A couple of weeks ago, we had the opportunity to see Act of Valor - the action movie starring active-duty Navy Seals. I enjoy a good shoot-em-up action flick, and that's just what this is. If your theatrical tastes tend towards 2 hours of non-stop action, check it out. If you're looking for Citizen Kane, don't bother.
I've never been a gung-ho uber-patriot who thinks "our guys" are always right - honest, loyal, and true. I admire our service men and women, but recognize we have our share of less than perfect soldiers. That being said, the Navy Seals are like real-life super heroes. If anything, this fictional story pales in comparison to the real-life assault on Osama Bin Laden's compound last year. While I was watching the movie, I kept thinking, "This would be totally unbelievable, if I didn't know about Bin Laden".
The movie plot revolves around the rescue of a captured spy (Roselyn Sanchez) in South America. During the rescue, the team uncovers evidence of a terrorist plot aimed at the United States. The rest of the movie follows the team's pursuit of the terrorists and their leaders. Is the plot realistic? I don't know, but the action feels real, and it certainly keeps your attention while it's happening. Face it, you don't go to this movie for the plot, character development, or scenery. This movie is about action, special effects, and patriotism. On those fronts, it's a success.
As I mentioned, the action is virtually non-stop. I didn't make any attempt to count the bodies, but they had to add up to quite a number. The special effects - nothing ground-breaking here - don't distract from the action. You'll have to decide if it's realistic, but it's certainly easier to think these guys can take out the terrorists than John McClane in Die Hard. There's a lot of violence, but nothing too graphic - the torture scene early in the movie is largely off-screen. You'll get to know the characters only superficially, but you'll identify with them and care about what happens to them. There's a little humor, but not much - mostly you'll just have periods of intense action, followed by short stretches that move the plot along and allow you to catch your breath before the next firefight.
What stops this from being a great action movie is the thing that makes it unique - the stars are active duty Seals (they don't even list their full names in the credits). Their performances are better than I would suspect, given their backgrounds, but they're not asked to do much. The dialog is limited, and the plot, as I said above, is limited. It's just not that kind of movie. I made a reference to Die Hard above, but in reality, there's no comparison. The action in the two movies is roughly comparable, but Die Hard has a more complex plot, better character development, and better acting (even with Bruce Willis). Die Hard isn't a great movie, but it's a really good action movie. Act of Valor is a decent action movie, but doesn't measure up to to the better examples of this genre. Go see it, have a great time, be proud of our service men and women. You won't buy it, and you won't watch it every time it's on TV, but you'll have a great time and walk out of the theater feeling proud and positive about our country. If you're like me, you'll be glad these guys are on our team!
Showing posts with label Patriotism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patriotism. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Faith and Political Candidates
This morning, I was watching Morning Joe, and caught Franklin Graham (the son of Billy Graham) being interviewed regarding the statement from Rick Santorum that appeared to question President Obama's Christian faith (Santorum has denied that intention). Click HERE to watch a video of the exchange.
Now, I don't really care if Barack Obama is a Christian or not. I understand it's important to many people, and that's their business. What I can't get around is the idea that we'll believe EVERY other politician when they talk about their faith, but we can't really believe the current president is telling the truth when he talks about his religion.
When pressed, Graham said that he was sure Santorum was Christian. Romney was Mormon, and "....most Christians wouldn't recognize a Mormon as being Christian...." (although he did say Mitt was a good man, and would be a good president), and that Newt was a Christian. He was basing this on their morals, and they way they'd lived their lives. Really - Newt makes the cut as a Christian. Based on the way he's lived his life. Newt Gingrich, who had a long-term affair while married to his first wife, dumped her (and married the mistress) when she got sick, then did EXACTLY the same thing with his second wife. The third wife (and former mistress) is still healthy, so we may assume he's faithful to her. So, due to the way Newt has lived his life, we know he's a Christian. Really. Newt.
Lets be clear on this - all this talk about Obama's Christianity (or lack thereof) has little or nothing to do with any concern about his true faith. Franklin Graham - and Rick Santorum - know full well that Obama is not a Muslim. At the very least, he's a nominal Christian - he goes to church on occasion and invokes Jesus and God regularly in his language. He's at least as Christian as most of the population. No, this talk it all about politics, abortion, and racism.
More than anything, this whole thing is about politics. Graham is trying to smear Barack Obama in the eyes of the electorate. It doesn't matter if any of it it true or not - just talking about Obama and Islam in the same sentence will connect the two things in the public's mind. And make no mistake - the references to Islam and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are not accidental - it's a calculated strategy designed to paint the president as a radical.
When fundamentalist Christians talk about religion, much of it is about abortion, birth control, and women's rights. That's why Newt's transgressions are forgiven - he "just" cheated on his wives. Abortion and birth control are much graver sins, and anyone who is pro-choice is viewed as being insufficiently Christian. There's certainly room for reasonable people to disagree about abortion - it's certainly not an easy subject for anyone. I have a harder time understanding the anti-contraception folks, but they certainly have the right to feel that way. For some of these people,you can't be pro-choice and still be a Christian.
There's no doubt that racism plays a part in the over-the-top criticism of President Obama. Try as they may, many Americans just can't accept an African-American as their president. That's where much of the "Birther" controversy comes from, and the continuing questions about his religion are another side of the same coin. He just can't be American, can he? How can we feel that this black man with the funny name is one of us? He's foreign. He's radical. He's Muslim. He's Different!
As I said at the top of this post, I don't care whether Obama is Christian or not - just as I don't care that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, or that Santorum and Gingrich are Catholic. I am concerned when I see candidates indicate they'll be guided by their religion in their job as President of the United States. More of a concern to me is the slimy attempt to demonize a political opponent, even causing harm to the country in the effort to make the other party look bad.
We've not always been obsessed with our candidate's religious beliefs - Dwight Eisenhower wasn't a member of any church until he decided to run for president. JFK overcame concerns about his Catholic faith. Richard Nixon was a Quaker (but apparently not a fanatic about it). I don't see the correlation between religion and the effectiveness of a president. I do know I don't want elections decided based on rumors and innuendo.
I have zero respect for Franklin Graham, and his ilk. If he doesn't like Barack Obama, let him say so, and say why. What is it - religion, pro-choice policies, economic policies, or something else? Whatever it is, just say it. Man up - have the guts to say what you mean. Don't sit there like a weasel and talk about "I take him at his word, I guess". Throw it out there and make your argument. Or, if you won't do that, you could do just one other thing.
Shut Up.
Now, I don't really care if Barack Obama is a Christian or not. I understand it's important to many people, and that's their business. What I can't get around is the idea that we'll believe EVERY other politician when they talk about their faith, but we can't really believe the current president is telling the truth when he talks about his religion.
When pressed, Graham said that he was sure Santorum was Christian. Romney was Mormon, and "....most Christians wouldn't recognize a Mormon as being Christian...." (although he did say Mitt was a good man, and would be a good president), and that Newt was a Christian. He was basing this on their morals, and they way they'd lived their lives. Really - Newt makes the cut as a Christian. Based on the way he's lived his life. Newt Gingrich, who had a long-term affair while married to his first wife, dumped her (and married the mistress) when she got sick, then did EXACTLY the same thing with his second wife. The third wife (and former mistress) is still healthy, so we may assume he's faithful to her. So, due to the way Newt has lived his life, we know he's a Christian. Really. Newt.
Lets be clear on this - all this talk about Obama's Christianity (or lack thereof) has little or nothing to do with any concern about his true faith. Franklin Graham - and Rick Santorum - know full well that Obama is not a Muslim. At the very least, he's a nominal Christian - he goes to church on occasion and invokes Jesus and God regularly in his language. He's at least as Christian as most of the population. No, this talk it all about politics, abortion, and racism.
More than anything, this whole thing is about politics. Graham is trying to smear Barack Obama in the eyes of the electorate. It doesn't matter if any of it it true or not - just talking about Obama and Islam in the same sentence will connect the two things in the public's mind. And make no mistake - the references to Islam and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are not accidental - it's a calculated strategy designed to paint the president as a radical.
When fundamentalist Christians talk about religion, much of it is about abortion, birth control, and women's rights. That's why Newt's transgressions are forgiven - he "just" cheated on his wives. Abortion and birth control are much graver sins, and anyone who is pro-choice is viewed as being insufficiently Christian. There's certainly room for reasonable people to disagree about abortion - it's certainly not an easy subject for anyone. I have a harder time understanding the anti-contraception folks, but they certainly have the right to feel that way. For some of these people,you can't be pro-choice and still be a Christian.
There's no doubt that racism plays a part in the over-the-top criticism of President Obama. Try as they may, many Americans just can't accept an African-American as their president. That's where much of the "Birther" controversy comes from, and the continuing questions about his religion are another side of the same coin. He just can't be American, can he? How can we feel that this black man with the funny name is one of us? He's foreign. He's radical. He's Muslim. He's Different!
As I said at the top of this post, I don't care whether Obama is Christian or not - just as I don't care that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, or that Santorum and Gingrich are Catholic. I am concerned when I see candidates indicate they'll be guided by their religion in their job as President of the United States. More of a concern to me is the slimy attempt to demonize a political opponent, even causing harm to the country in the effort to make the other party look bad.
We've not always been obsessed with our candidate's religious beliefs - Dwight Eisenhower wasn't a member of any church until he decided to run for president. JFK overcame concerns about his Catholic faith. Richard Nixon was a Quaker (but apparently not a fanatic about it). I don't see the correlation between religion and the effectiveness of a president. I do know I don't want elections decided based on rumors and innuendo.
I have zero respect for Franklin Graham, and his ilk. If he doesn't like Barack Obama, let him say so, and say why. What is it - religion, pro-choice policies, economic policies, or something else? Whatever it is, just say it. Man up - have the guts to say what you mean. Don't sit there like a weasel and talk about "I take him at his word, I guess". Throw it out there and make your argument. Or, if you won't do that, you could do just one other thing.
Shut Up.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Mandating the Pledge of Allegiance
Lincoln state senator Tony Fulton plans to introduce a bill to require that all classrooms be led in the Pledge of Allegiance every day. What a dreadful idea!
It may be true that patriotism is not what it once was. If so, one of the biggest signs may be this attempt to indoctrinate our children - isn't this a tactic of totalitarian regimes? Is there so little to love about our country that we need to FORCE children to declare their devotion to it? This is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons:
It may be true that patriotism is not what it once was. If so, one of the biggest signs may be this attempt to indoctrinate our children - isn't this a tactic of totalitarian regimes? Is there so little to love about our country that we need to FORCE children to declare their devotion to it? This is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons:
- It doesn't work. Just about everyone in my generation grew up saying the pledge every day. It didn't make you stop to think about this country, our form of government, or anything else - it was just something you did at the beginning of the day. After learning it, I don't remember spending one single second thinking about it afterward.
- It's unnecessary. Most grade schools already say the pledge every day. There's plenty of overt patriotic symbols available, both in and out of school - the pledge of allegiance, the flag flying at schools, businesses, and public buildings, and the Star Spangled Banner played before every sporting event. If that's not enough to show our love of country, I don't know what is.
- It is against our traditional values to force someone to say a pledge. We have a long and proud tradition of being able to control what we do and don't say - do we need to lean on students to get them to go along with this? (and, yes, I know the proposed law doesn't FORCE students to say the pledge - it just forces it to be led in every class. If you don't think that will force students to participate, you haven't been in school for a while)
- It's a poor solution to a nonexistent problem. I don't see any signs that our youth are less patriotic than past generations. If they are, saying the pledge won't fix it.
- Passing this law will take up time and effort that would be better spent working on real solutions to real problems. We've got serious problems - budget issues, a struggling economy, a failing education system - and the most important thing we can think to do is pass a law requiring students to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day? It makes no sense!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)