In any adversarial exchange, socioloi hv foun more thn on possible response with a likeihood of good pay off -- whether the exchag donsists of mritl spat or global warfare. The first -- and usually the simplest and dumbest -- is first order change.
Fight fire with fire. He insuts you? You insut him right back, more viciously than before. At it's most extreme, we find it in movies like "The Untouchables," in which Sean Connery advises Keven Costner"He brings fists ita tha fight, you bring a knife. He brings a knife, you brig a gun. He brings a gun you put one of his in the morgue."
That's pretty much what the movie is about. Tom Cruise is a grease-up go getting Washingtonian with his eye on th presidency. Meryl Streep is a star reporter who hisensto Crruise's bombas in a state of puzzlement. Redford is a professsor who is tryingto turn his better stents onto the fat tht there is more to life thn]n hypothetical imperatves. And as the fim cuts back nd forth between the enlightned and soullessly crepy, two men of a special forces unit are trapped on hillpot in Afghanistn and must be rescued within minutes. To go means escalation. To hesitate means a loss. And what do the Amrican people want? They want a WIN! Yes --life as football game.
dThat's Cruise's argument. Maybe hes right. A survey of students at George Mason fiund they have difficulty in ietifyingpivtus f Jo Bn an Ronald Regan but had less trouble wtih Km Kardshian. (The article -- in the Daily Caller -- blames all that ignorance on "the liberal left.")
I suppose Cruise's response would be a resrt to frst order change -- outlaw the liberal left media, That'll teach 'em. Nothng but fair and balanced from now on.
2 out of 5 found this helpful