Since I’m on strike, enjoined from writing, revising, or even pitching stories, I thought I’d take this opportunity to see what it’s like to sit on the other side of the table by taking a meeting with some of Townhall’s finest minds. Let me just check iCal here and…ah! My two o’clock is some guy named Milton Medved, who’s coming in to pitch his idea about how America is totally awesome if you just ignore all the parts that aren’t.
Victoria, hold my calls…Go ahead Melvin…
Critics of the United States and its role in the world prefer to argue their point of view by focusing on specific instances of American bullying or brutality, recounting their favorite horror stories from Indonesia or Nicaragua, Vietnam or Chile, the Philippines or Iraq –
Hey, let me stop you for just a sec. Wouldn’t your average Joe Sixpack say, “Hey, that’s a pretty long list of brutality and horror. Aren’t you kind of making the critics’ case for ‘em?” I thought this was a life-affirming, feel-good story about American exceptionalism…?
or any of two dozen other places around the globe where American intervention or involvement imperfectly exemplified the nation’s self-professed high ideals.
Okay, let me stop you again. Instead of “imperfectly exemplifed,” can we say “contradicted,” or “mocked?” It would just tighten the whole thing up a bit.
These arguments range over two centuries of history to yield abundant examples of American folly, recklessness, even cruelty…
Just a quick question, Morton…We’re the good guys in this thing, right? Because fashionable cynicism doesn’t sell tickets, this ain’t 1974…
The leftist insistence on concentrating on individual examples of U.S. “perfidy” emphasizes details over destiny, arcane disputes over isolated, long-ago blunders above big picture considerations of the overall impact of U.S. policy.
I like the destiny angle, that’s good, keep that. Very Luke Skywalker.
Yes, it’s possible to argue that the United States (and our British allies) harmed democratic development (and our own long-term interests) by undermining the leftist Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, but that doesn’t justify (or even explain) the current Iranian designation of the U.S. as “The Great Satan”…
Tell me about it! When I started in this business, there were maybe three or four producers, tops, on any series. Now there’s like five EPs alone. It’s ridiculous! Half of them are just managers who rep the lead actors; they’ve never even been on the set! I can maybe see calling the U.S. “the li’l devil” or maybe “The Great Asshole,” but c’mon. That Mossadegh thing was 50 years ago! What’ve you done to me lately?
In the same sense, skeptical military historians might dismiss General George Washington as an inept tactician and inferior leader of men who lost nearly every battle he fought, without acknowledging that after eight years he won a seemingly impossible victory against the world’s greatest power.
Okay. Okay, I see where you’re going…So it’s like George W. Bush is also an inept tactician and inferior leader of men who’s lost every war he’s fought, but if we give him eight years he’ll pull out a seemingly impossible victory at the last moment against one of the world’s weakest powers. It’s like an allegory!
Those who insist on slandering the United States seek ugly close-ups of twisted trees but won’t step back to consider the forest. They lack perspective, and ignore context.
So we should stick with the master shot here so the audience can’t get a good look at the crappy effects…
They refer to dwell on the harsh impact of specific American initiatives or policies, without acknowledging the Republic’s undeniably benevolent and beneficial impact on the world at large during every era in our history.
Right, right. And then as soon as he says “undeniably benevolent impact,” some smart ass says, “yeah, tell that to the Navajo,” or whoever, and it’s all like, ZING!
ALLIGNMENT WITH AMERICA BENEFITS, RATHER THAN BURDENS, THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD
Whoa, Murray, I like your energy, but don’t go all Bring It On with the spirit fingers, ‘kay?
The strongest, most direct evidence against the indictment of the Untied States as a destructive, callous imperial power comes from a consideration of the progress of those nations most closely involved with the United States.
Good point. I think we should throw in some stuff about Iraq and Afghanistan here, because who’s more closely involved with us than they people we’re occupying? I see it as kind of a wacky, Perfect Strangers kind of thing, where the American guy is a well-meaning but clueless lug, and the foreign guy has a funny accent, and some kind of catch-phrase, and he gets gunned down every week at a checkpoint.
The phrase “The Yanks are Coming! The Yanks are Coming!” (featured in George M. Cohan’s stirring World War I rabble-rouser “Over There”) most often signaled a nation’s immediate liberation and never meant its long-term destruction or conquest.
Except for all the Indian nations. And Hawaii. And that half of Mexico we took. But we did give back the Phillipines. And we only took a tiny slice of Cuba, and they probably don’t even want that back, ’cause it’s filled with terrorists now.
Otto von Bismarck might boast of building his German Reich on the basis of “blood and iron,” but the United States consistently viewed its international mission in deeply Christian, messianic terms.
Right, right…Say, Monte, let me just stop you there for a second — don’t want to interrupt your flow — but how long is this pitch? 4,437 words? Really…? Okay I’ve got a thing at Craft in like five minutes, so how about you just cut to the chase?
As George Bailey’s view of an alternate reality convinced him “It’s a Wonderful Life,” even the briefest contemplation of a world without America should persuade us that “It’s a Wonderful Nation” – in fact, the Republic rightly recognized as the Greatest Nation on God’s Green Earth.
Okay! Well, thanks for coming in, Maurice. Great meeting you. I’ll kick your leave-behind upstairs, and we’ll be in touch.
Um, Victoria, who’s out in the waiting room? Andrew Tallman? Haven’t a clue. Just send him in and get me a Bling H2O.
Okay, Andy, is it? What’ve you got?
How to Have a Great Wife.
Kind of a Tyler Perry thing, huh? Are we appealing to a primarily urban audience here, or is this thing gonna have crossover appeal?
“He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord,” and he who nourishes a wife preserves a good thing and maintains the favor of the Lord.
Kind of going for the flyover niche. Beautiful…
Your obligation to represent the love of Jesus in your marriage is a monumentally greater task than your wife’s obligation to represent the submission of the Church.
So it’s sort of a battle of the sexes thing with a little kink to give it an edge, huh? I like it. The husbands a bumbling, but good-hearted oaf, and the wife’s long-suffering but hot…?
So, what does it take to have a great wife? Simple. Be a great lord.
Okay, I’m not totally clear on the “lord” angle. Are we talking Lord of the Dance kind of thing — shirtless dude prancing around — or is it more a Lord of the Rings, fantasy kind of element, boobs and blades…?
And what does it take to be a great lord? Equally simple. Know the needs and desires of your wife and meet them. If you don’t, she will become just the sort of wife you don’t want: nagging, withholding, bitter, and frustrated.
So we’re not talking chick flick here.
God gave you a beautiful flower. He does not expect a dead thorn bush in return.
Dude, that’s an awesome hook for a horror franchise.
You’d have done better to remain single than to so ruin the beautiful human rose He entrusted to you.
So in your thing, the women are plants? Are they like Invasion of the Body Snatchers pod people, or walking carrots like James Arness in The Thing, or maybe they’re like that hot druid chick in The Guardian who was schtupping a spruce tree?
So how is this to be accomplished? This is where things get dicey. Willard Harley wrote a very helpful book called “His Needs, Her Needs,” in which he outlines the top needs of women. They include affection, conversation, honesty and openness, financial support, and family commitment. This is all true. Gary Chapman wrote another helpful book called “The Five Love Languages,” in which he talks about giving love through gifts, quality time, words of encouragement, physical touch, and acts of service. This is also true. Gary Smalley has written books. James Dobson has written books.
I can see you’ve done your research. Funny, my second wife always used to tell me, “if you want insight to womens’ most intimate thoughts and desires, ask guys named Willard, Gary, Gary and James.”
And if you follow this simple (and completely unsimple) advice, I suspect you’ll find yourself married to a great wife. At the very least, she’ll appreciate you trying so hard to understand and satisfy her … just like God.
Um, okay, I think that might be a little too edgy.
“They include affection, conversation, honesty and openness, financial support, and family commitment. This is all true. …giving love through gifts, quality time, words of encouragement, physical touch, and acts of service. This is also true.”
Fuck you you slime. I want cock, cock and more cock. I want dinner at 6, the dishes washed and the carpet vacuumed. I want the bathroom sparkling clean everyday, pick up my pads at the store, layout a spread for when my girls come over and get the hell outta the way. I might let you have a little money at the end of the week if yer nice, now get to fucking work!
Just reading the other side of the package; the one no women who marries an asshat gets to read until months after her marriage, after he confiscates the birth control pills and she’s four months pregnant. Roses my aching ass.
Left by kate on November 15th, 2007