On 'Why We Fight'

At the continued urging of a close friend, I watched the documentary film "Why We Fight" on DVD last night.

The film over, I wondered idly why my friend was so anxious to have me view it. After all, it hadn't really told me much of anything I didn't already (think I) know.

There was that whole "military industrial complex" thing (which, from what I can tell, the mere mention of which can cause many on both sides of the political spectrum to see red and rant and rave on either how evil it is or what a pile a crap the whole concept is, take your pick). Although apparently more correctly-titled, from the man who first coined the phrase, the military-industrial-congressional complex.

Warnings about letting "the tail wag the dog", how the system takes on a life on its own; not so much that it goes "looking for a war" but how quick can it can be to respond and push policy in that direction if the chance presents itself.

Warnings about a congressional system in which the members have to bring home the pork the bacon, making what should be a decision about military spending essentially one about jobs for constituents. How it is often (always?) just about the big money involved. And warnings about behind-the-scenes think tanks pushing policy ... in the direction that they think it should go, I suppose.

I must say that I did find the story of Eisenhower's life quite interesting. Confessing that knowing that there was both a General Eisenhower and a President Eisenhower at some time in the United States' history being roughly the extent of my knowledge on that subject. He sounds life a very interesting man, the kind I would love to sit down and chat with over a cup of tea.

The US invasion of Iraq was pretty much pillaged in the film. But since I never was in favour of that move, never felt that the intelligence on whether or not there were actually weapons of mass destruction present was strong enough to justify that action, there wasn't much of anything new for me there either.

Although I must admit that good points were made as to how the public (and the politicians, too, to an extent, I imagine) have been duped into thinking that so-called smart weapons are so much smarter, so much more accurate than they actually are.

Making the idea of waging a particular war perhaps a little more palatable, a little more acceptable with the thinking that we can strike with supposed precision and leave the innocent civilians unscathed. On which point, one might want to check with the citizens of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

But what I found most interesting about the film was buried in the "Special Features" section. Two interviews given by the film's producer, Eugene Jarkecki; one with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show and one on Charlie Rose.

I appreciated Jarecki's even-handedness, how he gently corrected the erroneous thinking of both interviewers, explicitly stating he was not about conspiracy theories and explaining that the point of the film was not about any particular party or any particular President. In fact, it wasn't even about the neo-cons (gasp). [My apologies - but it has now become my signature to add the appropriate gasp following every use of the dreaded word ... neo-cons.]

That the "enemy within the gates", so to speak (my terminology, not his) is a necessary system that has taken on a life of it's own. And how each and every one of us (he was, of course, speaking of and to the United States but it is unarguable that the point applies to every industrialized, developed country in today's world) has the responsibility and the duty to be aware and on guard.

To be on guard to ensure that the tail is not wagging the dog. To ensure that we hold our politicians accountable and that policy decisions are made by those that are accountable (as is so often, unfortunately, not the case in the world today). And to ensure that America, a country built on the principles of a republic, does not become an empire. Which is what President Eisenhower was warning against.

Good stuff. Valid points. So true.

As, unlike the Olympics are for the vast majority of us and contrary to what often appears to be public opinion, democracy?

Most definitely. Not. A. Spectator. Sport.

On another note, I found it interesting that an interview with Senator John McCain featured prominently in the film. Interesting because 90% of what Senator McCain had to say sounded to be in basic agreement with the words of President Eisenhower.

He spoke of the military/industrialist complex taking on a life of its own, of (if not actual corruption) a congressional system which allowed decisions to be made in very questionable ways and for very questionable reasons. How insidious it is. How we had to be aware of and on guard against it.

Which I thought was interesting considering that he was the Republican candidate in the recent 2008 election; the one whom (if you believed some a lot of the hype) candidate Obama had to save the country from. Well, from him and Sarah Palin, of course. But that's a story best for another day.

All in all, I'm glad I watched the film. Both for the (Eisenhower) history I learned and for the musings of Jarecki. Two interesting men with very valid points to make.

And in exchange for my watching "Why We Fight", my friend has agreed to read Palin's book, "Going Rogue".

Who knows, perhaps, he too will write a review for us?

Gone Fishin'

Or, at least, the blogging equivalent.

My brother is back for a visit this week (arrived yesterday, leaves Sunday) and his wife will be showing up tomorrow.

So between the movies, the Play Station games, the eating out, the Play Station games, the board games, the drinking, the chatting ... I seem to be a mite bit busy. To say nothing of the working and errands I should be doing.

But fear not. I shall be back. Eventually.

In the meantime, I will share this. We went to see Avatar tonight.

Absolutely amazing visuals. You could pretty much put aside the whole story/plot and it still would have been worth the price of admission. Just to see the visuals. Incredible enough, I think, that someone actually thought of it all, let alone created it.

Now I know there's been some thoughts expressed out there that it's all about pantheism, an attack on Christianity, perhaps? Sorry, I think someone missed the boat there. I mean, I can see where they saw the pantheism but I really don't think that's what the movie was really about.

Interestingly, both my brother and the Kit Kat saw is as being about how we take care of (or don't) the environment; do just we rape, pillage, take what we want from the earth? Or do we see that there's something more there?

And I can see where they get that from. But I don't really think that's what it's all about, either.

It may well be an element of what they were getting at but for me, what I saw ... it was politics. Another anti-war, anti-Iraq movie. Too many references like these to be coincidental, says I. (Not exact quotes but close enough.)

We built them hospitals and school, offered them education and food.

You want to win their hearts and minds, don't you?

This is why we're here, because this little gray rock sells for twenty million a kilo.

It's shock and awe time.

When people have something we want, first we make them the enemy. Then we go in and take what we want.

There were a lot more but you can get the point.

And yet (surprising even to me), I still highly recommend it. The story didn't turn me totally off (most of the time) and it was well worth it for the technology.

Anyway, I must run. Until we meet again.

Passchendale

Ever hear of it?
The place. The battle. The movie.

I saw Passchendale at the theatre last summer. I'm not much *into* war movies. In fact, I tend not to like them at all. It's all that blood, guts and gore stuff. Too loud. Too many people getting blown away.

But I wanted to see Passchendale. First because it was a Canadian movie. Loosely based on the true story of one Canadian soldier during World War I. Canadian war movies, let alone those based on a true story, are pretty rare. As in rare to none.

So it was that I was rather intrigued.

Part war story. Part love story.

Inspired by director, Paul Gross's, relationship with his grandfather, we are introduced to Sergeant Michael Dunne, a decorated veteran of the 10th Battalion, CEF. Sent home from Europe as a neurasthenia patient, he meets nurse Sarah Mann in Calgary, Alberta, where he enlisted.

Mann is cashiered banned from military service because her father had left Canada to rejoin the German Army in 1915, where he was killed at Vimy Ridge. Her younger brother, is ineligible for military service due to asthma and desperate to win the respect of his girlfriend's father in a time when military service was expected of all young males.

A series of events places him in the trenches in France, with Michael Dunne returning to France to watch over him, and Sarah returning to duty. The three arrive in Europe in time for the Third Battle of Ypres, and the fighting near Passchendaele.

Last night, the movie swept the Genie Awards, winning six awards including the Golden Reel as most popular film of the year.

But more impressive than that, at least for me, were Gross' reported comments on the movie.

“We have a very funny perception of ourselves, which is: ‘We’re peacekeepers.’ Well we are, and we’re extraordinarily good at it, we to some extent invented it, we teach the world how to do it. But, we’re also warriors. And we were the most feared fighting corps in the British order of battle.”

Gross dedicated the movie to all the brave men and women of the Canadian military, past and present, for all they do to keep us safe. Nice.

And yet there remains the sad commentary which inspired the thoughts of my brother, expressed as we were walking out of the theatre, that this was the first movie he had ever seen that made him feel proud of the Canadian military.

Because, at least until now, no on had bothered to make one.

The Final Word

Remember the furor around the blogosphere around the movie, Tropic Thunder? And the direct effects it had on some?

Apparently, the movie's current release on DVD, has restarted that whole conversation again. And although I still feel there is real concern that the reaction of the disability community might have given this sad attempt at a movie more play and interest than it deserved, I am happy to award the final word in the conversation to this young lady. She is affiliated with the ARC of Virginia, an organization which advocates for the rights and full participation of all children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.



What she said.

H/T to Pipecleaner Dreams

What Would You Have Done?

Ashley's mom, at Pipecleaner Dreams, posits this question after sharing her experience of a group of middle school aged boys in a grocery store who started singing "Once upon a time" (apparently a reference to the Tropic Thunder movie) while snickering and laughing at her deaf/blind daughter.

I don’t feel like I handled the situation very well, but I also don’t know what I should have done differently. Do you have any suggestions for me?

It's a tough one and quite frankly, I don't know the answer. Although to me, it's obvious (realizing, of course, that others may disagree) that something had to be said or done. But what exactly?

Ashley's mom let them know that she understood their reference and told them "to stop immediately.” When they walked away snickering, continuing to look back at her daughter while performing a sing song of “Once upon a time…Once upon a time….once upon a time…” she followed them down the aisle, proclaiming that her daughter is beautiful and asking how they thought their mothers would feel about them at that moment. Although the boys were getting angry, at this point, one of the group insisted that the others leave the store with him.

The best response I can come up with at the moment came from Amazing Grace, a commenter at Pipecleaner Dreams who suggested coming back with "Once upon a time there were these three boys who were very mean and said really stupid stuff . . ." except that I'm pretty sure my 'Once upon a time' would have been a fair bit nastier.

So, dear reader, I pose you the question ... 'What would you have done?'

Movie Night

Blogging has been light around these here parts lately ~ no wonder perhaps, given that my house seems to have a perpetual revolving door lately. This has been gone on for the past six months or so. It's just that the number of revolutions appears to have increased dramatically recently.

Last Sunday, my sister-in-law and niece arrived for a visit. My niece flew back home Friday morning. The same Friday as my brother landed in Halifax. Unfortunately he landed approximately three hours before his luggage did. Making for a bit of a late night. Then after spending a day during the touristy thing in and about Halifax harbour on Saturday, my sister-in-law left to go home Sunday morning. As for my brother, well, he will still be here for another week. No wonder I have a headache...

Seriously though, the company is nice. If a bit disconcerting at times. The 'adults' in the house (as we're loosely known) went to the movies tonight. And what did we grace our great intellect with?

Tropic Thunder.

Yep, one and the same. Of the recent infamous 'Campaign to End The "R" Word' fame.

Yeah, about that.

• General impression of the movie ~ stupid
• Humour factor ~ some parts were funny but in general, see comment above
• Use of the 'R' word ~ somewhat annoying but much less offensive than what followed

It's funny how after all the hype about the use of the word "retard", personally, I found the portrayal of Simple Jack much more offensive. It was an extreme characterization, really a caricature of itself, perhaps, and I have to admit that it turned my stomach somewhat to hear some in the audience laughing at the portrayal.

Let's face it. Hollyweird does not exactly have a stellar record when it comes to portraying people with disabilities. But when I think of some of the movies referenced in Tropic Thunder, itself (Forrest Gump, I am Sam and Rain Man, for example) as well as some others that come to mind (Radio, The Other Sister, There's Something About Mary and Pumpkin Head), it strikes me that at least those movies didn't seem to so blatantly go out of their way to insult this segment of the population. Well done or not (and many are certainly debatable), at least they didn't so overly turn my stomach.

So is that really what you think of my child? And so many others? Trust me, I know many, many mentally challenged people and that is so not how they are. In fact, they wouldn't consider stooping to anything so stupid and pathetic. Quite frankly, they're much too classy.

But ... and here's the bigger thing ... I think it's really unfortunate that the disability community has given this movie as much publicity as it has. Just as an example, I probably wouldn't have even went to see it if I hadn't read what I had. It piqued my interest enough that when my brother suggested it, I agreed. But frankly, I think it's a stupid movie that would likely to die it's own stupid death a lot faster were it not for the extra publicity.

And, unfortunately, I think it's just another example of the disability community shooting itself in the foot. As I mentioned before, there was a previous movie (whose name I now misremember) which received a similar reaction from the disability community and when I viewed some of the clips, I really couldn't see what the big deal was. The world is often not as we wish it to be but I suppose that I would rather save my energy for advocating about some of the bigger problems we face.

No, Virginia, sadly enough there is no 'right to not be offended'. And my fear is that by pushing too hard in some of the wrong places, there will only be a backlash against those for whom we advocate.

Oh yeah, one more thing ... I can honestly sat that the absolute best part of the movie was when they were rolling the credits at the end. And no, I'm actually not being sarcastic, they showed some great footage and played some good music right at the end.

Dance on, Tom.

What's The Big Deal ... It's Just A Word, Right?

I know that there was some good feeling engendered concerning the movie, Tropic Thunder (a comedy about selfish, pampered actors who go overseas to make a war movie and accidentally provoke real jungle warlords) when the Hollywood stars choppered into the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base recently for a special USO screening. Which is nice. Don't get me wrong.

But the movie has also been a bit of a hot topic in the disability community recently. For example, the President & CEO of Special Olympics Canada has issued a communique concerning the movie-within-the movie wherein Ben Stiller plays "Simple Jack", a man with an intellectual disability, notings that it contains "material that would be considered offensive to members of our community".

Of particular concern appears to be the movie's original tagline "Once upon a time … There was a retard” and a scene in which Robert Downey Jr.’s character advises Stiller’s character to “Never go full retard.”

For this reason, Special Olympics International is leading a public campaign surrounding the film in the US. Although SOI, along with a coalition of US disability organizations, has engaged in conversations with DreamWorks (the production company) to address the content, requesting that action be taken to delete these scenes from the film and marketing platform, as well as to promote public service announcements and educational opportunities about people with intellectual disabilities, apparently, this has been to no avail.

It is hard to argue with the premise that the words we choose are an expression of our values and that much hurt and harm can be caused by using hurtful language. And while I don't know that I would personally go so far as to label the "R-word" as "hate speech", it's no secret that I have a lot of trouble with the word's casual use. I have, in fact, for a long time.

But that being said, in the past I have perceived the disability community, on occasion, to overreact to various movies. And not having seen Tropic Thunder, I will reserve judgment.

I would, however, like to point you to the words of a young man with Down Syndrome. John Franklin Stephens is a Special Olympics Virginia athlete and a global messenger for the Special Olympics. Here is just a portion of what he has to say on the subject.

So, what's wrong with "retard"? I can only tell you what it means to me and people like me when we hear it. It means that the rest of you are excluding us from your group. We are something that is not like you and something that none of you would ever want to be. We are something outside the "in" group. We are someone that is not your kind. I want you to know that it hurts to be left out here -- alone. Nothing scares me as much as feeling all alone in a world that moves so much faster than I do. You don't mean to make me feel that way. In fact, like I say in some of my speeches, "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers," and it works out OK most of the time.

Still, it hurts and scares me when I am the only person with intellectual disabilities on the bus and young people start making "retard" jokes or references. Please put yourself on that bus and fill the bus with people who are different from you. Imagine that they start making jokes using a term that describes you. It hurts and it is scary.

Last, I get the joke -- the irony -- that only dumb and shallow people are using a term that means dumb and shallow. The problem is, it is only funny if you think a "retard" is someone dumb and shallow. I am not those things, but every time the term is used it tells young people that it is OK to think of me that way and to keep me on the outside.

You can read the rest of it here.

H/T to Pipecleaner Dreams

Update: Cruising around the intertubes a bit on this subject, I came up with this response, which seems to say it well.

"Hey... in case you have been living under a rock for the past 100 years, using the R word reinforces a negative stereotype that we have been trying to get rid of forever... thanks, assholes... "

So, 'nuff said, I think.

Charlie Wilson's War

"A stiff drink. A little mascara. A lot of nerve. Who said they couldn't bring down the Soviet empire."

I rented Charlie Wilson's War yesterday. Had wanted to see it in the theatre but alas, it was not meant to be.

Tell me, please, how I managed to get through the whole movie without realizing that I was watching Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. Duh! Still don't know how I managed that. I guess I still think of Tom Hanks ala his Big days. He will be, for me, forever young. Or at least he was, until yesterday. And Julia, I have no idea how I missed her. True enough her hair was always up but I found her voice very different, she had an accent I have never associated with her. I might have recognized the teeth though!

All that aside, I really liked the movie. I had never heard the story before. Sure, I knew the Afghans beat the Russians when they tried to invade. Which is one fact people love to throw around when they argue that our current efforts in Afghanistan are all for naught. "Read your history", they say. "They beat the Russians, why do we think we can conquer them?" Or some variation on that theme ... But, like many apparently, I had never heard the story of the US involvement.

Besides the story and the delivery of the movie itself, I thought the ending was quite profound. When $2 billion later and the Russians have gone packing, Charlie is unsuccessful in getting $1 million to rebuild schools. "The Soviets are gone, are we still even in Afghanistan?" seems to be the feeling of the day. And as Charlie's argument that over half of the Afghan population is under the age of 14, that we always 'come in and do things our way' and then we leave, with no thought as to what we are leaving behind fell on deaf ears, I couldn't help but draw the parallel to today.

The story behind how the Afghans repelled the Soviets is not proof that what we are trying to do in today in Afghanistan is a waste of time. It's the very reason why we have to do what we are doing today in Afghanistan. It's the very reason why pulling out now would be the worst possible example of history repeating itself.

That old saying that those who don't know history are bound to repeat it, seems very apt here. Just not in the way many are using it.

When the world wasn't watching, they changed it forever.

What Are You Watching?

Me? The Hunt for Red October.

Great movie. I've watched it a few times actually.
When it first came out in theatres, but back then it didn't do so much for me. Then many, many years later. After reading the book.

Oh, yeah. The book.
I do so enjoy those Jack Ryan books. Then again, John Clark ain't no slouch either. In fact, Without Remorse is my favourite book in the series. It was suppose to be made into movie, too. Well, you know what they say ... Seeing is believing. And Hope Springs Eternal.

Anyway, this time, the movie is even better. I think its because I've developed ... ahem ... just a bit of an interest in naval aviation since the last time I watched it. Yeah, I know. I'm working on my understatement skills, can't you tell?

Suddenly a lot of it makes a lot more sense. Maybe not as good as Lex but a girl's got to take what she can get. Hey, can anyone picture Rhythms as a movie? But I digress.

Hunt for Red October. Great movie.

Great quotes.

"Ryan, some things in here don't react well to bullets." Yeah, like me. I don't react well to bullets.

The hard part about playing chicken is knowin' when to flinch.

Central Intelligence Agency... Now, there's a contradiction in terms.

[to himself, just before being lowered off a helicopter]
Jack Ryan: Next time, Jack, write a goddamn memo.

Heh.

I guess I will have to go back and reread all the books now. When I first started reading them, it was haphazard. In no particular order, just whenever I could find them. But now that I have my own personal collection, I can start over. At the beginning. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Funny thing, though. Interest in naval aviation notwithstanding, I really have no desire to go anywhere in a submarine. Would kill to get chance to check out the flight deck, take me up in a F-18 (please), really want to do that whole sky diving thing. But down there, in a sub ... nah, not so much.

To Be Or Not To Be

I don't make it to many movies at the theatre. I tend to rent videos instead. But somehow last night the stars most unexpectedly aligned. And I jumped at the chance.

We went to see Lions for Lambs.

So. I wasn't quite sure what I was expecting. I know there has been some talk about a slew of recent movies dealing with the Iraq war and 'modern day' veterans. Movies like Redacted and a few others. And quite frankly, the talk I was hearing ... wasn't good. Actually I saw snippets of a made for TV one last month. The Marines who come back from Iraq and plan their bank heist. Notice I say 'snippets' ... it didn't particularly interest me.

Anyway, as some may know (she says with a fair degree of understatement) one of my favourite places to hang out in cyberspace over the past year and a half has been a milblog. One particular milblog. Hang out in such a place for a while and you'll likely either find yourself leaving town in a hurry or you'll make a few new friends. I would like to think I've made a few friends.

At any rate, there's no doubt that what I've learned ... and debated ... and, even occasionally, rolled my eyes over ... there has changed my view of the world somewhat. And I know it affected how I viewed this movie. What I don't know ... what I haven't quite decided yet, is what I think of the movie.

Actually, let me take that back. I liked the movie.

What I'm not sure about is what, exactly, the movie, itself, was trying to say. Directed by Robert Redford. With Himself and Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep in starring roles. Although it might be said that the two soldiers, portrayed by Michael Pena and Derek Luke, were the real stars heroes.

I went with a friend who is very smart, very insightful and can only be characterized in this context as "anti" ... against the US being in Iraq and against the US and other countries being in Afghanistan. And initially, at least, we both seemed to see the movie very different ways. She asked me at one point whether this was the "ultimate government propaganda piece". I responded that I was reserving judgment. Because it seemed to swing both ways. And for what its worth, that's what it continually did from my point of view. From beginning. To end.

The rest of this post is full of spoilers. So if you're even slightly considering watching the movie (which I hope you will), please don't read it. Just trust me when I say that no matter what you might think it is, whatever way you tend to think it leans, you're probably wrong. Just go watch it. Its worth the nine bucks. But if there's not a chance in hell that you will ever see it, then you might as well keep reading. After all, I do this for gratis.



Still here? Okay, but don't say I didn't warn you.

I love Tom Cruise. Or use to anyway.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And in this movie, for the first half, I just loved to hate him. The consummate too smooth oh-so-sincere [NOT] politician. Feeding his lines to the reporter. As to how they were going to 'save' the war in Afghanistan. While, literally at the same time, the soldiers were taking 'small arms fire' in the helo. Resulting in one getting shot out. And his friend jumping out after him. Over the snowy mountains in Afghanistan. I wanted to smash Cruise in the face. And drop him on the mountain.

The politician was an idiot.
And the reporter? She was smart. And cynical. And not falling for it.

But ... it was back and forth.
While 'admitting" some 'mistakes' were made in Iraq, Cruise responds to a question from the reporter with a few truly moving lines. About the morning of Sept 12, 2001. Which clearly moved the reporter. And moved me. I mean, they were good.

Back and forth.
In this movie, there was no need to say that the war in Iraq was history. That was so clearly implied that it didn't even have to be stated. So it wasn't. Might as well just save the day in Afghanistan instead.

Back and forth.
The reporter, while looking really good initially, goes back to her office and goes off the deep end. She 'knows' the government is lying. She's not going to lay this one out for them. No way. Not her. Suddenly portrayed as a 50 something hot-flash experiencing female with no fashion sense who had clearly taken leave of her senses ... Let's just say, she looked like she finally went off her rocker. Didn't make the media look so good.

Back and forth.
The two soldiers I mentioned above ... well, this was the movie that would let you, in all good conscience, support the troops without supporting the mission. If that's what you were inclined to do.

Back and forth.
But those same two soldiers, while students, had some really good stuff to say. About the need to get citizens engaged. Their idea was to drop one of the three years of college and turn it into a volunteer year. Whether it was in the military or some form of community service. Let's just say I know a few conservatives who wouldn't just echo those thoughts ... I've actually read them say them.

Back and forth.
Redford, as the prof at a "university in California" (of course, where else would he be?) was definitely against the GWOT. No doubt about that. In fact he had tried to talk those two soldiers, former students of his, out of going.

Back and forth.
But he had served in Vietnam. And stated more than once that although he disagreed with their decision and did his best to talk them out of it, he admired what motivated them to go.

Back and forth.
The prof was trying to talk a current student out of his apathy. To motivate him. To do. Something. Anything. But not join the military. At least, I don't think so.

Back and forth.
But at the end, when the student watches the TV footage (showing what we know to be the operation where the two soldiers died), the look on his face ... well, I would say he had come out of his apathy. But I wasn't sure whether it was to go 'fix' what was 'wrong' in Washington or to join the military himself.

And when my friend and I talked about the movie afterwards (which we both agreed was good for the simple reason that it didn't try to hit you over the head with the 'right' answer or even spoon feed it to you as so many movies do), I found her last words quite interesting. Words to the effect that since most people don't do a whole lot of thinking when they go to see a movie, this movie could (and would) be interpreted to conform with whatever view you went in with. If you were against the GWOT, you would see this movie as backing you up. If you thought being in Iraq and Afghanistan was the right thing, again you would see this movie as backing you up.

I like to skim the comment boards at imdb.com after watching a movie. And this one appears to be one of those "either you love it or you hate it" ones. Which is okay. Except that there's not a lot of consistency behind the loving and the hating. A lot appear to see it as more liberal propaganda. And others think it promotes the war.

And I actually found this comment on the boards.

have been reading a lot...that's an gross understatement... of peoples' posts that accuse this movie of being a left wing anti-war piece of crap. One poster actually went so far as to say the movie showed that soldiers die for nothing.

I watched this movie at a screening in Vegas with a few friends. We all fit in the 18-24 age demographic, and are (or should I say were?!) "typical" anti-war college guys. (I know we may not be typical, but it seems to me that many people believe this to be true)

What I found strange is that I came away from that movie seriously considering joining the armed forces, as were my buddies. What happened to the soldiers represented (to me) believing in something strong enough that you are willing to stand up in front of the enemy and take that bullet with a pride that I have never known. I believe this was a deliberate action taken by the director regardless of Mr. Redford's obvious liberal background.

Sure there is plenty of "liberal" discussion, but Cruise's character really made me think about the media selling the war, as that kinda does happen in real life. And I could see the eyes of Redford's character, knowing that there is in fact a subliminal "conservative" agenda, in this film.

And I love that. There are too many movies with obvious "liberal" points of view, and I'm glad I saw one from the other side.

My question is why all the negative views? I came away wanting to physically join the fight on terror, and discuss with my buddies proper solutions to the war, not mindless banter about the 'lies' of the establishment and exit plans. Maybe it was just us, I mean maybe we were able to sit with an open mind through all of the "liberal" talk of Streep's character, and catch a glimpse of a movie with a special message:

Sure question all you want but do you really want to change things? To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why more liberals aren't posting about the blatant recruiting tactics used in the movie. They do plenty of bitching about recruitment on college and high school campuses.

Me? I still can't pigeon hole it. But I liked it.