossible - would have required our involvement in a wider war than that which we have now. Second, indirectly, Iraq would have continuted to covertly undermine and challenge our efforts at peace in the Middle East and quietly support those seeking to hurt us, while maintaining "plausible deniability" of those efforts. Iraq was assisting and would have continued to assist terrorists determined to kill us. Was there a high level working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda? No. But, that doesn’t mean Saddam wasn’t a terrorist or Iraq a state supporter of terrorism. If a state such as Pakistan can allow nuclear technology to leak out, ought we to ‘trust’ that Iraq would have abided by the terms of the NPT?

3. Finally, Saddam and Iraq was a rallying point for those who saw the United States as a toothless tiger. The fact that Saddam had stood up to the U.S. and the U.N. was seen as proof that the U.S. was impotent. In a society that places great emphasis on strength and martial proficiency, this perceived impotence fueled much of the willingness of Islamic groups to call for attacks against America. The removal of Saddam sent a very strong message to the Islamic world: whatever else we may be, we are not afraid to fight and if you mess with us, you don’t stand a chance. Indeed, dislike of America may have grown since 2003, but so has respect - and in the Islamic world, it is respect that matters.

The removal of Saddam, the establishment of democratic, Islamic Republics in Afghanistan and Iraq and our willingness to withstand casualties has begun to engender a question in the minds of those who now hate us: “If America is so evil and their system so corrupt, why have they succeeded where we have failed?” If an answer to that question is sought throughout the Islamic world by those on the Islamic “street”, we will have won the war on terror. After all, the “war on terror” has always been a war of ideas - and ideas depend on perceptions.

Playing with it?

The Democrats, it seems, aren't the only ones who take their base for granted.

Having been irritated beyond tolerance by the feckless and seemingly aimless behavior of Republicans, I have decided to change my voting registration - but to what?

The Democratic Party is the party of Socialists, Neo-Pagans and Libertines. They are not an option.

The party whose platform and beliefs are in closest concert with mine is the Libertarian Party. Known throughout the rest of the world as the Liberal Party, they believe that government is a threat to liberty and must necessarily be kept to an absolute minimum.

So, then, this should be a 'no-brainer', right?

Sadly, Libertarians, as a party, are a semi-comical group of mental masturbators who sit around circle-jerking without creating much in the way of a communicable - let alone workable - plan for governing. As it stands now, the Libertarian Party is run by people who are far more comfortable with theory than reality. Like the leaders of the short-lived Confederate States of America, they are so determined to stand on principle that they won't make compromises necessary to effectively fight.
It’s not much of an option.

I guess I'll just have to register as a Libertarian - then hold my nose and keep voting Republican.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

-Ronald Reagan's 1st Inaugural Address - January 20, 1981

I just don't understand...

Whereas,

By demonstrating that disparate tribes and religious sects can get along and

By demonstrating that pluralistic states under the rule of law create vibrant economies that raise the people’s standard of living and

By reminding the world that democracies usually get along and rarely fight and

By demonstrating that stable societies temper and moderate extremism

The successful creation of a democratic, Islamic republic in Iraq would be a huge step toward a resolution of the tribal and religious turmoil that afflicts the Middle East.

With the above as preface, I ask myself why the media and political left in this country are doing their level best to frustrate - and bring about the failure of - our efforts in Iraq.

One would think that such a worthwhile goal would garner universal support. But, it does not.

I think I understand why, though.

Those who consider the President a moron, those who consider themselves so much more educated and intelligent than the President and who predicted failure from the get-go cannot allow themselves to be wrong. Their egos will not permit it. And, if George W. Bush, of all people, is right and they wrong – it will be an unendurable humiliation. They, therefore, cannot let him be right. They would rather create civil war in Iraq than allow the President to be right.

There are no words adequate to express my disgust of those who act in such a petty and vindictive manner.

May Almighty God see our efforts through to a happy completion.