The Flotilla

 

Another flotilla is plying its way to Gaza, nominally with the goal of delivering “humanitarian” goods to a territory blockaded by Israel. Here is a part of the report of that event that appeared in the EU Observer yesterday (June 27, 2011):

All 27 EU countries in Brussels on Friday signed a statement saying: "Humanitarian assistance ... [to Gaza] should be in accordance with the relevant framework and decisions of the UN and should take care not to endanger human lives."

There are ulterior motives, however, and endangering human lives is the flotilla's goal, notwithstanding the declarations of its supporters.ⁱ Indeed, the need for a flotilla to provide “humanitarian assistance” is imaginary, since there are legal means for delivering needed resources – both through Israel and Egypt.ⁱⁱ

Also included in that article:

The IDF's [Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman Avital] Leibovich said it has a right to stop the boats under the maritime law, the San Remo convention. She added that three months ago a ship claiming to be carrying food to Gaza, the Victoria, had bullets, mortars and ship-to-shore missiles on board.ⁱⁱⁱ

But that is irrelevant to the situation which is really intended as a propaganda measure at a time when more are anticipated.

As I noted a few weeks ago, "The upcoming UN debate over the recognition of Palestinian and the deligitimization of Israel, along with the latest Durban clone,^iv are certain to attract further attention by the media and, through them, the public. Whether the questions raised by the debate are themselves legitimate is arguable though. The real issue, however, is why there is so little attention to the crimes perpetrated by the various Arab States – to their racism, sexism, homophobia, corruption, and lack of regard for human rights. There is no attention to the issue of whether, for example, Should Syria exist? Like Israel it is the creation of an international body, but unlike Israel it has no historical basis. And whether or not there is a historical basis for a particular state, there is at least as much reason^v to question some of its neighbors as Israel itself.^vi"  This effort, like many previous ones and, sadly, like many to come, is linked more to public opinion than to fact, logic and equity.

Whatever the arguments of Muslims, Jews, and “bystanders,”^vii there seems to be a dearth of critical thinking and discussion of other countries – countries which already possess hundreds of times the area and population of Israel – and by other countries. Is it purely a matter of selling papers or is there more involved? The vast majority of the media will probably not notice the cautions sent by the European Union, Israel, the United States, and other nations to those participating in the provocation. The press's stories will be based on whatever propaganda releases come from the ships or Palestinian sources.

What is the reason for such attitudes? Different people will have different explanations for the desperate call to discredit and delegitimize Israel.  I know I have my own.^viii  But they're not relevant.  They're all focused on Israel. They don't address the real problem. They don't ask the right questions.

i     Extensive publicity was gained from the last flotilla when members of the IDF, attacked by passengers on one of the ships, fought back and killed some of them.

ii    Egypt recently opened its border with Gaza. While smuggling of weapons into Gaza from Egypt took place before that, the new situation makes such acts easier.

iii     Israel has also been forced to stop other ships containing weapons from reaching Gaza and Hamas, an organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. It is disingenuous to suggest that Hamas will be willing to make peace with Israel. They proclaim loudly that they will never do so.

iv     In polite society the question will be raised as “Should Israel be delegitimized?” At the “Durban” conference it is more likely that it will be “Shouldn't Israel be delegitimized?”

v     Actually there are many more reasons.

vi     Syria is only intended as an example. There are other tyrannies in the Arab world that oppress their own citizens, as the “Arab Spring” is demonstrating. Whether those tyrannies are legitimate is a subject that is worthy of wider debate.

vii    “Objective” observers whose views are formed by the media and other Palestinian propaganda. Sadly there is a pro-Palestinian bias in the media, and the vast majority of “news” from the Middle East satanizes all actions taken by Israel, and sanitizes those of the Palestinians.

viii    It's hard for me not to see anti-semitism as part of the hidden agenda of those who want to see Israel destroyed.

Best In Show

 

We've gone to the dogs and it's a dog-eat-dog world. That's the law of the jungle – the survival of the fittest. Our society arrogantly flaunts its supremacy over inferior species – our disdain for them – at least usually. We even recognize this in our metaphors and aphorisms.ⁱ We talk of foxes in the hen house, of wolves in sheep's clothing, and of swimming with the sharks. And we speak of dogfights.

Ah, dog-fighting. That's where we draw the line. That's where our love-hate relationship with them rears its head. Now that Michael Vick is rehabilitated and the NFL Comebackⁱⁱ Player of the Year (2010), it's clear that we're all confused by issues relating to animal rightsⁱⁱⁱ and wrongs. And about our own attitudes to animals in general. Indeed, we probably all agree that such an activity as dog-fighting is evil, and cock-fighting as well. Most would maintain that bullfighting is also cruel, although there are many who view it as sport.^iv I have no intention of defending dog-fighting, but we simultaneously claim concern as we dominate animals, making it is hard to ignore society's ambivalence on the subject of animals.^v

Personally I like a thick steak. Medium, so it's still juicy inside. But the fat^vi has to be charred. A vegetarian, and especially a vegan, would find my behavior reprehensible.^vii There are many who feel that killing animals for food is wrong,^viii or even using animal products obtained otherwise.^ix They are certainly opposed to hunting,^x as are many who are not vegetarians, but they view it as natural that other animals might hunt or eat meat. It's their natural instinct to do so. And when we deprive animals of their natural instincts and their natural habitat, as we do in zoos,^xi we take from them their “humanity.” Perhaps it's worse to take an animal out of its normal environment, or to squelch its natural instincts, than to take any other action against it.

Instinct is a real problem for us. However we may have incorporated that concern into our view of civilization though, dogs on leashes, for example, find themselves in an unnatural situation because of us. Animals in their natural habitat are free to wander at will. Nevertheless it's perfectly legal to restrain your pet – in fact in some localities people are required to keep their dogs on leashes. On the other hand, the fighting of many animals actually is natural and instinctual. Two dogs on leashes who do not know each other^xii will often bark and try to attack what they see as a competitor or enemy. The leashes stop them. But those who try to encourage this kind of normal behavior – especially if they do it with what we civilized people view as cruelty (even though this might simulate what those animals could face in nature) – are subject to prosecution. And even though it's normal for some of them, animals that bite are often destroyed. We're not always ready to concede to an animal his natural instincts.

And while animals, like humans, are programed to reproduce, we do not hesitate to spay or neuter our pets^xiii or, if we're the ASPCA, to euthenize animals in excess of our resources.^xiv Yet we'll spend tens of thousands on a beached whale or oil covered pelicans. And we're quite comfortable destroying industries^xv to save what we view as endangered species. There are many who are more concerned about pets than children. And some who view their pets as their children. We're humans with human values and human mindsets. And we see animals as having the same characteristics. At least they should, and we should foster them.

So we train pets to be polite and compliant. We condition them. We teach them to serve our needs. We want our children to do what we say and we want the same of our pets. But what child would walk smartly up and down on a leash, ignoring all distractions, as we'd observe at the Westminster Kennel Club. Perhaps we have to stifle a dog's instincts to achieve this result, but it's certainly worth it since we have turned the pet into a sophisticated human, and gotten bragging rights for ourself. And we make warriors of guard and attack dogs, helpers of seeing-eye dogs, and potential sacrifices of bomb-sniffing dogs. It's hard to know why these are acceptable outcomes, while using animals as medical laboratory subjects or for other testing purposes is not.^xvi In all those cases we are using animals to serve human purposes – not a major priority of most species. We turn them into something they're not for our benefit. Some might argue that a seeing-eye dog is fulfilling a great humanitarian service and the actions we take are justified, like a Saint Bernard with some brandy. But it's hard to understand the importance of the service performed by the Best In Show. And horse racing, the activity of the rich at Epsom Downs, is admirable, as is riding to hounds. If, however, a horse pulls a carriage in Central Park or a pet attacks a squirrel, we're quick to find fault. As is the case with so many things, it seems that if we like it, it's good. If we don't like it, it's bad. We aren't troubled by consistency.

As for other issues concerning animals, in some matters we glorify multiculturalism and promote its expression. But that's not a universal point of view. A culture that views a cow as holy isn't understood by many. Nor is the use of sacrifice as part of religious ritual. And even those who accept the idea of eating meat question the practice of using dogs and cats as food. Kosher slaughter (Shechitah) is under attack as cruel even though it is not intended that way and has been employed for millenia. We have very mixed views. But if meat is permissible at all, it must accord with our prejudices.^xvii Chickens, if used as food, must be “free-range.” Chicken coops are unnatural. Veal and foie gras should be avoided at all costs^xviii because they are the results of cruelty.

There are other prohibitions as well. No puppy farms. We shouldn't be breeding animals just to sell them. That philosophy will also impact heavily on the food trade, but animal lovers will surely applaud such a situation. As a matter of fact, pet stores should be closed. It's a good first step in eliminating all animal trade. We should also remove the dissection of frogs and fetal pigs from the biology curriculum. In fact we should remove the dissection of human corpses from the medical curriculum. There's no reason why doctors can't learn all that is necessary from a picture book. If you can paint by numbers, you can perform surgery the same way.

But we do more than protecting non-humans. We see them as greater and more deserving than we ourselves. At the same time that we use animals to suit our purposes – as pets for example – and we elevate their “rights” above our own. I can recall the impassioned plea of an environmentalist for the end of “noise pollution.” What did he mean by that? He felt that the sounds of birds and other animals were natural and beautiful, but those of humans were ugly and deserving of elimination. It seems that beneficial evolution stopped just before homo sapiens. Survival of the fittest be damned. Humans shouldn't use their superiority to dominate other species. We're better than that^xix. When our remains are discovered thousands of years from now and the scientists of the time discover the features of meat eaters, they may be unaware that eating of meat was out of fashion and that all we ate were Brussels sprouts. But we'll die with the knowledge of our own virtue. And, of course, we fed our pets the best available food, even if they often contained meat and dairy products.

I don't wish to condemn our behavior toward other species. We're only human. In fact I support many of the things we do. But our inconsistencies need to be recognized, and we should understand that while we criticize others, we often act more cruelly than they. Or at least with less understanding of what we're doing.

After all, we lionize our pets. The world is theirs. All we're needed for is to scoop the poop.

Next episode: “The Value Of Women” – More than just intellect.

i     Our use of words relating to animals illustrates this. Call a man a “dog” or a “jackass” and you've insulted him. Ditto “wolf” or “predator.” Call a woman a “bitch” and she will certainly take offense. Even the term “kitten” is seen as belittling. Call either a man or a woman a “bloodhound” or a “horse's ass” and you can anticipate ruffled feathers or raised hackles. People we don't like are often referred to as “animals” or “beasts.”
ii    Comeback from jail in this case.

iii    Whatever that means.

iv   They may also view boxing and other “man-to-man” combat as heroic.

v    Including my own. I have a stuffed moose head hanging in the living room, but it's really a cloth toy. Yet there are many who have the real thing as a decoration and source of pride.

vi    Yes. I said fat. (And Julia Child said: “Fat gives things flavor.”) It should be more than ample, but nowadays meat is trimmed of almost all of its fat. Allegedly thats better for my health. After all, it certainly didn't help its previous owner.

vii    He'd also view my fur hat with contempt.

viii   I'm not sure if they'd eat roadkill, animals killed by other animals, or those that died of natural causes, but I doubt it.

ix    Like milking cows. Presumably they also eschew the use of leather, vehicles that use fossil fuels, and electricity derived from that fuel. Ah for the good old days.

x     Should distinctions be drawn between killing as a “sport,” for food, or in order to thin out a large group “for its own benefit?”
xi    We do the same when we keep fish in tanks, bunnies or hamsters in cages, or other pets (especially strange ones like reptiles or large numbers of common ones, like cats) in apartments. And we make things worse when we declaw the cats and perform surgery on dogs to keep them from barking and disturbing the neighbors. We remove the scent glands from our pet skunks to protect ourselves and our neighbors.
xii    And possibly if they do.

xiii    Indeed. We're encouraged to do so.

xiv   Some are authorized to kill animals, some are not.

xv    And sacrificing the jobs and income of the humans who are a part of them.

xvi    Sometimes (actually almost always) I think that PETA has a greater concern for animals than humans.

xvii   In the case of the condemnation of Shechitah, a strong argument can be made that there is a strong component of anti-semitism among its proponents.

xviii   Actually both are relatively expensive, especially the foie gras.

xix   And we're worse than they.

Writer's Bl …

 

I don't recall what I was going to write about, but it can't have been very important. I probably have nothing to say about it anyway. It's a job-related hazardⁱ that, I'm told, we all must endure. But the more I consider it, the more I believe that teaching to be erroneous. I suspect it's the excuse used by those who are stuck, to justify to themselves their inability to pursue their craft. It also rationalizes a vacation from work. So it's not all bad.

I'm aware that such a stand may seem arrogant. But it's a malady from which I don't suffer. I don't know if the key word in that sentence is “suffer.” Perhaps I don't care enough about my writing, so I can ignore the results of failure. Perhaps I tolerate writer's block because I don't make my living from writing, so time away is tolerable and a situation with no significant repercussions. After all, I have nothing to lose if I devote my time to other things. I can get back to writing when the muse strikes me.

If you enjoy writing, though, that may not be good enough.ⁱⁱ The income, however important, isn't your only reason. You have something to say. There's a passion to feed, and the act of writing, the catharsis, takes precedence over other activities. You feel anxiety until you get your words down. You many forget them. Ideally your work will be of topnotch quality, but even if it isn't, it's your work, and you can improve on it later. So because I enjoy writing, I have some thoughts about ways to write and ways to avoid writer's block. And because I have something to say – and because I'm always right – I won't hesitate to list my suggestions in this message to others who may also glory in the art. But first I'd like to deal with some of what I consider the myths (in Bold) of writing.

------------------------------------------------------------

1. Write what you know about. – Why?ⁱⁱⁱ It certainly won't be interesting for you. If you're at all creative – a fiction writer, for example – the world you create should come from your imagination, not your experience. I suspect that J. K. Rowling never experienced Harry Potter's world, nor did Homer romp with the gods.^iv Your personal world may be too boring and restrictive. I know mine is. The problem with too many blogs,^v as I see it, is that they're all about the author and his experiences. Who cares? Things are tough for all of us. We read fiction to be transported away from reality,^vi not to get more of it. We have problems of our own.

Non-fiction writers would be doomed if all they could write about was their own experience. How much can you say about yourself before people start looking elsewhere? And how much will you learn? No, it's more fun to write about whatever strikes your fancy, doing whatever research is necessary. So learn and write. And write and learn. If you find something interesting, and your writing is good, the reader will find it interesting too. And if not, that's his loss. In the meantime, you've enjoyed yourself.

2. Always write in the morning. – Or afternoon. Or evening. Writing isn't a punishment. I've always operated with the philosophy that you do what you have to before what you want to, but the writing should be what you want to do, not something mandatory, so it can be put off until you have something you want to say. Forcing yourself to write at a particular time may be helpful in ensuring that you write, but not that you write anything of interest. So it's a waste of the morning if you sentence yourself to write then.

3. Write a thousand words a day. – I never knew if that was a minimum or a maximum. Either would be silly. From my perspective, the basic rule should be: Write what you have to say. Don't buy into magic numbers. If you don't have anything worth writing, don't write. If you have more than a thousand words that you want to write, write them.

4. Write for your audience. – That's fine if your audience is you. If you force your writing into a mold to suit some target group, the writing will be moldy.^vii And, as is noted below in the footnotes, it is belittling to the audience if you write what you think they would like. Of course, that may be the way to get readers and for you to earn a living.^viii People like to have their preconceived notions validated. I'm glad I don't have to cater to them.

5. It is helpful to start many different kinds of projects for future development, though this works better in non-fiction than fiction.^ix If you seem to be hitting a wall in whatever you're writing, don't force yourself. Switch to another project. If you do this enough times, sooner or later you'll find one about which you have something to say. Fiction writers, however, can certainly start several stories and only develop them when it makes sense. With enough beginnings, it's likely that one of them will rate continuation or an ending at any particular time. But don't continue just so you can keep writing.

6. I was just about to make an important point, but I can't remember what it was. I didn't write it down. Ideas come and go, and you should be ready for them wherever you are. Some form of recording device – pocket recorder or other electronic device, or pencil and paper – should always be available.^x Well, almost always.

7. I'm an inveterate letter writer. To the media, that is. Whenever I find something in a news or opinion column that is either wrong or debatable, I find a way to say so. The value of this kind of exercise is that it gives me the opportunity to work through a subject – often one with which I'm only marginally familiar – and, because I mostly write non-fiction (essays and the like), the result of thinking about a topic of interest is often the basis for a longer work. And if there is a moral dilemma involved, there may even be the basis for a short story, or the issue I'm considering may be worth incorporating into one that I'm writing already.

8. Consistency is not required.^xi Times and opinions change, and you should never feel you're stuck in a rut.

9. Notwithstanding the cautions against writing when you lack a message,^xii it's worth writing down whatever you think will eventually lead somewhere – even if you know you're not saying what you want as well as you want. It doesn't matter how bad it is. You can't do the second draft without the first.^xiii

(And don't forget footnotes.^xiv)

Obviously it's much easier if you're writing for your own enjoyment rather than for a living. Then, if you run out of what to say, you can walk away and get on with something else. The heat's not on. Not so if you have to earn a living.

It all boils down to pressure. Stress. If you can avoid pressure you have a better chance of avoiding whatever it is I'm talking about. I think it's writer's blog.

Next episode: “Best In Show” – Schrödinger's cat strikes back.

i     Writer's block, that is.

ii    Which is why I'm glad I don't have the problem.

iii    Apart from correcting the terminal preposition in the previous statement.

iv    Similarly, Tolkien, Juster, Golding and Dodgson created the worlds in which their characters lived.

v     Including this one.

vi    That's why “reality” shows have to be so heavily scripted. People are looking for entertainment, not reality.

vii    Melinda Wagner, Pulitzer Prize winning composer said: “... to try to second-guess them [the audience] to figure out what they're going to like, and write that, would be an insult to them.” The same is true of writing prose.

viii   Because I don't write for a living, I needn't be commercial nor meet any deadlines. I can write what I want and when I want. And since I have no expectations that people will be reading my work, I don't have to please anyone but myself.

ix    But, as I already suggested, fiction writers also have many stories they want to tell, so they, too, can have many balls in the air.

x     Vincent Persichetti, a prolific composer of keyboard, chamber and orchestra pieces, once claimed that since musical ideas often came to him in his car, he liked to tape a piece of music paper to his steering wheel, so he could jot down ideas and keep his eyes on the road at the same time. He didn't kill anyone, but that's carrying this concept too far. Like telephoning or texting while driving.

xi    Forget Emerson. “Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are dead.” Aldous Huxley. And Bernard Berenson: “Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago.”

xii    Actually there was a suggestion that you write about whatever you want to say, as well as a caution against writing if you've nothing to say.

xiii    Or, for that matter, a tenth without a ninth.

xiv    Footnotes give the illusion that you know what you're talking about.

Full Disclosure

 

Time to come clean. By this time you probably know my biases (especially if – and it's a very unlikely possibility – you've read this blog before), but I thought I'd spell out some of them just in case. That will allow you to disregard whatever doesn't correspond to your own faulty ideas when reading some of my other musings. And it my help to explain some of what appears to be perverse. But like most people I have a more comprehensive grasp of the problems than the solutions. Anyway, this is I.ⁱ

My father was apolitical. It wasn't that he couldn't decide on a particular philosophy or general outlook, nor decide regarding specific issues. He just wasn't interested. At least he never conveyed any interest to his children. My mother, however, was a staunch liberal, and weⁱⁱ learned that perspective from her.

In college almost everyone is a liberal. Especially the professors. So I fit in fine. There were a few conservatives on campus – very few. At least that's what I heard. No one ever admitted to being one.ⁱⁱⁱ Clearly they didn't know the difference between right and wrong. Fortunately I did. I knew that the hungry had to be fed and the naked clothed. They were as much religious concepts as they were political, but religion was praiseworthy then.

Times have changed though. I'm less sure now than I was then. Black and white have become gray. I still want to care for the needy, but I'm not convinced that it's always up to the government to do so. I deplore the selfishness of individuals who have to be forced to give charity by the government's taking of their tax money and turning it into “entitlements,” but I'm not completely convinced that societies were established to enforce philanthropy. I understand our obligation(s) as individuals to help those in need but I recognize the failure of our citizens to fill that need. Does that make it the responsibility of the government? I don't think so, but somewhere along the line the government grew and, like an amoeba, engulfed everything in reach. And with the demands of so many groups for help – and the increasing power of political blocs – it seems likely that there will be more programs instituted to provide for those demands. That provision means bigger government, greater expense, and the loss of more liberties. But that doesn't seem to be a major concern to most citizens.

Why did this occur? From my perspective, liberalism failed – or, more accurately, liberals failed. They seemed to switch their concerns with fads and “squeaky wheels.” It became more important for them to address the demands of those they considered to be oppressed, than to determine if their demands were justified. They failed in matters of both national^iv and international^v interest. Like the rest of us, they are inconsistent in their claims and crusades, but the operating principle seems to be that if you're poor^vi you're needy and oppressed, and if you're not poor, you're an oppressor. Except for themselves.

Speaking of international issues, as I mentioned above in passing, it's hard to ignore the disorders around the globe – some of them out-and-out tyrannies and wars. Except for sporadic American involvement though, many of them tend to be ignored by our own liberals and those of other nations, who are focused on blaming Israel for most of the world's troubles.^vii Lest there be any question, I am a Jew and a Zionist.^viii My sympathies are not with OPEC and others who would control the world.^ix Consequently I usually walk to shul each day^x for morning services not only for the health benefits^xi but also in order to decrease the amount I send to the oil producing states – many of them rich Arab kingdoms that would rather condemn Israel than help those they call their Palestinian brothers.^xii

A final note which will tell you a little more about me: I'm a hermit. I don't especially care for people and certainly have no interest in talking about them or to them. I'm a lousy guest since I am unlikely to spend much time conversing with others. I particularly dislike small talk. So I'm not the hit of any party. But if that knowledge means fewer invitations that's fine with me. It's hard to keep coming up with original reasons for refusing them. (A couple of other things. I'm retired – a lapsed radiologist. As you can guess from this blog, I enjoy writing, and reading and listening to music . And choral singing.^xiii I've been doing that since college. It's a good way to sing without being heard individually so I don't embarrass myself too much. Of course choral singing means that I have to interact with other people but I keep that to a minimum.)

In summary, then, I'm an antisocial Zionist neocon with little regard for a government that is moving leftward toward greater control. I'm not as happy as most seem to be in sacrificing our liberties and the assets of our grandchildren so we can feel good and generous now – with their money.

Now you know. But I suspect that most people don't care.^xiv Certainly, for the most part, the “younger generation” doesn't care about my opinions^xv They don't realize that wisdom comes with age. They'll learn that later – when they're older and are ignored by those younger than they.

Next episode: “Writer's Bl...” – Whatever.

i     Correct grammar often sounds funny.

ii     My older brother and I.

iii    It was claimed that you could put all the school's Republicans in a telephone booth. (I don't think public telephones exist any longer in this age of cellular communication.) I suspect that the characterization was far from accurate, but it was quite colorful.

iv    Public responsibility for all the “ills” of the poor – both physical and economic.

v    Although selective in the causes they espoused – mass annihilation of black Africans seems to escape their notice – the general pattern is to trumpet the plight of selected population groups. At present they espouse the “Palestinians,” a group that didn't exist before 1967 (except to indicate the Jews in pre-1948 Palestine), and parrot their anti-Israel propaganda while completely denying any Arab or Muslim responsibility for the situation. Such would be contrary to the message they are trying to send.

vi      And a member of one of the groups they are currently supporting.

vii   Interestingly therefore, but not surprisingly, liberals have adopted the poor, “humiliated” Palestinians as their poster children for victims of oppression. Nothing that they do, however barbaric it may be, is worthy of note or condemnation. Only the actions of the Israelis, their “oppressors,” merits censure.

viii   I suspect that makes me part of a vast conspiracy though I never thought of myself that way.

ix      Others, who would like to control both geography and the world's economies, accuse the Jews – minute in numbers and influence in comparison to themselves – of doing that, but they are only trying to distract the world from reality.

x       A little over half a mile in each direction.

xi      If in fact there are any. I'm not fully convinced.

xii    I have been accused of trying to “shaft the sheiks,” but, unfortunately, I lack the power to do so. In any event, though, I feel better for what I'm doing. I just need a few billion others.

xiii    The latter few you probably can't guess.

xiv   Which is why I don't tell anyone about this blog. I do it for myself, not for them.

xv    Indeed, I doubt that my own generation gives a damn.

Pride And Principles

 

It must be unusual to think about Gary Cooper and foreign policy together, but the two are really related – whether or not that was not intended. The link is the movie High Noon.ⁱ It's a pure American movie – wild west, gunslingers, and all that sort of thing. There's nothing in it that deals with anything foreign, especially foreign policy.

But the idea behind the movie – the conflict – is between Will Kane's pride, and his sense of right and wrong, and Amy's principles – her Quaker sense of right and wrong. The pride, despite his fear, is that of a marshal who is ready to die rather than lose face,ⁱⁱ and the principles are those of his wife, who rejects violence for any reason. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. There's more than pride involved. There is the eternal tension between good and evil, and the need to stand up for what is good irrespective both of the consequences and of who will fight with you against evil. And the principles are someone else's. Clearly Will doesn't subscribe to them to the same degree as Amy. He is willing to accept them,ⁱⁱⁱ but they must yield to the reality he perceives. They must be subservient to his “duty,” even if no one else, including his new bride, will support him. Others would rather take the easier and the safer way out – and the people of the town warn him about a battle they themselves are not willing to fight.

It all reminds me of America, of the way we approach the threats we face, and the problems in the world in which we live. In a way it makes me proud of that approach – standing up to what we consider wrong even while we're aware of the hazards we face. And it's not just a single man, but the courage and self-sacrifice of the numerous men and women who defend us all. And those who support them deserve our gratitude as well.

But despite the threat to our values, we are reluctant to become engaged in military actions.^iv We, too, have principles. For us, as for Amy, killing is wrong. But in the end, our country's pride and it's recognition of responsibility take precedence over other considerations. Like Will Kane, we'd rather be left alone and allowed to attend to peaceful pursuits, but that isn't always possible. Like Amy we abhor the need to violate our principles, to kill, but we are prepared to do it if that is what is required in a time of crisis, even if we wish it were not necessary and we resent the fact that it is.^v Amy returns and saves Will's life even though it means killing someone. It's in violation of her principles, but so are the actions of those attempting to kill her husband.

The townspeople of Hadleyville, for reasons of fear, expediency, and profit, make no attempt to help their marshal, although many of them praise him greatly. It's hard not to compare them to the nations of the world, many of whom are grateful to the U.S. for aid, who mouth agreement with the need to take action, but who shy away from their own involvement. Some critics understood the film to be an allegory depicting the cowardice of those who feared to protest the Hollywood blacklist of the time and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, or the nations who were happy to accept American support during World War II, but who feared any engagement with Communist powers afterward. They would not join with us in the defense of Korea. Both were major issues at the time of the film's release. Perhaps these ideas reflected more on those who expressed them than on the movie itself,^vi but it is the mark of a classic if it sheds light on a situation far removed from its times, or if it enables viewers to see other events in that light.

Corny isn't it? Ignoring possible harm to himself, he stood up for what he considered right. In retrospect, the marshal's actions were those of principle, not pride. Yet they make me proud.

Next episode: “Full Disclosure” – Time to come clean.

 

i     1952. Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly.

ii    He maintains, as well, that his antagonist will follow him wherever he runs, so any attempt to escape the confrontation will fail sooner or later.

iii    At the beginning of the story (by John Cunningham) he gives up his badge and tells of his plans to become a storekeeper.

iv    “A leader who doesn't hesitate before he sends his nation into battle is not fit to be a leader.” Golda Meir, then Prime Minister of Israel.

v     “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” – Golda Meir again.

vi    Whether evaluating the Bible, a work of Shakespeare, or a movie – or anything else for that matter – analysts sometimes see much more than what was intended. Perhaps what they find below the surface was there unconsciously rather than consciously intended, perhaps it is simply the product of their imagination, but whatever the source, real or imagined, their commentary enlarges the scope of the work.