Movie Review: "Blue Like Jazz"

Donald Miller wrote a book of the same name, about his experiences as a Southern Baptist from Texas who loses his faith and then runs off to a radically different setting at Reed University in the Pacific Northwest. His father, who has fallen outside of the fundamentalist Christian faith circle, has enrolled him in a free-thinking university, and urges Don not just to settle for the Southern Baptist university that he has been planning to attend. When Don finds himself and his faith in complete crisis, he quite rashly decides to go ahead to the university of his father's choice.

It takes a breaking point, and it comes early in the movie, when he is about to set forth on a new life. The local youth pastor forces Don to wear a traditional Roman warrior costume, to reinforce his faith, knowing some will laugh, but that he will proudly remain a Southern Baptist. Then, there is a piñata in the shape of a cross that descends from above, and Don is given a good whack at it. The children down below are showered with goodies from the cross, obviously symbolic. But when Don finds out that his mom and this same youth pastor, who is married, are having an affair together, Don reaches his breaking point, and this serves as the catalyst for his trek to a whole new world and way of thinking.

Donald first shows his ability to open up his previously narrow world by truly listening, for the first time, to his dad's old records, which represent subversive elements of music. Perhaps jazz might seem surprising to some here, given the legendary excesses and protests of rock n' roll, but jazz remains viewed as "dangerous" and "subversive" by many, and that was the traditional view, as well. So, it makes sense.

Yet, that will seem mild compared to what Don is eventually exposed to. He meets "The Pope", a viciously anti-faithful figure who mocks the Church and the faith of believers relentlessly. There is a lesbian who Don quickly befriends, and who challenges Don's own notions of traditional gender roles. There is a Russian who, no matter what Don does, despises him. Then there is the girl who represents faith itself, Penney. She seems to continually attract Don, yet they go back and forth. Her faith is a bit different, a bit more subtle, and literally a prettier and kinder faith, than the one that Don has grown up under.

That the unquestioned faith of evangelists is a trap, in essence, and perhaps best represents the failings and contradictions of narrow-minded faith, as is often the stereotype, particularly for the South, and most especially for Texas, the land of the "faithful" such as George W. Bush and Rick Perry.

Ultimately, Don chooses faith, but a different kind of faith. His book is often seen as one of the catalysts for the "Emergent Church" movement, a faith that breaks out of the traditionally close-minded approach of strict fire and brimstone, intolerant version of  Christianity for which the South, in particular, has become famous.

This movie is one of increasingly many attempts to show that Christianity can be something different, can be beautiful, but that it tends to be more of an individual thing, in this case. It cannot be represented in automatic like-mindedness, or rather close-mindedness. It is not best suited for mega-churches, and has little place in the political forum, where the fire and brimstone versions of faith seem to make appearances time and again.

Ultimately, this movie does not really show the alternative as it does criticize the faith that Don belonged to. Yet, there are definitely some very interesting and provocative discussions and pointed questions, and humor runs throughout the movie, quite effectively. It is a good movie worth seeing, if one is so inclined. But remember, this is not a feel good movie, or a traditional Christian movie, by any stretch. It is designed to challenge and poke fun provocatively, and comes recommended, but with the realization that it is not for everyone. 

Movie Review: "American Reunion"

I liked the original movies, but admittedly was not sure if this one would work or not. They are all considerably older, and it seems that comedic actors, and actors in general, seem to peak early. Also, sequels tend not to be as good, and obviously not as original, as the first movies in a series. So, how funny or good could it be?

Yet, this one was pretty funny, not to mention sexy at points, to boot. I do not know that it ranks favorably, or even equally, to the first movie, but it was good on it's own. I certainly did not feel cheated of my money, or anything (plus, I saw this one at a drive thru, so it was cheaper than a movie theater).

The premise of the movie is, of course, a high school reunion (of thirteen years –which admittedly, I never heard of before, but you never know). That is how the gang gets back together again, and the movie goes from there. They return to their hometown from all of the various places and circumstances that they came from, and meet all of their old friends. Old sweethearts are seen again, and the attractions are renewed, of course.

Jim is now a married man, having tied the knot with Michelle. They are parents now, and somehow, sex has become largely absent, and what sex they still enjoy remains formulaic. They are looking to this weekend to try and rekindle the spicier aspects of their romance.

Kevin is also a taken man, but when he sees his old-ex Vicky again, he tries his best to resist the old attraction. But he is appalled when he wakes up after one drunken night to find himself naked in bed with Vicky.

Oz is now a successful anchor on a sports show, and somewhat of a celebrity. He has a gorgeous trophy wife, as well as an enviable trophy life. But, of course, when he sees Heather again, he begins to wonder about what he has missed. Her reserve, especially when compared to his own girlfriend's craziness and lack of tact and class, begins to become more and more obvious, and the cause of obvious tension.

Finch comes back as a worldly man, having travelled the globe and experienced everything there is to experience, and at some point is tagged as "The Most Interesting Man in the World", an obvious Dos Equis reference. Yes, he seems to have done everything, and yet he longs for the one thing that he has not yet really experienced: a serious relationship with a woman.

Stifler himself seems to be the same jerk off that he was back in the day, not having grown up in any meaningful way in the thirteen years since high school. As much of a crazy party animal as he was back in high school days, he is now largely stuck in a life that he wants no part of, living with his mom and stuck in a dead-end and demeaning job. He looks to party this weekend, and to largely forget his present troubles, and to get his sex life back on track.

Quite often, the movie touches upon the difference between the older generation and the younger one, which is constantly portrayed as being considerably wilder and much more active and daring, sexually.. Perhaps with some legitimacy, to boot. There comes to exist a rivalry between the boys of the old class that is having their reunion that weekend, and the present high school class that are having their wild times, who dismiss these old guys as lame asses, and it comes back time and again during the course of the movie.

Perhaps arguably the funniest as well as sexiest moments in the movie revolve around the meeting of Stifler's mom and Jim's dad, which I have to say was a great idea! Jim's mom has passed, by the way, so it is not cheating.

It is a good movie, accomplishes it's aims at humor, and worth seeing. If you were a fan of the old movies, you will likely appreciate this one, and not be disappointed. Entertaining and funny, although it is not something you might necessarily want to run out and see, if you want to wait until it comes out on DVD.

"Mirror, Mirror"

The other day, I took my son to see the movie "Mirror, Mirror", amidst protests and whines that he did not want to go, that he would much prefer staying home and playing with his toys or video games. He was unhappy, but I rather insisted, since I do not want him to get into the rut of falling into a set routine in life at such a young age. Also, I can't stand when he sits inside all day and plays video games and watches his television shows endlessly.

So off we went. I took out a mortgage in order to get some popcorn and soda at the concessions, and we got to the theater about ten minutes before the movie started, only to find virtually no seats available, save for the ones right in front of the movie screen. My hand instinctively went to my neck, already anticipating the pain that I was expecting from two hours of leaning as far back against the seat as I could, and straining my eyes to see the overly large screen that seemed at times inches from my face. Still, what else to do but make the best of it, and look forward to the movie?

I sat through the previews, which I almost always hate sitting through. This was no exception, especially since others who had not gotten there apparently hours in advance were looking for seats, found none, and tried to make their way to whatever open spaces remained in the theater anyway. Is it not the quintessential theater experience to see the bright screen suddenly darkened by the silhouette of some annoying individual struggling to get seats? It ranks right up there with loud talkers and cell phone calls coming in at the key point of a movie, as well as the sticky floors. You do not know why the floors are always sticky, and you probably do not want to know.

So anyway, the movie finally began, and those assembled, like us, all fell quiet and remained attentive throughout the movie. Really! It was pretty unbelievable, actually! Within five minutes, Sebastien, who spoke only occasionally and yet seemed often to be the only person in the theater talking (not including those up on the screen) was saying that this was a great movie.

Indeed, it was a very good movie! A very different, more modern take on a classic fairy tale. I had seen "Snow White: A Tale of Terror", a movie made back in the late nineties, and it was terrible! So, I was not sure what to expect, and had been hesitant. But this was worth watching, especially if you have kids.

Perhaps the main draw for me was Julia Roberts. She was always the Hollywood symbol of beauty, almost ageless beauty. I mean, she starred in Pretty Woman, which was the movie that made her a star, and that was nearly a quarter century ago! Since then, I have heard her criticized for her unwillingness to not be reminded of her beauty. How many roles, it was asked once on some radio program that I cannot remember the name of, does she need in order to verify yet again that she is still beautiful?

Well, she still looks very, very good. It was a very interesting role for her to take, as the wicked princess who continually asks the mirror who is the fairest one of all, and always getting the answers that she wanted. Since she had been so criticized for kind of being like that in real life, it was definitely a symbolic role for her to take, kind of a passing of the torch, if you will. It should be noted that she was excellent in this film. One of her best, and perhaps her signature for a new phase in her career.

Lily Collins, the daughter of noted rock star Phil Collins, played the lead role of Snow White, and her beauty did indeed outshine that of Julia Roberts. She, too, was very good, and played it perfectly! This might be her breakthrough, and we can likely expect to see her on the silver screen much more often in the future.

This was a fresh take on an old tale, as stated earlier. It was almost sexy at times (as sexy as a child's film is allowed to be, anyway), and is a very modern take on a classic fairy tale, making it almost a whole new story altogether. Definitely something to take the kids to go see!

As for my son? Well, he loved the entire movie, and interrupted it at several points to make sure I knew so. When I asked him about his earlier hesitancy, he made sure I understood that he had just been kidding. Right. 

Game Review: Washington Wizards at New Jersey Nets April 6, 2012

The first ever basketball game that I ever attended was way back in 1987, when my parents gave my brother, Dave, his birthday gift. He had requested tickets to see a basketball game, and we went to Madison Square Garden in New York to see Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls take on Patrick Ewing and the New York Knicks. This was about four or five years before this would be considered a marquee matchup.

The second one that I ever went to was a number of years later, and by that time, the Chicago Bulls and the New York Knicks had, arguably, the best rivalry in basketball – although Michael Jordan was on the first of his three retirements. Of course, that was not the game I saw the second time around. It was the New Jersey Nets back in the spring of 1994, as they hosted the then Washington Bullets, who have since changed their name to the Wizards, after pressure that the term "Bullets" conjured up too many unfortunate images and reminders of violence for a city that always seems to rank among the most violent cities in America. Some years later, Michael Jordan would wind up playing for them, as well, although by then, he was really just a shadow of what he once had been. But that is another story.

So, my first Nets game, the first of many, came in 1994. The next year, I would go to quite a few games, and over the years, I have been to enough that I lost count.

Ironically, this year, I went to perhaps more than any other. That, of course, is the result of dirt cheap tickets. There was one game that I took my son to against the Cleveland Cavaliers, and I bought the pair of tickets for $2.10. That is $1.05 per ticket, with no tax and no shipping charges! A couple of bucks for a pair of tickets to a professional basketball game in 2012! I spent five dollars on parking, a relative bargain, and yet that was twice the price paid for the tickets! Hell, the gas that I used to drive back and forth was probably more!

So, with prices like that, I made a point of loading up, because really, the Nets are moving, and that opportunity simply will not be there for very much longer. At least, it will not be so easy to get to games. I figured it was time to take advantage of these things while the opportunity is there.

Last night, I took my son to another game, and it was the Nets versus the Washington Wizards. The same franchise that the Nets played the first time I ever saw them, now eighteen years past! Perhaps I have come full circle?

The Nets have struggled all season at home. Perhaps that has something to do with this being the last season where they can call New Jersey "home". But their struggles were not in evidence last night, as they bolted out to a solid lead, and played sharp throughout, en route to a convincing 110-98 win.

At times, New Jersey held a lead of over 20 points, but it stayed more or less at around 10 through much of the game. It was the most solid end to end game that I have seen the Nets win in a long, long time. Usually, they have to eke out a win. Of course, it helps that the Wizards are one of the worst teams in the league, and one of the few that actually have a worse record than the Nets do.

Perhaps the signature moment came when Chris Singleton of the Wizards managed to steal the ball and broke away for what looked like it was going to be an easy dunk, only to badly miss. It must have been very embarrassing, but it really seemed to encapsulate the night for both teams.

There are still a few games left for the Nets, and a few games for that matter, that I will be attending. However, it was the last New Jersey Nets game that my son and I will be attending, and that was a bit sad. Still, a nice way to end it, with a convincing victory. With the Nets, you never know if that will happen again! 

The Criminalization of Affordable Healthcare in America

Many Americans are worried about what others think about us outside of American borders. Health care is a huge issue, and they are puzzled by our inability to resolve this ongoing issue. Literally every other industrialized nation has affordable healthcare by law, and they view this as a basic human right. We, of course, do not, and thus we're the odd one out, with outrageous and offensive healthcare costs. All the outrage about big government, but what about big healthcare industry profiting off of people's pain, literally? Where's the justice in that?

This article was a fascinating read, and I think it speaks volumes about the differences in attitudes between Europe, and the rest of the industrialized world in general, and the United States, which now stands alone as the only country in the world without some form of what many Americans dismissively refer to as "socialized medicine".

Of course, this is in reference to the Supreme Court case that was recently heard, where debates about the constitutionality of what has also been derisively labeled as "Obamacare", which is hailed as Obama's greatest legislative victory by many, and demonized by others as his biggest and boldest dictatorial encroachment towards bigger government imposing on individual rights and liberties.

This is an issue that has always bothered me, and in fact, frankly, embarrasses me, as an American. We stand alone in many areas, and I think that has everything to do with our traditionally powerful and privileged status, but this issue is about what should be, to me, an obvious basic right. When you are talking about profiting off of people's pain, people that cannot fend for themselves or take care of themselves, yet are being taken advantage of and squeezed fro all that they are worth, then this is literally an issue concerning what we would define as basic evil. How is it that this eludes Americans? Where is the outrage? How can this be justified, let alone again and again and again, as people fall for the corporate line time and again? Will things ever change? When will we stop dragging our feet on this issue?

Over the years, I have argued with numerous Americans on this issue Many people seem almost violently opposed to this, because of some preconceived notions about the "evils" of the "socialized medicine" in Europe, not making any distinction between that and the Communism of the former Soviet Union. They talk about how America is different than Europe, which to me sounds like another argument for American exceptionalism, and that what works there for "them" would not work for us. I heard that argument many, many times, and even heard a variation of it that suggested that America is too diverse a place for such a system. Really? Yet, they label all of those various systems that other countries have as some form of the healthcare system that far too many Americans would dismiss as "socialized medicine". These countries are diverse themselves, speaking many different languages and occupying many different geographical regions, yet they all recognize affordable healthcare as a basic human right. Let's look at the countries that practice this: Britain and Ireland, France, Germant, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the rest of the European nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan. Are these communist dictatorships? Many Americans would seem to think so, apparently. A few years ago, they were considered our allies. Now, apparently, they seem increasingly to be viewed in the enemy camp. It really is tragic, frankly.

Yes, politics sucks. But I don't think this is even a political issue anymore, it is far beyond that. Literally profiting off the pain of others who all too often cannot help themselves  is, by definition, evil. Period. We can make excuses for why we should not implement this or that system, and indeed, no system is perfect. But tens of millions of people, including children, remain uninsured, and the courts may uphold that outrage. I would ask one question of those who would blast the affordable healthcare systems in other countries: with free press and free speech and the ready availability of all the facts and figures and statistics and human interest stories just like we have here, why is it that not a single other industrialized nation has looked at our system and decided to scrap their system in favor of ours? Not one. On the flip side, why is this issue always raging here, in particular, and will continue to do so evidently? Why do Americans not get outraged when the same pill that is sold in Canada, with their legal price restrictions on medicine, gets resold here on the black market, and still sells for far less than what it is sold for here on our shelves?

Let me make no bones about it: I definitely am in favor of some form of affordable and universal healthcare. If that means "socialized medicine", than so be it. If people want to label me a "socialist" or even a "communist" than let them label away. What are labels, anyway, except things that we throw upon others in order not to think about things anymore. This is too important, too crucial an issue not to think about. Yet, we continue to label anyone who does not agree with us.

When I have argued about this subject, I have asked one question to those opposed to such a healthcare system, and it has yet to be satisfactorily answered. It goes something like this: If all of these other countries that I mentioned are free to discuss and debate on this issue, like we are here, and they all know the facts and figures, the statistics,, and they all have to deal with the alleged horror stories and allegations of abusive or inept systems that Americans opposed to this system accuse them of, then why is it that not one single nation that has this system has looked to the "superior" American model and opted to scrap their inferior system?

On the flip side, why is it that this particular issue always seems to come up again and again and again in the United States? In my lifetime alone, it was a major issue throughout, and was addressed and argued heatedly during the Carter years, the Clinton years, the Bush (Jr.) years, and now the Obama years. It is one of the key issues in the upcoming elections, so it promises to continue to be a major issue that will continue to divide well into the future. Other countries do not have that, but here and now, indeed, we are the exception, in this case. American exceptionlism, indeed.

I can go on and on about this issue, and go into detail about the excess and greed of corporations and private interests that profit from the pain that people are in. But I have tried to focus on the American people, and their puzzling reluctance to grant for themselves affordable health care, now long overdue. It is the American people themselves that have proven to be the biggest obstacle, and they mislead themselves and act against their own self-interest, and all for an idea that America is somehow always better, are too good to learn from the examples of others. A presumed superiority complex that allows for an inferior healthcare system that presently leaves out forty million people that remain uninsured, including millions of children. American exceptionlism, indeed.

I will conclude this now by borrowing a viewpoint directly from this article, because it encapsulates the opinion of someone from Britain, a traditional ally, which illustrates the gap between

"Wasn't the point to make sure the richest and most powerful nation on the planet could protect its own people, as other nations do?" he wrote. "If Americans are promised not just liberty but life and happiness, is there not a constitutional right to affordable healthcare?"

 http://news.yahoo.com/europe-baffled-u-supreme-court-220944850.html 

The American Nation That Cried Wolf

I wrote about an anti-war blog entry a couple of days ago, and am about to write about a couple of anti-war novels within the next day or two – always assuming that I complete them on time, of course.

Not sure why the topic has come up, although I will say this – much about the drumbeat of war has bothered me. We seem to be heading quickly towards situations where war is considered a viable option by many. Now, maybe it's Iran instead of Iraq . Perhaps Syria . Always, it seems that we are inching closer to war.

Here is the thing about that, though. While I do not know that a nuclear Iran is necessarily a good thing – and I am inclined to think it would more likely than not be a bad thing – what seems infinitely worse to me is seeing another war break out over such a "crisis" in that region of the world, yet again.

I remember being strongly opposed to the war in Iraq , and being taken as either weak, or as an idiot, by some vocal supporters of war at the time. There was one guy that I would have particularly animated exchanges with, and I remember him telling me that Saddam Hussein had a massive arsenal of weapons, and that "you don't build an arsenal like that unless you intend to use it." I responded by reminding him that the United States had a much larger arsenal, and the same logic applied, that they were just itching to use these costly, but oh-so-cool weapons.

I felt at the time, and still feel, that the reasons for that war were fabricated, and on so many levels. It seemed ridiculous that people were comparing Saddam to Hitler or Stalin, and that he posed an "immediate threat to world peace". That he had a massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's), and that he had a forty-five minute response time if he wanted to launch a missile attack. In other words, if you believed these reports, his Iraq was virtually a rival superpower, as opposed to a relatively small and recently defeated nation, and that Saddam had been clinging to power with increased desperation after the defeat in the first Gulf War. Rumsfeld kept claiming that those weapons were real, and that the threat Saddam's Iraq posed was imminent, yet he claimed, rather paradoxically, that a war against the huge threat to world peace would last six days or six weeks, but not six months.

We all know what happened next, right? The United States fought the war, and Americans kept hearing that the nation had achieved the glory that victory had brought. The tiny nation was overwhelmed, and Saddam's regime indeed fell, and quickly. Statues were toppled, and the images seemed reminiscent of the end of the Cold War, when  Stalin statues were torn down.

Yes, if you believed what many of the major news channels were claiming, we had just scored a major victory against a tyrannical power that had posed a longstanding threat to world peace, instead of having intervened in the affairs of a sovereign nation, and largely justified it by exaggerating claims of Saddam's power and abilities, and putting up a smokescreen, rather willy-nilly, in order to try and disguise the obvious: that this was a war of aggression by the United States that was being waged by an oil rich administration against an oil rich nation.

Before long, it was revealed, of course, that there had been no legitimacy to the claims of WMD's, and that Saddam could not put up a fraction of the resistance that the fear mongers had proclaimed he could and would, with inevitable missile strikes targeting American troops having been, evidently, entirely exaggerated.

No, we saw none of that. But what we did see, of course, were no bid contracts to corporate allies of the Bush Administration, most famously Halliburton. We also saw the administration proclaim victory quickly, and then saw that the war was obviously much more complicated than they had originally predicted that it would be, and would last far longer, too. The war intensified after Bush had infamously gone on that aircraft carrier and given a speech proclaiming a cessation of hostilities in Iraq, with a huge banner in the background proclaiming:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

That banner might not have been entirely off, either. Indeed, the Bush Administration had achieved it's goal of an illegitimate war against the wishes of the world, and with no proof of any of the reports and claims that alleged suspicion of Saddam's weapons program and supposedly massive arsenal.

Of course, it came at a price, and a higher one than most Americans probably realize even still. First off, the image of the United States took a major, major hit around the world. I remember a poll that shocked Americans, revealing that far more Canadians viewed the United States as a bigger threat to world peace than Iraq. Many were opposed to the war around the world, and some governments fell, while others remained in place, based on their opposition, or lack thereof, to the American effort to promote the cause of war with the so-called "Coalition of the Willing".

Also, by falsifying and greatly exaggerating claims in their desire for war, the Bush Administration, and Americans overall, essentially seriously hurt their own credibility. So much so, in fact, that many people – including many Americans themselves – are highly skeptical about reports of the supposed nuclear abilities of Iran. Having now seen two wars that were supposed to have been won quickly instead drag on and on, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention thousands of American soldier's lives and countless lives on the other side, military and civilian, as well as seeing their reputation take a huge hit, Americans seem now far more reluctant than ever before in my lifetime to engage in armed conflict with anyone. Considering the enormity of the experience in Vietnam, that is saying something. But that also shows the price of being the international equivalent of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". When you make such a point of initiating a war of aggression to pursue a narrow and self-serving agenda, blindly following an administration that was bad news to begin with, then that is a price that you have to be willing to pay.

Perhaps Iran is indeed close to having obtained nuclear armaments. Perhaps it is as much of a threat as some claim that it is. Perhaps Syria is such a threat, and maybe there are some relatively justifiable reasons to advocate some kind of military intervention there. I, for one, am not convinced of all that, but surely there are some who would make such claims. The thing is, war brings out the worst in people, and is almost like a permission slip for all sorts of abuses. It has been said that the first victim of war is truth. In very recent times in the United States, nobody has proven that better than the Bush Administration and the propaganda machine that helped to make their dreams of war a reality.

"The first casualty of war is truth." Senator Hiram Johnson

Review: Mark Twain's "The War Prayer"

Kurt Vonnegut, who was almost like a modern day Mark Twain, described fiction writers as making a career out of telling lies. There is a seed of truth in this statement, and in fact, it should be noted that the reason why writing fiction, and creating art in general, works is because there is some measure of larger truths within them. The best artists and painters and musicians and authors often are those who reveal powerful and often harsh truths in such a way that people can not only understand, but be truly moved. Twain's "The War Prayer" is such a work.

            In fact, Twain felt that it was so truthful, that he wanted it published only after his death, figuring that only dead people can tell truth on such a level. Obviously, as the title suggests, it deals with the subject of war in general. More specifically, it deals with the general arrogance, stupidity, and blindness of those people who so strongly advocate war, and celebrate it.

            The story begins with people saying their "war prayer" as soldiers prepare for their journey to war. There are parades and speeches and war fever is high. In a church, prayers are shared.

            Suddenly, the church services are interrupted by a mysterious man in robes, who walks before the congregation and seems to have a strange but strong presence. All grow silent, even the priest, as the man strands before the assembled.

            He begins to speak, and he says that if they are going to be so vocal and passionate in their support for the war, then they should at least understand fully what it is they are praying for.

            He then berates them, and says that when they are asking for their troops to win the war and bring home the spoils of victory and the glory that they believe is won on the battlefield, they are also praying for something else. They are praying for the defeat of the other side, they are praying for them to suffer terribly and to be crushed morally and physically. They are praying for the abuse of those who will be vanquished. That is the other side of this particular coin of war.

            When the mysterious man has gone there are whisperings, and everyone comes to agree that he must have been mad, and presumably, gave what he said no more thought as if nobody had ever bothered saying it in the first place.

            This is such a great story. Short, easily read in one sitting, yet definitely worth the reading! It is an eye opener to think about the other elements to what we believe, the dark side that almost everyone knows, deep down, yet of which nothing is said. I remember reading this story at around the time when "shock and awe" was all the rage, and everyone seemed to agree how wondrous a creation this strategy, and the incredible technology that we possess that allowed us to implement it at our discretion. Yet, when I heard of the "shock and awe", and in quieter, more hushed tones, would hear about accidental hits of civilian homes or businesses that had no military value, or even when  you see images of the city skyline of Baghdad lit up by he missiles that are striking it and the subsequent fires that have broken out, and the sound of these missiles screaming overhead, it seems almost impossible that people would not give a second thought as to the impact of such military strategies and actions upon innocent parties. Much easier just to lump the people of such a far off and foreign land into one category, to dismiss the whole nation, or the religion that the vast majority of the country believes in, as suspicious. After all, understanding things and people more means humanizing them, and how can you conduct a war against people you actually view as fully human?

War is a dehumanizing process, both for the victors and the victims. It is a process in which the participants, whether voluntary or involuntary, lose their humanity. It is not some tiny thing to be trifled with, but a huge moral responsibility. Yet, all too often, it boils down to politics and power of elite rulers, who decide, at their discretion, that this or that war should be fought, and usually, it has everything to do with personal ambition. The Iraq War that was mentioned earlier was a very transparent example, but it is not an isolated example, and it is not likely to be the last such war. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to imagine that Americans, despite their relative war weariness now, might be gung ho and ra-ra in support of just such a war, and regard the leaders that made the decision to engage in war very favorably.

This is a short piece, and it should be mandatory reading. It might not open everyone's eyes, but it certainly would not hurt. It might even help, if it opens the eyes of even a few.