Blair as Kelly? Nah. Blair was with us from the beginning, while Kelly only came around late in the movie. Actually, no one in the movie matches Blair's solid support. The closest is the young town boy who wanted to help, but Kane wouldn't accept because of his youth.

Yeah, it was certainly a stretch. I guess I was thining that Grace was the only one who actually picked up a gun and helped.

The show also has a great theme song by Tex Ritter.

My candidate for the Grace Kelley part: Canada.

Think about it. Almost married to the U.S., kind of shy and reluctant, and cute women to boot. Right now, Canada hasn't really said a whole lot, other than vague pronouncements about process and UN involvement. But does anyone doubt that when the shooting starts Canada will be there, snipers at the ready?

On the other hand, Jean Chretien is butt-ugly, and Grace Kelly was the most beautiful woman in the movies. Now I'm afraid that whenever I think of Grace Kelly, Chretien's ugly mug will appear and growl, "Oh, you are ze sexiest, Mr. Happy Fun Pundit! Ho ho!"

Man, now I'm going to have to undergo therapy. Or at least take a shower.

I think it bears mentioning that the protagonist in "High Noon" was called out by the bad guys. Iraq/Saddam Hussein has issued no such ultimatum, and there is little or no evidence that suggests that he has set a timeline for a confrontation with the U.S. The only one setting any timelines or making any ultimatums is G. W. Bush.

Unless all that model airplane glue has damaged my memory, Frank Miller never called Kane out. In fact, I don't think he ever spoke directly to Kane during the film. The only thing that I can remember that could be interpreted that way was when the judge related Miller's words when he was sentenced, and those were essentially "I'll get you for this!" And hey, you pretty much have to say that when you're sentenced to hang in the movies. It's not like he said "Death to America!" or anything like that.

In fact, the entire threat of Frank Miller is implicit... everybody knew why he was on that noon train, and everybody knew "what Frank is like."

Not to go off on a rant or anything, I'm sure the UN of the day would insist that he be left unmolested until he actually killed somebody; hey, maybe he just came to town to, y'know, hang out with his gnarly buds. They could pass a resolution insisting that he eschew violence as a means of settling disputes, and have a little Swedish guy check his revolver for bullets periodically. Everytime he managed to check without Miller kicking him in the nuts, he could report that Miller was showing "procedural cooperation".

Okay, you got me. I haven't seen "High Noon" since the fourth grade. But likening the U.S. to a movie character who was forced to stand against many equally armed villains is silly. The U.S. army has only become more powerful since the last conflict with Iraq, whose defenses have thinned and paled. Iraq is simply no match for the U.S. Maybe if the hero in "High Noon" had been eighty feet tall the comparison would be more appropriate.

Moreover, you've missed my point: the townspeople in "High Noon" were all convinced that a bad man was going to arrive on the noon train and terrorize them all. In reality, the faction threatening to roll into town and wreak havoc is the U.S. and the town is Baghdad. Of course, Saddam Hussein is more of a villain in real life, but in terms of narrative, Frank Miller is more like George W. Bush.

Uh, no, Mitch, I didn't miss your point at all. Your (original) point was that an analogy between Will Kane/Frank Miller and GWB/Saddam was flawed because Miller explicitly called out Kane. I pointed out that you were in fact wrong, that the "calling out" never took place.

You've now got some new "points", that:

"likening the U.S. to a movie character who was forced to stand against many equally armed villains is silly"

Uh-huh. And in fact, nobody has made that likening, other than you. Then there's this:

"you've missed my point: the townspeople in High Noon were all convinced that a bad man was going to arrive on the noon train and terrorize them all."

Errr, you should probably go back and watch the movie again. The townspeople by and large decided that there wasn't going to be a problem with Miller if Kane simply left town.

"In reality, the faction threatening to roll into town and wreak havoc is the U.S. and the town is Baghdad. Of course, Saddam Hussein is more of a villain in real life, but in terms of narrative, Frank Miller is more like George W. Bush."

Wow. Did you have to think for a long time to come up with this? C'mon, Mitch, you know in your heart of hearts that GWB is a bad guy, and you're going to twist --- oh, screw it. You're an idiot. You're exactly the kind of idiot I'm talking about. Your axiom is "George Bush is BAD", and anything that doesn't fit easily into that worldview is either twisted until it does, or ignored. When someone points out the errors and inconsistencies in your statements, you say "But you missed my point!" and change the topic.

[click] Next caller, you're on the air.

It really breaks your heart to think of yourself as the bad guy in a western, doesn't it? You might refer to your own post where you queried, "Is it just me, or is everybody who pays attention to world events (and understands how high the stakes are) getting a little snappish?"

Because I think you got a little bit snappish.

A little bit.

Also, I was NOT inconsistent when I pointed out that George W. Bush is forcing a showdown with Saddam Hussein, like the bad guy did to the good guy in "High Noon". But you're right about one thing: I should watch the movie. Oh, and I do think Bush is a bad guy, so two things.

And I notice you didn't contradict the more important poins of my argument.

Yeah, Steve! And also, Kane's wife had blonde hair, and Bush's has red hair. So clearly, the analogy totally falls apart.

See? Dan knows what I'm talking about.

To prove that the deconstructionists have just about succeeded in "blurring right and wrong" and in redefining reality, note that none other than Bill Clinton has called High Noon his favorite movie. (See http://dvd.ign.com/articles/037/037522p1.html).

I guess I forgot about the scene where Frank Miller says, "Marshal Kane's just an excuse... I'm going back to Hadleyville for OOOOIIILLLL." And the bit where Lee Van Cleef says he's tired of waiting at the train station and needs to get back to his job as CEO of Halliburton. There's also the deleted scenes where Will Kane and the townspeople use chemical weapons against Iranville, then invade Kuwaitlyville, the next town up the line. And of course there's the flashback where Frank Miller's father promises "No new taxes".

I think I get it- that stuff didn't happen in the movie. Those are just popular liberal rallying cries. That's real funny. But I think you've more retreated into a passive-aggressive posture by ridiculing liberals than actually proving your point. No matter how much doublespeak you use, you can't change the fact that Iraq is not coming to the U.S. in this instance- the U.S. is going to Iraq. (The way the bad guy went to the good guy's town in "High Noon".) It seems to the world like a preemptive strike. It looks like Bush is settling a score. (The way the bad guy wanted to do with the good guy in "High Noon".) That is, they don't like it. If the Bush administration can prove otherwise, they should do it. I write this knowing full well that you guys are going to go on living in your Western Fantasyland, and God bless you. You're about to get what you want anyway.

Oh wait, forget everything I said- Bill Clinton's favorite movie is "High Noon"? Well then let's just drop a thousand cruise missiles on Baghdad. That's all I needed to hear, thanks a lot asshole- see you in hell.

So let me see if I've got this straight: Saddam's NOT a threat to anyone; he's the victim in all of this. He just wants to be left alone in Baghdad, which, thanks to his efforts, is a fit place for women and children. But doggone ol' George W. Bush is comin' to town with his gang to stir up trouble.

My "point", such as it is, is that only a mouth-breathing cretin could look at Saddam, his arsenal, and his history, and say, "This guy is not a threat, not a problem. The problem is that W is antagonizing him." That is the "townspeople" view of the situation, and it is dangerously stupid.

To spell it out in simple terms: are Saddam's conventional forces weak relative to America's? Certainly. Is that germane? No. The danger lies in the unconventional stuff, the nuclear -biological - chemical weapons, in the hands of a man who has demonstrated expansionist aims AND a willingness to use WMD in the pursuit of those aims.

Why now? Because the longer we wait before Saddam is dealt with, the greater the risk that he will either develop a working nuclear device or directly or indirectly utilize some of his other nasties. War today = maybe thousands dead. War tomorrow = possibly millions dead.

My guess is your next response will be "There's no evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. The US government made all that up because GWB is a meanie."

I can hardly wait.

My point is not that Saddam is not a threat (although, if we were going to categorize, I would say that Iraq ranks below North Korea) but that in this example, GWB, ignoring the advice of many top security experts, has against an inferior force raised the issue of military conflict. To make that plainer, WE are not conducting an act of defense, as the threat goes unpercieved by most of the world. Yes, Steve, "There's no evidence that Saddam has WMD"- an idea that you ridicule but do not refute. Actually, that statementis not correct- it would be fairer to say that the little evidence of Saddam's WMD is thin at best.

Now nowhere did I write that I was against the idea of removing Saddam Hussein from power. But, Steve, could every single one of those protestors be a complete idiot? Could each of the dissenting parties, nations we've enjoyed partnerships in this world for decades, be... what? Suddenly willing to risk our good graces for their investments in the booming Iraq economy? Isn't it bizarre that the world finds Hussein more credible than the leader of, let's face it, the best place to raise a child in in the entire world? No, Steve it isn't bizarre- the fact is that GWB simply isn't credible on this issue or any issue regarding the unwealthy. He has made that clear in the U.S. and Afghanistan where he FAILED TO ACCOMPLISH HIS SWORN OBJECTIVE and abandoned the rebuilding he promised to finish. Steve- GWB claims to have conclusive evidence that Hussein has WMD but does not produce it. The night before Powell's U.N. presentation the Administration said there would be no smoking guns. Is there nothing they could produce somewhere between "smoking gun" and the largely circumstantial evidence Powell presented? Frankly I think it is a sign of disrespect to the rest of the world to keep such important hidden without even qualifying the need for secrecy. I'm not surprised that they are reticent.

Without even getting into the idea that a war with Iraq is unlikely to make us at home safer.

Oh, and sorry I abandoned that "High Noon" metaphor, but indulging your fantasy of hideous persecution and ultimate redemption was making me sick.

Mitch - I'm shocked and disappointed that you forgot to mention that Bush "stole the 2000 election" along with the rest of the idiotarian canon: "tax breaks for the rich", "oooillll", "little evidence of WMDs", etc.

Now, Mitch, on the question of weighing that evidence that WMDs exist, I can't help you there, though I hear they're doing wonderful things with reality transplants these days. Becase Mitch, based on your statements, I'm reasonably certain that nothing short of actually catching Saddam driving around a tanker truck full of sarin would convince you, Mitch

Mitch, you say, "Now nowhere did I write that I was against the idea of removing Saddam Hussein from power." No, of course not, Mitch, but since you oppose a US invasion, you must be working from the assumption that the Brutal Dictator Removal Fairies will take care of the job, because there doesn't seem to be anything or anyone else around that's going to do it.

Mitch, you ask "But, Steve, could every single one of those protestors be a complete idiot?" Yes, Mitch, absolutely...in fact, I'm certain of it. In turn, I could ask, "Mitch, could the four or five billion people, or even the couple hundred million in the US who *didn't* protest that day be onto something?" Or, Mitch, are they just not as enlightened and insightful as you?

And Mitch, you also ask "Isn't it bizarre that the world finds Hussein more credible than the leader of, let's face it, the best place to raise a child in in the entire world"? Hmm. Lessee, Mitch. That would be "the world, other than the US, Australia, Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Denmark, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia"? Is the world pretty much defined as "Germany, France, and Belgium, plus a whole lot of non-democratic countries" these days?

Oh, and Mitch? Mitch? Are you listening, Mitch? Put down that comic book and pay attention, Mitch. Now, Mitch, the whole "it's for oooillll" thing? Ask yourself, Mitch, if there isn't an easier way for Big Oil (and their catspaw Bush) to get at Iraq's oil supplies without all this war fuss? Like maybe, oh, DROPPING THE SANCTIONS, which the oil companies have been pressuring the gov't to do for years? Again: reality transplant, doing wonders these days, consult your primary care physician.

Oh, and Mitch... the "US has abandoned Afghanistan" thing? Utter bullshit. John Weidner's got the lowdown here:

http://jottings.blogspot.com/2003_02_09_jottings_archive.html#90308505

(waiting for "Bush and Cheney made all that up, I just *know* it! Those guys are *so evil*!")

As for that couple hundred million Americans who didn't show up to protest on Saturday, 83% of them thought that the 9/11 terrorists were at least partly comprised of Iraqis (according to last month's Knight-Ridder poll), which I'm sure you are aware just isn't so. So at least some percentage of those that didn't protest are misled. Because the case for war is, by and large, deliberately misleading, and when it is not misleading or outright distorted it is uncompelling. Bush's State of the Union Address was replete with distortions of UN inspection data. The rest was dark conjecture and misrepresentation of domestic policy. And oil? I never mentioned oil, STEVE, and I don't think that this is about oil. But it sure is a factor- paying for the war with Iraq's oil has long been a part of the public pro-war discussion. And dropping the sanctions to get at Iraqi oil would be easier, but taking the oil and accumulating political capital for supposedly saving the world from terrorism might be worth the risk. Also, Iraq is home to the region's biggest water supplies. One could exercise a great deal of influence if one could control the water. And I'm glad you mentioned the sanctions, STEVE, because here's another shade of your "Wouldn't it be easier?" syllogism. If Bush really has the suffering of the Iraqi people at heart, if he really feels for them, why doesn't he lift the sanctions that have caused so much suffering themselves? If war really is a last resort, and we're doing it for them and all that. Oh, I forgot, those Weapons of Mass Destruction. But I CAN think of something that would convince me of their existence, STEVE, and that would be... Weapons of Mass Destruction! The offending matter itself- which there are no photos of, no account of, and no sworn sighting of. Bush says the burden of proof is on Saddam, but I think it should go to the guy who plans to "shock and awe" a city into rubble. I think it should go to the guy who published his willingness to strike with nuclear weapons, a particularly humiliating moment for this country.
What about North Korea, STEVE? Why no hardline stance against a leader who swears to posessing nuclear capability and a willingness to use it? Is zero tolerance the policy or isn't it? Or does it not apply to threats against liberal states like California? Is it... oil?
And I read that post by John Weidner- there was a picture of a U.S. military helicopter which, it was written, was recieving DONATED medical supplies from a world charity. The author said it would be difficult to really help until there was more infrastructure built. Fair enough. And private charity helping out? Great. Just one thing- why did the Bush's 2004 budget omit the rebuilding in Afghanistan altogether? When the gaffe was revealed, congress budgeted $300 million for the cause (this from Krugman's Op-ed piece today. Yeah, I can tell his name is Mud around here, but if you can prove otherwise, in all sincerity, I'd like to see the evidence). Weidner also points out that private charity is more effective than government assistance, and the White House fact sheet he links to would suggest the same. Perhaps. But Bush swore to a)procure Osama bin-Laden's head and b) rebuild Afghanistan. He forgot both.

Well, it looks like he's already dispensing with the "rebuilding" rhetoric this time around...

Turkey-the vindictive deputy
Canada-the preacher
France-any of Kane's henchmen
Saudi Arabia-the town dog
Germany-the townfolk
Italy-the judge (unseen)