Friday, August 12, 2005
FX drama Over There ruined by clueless leftism
Episode 3: The terrorist finally talks when U.S. interrogators threaten to turn his fifteen year old sister over to Pakistani intelligence for a slow death by beatings and gang rape. He agrees to tell where the stolen Stinger missiles are hidden, on condition that the innocent farmers, who do not know what has been stashed in their barn, are spared. The episode ends with the farm being wiped out with a smart-bomb from two miles up. Thus the terrorists are depicted as concerned about the welfare of Muslim girls and the protection of innocents while the U.S. military is depicted as unwilling to take steps to avoid harm to non-combatants. Is it possible to frame a more dishonest scenario?
Over There (the new FX drama about the Iraq war)is full of these perversions, but it is perfectly obvious that the writers are not even aware of them. They are creating the show purely from their imaginations, without reference to any knowledge of what is actually happening in Iraq. In episode 3, as in episode 1, the squad at the center of the drama gets pinned down by a superior force for hours on end. Has this EVER happened in the Iraq war? On the few occasions when the enemy has tried tactics of ambush in force, our troops haven't hidden behind a Humvee for 12 hours. They have immediately taken the fight to the enemy, devastating larger enemy forces, while calling and recieving rapid backup that quickly brings overwhelming force to bear. That's why the Jihadies only tried it a handful of times and rely instead on IED's. The writers of Over There obviously don't know and don't care. The scenario of getting pinned down presents dramatic circumstances that to the writers seem interesting, and that is what guides what they write.
The show is pure Democrat-left imagination about the war, with no concern for what is real. Hence it constantly throws off Michael-Moorish jaw droppers, like the terrorists being depicted as the one's who care about not harming non-combatants, without any hint that this is anything but a gritty/honest depiction. Its WAR right? Let's be honest. In war, we drop bombs and accept the "collateral damage," right? Gritty honesty. Gritty honesty. Gritty honesty. Never mind that smart bombing the farm in the story from two miles up would make it impossible to verify how many Stinger missiles had been destroyed--i.e. that the action depicted is not just against our actual policy of avoiding non-combatant deaths where possible, but it also violates all strategic sense. All that matters is what in the left-wing imagination constitutes "gritty honesty."
The show is not entirely stupid, because the left wing imagination is not entirely stupid. Just the leftist part is out-to-lunch. The interrogator in episode 3, for instance, is an interesting invention. It's just that the WHOLE SHOW is invented from whole cloth, making it inevitable that the leftist idiocy of the writers will blare through in every second scene. Like what kind of mind does it take to depict the stateside wife as a slut who goes out to bars every night to get picked up for sex, leaving her seven year old boy to fend for himself? This is how a show on the military chooses to depict military wives? Their depiction of stateside husbands is just as grotesque. They show a left-wing female's wet-dream of a "sensitive man," welcoming him to a support group as one of "us wives."
No doubt the Democrat writers of the show think that in showing this husband getting in touch with his feminine side they are presenting a fantastically positive politically-correct figure. You can just see them brainstorming: "Now what should we do with the military husband?" No concern for the reality of military husbands. Just a left-winger's dream about what would make an interesting scenario about a military husband.
Proceeding constantly by this method, the show is quite disgusting and quite fascinating at the same time. Kind of like The West Wing, with all of that show's absurdly fevered imagination about rapid-fire scheming and wits, with no regard for whether the subject matter actually makes any sense. The simple fact is, the left DOESN'T make sense, and hence has no capacity to ground anything in reality.
UPDATE: Nice take-down by Fumento. (Via MM.)
Over There (the new FX drama about the Iraq war)is full of these perversions, but it is perfectly obvious that the writers are not even aware of them. They are creating the show purely from their imaginations, without reference to any knowledge of what is actually happening in Iraq. In episode 3, as in episode 1, the squad at the center of the drama gets pinned down by a superior force for hours on end. Has this EVER happened in the Iraq war? On the few occasions when the enemy has tried tactics of ambush in force, our troops haven't hidden behind a Humvee for 12 hours. They have immediately taken the fight to the enemy, devastating larger enemy forces, while calling and recieving rapid backup that quickly brings overwhelming force to bear. That's why the Jihadies only tried it a handful of times and rely instead on IED's. The writers of Over There obviously don't know and don't care. The scenario of getting pinned down presents dramatic circumstances that to the writers seem interesting, and that is what guides what they write.
The show is pure Democrat-left imagination about the war, with no concern for what is real. Hence it constantly throws off Michael-Moorish jaw droppers, like the terrorists being depicted as the one's who care about not harming non-combatants, without any hint that this is anything but a gritty/honest depiction. Its WAR right? Let's be honest. In war, we drop bombs and accept the "collateral damage," right? Gritty honesty. Gritty honesty. Gritty honesty. Never mind that smart bombing the farm in the story from two miles up would make it impossible to verify how many Stinger missiles had been destroyed--i.e. that the action depicted is not just against our actual policy of avoiding non-combatant deaths where possible, but it also violates all strategic sense. All that matters is what in the left-wing imagination constitutes "gritty honesty."
The show is not entirely stupid, because the left wing imagination is not entirely stupid. Just the leftist part is out-to-lunch. The interrogator in episode 3, for instance, is an interesting invention. It's just that the WHOLE SHOW is invented from whole cloth, making it inevitable that the leftist idiocy of the writers will blare through in every second scene. Like what kind of mind does it take to depict the stateside wife as a slut who goes out to bars every night to get picked up for sex, leaving her seven year old boy to fend for himself? This is how a show on the military chooses to depict military wives? Their depiction of stateside husbands is just as grotesque. They show a left-wing female's wet-dream of a "sensitive man," welcoming him to a support group as one of "us wives."
No doubt the Democrat writers of the show think that in showing this husband getting in touch with his feminine side they are presenting a fantastically positive politically-correct figure. You can just see them brainstorming: "Now what should we do with the military husband?" No concern for the reality of military husbands. Just a left-winger's dream about what would make an interesting scenario about a military husband.
Proceeding constantly by this method, the show is quite disgusting and quite fascinating at the same time. Kind of like The West Wing, with all of that show's absurdly fevered imagination about rapid-fire scheming and wits, with no regard for whether the subject matter actually makes any sense. The simple fact is, the left DOESN'T make sense, and hence has no capacity to ground anything in reality.
UPDATE: Nice take-down by Fumento. (Via MM.)
Comments:
<< Home
I kind of like it too. It is only every other scene that is ruined by left-wing idiocy. That leaves half a show I can enjoy. Much betten than West Wing, which I can't watch at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home
