Earlier today I heard on the radio a quote from John Kerry. It's all over the news now...
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
So what's he trying to say? I've thought about it, and maybe it means that only idiot Presidents get their military stuck in Iraq. Or perhaps he meant only idiots live in a country like Iraq...but I think that the most likely explanation is that he is saying only idiots join our armed forces.
So...if that's the case Kerry, does that make you, a 'heroic' Vietnam veteran, an idiot? I could think of a plethora of reasons why you are, that being the least of which...
I'd like to know how he can call the people in our military idiots. After all, the ASVAB places people in all sorts of fields. For example, military R&D. Well, a lot of those guys are still in the states. Ok, you must be an idiot if you can fly a plane, right? After all...Bush was a pilot! Alright alright, let me think.
Oh here's one, you and 11 soldiers under your command are jogging down Amaria street in Baghdad. You don't walk on patrol anymore because of snipers (oh wait, you're an idiot, nevermind, you walk), when all of the sudden hell erupts via a roadside bomb in a trash can. From your flank 3 or 4 Jaish al-Mahdi members start brandishing their kalishnakovs and firing at you...crap...you're an idiot...what are you going to do?
Come on Kerry, get it together, if you want to have any chance in winning any election, you have to not just blabber on, you have to be intelligent yourself. Even of the people who don't support the war, a majority support the brave men and women who fight it. You can't take every chance to make the same whiney statements that lost you the Presidency.
10.31.2006
10.30.2006
Long Weekends and Ninjas
Man, this weekend I had a blast. Because my job has me working all over the country, we work 6 10 hour days a week, and then every three weeks we get 3-4 days off to relax, or go visit home. This was our rotation weekend (which is why today was my first post since last week), and for this weekend I flew my mom from Tallahassee over to San Francisco for a few days.
She had never been this far west, and was very excited to come. Over a two day span we hit San Francisco twice. On Day 1 we got on the train to San Francisco, and took the F train over to Pier 1. From there it was a nice walk to Pier 39 (which for those who've never been, is a must see). That is one of the larger tourist attractions, they have all sorts of shops, restaurants, bands, a carousel, an aquarium, and a conveniently located liquor shop! There is also a great view of Alcatraz.
We took a Bay Cruise from Pier 39 underneath the Golden Gate Bridge, around Alcatraz, and back to the Pier. We got wonderful views there also!
She had never been this far west, and was very excited to come. Over a two day span we hit San Francisco twice. On Day 1 we got on the train to San Francisco, and took the F train over to Pier 1. From there it was a nice walk to Pier 39 (which for those who've never been, is a must see). That is one of the larger tourist attractions, they have all sorts of shops, restaurants, bands, a carousel, an aquarium, and a conveniently located liquor shop! There is also a great view of Alcatraz.
We took a Bay Cruise from Pier 39 underneath the Golden Gate Bridge, around Alcatraz, and back to the Pier. We got wonderful views there also!
The next day I took her to China Town, and we ate at a restaurant called "The Oriental Pearl." I heard about it from my girlfriend who heard about it from Rachel Ray's $40 a Day. Way to go Rachel! It was amazing food, and great prices. That day was a little less eventful, as I had to come to work today, and we only spent a few hours there. However I did learn that people with more money than time on their hands shouldn't go into ninja shops...
How awesome is that? Now I just have to find something to climb.
Where's Today's Joe Galloway?
More and more on the news you see reporters and they look like machines, just spitting out information and numbers with no emotion. They could be reading, "3 US Soldiers died in Al-Anbar today" or "Two monkeys escaped from the zoo" or "15 car pile up on I-5 kills three generations in a minivan" or "Honey would you pick up some milk on the way home?" and you couldn't tell the difference. Whatever they are reporting, it seems like one thing is common with The Media: Let's see how gruesome of a story you can come up with without flinching or missing a beat.
Where are the reporters who moved you, who you could relate to and feel the emotion behind what they are saying? Why is it the standard now to not feel? Everytime I hear of an Iraqi cilvilian, or US Soldier, or anyone dying (except for say, criminals Osama, or Zarqawi) it strikes a chord of sadness in me, as I'm sure it does to everyone who hears it...so why does The Media pretend like it doesn't?
I want to know who's going to step up and be Dan Rather (A man with flaws sure, as we all are, you know, us real people)? Who's going to be Joe Galloway, and drop his camera for an M-16 while on patrol with US troops instead of trying to get the best angle on a puddle of blood? Joe Galloway earned a Bronze Star with a V for Valor for moving under fire to pull a wounded GI from enemy bullets. I wonder how today's reporters would act in that situation? I'm afraid they would try to take pictures of him.
Where are the reporters who moved you, who you could relate to and feel the emotion behind what they are saying? Why is it the standard now to not feel? Everytime I hear of an Iraqi cilvilian, or US Soldier, or anyone dying (except for say, criminals Osama, or Zarqawi) it strikes a chord of sadness in me, as I'm sure it does to everyone who hears it...so why does The Media pretend like it doesn't?
I want to know who's going to step up and be Dan Rather (A man with flaws sure, as we all are, you know, us real people)? Who's going to be Joe Galloway, and drop his camera for an M-16 while on patrol with US troops instead of trying to get the best angle on a puddle of blood? Joe Galloway earned a Bronze Star with a V for Valor for moving under fire to pull a wounded GI from enemy bullets. I wonder how today's reporters would act in that situation? I'm afraid they would try to take pictures of him.
10.25.2006
Friends in High Places
Today msnbc.com posted this article. (credit: msnbc.com) It is basically saying that Al-Maliki yelled at the US for raiding a house in Sadr City while attempting to apprehend a known militia leader, who was known for criminal activity. A leader of a 'death squad', this person most likely was not just responsible for Coalition deaths, but the deaths of rival Shi'a militias, and civilians.
Stories like this, and an earlier one where US forces were forced to release someone who they knew had killed troops because of a phone call from Muqtada to Maliki, make me feel so angry for the handicap that our soldiers are going through. It also makes me feel for the countless other deaths by this guys hands that could have been prevented by his capture.
Al-Sadr is a major factor in Iraq, with the largest militia (albeit one that is splintering into factions), and 30 seats in their parliament. In one hand he shoots at whoever gets in his way, and in the other he holds the ear of the Prime Minister.
Someone who sponsors a militia shouldn't be allowed to take part in the government. David Koresh wouldn't be elected Senator. How can people expect to have peace when we aren't even allowed to do our jobs? Indirectly we are helping the Shi'a militias by only arresting the Sunni that we get ahold of....when we take care of all of them, who's left?
If Al-Maliki won't step up and take control of Sadr or disarm his militias, then we need to step up and just do it. If Maliki is not interested enough in the safety of his people that he will allow known murderers to go free, someone needs to take his place. If Maliki won't allow America to do our job and thinks he can do it better, he needs to ask us to leave. Unity is just that, unity. He can't propose a new "unity initiative" when he favors one sect over another.
I don't think that Muqtada Al-Sadr's vision of Iraq is the vision of the Iraqi people, the hardcore Shi'a are the ones who are forcing girls to wear headscarves in a country where they used to be allowed to wear jeans. There is no place in a free democracy for someone who is going to impose his will on people's freedom to choose.
Stories like this, and an earlier one where US forces were forced to release someone who they knew had killed troops because of a phone call from Muqtada to Maliki, make me feel so angry for the handicap that our soldiers are going through. It also makes me feel for the countless other deaths by this guys hands that could have been prevented by his capture.
Al-Sadr is a major factor in Iraq, with the largest militia (albeit one that is splintering into factions), and 30 seats in their parliament. In one hand he shoots at whoever gets in his way, and in the other he holds the ear of the Prime Minister.
Someone who sponsors a militia shouldn't be allowed to take part in the government. David Koresh wouldn't be elected Senator. How can people expect to have peace when we aren't even allowed to do our jobs? Indirectly we are helping the Shi'a militias by only arresting the Sunni that we get ahold of....when we take care of all of them, who's left?
If Al-Maliki won't step up and take control of Sadr or disarm his militias, then we need to step up and just do it. If Maliki is not interested enough in the safety of his people that he will allow known murderers to go free, someone needs to take his place. If Maliki won't allow America to do our job and thinks he can do it better, he needs to ask us to leave. Unity is just that, unity. He can't propose a new "unity initiative" when he favors one sect over another.
I don't think that Muqtada Al-Sadr's vision of Iraq is the vision of the Iraqi people, the hardcore Shi'a are the ones who are forcing girls to wear headscarves in a country where they used to be allowed to wear jeans. There is no place in a free democracy for someone who is going to impose his will on people's freedom to choose.
10.24.2006
Censorship in the Media
Originally I created this 'blog' because of MSNBC.COM. I have read their "Blogging Baghdad" page any time that they have an update, and check it frequently for updates on the comments. Some of the people there have fairly intelligent posts (even if I don't agree with them all). Then some others like to write in all caps as if that gets their point across better. MSNBC.COM has a policy that they will not post any comments that have vulgar language, or attack the comments of others. What they don't say is that they also arbitrarily decide not to post some things they don't agree with. (They put a few comments on so that it's not as obvious, but it happens.) There have been 5 posts I've made that never showed up.
I'm not the only person who has noticed this either. Their section is so liberal and anti-war it's almost comical, if we weren't talking about the lives of warm human bodies. In many of the comments, people refer time and time again about the recent 656,000 body count that was recently reported from a organization in the UK. Here is one of my posts that never made the page (that I attempted to post on 2 different threads a total of about 3 times over the span of 2 weeks).
"In regards to everyone who has said that there have been 600,000+ deaths in Iraq since the war began, here are a few things that you should ponder. Though the scientific method may be proven to work under normal circumstances, Iraq as we all know is anything but normal.
This report says that of those 656,000 deaths, they claim that 31% were caused by American soldiers (directly or indirectly). That means that in the past 3 years, the US military has been the cause of 203,360 civilian deaths (656,000 * .31). Or roughly 185 civilians a day. (203,360 / 1095). That leaves 452,640 dead from other causes. Or roughly 413 per day. (656,000 - 203,360 = 452,640 / 1095 = 413.36)
So that brings our grand total to 598 dead per day. Now thinking seriously, if our forces were responsible for 185 civilian deaths per day, don't you think that the media would jump all over that story, as they have with any other story that involved US troops killing civilians?
What I would like to know is this:
1) Who were they asking and where were they? Not some vague "47 districts", but where. If you go to Fallujah, or the slums of Baghdad, or Mosul and ask that question you will get vastly different answers than if you go to Kurdistan.
2) How many of these deaths were double reported? You have to remember how large and intermingled families in Iraq are. My girlfriend alone has 140+ first cousins. Her father is 1 of 14. If my uncle died, and you ask me how many people I know that have died, and then go and ask his son if he knew anyone who died, that death is reported twice. Due to naming structures in Arabic cultures, you can't even go by names to decide if it was a relative. My name could be Ibn Jeffery, Travis Al-Talab, or Abu Cha Chi, and all of those are correct.
3) How many of these numbers were not only double reported but just misreported? Maybe someone you ask hates America with a passion and says, "7 of my family have died!" When in all reality that number might be 2?
4) Look at the actual deaths reported by the media, even with a huge spike in violence recently, the number is still about 3000 a month. Using that inflated average, you still get 108,000 deaths over three years, a far cry from 600,000.
The study seems politically inspired and timed, but if you think about it rationally it just really doesn't make a lot of sense."
I'm not saying that it is peachy that even 108,000 have died, because honestly it breaks my heart that so many innocent people have been dragged through this. The casualties aren't just the dead, at least they have peace. The ones who live on have it even harder, they have to live without their loved ones, and live with the nightmares that come from being in a warzone. (Which for many of them, they are still trying to get over the nightmares from the past 40 years). What I am saying is that this report, much like the only headlines you see being "4 killed by roadside bomb" "7 bodies found in Baghdad" "3 coalition soldiers killed by small arms fire" are making America lose this war. Not militarily, but in the will of Americans to continue to stay true to our word.
The insurgents and "freedom fighters" and "Hizbollah mini-me's" all know that bombings and beheadings capture headlines and shake the public, and so they continue these tactics. The media is helping them by only showing this side of it, and not anything else that's going on.
I'm not the only person who has noticed this either. Their section is so liberal and anti-war it's almost comical, if we weren't talking about the lives of warm human bodies. In many of the comments, people refer time and time again about the recent 656,000 body count that was recently reported from a organization in the UK. Here is one of my posts that never made the page (that I attempted to post on 2 different threads a total of about 3 times over the span of 2 weeks).
"In regards to everyone who has said that there have been 600,000+ deaths in Iraq since the war began, here are a few things that you should ponder. Though the scientific method may be proven to work under normal circumstances, Iraq as we all know is anything but normal.
This report says that of those 656,000 deaths, they claim that 31% were caused by American soldiers (directly or indirectly). That means that in the past 3 years, the US military has been the cause of 203,360 civilian deaths (656,000 * .31). Or roughly 185 civilians a day. (203,360 / 1095). That leaves 452,640 dead from other causes. Or roughly 413 per day. (656,000 - 203,360 = 452,640 / 1095 = 413.36)
So that brings our grand total to 598 dead per day. Now thinking seriously, if our forces were responsible for 185 civilian deaths per day, don't you think that the media would jump all over that story, as they have with any other story that involved US troops killing civilians?
What I would like to know is this:
1) Who were they asking and where were they? Not some vague "47 districts", but where. If you go to Fallujah, or the slums of Baghdad, or Mosul and ask that question you will get vastly different answers than if you go to Kurdistan.
2) How many of these deaths were double reported? You have to remember how large and intermingled families in Iraq are. My girlfriend alone has 140+ first cousins. Her father is 1 of 14. If my uncle died, and you ask me how many people I know that have died, and then go and ask his son if he knew anyone who died, that death is reported twice. Due to naming structures in Arabic cultures, you can't even go by names to decide if it was a relative. My name could be Ibn Jeffery, Travis Al-Talab, or Abu Cha Chi, and all of those are correct.
3) How many of these numbers were not only double reported but just misreported? Maybe someone you ask hates America with a passion and says, "7 of my family have died!" When in all reality that number might be 2?
4) Look at the actual deaths reported by the media, even with a huge spike in violence recently, the number is still about 3000 a month. Using that inflated average, you still get 108,000 deaths over three years, a far cry from 600,000.
The study seems politically inspired and timed, but if you think about it rationally it just really doesn't make a lot of sense."
I'm not saying that it is peachy that even 108,000 have died, because honestly it breaks my heart that so many innocent people have been dragged through this. The casualties aren't just the dead, at least they have peace. The ones who live on have it even harder, they have to live without their loved ones, and live with the nightmares that come from being in a warzone. (Which for many of them, they are still trying to get over the nightmares from the past 40 years). What I am saying is that this report, much like the only headlines you see being "4 killed by roadside bomb" "7 bodies found in Baghdad" "3 coalition soldiers killed by small arms fire" are making America lose this war. Not militarily, but in the will of Americans to continue to stay true to our word.
The insurgents and "freedom fighters" and "Hizbollah mini-me's" all know that bombings and beheadings capture headlines and shake the public, and so they continue these tactics. The media is helping them by only showing this side of it, and not anything else that's going on.
10.23.2006
Iraqi_Peace_Constitution.txt
All around the internet these days, in the rooms of congress, and in the media you seem to hear one recurring theme. "We've been in Iraq for 3 years and it doesn't look like anything is better, and everything is worse!"
These people seem to think that we should have toppled Saddam after our three day war, and then the next day people are in the streets electing officials and singing songs about their new constitution. Success doesn't happen overnight. For all who believe that Iraq isn't moving to democracy fast enough, let's take a trip back in time.
April 18th, 1775
After secretly being told to use all force necessary to suppress the American Revolution, Massachusetts Governor Page orders 700 troops to destroy a rebel weapons depot. Paul Revere makes his famous midnight ride.
April 23rd, 1775
The provincial congress orders American troops to mobilize. Volunteers from all over begin the siege of Boston.
June 15th, 1775
Congress picks George Washington to lead the American troops in Boston. Two days later the Americans fight the battle of Bunker Hill.
November 28th, 1775
Congress establishes our first Navy.
July 4th, 1776
We all know what happens this day. The Declaration of Independence is...well, declared. This formally begins the Revolutionary War.
June 14th, 1777
Congress mandates our flag of the United states.
March 1st, 1781
The Articles of Confederation are ratified, three years after their introduction.
October 19th, 1781
The British Surrender at Yorktown.
April 11th, 1783
Congress officially declares the end of the Revolutionary War
July 2nd, 1788
The Constitution comes into effect, having now been ratified by nine of the thirteen states.
May 5th, 1992
The 27th Amendment is ratified by Alabama, making it the most recent addition to the Constitution.
Seeing as how the United states didn't actually ratify their constitution until 12 years after the official start of the revolution, I would say that Iraq is well ahead of schedule. Democracy by nature is never finished, it is always looked at and analyzed to see how we can make it better. This is shown by the fact that 200 years after our Constitution went into effect we are still changing it. Keep in mind that you can't just "Right Click" on Democracy and "Save Target As... Iraqi_Peace_Constitution.txt"
They have their constitution, they will continue to amend it, and hopefully they will be able to still go outside without being forced to wear an Abaya.
These people seem to think that we should have toppled Saddam after our three day war, and then the next day people are in the streets electing officials and singing songs about their new constitution. Success doesn't happen overnight. For all who believe that Iraq isn't moving to democracy fast enough, let's take a trip back in time.
April 18th, 1775
After secretly being told to use all force necessary to suppress the American Revolution, Massachusetts Governor Page orders 700 troops to destroy a rebel weapons depot. Paul Revere makes his famous midnight ride.
April 23rd, 1775
The provincial congress orders American troops to mobilize. Volunteers from all over begin the siege of Boston.
June 15th, 1775
Congress picks George Washington to lead the American troops in Boston. Two days later the Americans fight the battle of Bunker Hill.
November 28th, 1775
Congress establishes our first Navy.
July 4th, 1776
We all know what happens this day. The Declaration of Independence is...well, declared. This formally begins the Revolutionary War.
June 14th, 1777
Congress mandates our flag of the United states.
March 1st, 1781
The Articles of Confederation are ratified, three years after their introduction.
October 19th, 1781
The British Surrender at Yorktown.
April 11th, 1783
Congress officially declares the end of the Revolutionary War
July 2nd, 1788
The Constitution comes into effect, having now been ratified by nine of the thirteen states.
May 5th, 1992
The 27th Amendment is ratified by Alabama, making it the most recent addition to the Constitution.
Seeing as how the United states didn't actually ratify their constitution until 12 years after the official start of the revolution, I would say that Iraq is well ahead of schedule. Democracy by nature is never finished, it is always looked at and analyzed to see how we can make it better. This is shown by the fact that 200 years after our Constitution went into effect we are still changing it. Keep in mind that you can't just "Right Click" on Democracy and "Save Target As... Iraqi_Peace_Constitution.txt"
They have their constitution, they will continue to amend it, and hopefully they will be able to still go outside without being forced to wear an Abaya.
Mistakes in Iraq
The list of mistakes in Iraq is long winded, so this will be a long post. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, I'm not going to say that the first mistake was going in there to begin with. I believe very strongly that America should be there. It was a mistake to go in there for the reasons we did, but we should be there nonetheless. Below is a incomplete list of mistakes in handling Iraq dating from 1990 forward.
- The first mistake was not taking Saddam out of power the first time we were there. There's no telling how much easier it would have been to rebuild that area before 9/11. Before 9/11 there wouldn't have been so much of an incentive for foreign fighters to head into Iraq for the express purpose of fighting Americans.
- Our second mistake, failing that was for us to not have helped the Shiite rebellion shortly after we left Iraq, while we still had a strong troop base in the country. We promised our help then, and then watched from Kuwait's borders as they got slaughtered. Had we helped them then, before Ahmedinejad had control of Iran, and again before 9/11, by the time 9/11 rolled around the country would more than likely have already been stabilized and would have been a great ally in the "War on Terror". Not to mention the money we are spending there now could have been spent elsewhere focusing on other state sponsors of Terrorism.
- Instead of pushing for WMD's and Terrorism reasons for going to war with Iraq, Bush should have gone with the things that we had no doubt about in his reasoning for war. Saddam's balking at all of the UN Sanctions and his obvious and known human rights abuses. These would have garnered enough public support to win his case, without the terrible public fallout of finding out that WMD's didn't exist (or were removed before we got there).
These next three are probably the most aggravating factors on the fighting we are seeing in Iraq today. Any one of them would have greatly reduced what our troops, and the Iraqi populace is going through, and all three of them could have very likely stopped most of this from occurring in the first place. These all deal with the recent invasion and aftermath.
- Troop levels. In 1990 when we initially were helping to liberate Kuwait (Read: Trying to stop Saddam from invading Saudi Arabia) we had a total of over 600,000 troops on the ground. These troops were only there for the purpose of pushing Saddam's forces out of Kuwait and back to Iraqi borders. Kuwait is approximately 18,000 square kilometers. That's 33 troops/square kilometer. Now, with a much larger span of goals we have 150,000 troops in Iraq, which is 437,000 square kilometers. That is 0.34 troops/square kilometer. Granted much of that is desert, so the concentration is different, but still we are trying to control an entire country that has broken down to the foundation with a third of the troops we used just to push that country back to it's own borders.
- Disbanding Saddam's Army. This fatal error just put 400,000 trained soldiers, many of them with families to feed (and note an Iraqi family on average is more than twice the size of the average American family) on the streets, jobless. Why this was done is beyond me. Sure they were all Baathists, you couldn't get a job in Iraq unless you were. Much like everyone in Germany was a Nazi on paper, but not all of them really were. Sure there were some loyalists there, but a good number of them were patriots, who had seen and been through enough war to give them a national identity. So you shake up the leadership circles and officers, put them all through vigorous ethical retraining, arrest the known human rights abusers, and start with a solid base. Had we not committed this error, the previous error would not have been such a large issue. Where does a trained soldier go to make money when he loses his job? My guess would be the people who are paying you to blow yourself up and kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
- Giving all of the rebuilding contracts to American companies. Roughly 30% of Iraq is now unemployed. Before America came did Iraq not have any companies that built their refineries, schools, and other facilities? Did they not have engineers and construction firms? How upset would you be to see a Russian come to America and rebuild us when we have perfectly capable craftsmen of our own who need work? Upset enough to turn to violence against them to keep your family fed? Giving these jobs to them would give them reason not to become an insurgent. Who wants to go to work all day just to go back at night and blow up their project? Who needs to turn to illegal activities when their legal activities let them make ends meet?
How do we correct those mistakes? Not easily. Many of them are uncorrectable. I believe that an increase in troop presence would help. It would give them more targets yes, but I think it would greatly improve daily life for the Iraqis. They might see an M1A1 on every street corner, but at least they wouldn't have to wait around for the Military to respond, they would be ready at any moment. And yes, slowly we could start reworking all of those contracts to companies in Iraq, give people jobs, and get more of our civilians out of the way.
I read a story recently about a Baghdad company that built bridges after we attacked Iraq in '91. They quoted the US an estimate of $300,000 to rebuild a bridge that an American company then estimated for multiple millions of dollars. Which one got the contract? Guess.
10.21.2006
Flags of Our Fat
Last night my girlfriend and I drove to Manteca CA to see the opening of Flags of Our Fathers, Clint Eastwood's newest film. It is an amazing movie, and I recommend anyone who's old enough to go see it do so! It's a compelling story based on the book of the same name, following three of the six soldiers who raised the second flag over Iwo Jima. (The other three died while still on the island.) Everybody knows the famous picture.
It shows how the government tries to push them to be heroes, yet most of them disagree with being pulled from battle to sell bonds and pretend like they are something they aren't. You leave the movie with a real empathy for them, especially Ira Hayes. It's a true story about heroes. They get so built up and mythical in your head, and then you see their faults and in some ways it drops the legend, but only to make it all the more real. Kind of like the first time you realize your parents aren't superheroes.
My girlfriend is a survivor of years of war between Iraq and Iran, she lived in Baghdad the entire time. The movie starts out with someone saying something to the effect of, "People think they know so much about war, and it is usually the people who have never been". That was the first, and only time she laughed throughout the entire movie. It broke my heart to see the effect that a surround sound war gave to her, to the point of me telling her that we were going to just get up and go. But like a real trooper she insisted on staying, knowing that her "Habibi" wanted to see the movie.
By the end of the movie she, as well as many others in the theatre, were in tears. Thousands dead fighting for a hunk of rock 10 square miles. Three men ripped from their units to sell themselves for something they were, but didn't believe they deserved. Gore, Torture, Suicide, Panic.
One of the most powerful moments to me was a part where Ira Hayes is fighting cops in the street, holding them off with a chair from a nearby bar. One of the other characters, "Doc" runs up to him and talks him down, telling the cops to look at a nearby war effort picture saying, "Look see that person? That's him!" He asks Ira what happened, and Ira replies, "They wouldn't serve me." The stern faced bartender says, "I don't make the rules, we don't serve Indians." They then head off, with "Doc" glaring at the bartender with looks that could kill. Racism really gets to me.
After the movie, we watch the credits roll by as they are showing actual pictures of the battle/troops/ships etc. When we finally leave, we head up the stairs and there is one woman, in her mid 40's alone in the theatre, her face shimmering with tears. Something about that lady in the darkness, last row, alone in the darkness crying really got to me. We headed to get a drink, and I remembered at the beginning of the night my girlfriend pointing out the ticket where they had cut the name of the movie to fit the stub...."Flags of Our Fat".
It shows how the government tries to push them to be heroes, yet most of them disagree with being pulled from battle to sell bonds and pretend like they are something they aren't. You leave the movie with a real empathy for them, especially Ira Hayes. It's a true story about heroes. They get so built up and mythical in your head, and then you see their faults and in some ways it drops the legend, but only to make it all the more real. Kind of like the first time you realize your parents aren't superheroes.
My girlfriend is a survivor of years of war between Iraq and Iran, she lived in Baghdad the entire time. The movie starts out with someone saying something to the effect of, "People think they know so much about war, and it is usually the people who have never been". That was the first, and only time she laughed throughout the entire movie. It broke my heart to see the effect that a surround sound war gave to her, to the point of me telling her that we were going to just get up and go. But like a real trooper she insisted on staying, knowing that her "Habibi" wanted to see the movie.
By the end of the movie she, as well as many others in the theatre, were in tears. Thousands dead fighting for a hunk of rock 10 square miles. Three men ripped from their units to sell themselves for something they were, but didn't believe they deserved. Gore, Torture, Suicide, Panic.
One of the most powerful moments to me was a part where Ira Hayes is fighting cops in the street, holding them off with a chair from a nearby bar. One of the other characters, "Doc" runs up to him and talks him down, telling the cops to look at a nearby war effort picture saying, "Look see that person? That's him!" He asks Ira what happened, and Ira replies, "They wouldn't serve me." The stern faced bartender says, "I don't make the rules, we don't serve Indians." They then head off, with "Doc" glaring at the bartender with looks that could kill. Racism really gets to me.
After the movie, we watch the credits roll by as they are showing actual pictures of the battle/troops/ships etc. When we finally leave, we head up the stairs and there is one woman, in her mid 40's alone in the theatre, her face shimmering with tears. Something about that lady in the darkness, last row, alone in the darkness crying really got to me. We headed to get a drink, and I remembered at the beginning of the night my girlfriend pointing out the ticket where they had cut the name of the movie to fit the stub...."Flags of Our Fat".
10.20.2006
If the Opposite of Pro is Con...
Here's a space killer. Welcome to my blog, blah blah blah. Since honestly the only people who are going to read this are the two people who have a link to it, I'll skip those lame "This is my first post!! OMG LOL!!!" entries.
I was reading an article today that was talking about how old our senate is. Old People Run the Country! (credit: msnbc.com). They say that our average senator is 60 years old. The average representative? 55! Take a look at a picture of Sen. Byrd (By his own account a former KKK leader). The man looks like a decrepid Emperor Palpatine, clocking in at 88 years old, and has been a senator for over 40 years.
I think that this is a much larger problem than Congress being "a generation behind". These old guys have no fear of being defeated in an election. Their biggest fear is whether or not they are forced to resign because someone finds out about their sexual orientation or property selling schemes. That gives them free reign to do just about anything else they want. Why do they continue to be voted in? Are Americans just going through the motions?
By your 5th term in Congress you would have to be deeply embedded with special interest groups who by now have contributed so many millions of dollars that they might have well just paid your salary.
I believe that we need to have a younger government that isn't so set in their ways. I propose that we give Congressmen the same sort of limitations we give the presidency. If we limited congressmen to two terms, that would give them 12 years. This would make it so that every few years we would get at least part of our congress a fresh look, maybe some of them would still be old, but we wouldn't have these dynasties with their behind the shadows loyalties stretching back to before we even had equal rights.
Not only would that be conducive to bringing in fresh ideas and fresh faces, but it would also give congressmen a little more incentive to move faster, so they could get things done before they were out for good.
I was reading an article today that was talking about how old our senate is. Old People Run the Country! (credit: msnbc.com). They say that our average senator is 60 years old. The average representative? 55! Take a look at a picture of Sen. Byrd (By his own account a former KKK leader). The man looks like a decrepid Emperor Palpatine, clocking in at 88 years old, and has been a senator for over 40 years.
I think that this is a much larger problem than Congress being "a generation behind". These old guys have no fear of being defeated in an election. Their biggest fear is whether or not they are forced to resign because someone finds out about their sexual orientation or property selling schemes. That gives them free reign to do just about anything else they want. Why do they continue to be voted in? Are Americans just going through the motions?
By your 5th term in Congress you would have to be deeply embedded with special interest groups who by now have contributed so many millions of dollars that they might have well just paid your salary.
I believe that we need to have a younger government that isn't so set in their ways. I propose that we give Congressmen the same sort of limitations we give the presidency. If we limited congressmen to two terms, that would give them 12 years. This would make it so that every few years we would get at least part of our congress a fresh look, maybe some of them would still be old, but we wouldn't have these dynasties with their behind the shadows loyalties stretching back to before we even had equal rights.
Not only would that be conducive to bringing in fresh ideas and fresh faces, but it would also give congressmen a little more incentive to move faster, so they could get things done before they were out for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
