THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

AN ESSAY ON RACISM

I listened to Barack's speech and for once a politician seemed to be confronting the reality of the elephant in the room. The "elephant" is racism. We all know it is there but we deny that it is real and that it does have an impact. 91% of African Americans in Mississippi voted for Barack. That is reality. Is it racism? I don't know but it is the "elephant" in the room. Barach admitted the race card in America.

To be honest, race is an incredibly perplexing mass of contradictions. And, nowhere more than the Church. In this instance, the United Church of Christ where the potential president of our country worships. Because I understand the UCC (United Church of Christ) church as I was once a pastor for eight years in a UCC Church. Like so much of our worship experience in life, the man or woman in the pew understands very little of the workings of the bureaucracy and there is bureaucracy regardless of what it is called. For example, as a Presbyterian, my Church order is that the minister belongs to a Presbytery which is kind of preacher's union as opposed to the Church membership. The only reason this is relative is that it is another example of the obfuscation of the inner workings of the Church. I often joke that Jesus could not get into the Presbytery. Another example is that the UCC Churches governed themselves, like the Baptists--they are autonomous. The local Church may not be anything like the National Church leadership. And, there is a demographic aspect to the UCC, meaning many of them are mostly peopled by African Americans. And, without a doubt, the UCC Church is the most liberal in America.

What does that mean? Well, it means they are often outside the traditional view of what the Church is. They are at the forefront of social issues, i. e. gays, abortion, and a myriad of issues that would lean to the "left." Many UCC churches are what they call, "Open and Affirming" meaning that they go out of their way to recognize the gay community. Consequently, they have many openly gay ministers.

Now, think about this: the most vitriolic opponent of gays on a theological basis are often typically black churches and undoubtedly some of them are UCC. This is one example of the dichotomy and almost impossible situation when attempting to nail down a UCC Church. I use to go to pastor's meetings and come back and say, "Who are these people?" In many ways, it was very refreshing, they at least acknowledged the "elephant in the room" whether it was the gay issue or race. And, they are passionate about it. I once was having lunch with a UCC pastor and casually mentioned the "gay agenda." Mostly, I was running my mouth but this pastor became apoplectic that I had used a term that often the "right" wing used. Sorry.

And, of course, Barack's pastor is one of those fiery black preachers who keeps the brothers and sisters worked up. And, Wright is good at it. In the community, he is famous. It is the way that he raises money.

And, in a sense, it is a cultural issue for Wright and all Churches mostly peopled by black Americans. The "elephant in the room" is a black Church life style which doesn't appeal to many of us. Is that racist? I don't think so. When I go to a worship service, I want quiet, peace, liturgy. In a mostly African American Church, you have music as a big part of the service--spiritual rock and roll would be my term. I really don't know what the technical term is. I do know this: the same phrase is repeated over and over and over and the beat is rollicking. It is a style, the same as lots of modern worship in white churches don't appeal to me, much like "praise bands, etc." Is that racist, I don't think so, it is just what I like. I don't like kids in baggy pants hanging down around their knees either but if they want too, OK. When I was in Korea, I had a gospel choir, a black gospel choir and they wanted to sing every Sunday. When they did, it lengthened the servcie by 30 minutes. People quit coming. I cut it out. Am I a racist?

Part of the black worship experience is a fiery preacher, inciting the congregation. Are Reverent Wright's comments true? As far as racism in America still exists, sure. Is he anti-American. I don't think so--taken out of context, to the outsider and someone looking for it, it sounds like it. His rhetoric is mostly figures of speech. What he says is not helpful to the racial climate of America and fuels the bigoted types like Bill O'Reilleys and the other "shouters" as they love it and have fuel for their bgoted programs. Do most of Pastor Wright's parish or congregation take what he says literally. I doubt it. Maybe not any more than moderate Muslim types would listen to a Mullah. I'm not familiar enough with the worship to say so but rationally think so.

An elephant in the room which we will not admit is that we don't have to like Rev. Wright's form of worship.Yet, most politicians feel they have to pander to the style of worship to be accepted in the black community. However, there is legitimacy to being able to say, it just isn't my style. It is yours and that is fine with me. I see many white politicians at these traditionally black churches and they are trying but it is just not them. As a Protestant who often attended mass, I didn't have to do all the bowing and scraping. It is their stuff and I enjoyed the litergy. It does not denigrate the worship, it is just different styles. It reminds me of Baroness Scharader of Sound of Music fame attempting to play with the Captain's children. We all remember that awkward scene.

I've heard it said that the most segregated place on Sunday morning is the Christian Church. I think so and is there anything wrong with that. There is no law that says it has to be that way. And, the closest to a true integrated Church is the military but even there, it is a choice. This is almost an aside but I think true: there are many African Americans and the only thing about them that is black is their skin. What do I mean? They also have preferences and it is not the universal black experience that we think all blacks have to have. At least that is what several have said to me. Barack appears to be one. He does not deny his blackness but doesn't go out of his way to acknowledge it.

After a posting like this, I almost feel that I should throw in a disclaimer. I am a Southerner and someone who sounds like me is sometimes thought to automatically be a racist. And, racism in the South still exists. We have integration in the workplace but we have almost zero socially. What does that mean? I don't really know and am not sure there really is a definitive definition. I think Barack is on the right track, however. We can never move on, deal with it, whatever until we confront it. Way to go Barack!

As a parting shot, I want to present the comments of a friend about the issue of Barack's pastor. Her comments point up the depth of the "elephant in the room."

It is difficult for me to answer the question about Obama. I really think he is smart, but would a white man with his lack of experience be running for President? Don't have the answer. He is a great speaker, motivator and nice guy, but do I think he is ready to be our Chief Executive? No! Can't believe an intelligent person could sit in a church year after year and hear such hatred and intolerance. If this is the norm in Black churches then we will never have racial harmony. I can promise you this kind of racial bias is not preached in even the most "extreme" churches in the South.

Denial, Arrogance, Parellel Universes

The President contends the so-called troop surge he ordered in January 2007 has been a success and was necessary at a point when "the fight in Iraq was faltering." Here is what he said, "The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around; it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror."

This is what VP Cheney said, "Five years in Iraq has been a successful endeavor. For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al Qaeda rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al Qaeda out."

REALITY AS OF NOW: Large-scale attacks by terrorists and insurgent groups continue. Bombings killed six Iraqis and wounded 51 in northeastern Baghdad and Mosul on Tuesday, and the death toll from a Monday suicide bombing in Karbala rose to 50.

How can a commander in chief be this devoid of reality? Well, in a sense, it is understandable if you look at the President's personality. He has a personality that appears to be anything but reflective. Admitting errors is not part of who he is. An example: with disastrous results, the invasion did little but depose a tyrant: few Iraqis have even the basic necessities and would readily admit that they were better off under Saddam. And, yet, the President insists Mission Accomplished. And, think about this: as the Commander in Chief, all your underlings tell you only what you want to hear. They are like courtiers in the King's Court: you are great, wonderful, infallible, building your legacy: bomb, bomb, bomb.

The President with little reflection and maybe not overly savvy or smart, take your pick, will listen to those like Cheney, Rove, Wolfiwitz, Pearl, Rumsfelt who have their own political agendas; and, suddenly, the President has been manipulated into decisions that have disastrous results. And, then in the face of reality, only the most die heart political types, and there are plenty, would say, don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.

For the life of me, I can't figure it: I wouldn't expect someone who has created a quagmire to admit it but I would expect them to at least maintain a low profile. The fact exists and just not in my opinion, that there is very little about Iraq and our involvement that is not somewhat screwed up. The only hi-lite is the performance of our soldiers who are just doing their jobs but because of the politics of it, they often come out looking bad themselves. We have a public that has less than stellar investment in our soldiers. Mostly, they are not involved. More and more, the troops are realizing that the support of the American people who care is benign at best. The politicos debate endlessly about their positions: troops in or out, the tremendous cost, 3-5 trillion--it goes on and on. The Generals have been incredibly politicized and when one surfaces to suggest another course, he is unceremoniously shown the door.

And, of all the difficult things, in just a few days, we will have lost 4000 young lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than were lost on 9-11. These are young men and women who will not get to live out their lives and chase what most of us still believe in: the American dream. And, the sadness of it goes far beyond anything that I can say. All the families that will be affected will wrestle with it and most will accept the idea that their loved ones were fighting for their country. And, he or she was: the country sent them off to war. But, possibly, the reality in the back of their minds for many will be: was it worth it? It is not a matter of antiwar, it is a matter of utter foolishness. I guess the best thing that we can say at this point is that this Commander in Chief will not be around for the 6th Anniversary.

HIPPOCRITES, JUDGING, AND THE MEDIA CIRCUS

I don't want to say, "poor" Governor Spitzer but I will have to say I feel sorry for the guy in an odd sort of way. At first, I thought, "How can a guy be this stupid in addition to so hypocritical." I've always liked his crusading spirit. In the world in which we live, not easy to be a crusader at any level. Think about it. Who else do you know went after those making the obscene money on Wall Street through insider trading. Afterall, he got Martha (Stewart). At least we know this, us common folk didn't have a chance at the info that the Wall Street bigwigs did and Spitzer nailed some of them. I always kind of cheered and now to discover that he has been hanging out with the ladies of the night even if in cozy quarters, is slightly unnerving. Two rooms no less: sneaking out while his caretakers were sleeping, having their own trysts, whatever. And, he didn't do it like once but was a regular customer.

Lots of commentary you can put on it for sure. The amount of money--you've got to be kidding me but since I don't know the market--thousands of dollars. Sad, regardless. And, the spectacle of his poor wife standing beside him when she should have been showing him the door. Basically, my first thought was that he should be hung up by his ankles and his gonads cut off. So, that is the hypocrite part.

The media circus is unreal and yet, I, like many, have been glued to the sorry episode while asking questions. What is it about men in our culture that would make them risk it all for a sordid tryst or engaging in "what is the 'is' " of the Bill Clinton era? I don't know. My buddy, Michael, says it is power, then greed and finally stupidity. For a smart type like Spitzer to think that, as a high profile politician, he could get away with something like this is beyond me.

I'm sure there's lots of psychobabble that could be put on it: sex addict, expects to get caught, immoral character or some sort of other addiction: alcohol is a convenient one.

And, then again, I get to thinking about issues like how did they catch him? Big Brother. A wire tap. An example to me of how all of us are vulnerable. Obviously, most of us won't be chasing expensive call girls and we don't have the profile, but theoretically, it could happen. I don't like it. And, then my favorite TV show that just finished, The Wire, was built around the whole concept of wire taps. And, some of the very things that Spitzer put into play while he was Attorney General to combat human trafficking actually jumped up and bit him in the posterior.

And, let's face it, a reality, Spitzer probably didn't have a lot of money in the bank with anybody, in terms of good will. Another buddy thinks it was merely payback time. Nobody mentions this. The Guv hung himself for sure but think about it: Spitzer had nailed all these Wall Street tycoons, made enemies when he was Attorney General. He had no money in the bank. We saw in The Wire, which was more truth than fiction that at the highest levels, politicos cut deals to enhance their own careers or go up the political ladder. Spitzer didn't get the chance for a deal. No Police Commissioner came to him early on and said, "we have you on a wire tap. This could be scandalous, watch it." Or, they could have said, we're going to downplay this one for you. Don't think those things don't happen? They do and not just on TV. Watch The Wire, you'll see. Spitzer had no money in the back.

And, finally, let's invoke the Jesus principle, not like the Prez recently when wanting to make his case for the Iraqi war to a bunch of like minded so called Christian broadcasters: he invoked the idea that all men should be free and tied it to the Christian view. Broadly speaking, that's surely true but doubt Jesus would have said it to justify a war. But, one incident we would do well to take note of:
according to the Gospel of John, the Pharisees, (Jesus enemies of the moment) in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought a woman charged with adultery before him. Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under the law of Moses and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. When Jesus found himself alone with the woman, he asked her who were her accusers. She replied, “No man, lord.” Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more." Now that is a sermon.

Let's let Spizer fade away (we know it's not going to happen because of the media and now that his paramour has been identified, she'll get her 15-30 minues of fame and write a book which will be made into a movie)--he's been punished, disgraced, embarrassed, finished. For those of us who have an ounce of charity, let us apply the "Jesus principle." Amen.

PRINCIPLED

Now that is a concept in this world. Most of the principled folks that I can call up are fictional. I always think of Gus, in the TV mini series, Lonesome Dove. When Blue Duck, the notorious savage Indian, stole Lorena, a member of the "oldest profession," Gus, the renaissance man, did not sit around and wonder what he should do. He immediately went after her because it is what a "principled" person does.

Who is a nonfictional one? Well, maybe the top commander in the Mideast who was forced out because he rankled the Prez and all his less than stellar crop of administration figures. I don't know the man and stick to my belief that most who become generals and admirals do lots of compromising along the way or else they wouldn't make it. And, let's face it, his job, although sounding high falooting, is more figurehead than anything. But, getting rid of the opposition is a trademark of this present crowd of "deciders."

However, let's give the good Admiral the benefit of the doubt: he stuck with his principles. And, the whole idea of "principled" is worth thinking about as obviously it is way down the food chain for most of our culture.

How about some more fictional examples? Kevin Costner in Open Range says, "There's some things worse than dying." (meaning not standing up for your rights). I liked it too when the gunfight is inevitable and he says to the chief gunfighter, "Are you the one who killed my friend?" An affirmative answer brings the gunfighter's demise. Then my all time favorite movie, Scent of a Woman , when Al Pacino, as retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade says in the famous speech scene that no doubt contributed to his getting an Academy award. "I don't know where Charlie's silence here today is right or wrong. I'm no judge or jury but I can tell you this, he won't sell anybody out to buy his future. And, that my friends, is character" (Principles); and, then who can forget him saying in the same speech, "I have come to the crossroads of my life and I've always known what was the right way to go. But, I didn't take it and know why? It was too damn hard. And, here's Charlie, he's come to the crossroads in his life and he's chosen a path, the hard path, the right path." Principled.

And, who can forget Clint in Unforgiven: "you better give Ned a proper burial or I'm going to come back and kill you and your families." (Principles) And, what about Omar Little late of The Wire, the best show on TV. I'm still sad it is over but Omar robbed drug dealers and was often a modern day Robbin Hood. Omar had principles. I could go on and on.

The fact is that most of the principled types are fiction and easy to understand: writers and movie makers can make anything they want happen with their characters. Down deep, most all want some "principled" characters as their heroes. But, real life is lots more difficult. One only has to read a daily paper to get how hard it is--Plenty of examples of unprincipled acts.

Now, here's a recent example of an unprincipled happening. The former Attorney General who is now a consultant, just got a lucrative government contract worth millions for one of his clients without competitive bidding--given by someone who worked for him when he was in government.

And, then heaven help us, I can almost not bring myself to say John McCain is unprincipled but how could a guy who was tortured for five years go along with "water boarding" in the guise of getting info out of bad guys. And, against the rules of our own Army merely because the CIA wants it. Please, the CIA, who often appear to be able to screw up a two car procession, says they need the authority. Practically, let's face it, we are talking philosophy here. On some remote hill in Afghanistan, who knows what some American soldier might do but for us as a nation to uphold such a barbaric practice is simply morally indefensible. I can tell you this for sure: Randolph Scott would not do it.

GONE BABY GONE

This is one of those movies that sticks with you. Although it's a crime drama, so much more. And, for me, it does what a movie is suppose to do or it has what a movie is suppose to have; some sort of redeeming purpose. And, for me, it was not the ending that I would have written but it was plausible. It's very hard to say what I mean and yet convey a sense of the movie. The basic story is the kidnapping of a little girl: her little life and history is a mother who is a dope head among many things. The mother basically has stolen a drug dealer's money and he has retaliated by stealing the daughter. Pretty straight forward. NOT. The twists and turns keep you on the edge. What you think and what the movie portrays is not it at all.

I can't reveal much or I'll spoil the movie. Casey Affleck is great in an academy award performance, whatever that is. He reminds very much of William Hurt in how he underplays his role, very effective. He is gentle but tough. I saw him in the Jesse James movie and wrote the movie off as too ethereal when in fact, it was more his acting method.

Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman are outstanding as is everybody in this movie. No weak role. What fascinates me always about Morgan Freeman is that you can see him in any role and he makes you think the one he's playing is just who he is.

Ben Affleck's directoral debut is very impressive. His ending, given the situation and the decisions made were very, very intuitive (imaginative).

This movie is really also about ethics and ethical decision making (deciding what is right and wrong). We come to the truth and decide how best to handle the truth. Many of us in various ways come to those situations on occasion, maybe not in the same dramatics of this movie but generally in living life.

Another thing that I liked about this movie was it educated us which I think movies can do while entertaining. For most of us middle or upper middle class types, we are never exposed to the underbelly of life like presented in this movie; big cities where drugs are so pervasive, kids living in squalor, not much of a chance in life--perverts, a way of life that is far removed from us. See this movie, worth your time. Sad, dramatic, thought provoking.

HILLARY, GIVE IT UP

I think Hillary ought to concede. Although I've been a supporter as I think we need a woman; however, her downfall has been other women--(IN MY OWN FAMILY)--they don't like her and Barack's support seems to reinforce the idea that his candidacy is more a movement than one person, i. e., the big crowds.

To be honest, it has been a mystery and so I think, "Hillary, give it up." Plus, I will admit, I always saw "Bill" as an asset. My rational mind tells me that he would be part of a Hillary presidency. And, is that all bad? When he was president, I was never a big Bill fan but objectively which I always like to be: Bill left us with a gigantic surplus and no war. We now have two wars and the biggest deficit in history that we will be living with for years in ways that none of us can even know now; if that doesn't make any difference to people, then they should vote for John McCain who says we'll stay in Iraq for a 100 years if need be. I really am an Independent and always vote for the person but honestly feel that the Democrats need a landslide to turn the country around. Obama may simply be the catalyst.

VIETNAM GRUNT SPEAKS OUT

But what our leaders can do is screw up so bad that us old goats end having to defend our homeland, door to door. Did you hear that the Army extended the age to enlist from 36 to 42 years old just a few months ago.

There was nothing more demoralizing and gut wrenching to me in Nam and even to this day than when we were ordered back into villages that we had just fought in and won and many had died for just a few weeks earlier. You can't even begin to imagine the hopelessness we all felt as we spilled our blood over and over on the same damn spot endlessly. Talk about the killing fields, how about calling it "a young man's Country's butcher fields".

And now, God help us, a 100 years more in IraqNam !!! As much as I respect Sen. McCain as a Nam war hero and POW, I still have to ask: What kind of total insanity is this? War is hell but continuous war is hell on earth.

GP, Sergeant, retired, Vietnam Class of 67-69

POWER IN THE BLOOD

I figured I should knock this out since the Academy Awards are upon us. I saw the movie several weeks ago and it fits in the same category as No Country For Old Men; good movie, very well done and holds your attention but doesn't do it for me. I like to come out of a movie with some measure of both feeling OK, good would be better; and thinking that there is a lesson to learn. I fully understand that most go for entertainment, not me. I go as movies mirror life and I'm always asking myself, what is there to learn from this movie? Answer: not much. Daniel Day Lewis is good no doubt about it. As an early oil baron, one kind of sees how it was so cut throat in the beginning and remains the same today and yet so very human. DDL's son was merely an object to be used--how can anyone not grant mineral rights to this kind, family man who promises that once we get the oil, all prosper. NOT!

I dont' know if there is a book to compare the movie too but would like to have seen the other contributing characters developed a bit more. And, the religious aspect of the movie was quite surprising; a very primitive, "snake handling" kind of religion that took the Scriptures literally and made them worse. What is scary is that there are people in the world like this. An eerie like Elmer Gantry type personality with less sophistication but more madness--a twist that I can't tell you about. Very interesting. Not a movie for entrtainment but one for pondering. I'm sorry that I couldn't go out and discuss it with someone.

BARACK

It looks to me like Barack is going in and I think I agree with what the NY Times said Sunday: Barack has become a movement. I could vote for him, not my first choice but will have to say that it appears that he's brought all kinds of people to him that ordinarily might not vote.

And, of course, he will never sway those like my brother who is in that right wing category but just the way it is. Not much to be said about it. I can live with it and hope most Democrats can. One side of me says that he has been crowned by the media and so this is it. But, then I'm not so sure. I like what he says; ideas of change, and I don't think any of us can deny that he has bridged the racial thing. At first I thought, "wow, this is racial in itself, 82% of blacks voting for him" and yet, in those places where that has been the case, you have all these others voting. And, I think I can understand. If I were a black and saw a guy like Barack: articulate, smart, standing a chance to be president, let's do it. And, I think that it says tons for our country that here we have a black and a woman who stand a good chance of being president.

What I truly hope for is that we don't get to the convention and it not be settled: to really change this country, we need a Democratic landslide and if we don't get it, who knows what might happen. The thoughts of electing another Republican is onerous to me.

INSULTING AN AMERICAN HERO

Can you imagine this? A convicted drug user puts the bad mouth on an authenic war hero and 13.5 million people apparently agree with him. I am amazed. Yes, we are talking loudmouth Rush Limbaugh putting the bad mouth on John McCain because he isn't conservative enough.

This has to be one of those "only in America" things. This is scary. It is scary for America. Most of us know that talk radio thrives on shouting half truths about various issues. And, they usually get enough non thinkers to listen. But, 13.5 million? I don't know anybody who would admit, at least to me, that they listened to the egotistical and self centered blowhard. A couple of times when I have been listening to him way back when, I was amazed that people would call into his show to be insulted. This was before I realize that it is part of the shtick for guys like Limbaugh, Michael Salvage and even those like Judge Judy or Dr. Laura--do they go for insult training somewhere.

But, I will have to say that Limbaugh is beyond the pale. I wouldn't vote for John McCain because of his Iraq views but he is a bona fide American hero. Rush Limbaugh only exists because of our great country and it has been heroes like McCain who have made it possible for those like Limbaugh to spout off such insults.

The guy says to his listeners, "Folks, can we agree, just between us, has it not been brilliant how strategically I have inserted myself in this campaigh?" Meaning insulting McCain. He is so arrogant that he says, "People listen to the program just to drink as his rantings trough." And, there are 13.5 million people who listen to Limbaugh, carried on 600 stations and supposely has the nation's largest talk show audience. Scary. The guy's got an 18 carot gold microphone that he uses to spew his discourse to his 13.5 million minions.

Limbaugh must be living right or something. In Florida, he had his maid carrying in oxey condrin in wheelbarrows and somehow skates out of going to jail. Scary, scary. And, to top it off, the guy has a sleek G4 jet that he drives around the sky made possible by a 300 million dollar contract to shout and badmouth a hero.

If McCain were to say something like this: Rush Limbaugh is an idiot and I'm wary of the 13.5 million people who listen to him. I might even vote for him.

WE DON'T CALL IT BERZERKLY FOR NOTHING

I was slightly fascinated in reading the news account of Berzerkly ordering the Marines out of town. What was equally interesting is one of the Code Pink protesters is 90. I was impressed, at least she is doing something.

I doubt if anybody with any real smarts or discernment is staying up nights worried about what Berzerkly does or does not do. They are only slightly ahead of San Fran who may eventually catch up. Aferall, Frisco has banned Junior ROTC from the schools. And, from all reports, it is without a doubt the most successful educational program the City has going. The schools are losing population constantly because of an insane school enrollment system (I only know what I've read).

However, we are chatting about Berzerkly here. Blaming the poor young Marines for the quagmire in Iraq is like calling your credit card company and blamng one of the lowly India types in Calcutta because your card was declined. Give me a break.

These young Marine, most probably Iraqi vets, are simply making it: some may even oppose the war, how it is prosecuted, whatever but more than likely, they're young kids who haven't given it much thought even while putting their lives on the line. This is a hell of a lot more than Berzerkelites have ever done.

And, they love being a Marine and want to convey the challenge to others and based on a few of the things that have happened in Berzerkly and neighboring Oakland, the murder capital of the U. S., a tour in the Marines might not be a bad thing. I guess the Berzerkly types had rather them smoke dope and bad mouth their country. If I were the Marines, I'd be happy to be away from the crazies. Sempi Fi.

WE NEED US A BRITISH SYSTEM WHERE WE CAN BEAT UP THE DECIDER A LITTLE

In hearing the commentary on the President's speech, it almost seemed to be typical Republican denial. The Democrats are surely not blameless by any stretch of the imagination but we have to operate from where we are NOW and change has to be the order of the day. I have no arguments to counter many, like say John McCain and let's "stay in Iraq forever." To be perfectly honest, it goes a little beyond agreeing to disagree. And, I surely hope that we are never in a position on Iraq in particular where it is an "I told you so" scenario. There is no satisfaction, even if we are going into our fifth year. Things are less violent, although this week, there's been at least 300 plus civilians killed or wounded and five GIs killed and for the parents and loved ones, "violence is down" probably is very little comfort.

After watching the State of the Union speech the other night, I was almost nauseous--the pandering and accepting of what is, Democrats as well as all those other hypocrites. I wish we had a British system and someone like the President had to face a Congress that would raise hell and ask raucous questions. But, no, we have a system where the President is glad handing and signing autographs, acting like things are great.

And, let's fault all of us Americans too: suddenly, we think that Iraq is about 3d down in priorities behind the economy and health care, as important as they are; but, here we are acting like the war is won, next case. When the fact is, any military type with a platform says we have eight to ten more years. And, instead of denying, let's face up--we went into something with a whole bunch of wrong assumptions and messed it up royally. Now, we are stuck and cannot get out. A mess and we let the President just skate on.

Vietnam should have been our thermometer to the next war, if we had seen one coming. The conventional wisdom of Vietnam is that had not we simply left, then we could have altered the course of what happened, i.e., the Domino Theory. At this stage, I think we have to look at the big picture and what has happened to Vietnam. They are essentially a capitalist country; ask anyone who has been there in the last ten years. The vast majority of Vietnamese weren't even born during the Vietnam war and there are almost no signs we were ever around. We don't know what or how things would have been had we not "cut and run." Would we have prevented the "killing fields, etc.?" Who knows? What we do know is that more young Americans would have died had we stayed. I still think it is unconscionable with Nixon promising to get us out of Vietnam but once elected, changed his mind and we lost 20,000 more Americans. We couldn't beat Ho over the long haul. So, what can we say today about "cutting and running?"

From a soldier standpoint, the military has to be exhausted and getting more so. The very real difference in the Iraqi war and with Vietnam, we had more "bodies" that were deployable to war (the existence of the draft) but many of us, went only once; but, in the present Army, soldiers are redeploying over and over and this has to take a gigantic toll. God bless them.

The big difference is that for Muslims of all shades, the presence of our military in Iraq will constantly be a source for justification of terrorism. We are in this fight forever anyway and will never be able to declare victory and move on. But, from my view, we must reduce the conventional troops, as others have said before me, station Special Ops in the desert, whatever. And, hope and pray that the Iraqis can assume the vacuum left by us in terms of an active keeping of the peace. LET US PRAY.

STAYING IN IRAQ FOR A HUNDRED YEARS

Subject: Help to stop an endless occupation in Iraq

Hi, Have you seen the news? President Bush is negotiating a deal with Iraq to keep our troops there indefinitely--it could include permanent bases and a massive military presence for years! Bush is trying to tie the hands of the next president.

Congress can stop him from setting up permanent bases in Iraq and block an indefinite occupation--but they need to hear a groundswell of pressure from us immediately and loudly so they act on this quickly.

I just signed a petition demanding that Congress stop the president from committing to a massive military presence in Iraq for decades. Can you join me?

The President and all surrounding him are amazing to me. And, on Iraq, how quickly we forget but sometimes I think that I am the only one in America who thinks this. It is crazy. A guy like John McCain says we will stay in Iraq a hundred years if need be. And, this guy stands a good chance of being the President. I wouldn't have thought so but with Barack or Hillary being the Democrat's nominee, it is a crap shoot. So many people hate Hillary and the country will not vote for a black man, according to my brother. And, he may be right.

I've just returned from the South to see my wife's Dad who is ill and my four brothers. After a week, I am simply overwhelmed with the mentality of the people. And, from my perspective, this may sound like an indictment, it is not. Americans can believe and do what they want. This is what America is about but to endorse the war with an idea that somehow we've done this great thing is flummoxing to say the least.

Iraq has departed center stage and that alone is inexcusable. And, in my view, what has happened in Iraq is that the violence is down or we think it is down and most think that we are "winning" the war. Please! What has happened is that we have begun the counterinsurgency approach to the war and bought off the Sunni warlords--it is only working inasmuch as they are no longer killing us. But, to continue this will mean that we will have to stay in Iraq forever. And, to me, this is very upsetting.

Charlie Wilson's War

Charlie Wilson's War. Very interesting. I had read the book and can remember as I was reading it--well into it in fact when I realized it was not fiction. And, then I could hardly believe it.

Charlie Wilson is this benign Congressman from Texas who comes off being dumb like a fox. In a weird sort of way, he gets recruited by this Texas socialite to help the Afghans defeat the Soviets who, as you remember, had taken over Afghanistan. Her interest and involvement is not very well defined in the movie but much better in the book. Her character played by Julia Roberts in the movie is mostly one of power and social climbing while using whatever or whomever is available. (I might be too harsh). Regardless, in this case, her cause happens to be a noble one at least at first blush.

Charlie mainly figures out how to funnel money to the tribes fighting the Russians. Charlie Wilson and his cohorts would routinely appropriate money for the Afghans, it was like monopoly money, i. e., play money. And, guess what? It was the taxpayers money.

Just a little history: Supposedly, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to ensure that a pro-Soviet regime would be in power in the country. The Soviet invasion shocked the West. President Carter pulled us out of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow. The Mujdeen, as the Afghan rebels were called, were fighting the Russians with WW l Springfield rifles.

Enter Charlie Wilson who, along with the rogue CIA agent, figured out how to arm the Afghan Guerrillas with heavy weaponry, mainly to shoot down the very lethal Soviet helicopters. Ultimately the Mujdeen fought the Soviets to a standstill. The Soviets withdrew, as Afghanistan had become the equivalent of America's Vietnam--a lost cause. And, some think, with the Soviets abandoning Afghanistan, it was the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire and the end of the cold war.

The rogue CIA agent, Gust, was more of a dominant figure in the book. CWW could be seen as a fairly philosophical view on America interfering in the affairs of other countries. Had not Charlie Wilson interfered, maybe the Russians would have stayed or kept a presence in Afghanistan and prevented the Taliban from taking over and thus we might have avoided 9-11; all speculation and history is written backward, never forward.

No more, less I spoil it.

When the credits began to roll, this statement flashed on the screen: "These things happened and we changed the world and then we fucked up the end game." Did we ever? Like Iraq, we never figured out how to deal with the peace. F....... up the endgame was not providing for education and the basics for a devastated Afghan (or Iraqi) society. However, I'm not sure it would have done it. Now, in hindsight, with all that has happened, meaning we are where we are in the course of history, maybe we're doing the best we can.

THE HILLARY FACTOR

Since the whole world has weighed in on Hillary and New Hampshire, I thought I might as well. I was amazed at how the press had inaugurated Obama (I like Obama and could vote for him) and written off Hillary. And, let's face it, mighty nice to know the pundits were wrong, not so much in terms of Hillary but in terms of how smug and arrogant the media has become on polls and predictions and prognostications.

I have one main reason that I support Hillary; she's a woman and men have screwed up the country, meaning the present White House--so, GO HILLARY!

And, to be honest, Hillary tearing up was kind of endearing and there are all kinds of theories of what that moment did. Some "know it all" a'holes say it was contrived (if it was, she is the best actress I've ever seen and I don't think so--regardless, I would refuse to believe it as I refuse to believe Randolph Scott was gay). Some credit the tears with turning on women for Hillary and men's natural inclination to rescue. Regardless, it was a very human moment.

On a personal note, I don't know why politics in our country excites us so. It is relatively insane. Politicians, for a moment, become one of us. Think about it: Hillary, for instance, has people at her beck and call and when she was First Lady, literally was American royalty in terms of never having to turn her hand. Here she is out with the "common" folks, pressing flesh. It's pretty refreshing.

Here's a last plug for Hillary, at least now: I envision a scene. Tensions are high with some world event. Advice is everywhere. It is Iraq revisited with the intell about as "sorry" as it was for invading them. No testosterone, chest beating, idiocy to the max--she weighs the options and thinks to herself, "this does not materially affect our country. American boys will die if I do this?" She turns to her advisers and says something like, "Have we done everything possible, is the threat really real, how does this affect us. Let's wait a bit more and watch this play out." See what I mean? Imagine where we would be today had not we invaded Iraq with the flimsiest of intell? I can tell you one place, almost 4000 more Americans would be enjoying life in our great country.

Mystery of Hillary, etc

I think we need to give a woman a shot at running the country. What I don't understand about the "Bill" issue is that he is looking better everyday compared to George W. With all his shortcomings, we can't deny the fact that he left office with no war and a huge fiscal surplus.

Hillary is qualified, more than most, to run the country. The fact that many don't like her is beside the point. As a Democrat, George W's like ability in the beginning was enormous and look where that's got us. I've had this debate over and over with my wife, also a Democrat. I am simply amazed that Hillary does not get most women's support. And, what does "liking her" have to do with her ability to be president.

The best candidate was Joe Biden, I think, and he couldn't get any traction at all. Even the casual observer ought to be able to see what happens: the media announces the front runners and, like sheep, the voter buys into it and the process is off to the races. If I were Biden I would give them the one finger salute and next case. I use to have this blog, "Most Americans Are Stupid." I did away with it after the last election when the Democrats went in. Mistakenly, I thought they would do what we elected them to do: mainly end the war. And, of course, they have caved in about every way. Oh well...

IOWA WHO

I like Barach and could vote for him. However, I am amazed at the attitude toward Hillary. All politics, as I see it, is somewhat corrupting but I am voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. All of us who're honest, accept the fact that she is qualified, more than most, to run the country. The fact that many don't like her is beside the point. I've had this debate over and over with my wife. I am simply amazed that Hillary does not get most women's support.

And, Huckabee is simply a right wing zealot where Iowa will be his last blast, I think. He plays the guitar and can laugh and I like that but I wouldn't vote for a Republican if Jesus ran; (in a stretch, maybe Ron Paul, who is probably out of it). Well, noway would Jesus run as a Republican as they are too mean spirited: my opinion.

THE BACK BURNER

I saw a couple of interesting things from and about the troops over the holidays. One was an interview with a soldier who was talking about what he called, "this war." He was ordering an omelet for breakfast, maybe a Burger King and shake for lunch, and a steak at night; then, they would go on patrol. Sure beats Vietnam, where C-rats were the constant. What he was attempting to convey, I think, is that we're in a different kind of war and even those fighting it are confused.

I don't doubt there's been progress made in Iraq in terms of violence reduction but even the "everyman," General Petraeus, covers his posterior and warns of uncertainies. (Thank you General for that insight). Over the long haul, I don't see how our present strategy can work--we are not going to stay in Iraq forever. Our main source of pride now are the Sunni types who were our enemy and now our friends: get the insurgency on your side is the first rule of the counterinsurgency manual. We've done it but have a Shiite government that I doubt is going to put aside generations of distrust and get in bed together. I wish they would but a scenario as one of many, none of them good, is out and out civil war.

A definite observation is that Iraq, in addition to looking more and more like Vietnam, operationally, is looking more and more like Vietnam in terms of benigh neglect. Iraq is not the main topic of conversation among a public that is only partially interested anyway. Mostly, it has moved from a headline to page three, much like Vietnam did as a war until the anti-Vietnam posturing captured the media's attention. And, then it was not on the war but the anti-war. The Vietnam war and the warrior were mostly forgotten or at least put on the back burner.

Iraq is quickly becoming a war of casual interest by the general public. A good clue is how little the Presidential candidates are making Iraq an issue--either getting out or the future. They're reading the minds of the public. Less and less are they questioned about their stands concerning the war. These are hints. This is not good.

JUNO

Few movies have I seen hyped this much. The Little Miss Sunshine of this movie season. I don't think so. I didn't like it at all and I've been asking myself why. All the critics loved it but I never listen to them. I don't want anybody even listening to me about this or any movie. Just opinion. I think one of the problems with me is that the movie trivialized a very important subject--teen pregnancy. And, the movie worked its message without those who are suppose to know better or at least have an idea, saying anything.

The characters were appealing, relatively speaking. This sixteen year old is the world's most clever bored teenager. She and her nerdy boyfriend decide sex is better than video games and she ends up pregnant. This is essentially all we know on the pregnancy issue. And then we go into this period of telling the parents who are at once accepting and clever in an odd sort of way. The Dad is a heating and air conditioning repair guy who is on occasion a common sense therapist even if he doesn't know it. The wife, step-mother of Juno, is equally clever, witty with the ready comments. She is a "nails" person, meaning she has a fingernail salon. (And, does nobody but me think it's a little odd that some writer came up with a comment from a teenage protester at the abortion clinic, who is Asian, that the fetus has fingernails). We doubt the step-mother is related to reality as everybody knows only the Vietnamese can run "nail" salons (at least in California). The step-mother verbally abuses a hospital technician who is trying to be empathic to Juno; and, we think that is funny. Give me a break.

The most empathic one to me and I'm sure that I'm the only one in the Universe who sees it this way is the Jason Bateman character. He is the husband of the adoptive mother character, Jennifer Garner. She is very good and for the story line, anal retentive to the max. Bateman goes from cool character to cad in milliseconds. A buddy of mine said he is merely a Peter Pan type, never growing up. Plus, this is the second time of late when I have seen men like Bateman castigated simply because they didn't want to be fathers. I actually read one critic's account that Bateman's character was a pedophile.

The book's author, on whom the story is based, says, not so, as written. She may be the best story with a movie of her life, i. e. stripper.

With a slight bit of psychobabble, I think one of the reasons that I feel so strongly is something that only recently happened to the son of a friend. And, this isn't subjective but fact as I have been fairly involved in the situation from afar but have read the official documents. My friend's son, a ne'the well 21 year old and his buddies who are all into dope and are having a party. At some point, a sixteen year old shows up. According to all involved, sex is way down the food chain. The uninvited female sixteen year old says she is 18, nobody thinks anything about it. At some point during the night when all the dope heads are passed out, she climbs into bed with the ne'the well son of my friend. They have sex. The girl goes home and when confronted by the stepfather concocts a story of rape, sex, all the related issues. My friend's son is jailed. The girl recants the story and admits it was her fault. I'm not making this up: makes no difference, this is the law, she was sixteen and under age. My Friend's son gets 3-6 years for being stupid.

Here's the basic scene with the Bateman character: Juno shows up unannounced while Bateman is home alone: they chat and rap about music, lots of symbolism going on. She shows up one more time and literally appeals physically to him for comfort. They hug. He awkwardly announces his plans to leave his wife. Why? Why at that point? We don't know but his character is forever trashed.


I especially disliked how the movie trivialized abortion. Planned Parenthood is the exact opposite of the clinic in the movie. Oh well, it is a movie and the great thing about movies is they can make anything happen they want. 2 parachutes.

CELEBRITY WORSHIPING CULTURE

When Barach enlisted Oprah, I lost "faith" with him. This is one of those "ah hah" moments in our culture. Are we truly the celebrity worshiping people that we seem to be. Some 40,000 or so showed up for Oprah. What is it about so many of the American people that they would do this. I wouldn't walk across the street to see Bono, Oprah, the President, whoever. But, I surely am in the minority.

I am amazed. What is it? I don't get it. Even my daughters are reading People Mag. And, I must admit that when I get Sunday's Parade, I am always turning to the personality page of the magazine. I say again, what is it about us that would make us such celebrity worshipers? For instance, is Oprah's opinion better than anyone else?

I often feel that I have to be careful when I say something about Oprah: she is black and a woman and if I had any desire to be PC, I would be violating PC big time. Please. And, what other dynamics are at play here? Why would Barach Obama choose to do this? And, what about Hillary? I would think that she would feel really put out: isn't Oprah a champion of women in general? Hillary is the only woman in the race. So, can we say that if you have an African America, Barach, and a woman, the AA wins out?

What is this? My brother who has been in politics his entire life has a view that sounds slightly racist, maybe? But, interesting. He says something like, "anytime you have a black in a race, all blacks will vote for a black." He gave this advice to another brother who was running for office against several others. He lost! Guess what--there was one African American in the race. My brother lost to him.

I don't know nor have a clue about all the dynamics but I think that as a possible Barack supporter, I'm now switching. Why? Well, someone who is into celebrity worship simply is not going to get my vote. This letter to the editor of an unnamed newspaper said it best: I am paraphrasing:

Oprah Winfrey's decision to endorse a presidential candidate is not simply misguided, it is dangerous. This is not voting by reason. It is rather voting by a mindless mass of individuals being shamelessly manipulated as part of a cult-of-personality movenment.

A CHANCE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Recently, a friend and myself were discussing Iraq. He is a retired infantry officer and feels pretty much as I do: HOPELESS. Because we both feel so helpless, we posed the philosophical question: at any point, would it have made any difference had someone "stood up" even though the Commander in Chief appears to have been settled into a "don't confuse me with facts, I have my mind made up" mentality.

My friend named two who could have made a difference in his opinion: Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice. I will have to admit that I've never been much of a fan of Colin Powell. And, the reason is pretty subjective. I was stationed at Forces Command in Atlanta, Georgia when he came to visit. At that time, he was a big wheel, like Chief of Staff of the Army or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He spoke to the troops and laced his talk with ample profanity. Not that it was a big deal. However, had he not been black, somebody in the hierarchy would have crucified him. Regardless, if you look at the history of Iraq and especially Condaleeza Rice's role of National Security Advisor and now, of course, Secretary of State--the opportunity was there. These two have had a chance to effect history and they did not.

Why? Well, I'll have to leave that to history. But when they had a chance to go in another direction on Iraq, they either denied or were fooled: in Condi's case, I think she is so loyal to the President and as someone has suggested, his alter ego, that she simply folded.

Whatever, the "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full" of Powell and Rice have not served us well.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY

Occaionally, someone asked me how did the "girlfriends" get started? Well, we really didn't just get started. My buddy, Michael, whom we call, Rolex Mike, is the best at building relationships or should I say, making them as anybody I've ever seen. He knows everybody and one of his goals in life is "putting peoople together." His constant refrain is, "You should meet so and so."

All the "girlfriends" I've met through Michael and with all his chancanary, adinfinitum, he gets lots of slack. A unique character that almost goes beyond description. In fact, I can't begine to describe him. On his birthday, we decided to roast him in various ways. Here's a collage we put together.

A FAIRY TALE

AUGUST RUSH is a fairy tale of a movie. I loved it. Listen to this dialogue with the guy robbing you at the refreshment stand.
"Did you see this movie?"
"Yes and loved it."
"The critics panned it."
"Well, the problem with the critics is they take themselves too seriously and many times have lost any sense of imagination."

So, there you have it and there's not much left to say. My wife and I loved it. Our daughter had already told us the basic story and she and the granddaughters were gushing about it. The movie is incredibly implausible on so many levels but what the hay. We want to believe and so we do. Plus, if there's a more winsome human being than Keri Russell in movies today, I surely don't know who she is. She will always be Felicity--so impassioned that you want to hold her and say, "now, now." The expressions on her face convey mountains of emotions. I loved her in The Waitress too. I just love her.

And, all the supporting cast was good. Robin Williams plays himself, other than funny one liners, they were simply one liners but he played and looked the part. And, Rhys Meyers, what is it with these guys with two last names. He was good, however; Irish to the max. Freddie Highmore, the youngster, lost for eleven years but never really lost by Keri Russell's character (can't tell you anymore, you have to see the movie). The implausible part of it was mostly the music. How could an eleven year old play and create such music. Well, I've seen a few prodigies on programs like 60 Minutes who defy logic. So...

It will be interesting to see how well it does at the box office. I surveyed a few folks coming out of the movie and every single one liked it. I'm thinking we all love a fairly tale.

I might have ended it differently but it was relatively satisfying and in a sense, the story allowed you to create your own ending. And, in this case, mine would be, "And, they lived happily ever after."

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

There are few movies I've seen so hyped to be so unsatisfying. When I go to a movie, I want to come out feeling that there's at least a smidgen of redemptive purpose. I have my own definition for this, mainly teaching a life lesson. The critics all loved it, that should have given me a hint. When they like something immensely, I can pretty much be assured I won't. I think most critics are a little jaded or cynical or even maybe arrogant.

No Country For Old Men is a great title but I can't figure how it relates. Usually, I don't pay attention to movie directors. In this case, it was the Coan brothers and apparently, they have a certain style. If this movie is an example, I don't like it.

The story is built around Josh Brolin's character who finds a big stash of money from a drug deal gone bad. In an odd sort of way, Brolin is a winsome guy, the best of the movie. Tommy Lee Jones is somewhat of a wise sheriff but the movie doesn't portray him as doing much. And, Javier Bardem is the bad guy who is a mean, evil, maxed out psychopath.

The best line in the movie comes from Brolin to Woody Harrelson who plays a kind of hit man fixer who finds Brolin and tells him the nature of the psychopath chasing him. In trying to establish rapport with Brolin who is a Vietnam veteran, he relates that he also is a Nam vet. Brolin says something like, "And, that is suppose to make us friends."

The critics loved this movie. Go figure.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? Yes/No/Maybe

Do You Believe? Conversations on God and Religion sounds really good (only read a review). The author, an Italian, Antonio Monta, asked 18 well known people, questions like: Do you believe in God? What will happen to you at death? Do you pray? Do you think religious believers are deluded.

Now, talk about a conversation he could have had with the "girlfriends," this is one. One interviewee was particular interesting to me, Grace Paley. I've loved her short stories over the years. She was especially adept at dealing with social issues of war, greed, and racism in telling stories.

Monta interviewed her two years before she succumbed to breast cancer. At the time, she wondered why he wanted to talk about religion and her views on it. Answer: I think it's the most important subject of our time. "Are you serious?" obviously thinking he was not.

The author interviewed celebs like Jane Fonda and several that I didn't know but were celebrities to someone, I guess. I did recognize Arthur Schlesinger and Martin Scorsese who didn't know much about God but believed in his Catholicism. Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice turned him down for an interview.

When he asked Ms. Paley, Do you think that life after death exists?
She replied, "Obviously no" but added, and an 83 old is telling you this, aware that she doesn't have much time to live. And then, turning the tables on Mr. Monda, she asked, "And what is there for you after death? He replied, "The true life"--she came back with, What is the life that we're living at this moment? He answered, "a passage and a gift." Now you see, she concluded, this is an idea that interests me because it's very different from what I believe in.

When Nathan Englander was asked if he believed in God, he whimsical said, "I'd be inclined to say no if I didn't fear God's wrath."

Some common themes: fundamentalism is bad, religions often gives people license to do bad things. Writing, film making, etc is a quasi religious calling. (Say what?) Jesus was a great thinker, rather than redeemer. As for organized religion--none of the interviewees had a good word for it. The author admits that he is a committed Catholic

I think that after reading the above comments, I am sticking to the New Testament. Power in the Blood. Thank you Jesus.

Healthy Religion

Or, maybe, what I ought to say is emotionally healthy religion. I think about this often. As a Christian, I debate constantly with my "girlfriends" what it all means. In our little group, we have atheists, lapsed Catholics, and a smattering of other Protestant types. And, the discussions are always lively, especially as relates to how prominent religion seems to play in world politics--From the reported 5 million radical Muslim extremists of the 9-11 philosophy to their moderate Muslims brothers to the right wing Christian zealots embodied in the late Jerry Falwell and Focus on the Family guru James Dobson.

Most of us have various views, often not very objective ones on the power of religion or even how prevalent it is. In our American society, religion surely gets prominent lip service. No wonder religion often gets very confusing to the average person. Recently, when I ran across this wonderful little film, Eve and the Firehorse, on Sundance Channel, I was absolutely fascinated. The little film embodied almost every issue that we face as to religion and a healthy way to look at faith. Eve and Karena, two young Chinese sisters, maybe nine and eleven, living in Canada, are determined to reverse the string of tragedies that have shadowed their working-class family ever since their mother cut down the backyard apple tree. How they go about attempting to reverse these bad fortunes is by becoming good.

In this little family, there's the grandmother, dutifully pouring three cups of tea for the Buddha every single day with a faithfulness that is beyond Eve, the younger of the sisters, who remarks that apparently Buddha isn't thirsty. At some point, Grandma dies but continues to appear to Eve in various visions or apparitions that only Eve can see.

Karena, the older sister, is somewhat sullen and matter of fact in the beginning as the two sisters face the various rigors of the cruelty of kids at their school. The Mother has a miscarriage in rather dramatic fashion, then goes into a deep depression while the kids fend mostly for themselves. The hardworking and committed father has to go back to China to bury the grandmother.

All of Eve and Karena's goodness must be paying off because the father wins a new Cadillac in the lottery and his luck seems to change. The mother comes out of the "ether" and resumes her role with the family. Karena, the older of the two girls embraces Catholicism, trying to live the life of a saint. Eve kind of goes along while the mother adopts a view that the Buddha and Jesus can surely live together and this must be healthy. Eve, in the meantime, constantly has these apparitions where she sees what might be, i. e., Buddha and Jesus dancing and getting along rather famously. Plus, on occasion, Eve throws in a not too saintly angel who joins Jesus and Buddha in their dance. And, occasionally even the Grandma pops up. The movie's rather wry and delicately observed views about faith in particular and religion in general are absolutely delightful.

There are so many precious moments in this movie for those of us who are people of faith. Two notable ones: Karena has become somewhat obsessed with Catholicism and the Nun playing the part could use a little objectivity but her attitude plays well with the story. At one point, Karena gets the idea that in order for Eve to really shape up, i. e., Eve is constantly making up stories and if she gets baptized, she can do better. To the viewer, momentarily this becomes scary as somehow Karena views how long Eve stays under water determines how successful is her baptism. The viewer is left with the idea that here is a potential tragedy. In the next scene, we are transported to the Church where the Priest is baptizing Karena. She is arrayed in white. A voice over tells us that Eve died for a second maybe and that there was a white light that she remembers, along with the Fire Horses. Eve is the voice over and the philosophy of life is real and rich. The movie ends with one of Eve's apparitions as she looks at Karena embracing her faith and dressed all in white watches as Karena floats toward the ceiling.

What makes this such an important little movie is that this is the way religion is suppose to be; mystery, tolerance, embraced with a childlike faith. Amazingly, at least to me, a movie and a director's imagination conveys the real truths of faith, much more so than Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, adinitum.

Michael Clayton

If someone were to asked me, What Can Americans Do Better Than Anyone? I think I would say, "make movies." George Clooney in Michael Clayton, is a good example. Clooney is a lawyer; playing a kind of typical George Clooney character, much like he played in Syriana without being overweight. And, although George walked around with, as us NC types say, the "hang dog" look the entire movie--very effective.

My daughter says that most movies have a middle, meaning some boring aspects that move slowly. No middle in MC. And, the basic story of the lengths that some in the corporate world will go to in protecting profits and in pursuit of their own ambitions--No new news here and "no middle in it."

The villain, a female, almost stole the show. Her vulnerability with the sweating scenes and the practicing of her speeches showed an intensity that kind of made the movie. And, Tom Wilkerson is probably the best character actor around. The guy can pull off believability that is right on target. There were some issues that could have been a little more fully explored like the Wilkerson character's bipolar condition but then there might have been a middle. Good movie. Two parachutes.

The Martian Child

One of the ways that I always judge how much I enjoy a movie or better still, the experience of a movie, is how long it stays with me. The Martian Child is still with me. And, overall, I think that here is a movie that shows how much movie critics should be ignored. If those attending when I did were any representative sample, the critics were too effective in panning the movie. I saw it with my two granddaughters and almost had the theater to ourselves. A shame.

A very poignant movie and one that any parent should want a child to see: lots of teaching points. Don't look down on someone just because they are different. Don't worry about being different yourself, be who you are, walk your own way, sing your own song. What parent wouldn't want their kid to be their own person.

The basic story line has all the elements that probably critics hate; death, sadness, successful writer, winsome guy (Cusack), great sister, his literal sister, Joan; and, an almost unreal reaching out to a troubled youngster who has created his own world. Only the movies can create such a story but for me and my granddaughters, by their admission, they were pulling for some sort of healing, even if they didn't know exactly what it meant.

To hell with the critics, good movie and highly recommend it. 3 parachutes.

WHY WE HATE TO COMPARE VIETNAM TO IRAQ

As we think about the absolute morass of stupidity that has led us to the war in Iraq, we might do well to think in terms of what Vietnam has taught us about getting out. At the time seeing the helicopters on the roof of the American Embassy is a picture seared into our brains. Yet, now 30 or so years later, looking at how we left Vietnam is maybe what we should do about Iraq. JUST LEAVE!

I was touched by the story I read sometime ago about a soldier who was in Vietnam and probably had a supply clerk's job. He was concerned about the women who did his laundry and cleaned their hooches, as the thrown together huts in the rear were called. His point had been that he wondered about them, what had happened.

Many veterans still feel a deep shame and guilt at abandoning so many people who had come to trust and depend on us. Even the president has evoked memories of boat people, reeducation camps and the killing fields to argue against withdrawing from Iraq.

There is a legacy of Vietnam. Most of us who returned from Vietnam realized that Vietnam meant something entirely different from those back home. We had to fight the war over and over in the sense of having literally been a part of it.

It is hard to know what the war in Vietnam meant to many Americans. Even today, I hear over and over that protests stopped the war. Maybe? But, it wasn't the war as much as a philosophy of war, it was the draft, it was more a domestic conflict than anything. Many Americans at the time honestly harbored thoughts that the Vietnam vet was too stupid to get out of the draft or else he wouldn't have been in Vietnam anyway. It was Jane Fonda who became synonymous with how confused the whole experience was for us.

To be honest, I am utterly amazed that we don't deal more with Vietnam and how it relates to our present wrong headed approach to war than we do. It can be summed up with one word, denial.

The Vietnamese Americans are probably the most successful immigrant story ever. When I read of a Vietnamese success story in this country, I get teary eyed. Honestly, they come so often. Recently, I read, A refugee's odyssey. Christopher Do arrived in San Rafael, California on September 2, 1975, then five, and is now a VP with Merrill Lynch, San Francisco. He was one of those airlifted to safety from the roof of the U. S. Embassy in Saigon in April, 1975. To our country's credit, when there appeared to be widespread opposition to America's role in taking in so many Vietnam refugees, the sight of them getting off the buses, quelled the opposition immediately.

THINK ABOUT IT

FEET TO OUR PRAYERS

Say what? It seems that an older lady lived next door to a "crack" house. Cars coming and going constantly, ne'the wells everywhere. She talked to the police but nothing happened with the only encouragement coming from her pastor, "let us pray." A few weeks later, the house burned to the ground. Her pastor remarked that it was a miracle. The old lady smiled and said, "Yes, it is a miracle even if I did have to put feet to my prayers."

Recently, I talked with a former Army nurse who is receiving a disability for MS. It is something very worthy but also a little troubling. I've never quite understood the system. The VA gives recognition of illnesses like MS and of hysterectomies (I know because another female friend told me of her rating). I'm not against this but just don't understand when so many combat soldiers have trouble in getting evaluations and help from the VA when non combat illnesses seem to get attention. I find myself in unfamiliar territory as I only want to make the point of the slow response of evaluations which in term equals treatment.

ROAD BLOCKS

All of us have read of the unbelievable bureaucratic hassles that wounded soldiers seeking disability care and benefits face. Most of the time, it takes at least six months for a soldier to get benefits, arriving at this juncture after four tortuous hearings to determine his eligibility. What is he/she suppose to do all this time while he's waiting? The country surely didn't wait when they sent him/her off to war. Give me a break, this is outrageous I am told by reliable sources that there's a backlog of literally thousands of cases.

According to the VA, they can't hire the people to deal with this great influx. Well, why not? A friend of mine who is fully eligible to be involved encountered a mountain of paperwork in getting hired. Supposedly, the VA is offering professionals a good chance to get into the system on a temporary basis. But, let's face it, what professional health care professional, who has a good practice, is going to give it up for a "possibility." VA needs a better system. Figure it out.


BENEFITS AND CARE

Veteran benefits and care is not the same thing. My experience with VA is that the care is good and the patient satisfaction rating is one of the best in the country. But, that is if you are already in the system. What if you are not in the system? The veterans benefits system has not been changed since the close of WW ll. It is about time.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and severe brain injury already affect an estimated 45,000 in the present wars. They need attention and not a wait and see. We fully understand what happened with Vietnam vets who more or less took things into their own hands to get their benefits. For goodness sakes, let's don't make the Iraqi and Afghanistan vets do the same.

Let's establish blame here: the President and Congress. We are calling the present soldiers heroes and rightly so but while we are doing it, let's put feet to our prayers and give them recognition that actually helps. One immediate solution is to keep wounded soldier on active duty until their cases are resolved. This move to shuffle them out of the military as quick as possible is wrong headed. What gives?

The Army says it has a solution--special "warrior transition units" which are to be at 32 national centers. This is a start.

WAR IS MESSY

Because we live in an environment where so few people have military experience and the general public has no personal investment in an untenable fiasco, war is often viewed like it's the movies. In the movies, directors can make it turn out however they want or they can use their imagination (see review on In The Valley of Etah). Not so in real life and especially at war. If we have ever had an example of a spinned philosophy gone awry, Iraq is it. The movies can't even make it turn out right.

Iraq is a media war. We have soldiers writing books, blogging battles, not to mention professional journalists embedded, sending missiles to their publications and then writing books. It is never ending. Even the military is studying the lessons of Iraq formally at their Command and General Staff School: what went wrong, whose fault is it? The scenario is almost beyond the pale--studying how we have screwed up even while the war goes on. It was years after the quagmire of Vietnam before we took a serious look at it. For us old soldiers, we are simply flummoxed.

I feel heartsick for what happens in the theater of battle. Innocents get hurt or maybe the not so innocent, who knows? We report enemy combatants killed in battle, the Iraqis report the same incident as women and children and old people killed. Help! I especially feel sorry for those soldiers attempting to do what they've been trained to do: the Haditha killings are but one example, some charges dismissed, others tried for innocuous crimes such as failure to investigate. Another officer convicted of unauthorized possession of classified documents, conduct unbecoming and then a relationship with an interpreter. And, the often forgotten ones--the families back home, the wives and children whose lives are forever changed and for what!

I recently talked to the father of a former battalion commander who has done two tours in Iraq. The son told him we were making progress but it would take 10 years to even come close to stabilizing Iraq.

All this amidst our kids getting blown up with regularity as the casualty count heads toward 4000. Iraq and all that it encompasses is like a nightmare from which we can't awaken.

DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS, I HAVE MY MIND MADE UP

Recently, on a wonderful trip to North Dakota, Pheasant Hunting, I had the chance to spend lots of time with one of my old Army buddies. He is the greatest guy, a right wing fundamentalist but so nice that you don't notice. However, his brothers are great and friendly and hospitable folks as all I met in the Dakotas are; however, they are typical of what we face in politics.

At our hunting lodge which was a mobile home, very rustic type of thing; we had a TV but could only see what the people in the main house could see, meaning these nice right wing fundamentalists types. We are stereotyping here a little but I can assure you that I am not far off the mark: how does to the right of Attila the Hun sound? We were forced to watch Fox News. I became nauseous. I did watch some of Bill O'Reilley and will have to admit that I was a little favorably impressed that he didn't interrupt constantly. But, then again he was interviewing Dennis Miller that I like but who is a little full of himself in what he says(he put the badmouth on the Dan Fran Mayor).

Oh well. It did reinforce one thing I believe, however, that Hillary can win an election. The country is so divided that no candidate is going to win a big mandate but if the Democrats can get as fervent as the right wing non thinking types, Hillary can do it. My favorite candidate is Ron Paul but he doesn't stand a chance even if I am seeing his bumper stickers in San Fran.; but, to reinforce my point: we were about to have dinner after a long day of hunting and in attempting to interject some levity into a conversation with the brother of our host who was a Teamster's truck driver for forty years, I said, "I think Hillary can be elected." These were his exact words, "Anybody who would vote for Hillary doesn't have the morals of a skunk." Now, is that hardcore or what!

We are not going to be able to change these people's minds. They are not going to be objective. They watch Fox News and Rush Limbaugh who just auctioned off some letter written to him by about forty idiot congressmen because he put the badmouth on somebody. Regardless, if it is for a good cause but why would any thinking congressmen give credibility to a drug abuser and to someone who has never served in the military. Oh well...I am on a rant.

A LITTLE LATE OR NOT

The good general Sanchez has told it like it is: Irag is really Iraqnam; it is a mess, a flawed strategy from the beginning, no way out, only hope is to starve off defeat. Surge is a joke.

So, why has he waited so long? And, what about all those comments recorded when he was the commander in Iraq and said Iraq was good to go, making progress--what was this? Well, any of us who understand the military "get it." Generals are geared to tell the Commander what he wants to hear. And, the present Commander in Chief, bolstered in the beginning by Rumsfelt, made those who didn't preach the party line pay the price, i. e., the good general Shinseki who was unceremoniously sacked when he said we would need hundreds of thousands of soldiers to conquer and occupy Iraq.

So, what should a general say? Well, what we would like for him to say/do is be out front and brutally honest. We know they won't/don't; it is not that they lie but they are soldiers overall and soldiers do what they're told. And, generals have a "can do" mindset often when they know what they are asked to do is impossible.

There's a prominent view of general officers, who early on, mostly when he or she is a Colonel when they are in the running for that elusive "star" which few get. They stifle their convictions about many things with the rationalization that at some point when they have made general, they will revisit all those convictions they have pushed down into their psychic. Unfortunately, when they make the rank and get to the point when they are ready to do something, they reach down inside themselves and the convictions have mostly evaporated. Sad. This may sound fairly ethereal but true. Most generals simply "go along" and all of us are the poorer for it.

Sanchez is a civilian and I respect him for speaking out even thought it's a tad late. And, who can disagree with what he says. Not any of us who think. If anything, I wish he would call on more of his former general buds to also speak out. Iraq is a mess. Iraq has become Iraqnam, there is no way out--we are simply starving off defeat. What would be nice if he would spell out a cogent exit strategy that Americans who care could get behind.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS CASE?

I had read about this case some time ago but didn't think very much about it until a few weeks ago when the President commuted his bud, Scooter's prison sentence. For the record, I thought the Judge was a little heavy handed on Scooter. Hell, this is politics where the usual thing is to lie, steal, and cheat. The Judge couldn't take a joke. The prez should have commuted his sentence afterall, there's probably much more that we don't know. And, practically, why not, the advantage of being a wildly unpopular president is that you can't get much lower. Why not protect yourself or your buds.

However, the two Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively for shooting at and wounding a fleeing suspect who was smuggling 743 pounds of marijuana over the boarder, is unbelievable. Their sin mainly was covering it up but to do so made sense to me as this guy was not hurt. Who would not have made the same decision? But, the justice system for these two went South. The prosectutor and Judge seem to have had their brains bottled in formaldehyde as they really are at fault. Us common people think that the issue in courts is justice. Well, I don't tthink so.

It would be interesting to hear the judges explanation. Any farmer from North Carolina with one eye and half sense would know this is stupid. A criminal suddenly is the good guy and these guys are rotting in jail.

At least people are taking notice. I doubt the Prez but Diane Feinstein after reading the transcripts came out of the ether and fired off a letter to the President. Under any sort of hearing, this whole thing is idiocy. Two Border Patrol agents trying to do their jobs are in jail and a dope dealer is suiing the government and get this, while he had immunity from the prosecutor, he smuggles into the States another 753 pounds of pot. Got to love it. But, the agents don't love it as they are in prison with the very people they put their.

What is amazign to me is that common sense seems to be nowhere in sight. And, also, with the attention of those like Feinstein and even John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, plus Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, still these two guys are in jail. When there's no response from the White House, what do these concerned Senators do? If the "Agents" were named Scooter or some such name, maybe they could get attention.

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH

I don't know what to say about this movie. Magnificent, disturbing, should be seen by every American. Mixed messages? What? I actually went to see it based on recommendation of the "girlfriends" or as we've recently been called, The Dysfunctional Six.

THE STORY

Basically, it is the story of the anguish of parents. A missing son, AWOL (absent without leave). Just home from Iraq, what has happened? The father, a military type, himself, an investigator, CID (Criminal Investigative Division). He bleeds red, white and blue. The story is wrapped in crime, drugs, the Mexican mafia. However, it really is not about this. Charlize Theron is good as the local detective who battles all sorts of demons, this one is only one file on her desk or would be if it was not for Tommy Lee Jones, the Dad. He is relentless. Jones is "Call" in Lonesome Dove. Take no prisoners. Susan Sarandon is the Mom, somewhat of a cameo appearance but very, very good.

Underlying it all is the Iraq War. What have we done to America's clean cut kids. The story is disturbing because, as my friend said, it forces us to deal with questions that nobody is asking. One question: is it about class--when we talk about Iraq, the elephant in the room is "class." Only the lower middle class at best is fighting this war.

WHAT ABOUT THE IRAQI VETERAN

How different is he/she than vets of any age. The same. Yes and No. The combat veteran is just that; a warrior who has seen war. However, the young Iraqi soldier is different inasmuch as the world is different. In The Valley, there's a scene of the son calling home. He is sending pictures over the Internet; it is a media war.

THE TITLE: VALLEY OF ELAH

The symbolism of the title is fascinating. The story of David and Goliah and as the movie deals with it--all about conquering one's fears. Fascinating how the movie makers decided on the particular title.

How can war not affect the warrior. The issue is how? Here we were thinking that we had the Iraqi vets covered: not like Vietnam; in the jungles one day, Detroit the next. No reentry. This movie conveys that we are not prepared for their homecoming: is this true? Or, does the plight of the vet simply convey a story of a movie Director who wants to make a statement about Iraq. And, he does. This a compelling story from every single direction. My suspicion is that it will be a critic's choice (and it should) but that the public at large, will basically ignore. It is too heavy and too, too close to the bone. Three parachutes.

SCANDALOUS

I don't know where I read this but my Mom's idea of scandalous is right on. The rich are the ones who run the country. Our president's assets are estimated between, 8-20 million. Virtually all of Congress fit in the millionaire several times over category. They leave office and are paid these outrageous fees for making speeches. And, nobody seems to mind, like they need the money. Saint Ronald Reagan got 2 million from the Japanese for two speeches, the senior Bush followed him and became an icon in Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 9-11 for his money making prowess; and the "Bill" man is reported to get $350,000 a speech. Can you believe it? Who in the world has anything worth saying worth a half mil. Give me a break. To give him his due, I have heard that Bill donates his speech money to his foundation which buys medicines for developing countries, especially AIDS drugs.

We live in a celebrity worshipping culture and so why not those like the Bushes and Clintons. Well, there really is no reason and yet, I'm with Mom, scandalous. When they depart the scene, it isn't like they are homeless. Us taxpayers give them big pensions close to $200,000, all sort of other stuff, not to mention Secret Service protection, and rent money for an office. Gee whiz. People are willing to pay, at least organizations. I'm not a member of any of them or I would be raising hell. Nixon even got 2.3 mil for his memoirs, which others will get as much or more. What is there left to say from these guys.

THE SECOND COMING

Thank you Jesus is a good term used by evangelicals and right wing Christians often. It is like saying, way to go, God bless America, Praise the Lord, Power in the Blood. Need I go on? This is how the arrival of the good General Petraeus in Washington was herald. For any thinking military type, this is fairly painful to see one of their own put in such a spot. Jim Lehrer on PBS's, The Newshour has asked the question several times with a bit of sarcasm in his voice, how has it come to this--one American general seemingly so portrayed as the Savior of American policy in Iraq.

Well, I have my thoughts, it is the "nature of the beast" in our media driven world. Simply, General Petraeus is a four star general and his commander is the President. The Commander has screwed up in Iraq and the top general is like a fist full of "what ifs" to the rescue. And, in Washington and media style, the General and Ambassador are providing great political theater.

ENTOURAGE

Anybody who has seen the HBO program, Entourage, will understand exactly what I mean. On the show, a celebrity is followed around by a couple or three of his buddies. He trusts them. They do his bidding. General Petraeus has his entourage. He is a celebrity, not unlike the character on Entourage. In our celebrity worshiping culture, this makes perfect sense. General Petraeus's entourage consists of three colonels, all Iraq vets with Ph.D.s, along with a Rhodes Scholar wearing captain's rank. (I would have been more impressed if his entourage had a few Sergeants and Privates). The good General himself has a PhD from Princeton. Keep in mind that all of this fine education for the General and his entourage was paid for by you and me, the American taxpayer.

In a sense, the President is using General Petraeus and that is flat out wrong. Historially, it has probably happened more than we'd like to admit but it is still wrong. Amazing how history repeats, the NY Times had this amazing picture of General Westmoreland briefing Congress in 1967 on what Wesmoreland described as gains in Vietnam. General Westmoreland is saluting. (SEE PICTURE INSERT)It is an impressive sight and we know what happened to Westmoreland and the war. Let's face it: to our present leadership, Vietnam never existed.

I don't know General Petraeus but have heard good things about him but this will forever taint him. It's not his fault. Maybe it's OK with him. The President is the commander, and he really can do anything he wants. I'm not sure about the protocol of it but think in a strict sense, the President is violating the chain of command. He should be talking to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who should be getting his information from Petraeus--surely not portraying Petraeus as the savior for Iraq. But, that is a minor point, I surely haven't heard the chain of command issue raised by anyone and why would they? Most of the Congress would not know the meaning of the military chain of command or the concept of it if it ran over them.

Anybody with any smarts can tell you that whatever Petraeus says will be taken by the President or his rivals/detractors/the media to mean whatever they want it to mean. Spin will be the order of the day and that is unrelated to truth.

SOLDIERS HAVE TO BELIEVE IN THEIR MISSION

No one can doubt that Petraeus believes what he believes. He's a soldier and soldiers in general have to believe in what they are risking their lives for. And, surely we applaud the sacrifice of the General. He's been in Iraq more or less for five years. He has a son who is in Army ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corp) and has just finished airborne training. The son will be in the danger zone for going to Iraq if we are there as long as I think we'll be. General Petraeus definitely has "skin" in the game. The flip side of the coin is that the General has all the benefits that his rank affords: great house at Fort Myers, good pay and benefits, and an entire bevy of servants (entourage) to look after and hang on every single word. And, in a sense, tell him, as he is going to tell the president, exactly what he wants to hear.

Here is pretty much what he has said which was predictable: the surge has worked but Iraqi politics is not where it should be. He talks about the success in Anbar province. What he won't say is that the Shieks wanted their former power back and were willing to throw in with the Americans even though they delighted in killing them previously. He also won't say that in order for us to replicate the Anbar Province scene, we would have to be in Iraq for who knows how many years.

The General will praise our soldiers as well he should but what he will not say is that our military is unbelievably stretched and we can no longer afford the "can do" attitude of the past. And, he surely will not say that the sacrifices of our soldiers are singular as they are the only Americans dying because of this war.

COMMENTS THE GENERAL OR AMBASSADOR SHOULD MAKE

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am putting aside my prepared speech and want to talk off the cuff about Iraq. Let's put aside partisan politics and believe that we went in with the best of intentions which I believe. We cannot export democracy as we know it to countries like Iraq. As we have discovered, just because you have elections, doesn't mean that you are going to have democracy. It takes time, a long time, generations and is painful. And, for us to bring it about or contribute to it, we would have to be in Iraq a hundred years or more. Also, our initial decisions concerning Iraq were flawed: to few troops to secure the country and especially the borders, dismantling of the Army and Police and purging the Batthists. All of this was made on wrong assumptions that we now understand.

However, all that being said, we are in Iraq and must engineer a way out--a Christian nation (semantics aside) occupying an Islamic one is a perception that the Arab world cannot tolerate, regardless of our good intentions or motives. There are 1.4 million Muslims or so in the world. Most are not the Jihiist extremists that are dedicated to killing infidels. We must accept the fact that we cannot reason with fanatics who will blow themselves up, kill innocents and believe a dogma which is unfathomable to us. Consequently applying Western mentality to an impossible situation is beyond the pale. Iraq is a country with a tribal mentality and they are not going to "come let us reason together" after thousands of years of conflict. For years, under Saddam, Sunnis ruled and exacted blood from the Shiits; the tables are turned and revenge is a big part of the equation, plain and simple.

Here's what I would suggest: get the conventional troops out of Iraq and leave 75,000 or so Special Operations soldiers out in the desert, mostly to serve as advisers and to secure the borders. I wrote the counter insurgency manual and honestly believe this is our best possibility. This Force would include private contractors who are mostly ex Special Forces soldiers anyway and are willing to put their lives on the line. Special Forces (includes Navy Seals, Air Force Special Ops, Delta Force) soldiers love the counter insurgency environment and are trained for a prolonged struggle. Also, we must dismantle most of the bases we have established in Iraq and start the withdrawal process sooner than later. We did not enter this country with a plan but we must leave it with a carefully thought out exit strategy. God bless our soldiers.

NOW THIS WOULD BE A SPEECH THAT WOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN AND PROBABLY SET Petraeus UP TO BE PRESIDENT ONE OF THESE DAYS.

Bobby

What makes this incredibly fascinating as a movie are those times n which we lived. In some ways Bobby should be coupled for a night of viewing with a documentary, One Bright Shining Moment. They both cover the Democratic presidential campaign 0f 1968. In Bobby, the lives of 22 people come together at the Ambassador Hotel on June 6, 1968 when RFK is assassinated. Interesting way to tell a story with a great cast of actors. Emilio Estevez wrote, directed and is also in the movie.

What this movie did for me is the same thing that One Bright Shining Moment did: make me wonder what would have happened if Eugene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy had won the presidency. Well, we know what did happen. Nixon won and it was business as usual.

For me, the fascination is with the political process. The acceptance that the process is not somewhat corrupted is naive in my view. With politicians, to include the Presidency, there's always a taint of, if not corruption, then compromise. Still, presidents send us off to war and that alone makes who is president very important. There's a scene in Bobby where we are looking at an actual protest march and the signs indicate at that time, only 8000, have been killed in Vietnam. Eventually it was 58,000.

The movie uses actual archival footing of the times and actual speeches by Bobby Kennedy.

The 22 whose stories make up much of the movie really aren't strangers rather archetypes--their stories intersect at the Ambassador Hotel. In light of our political season, this movie should be a must watch for Americans who care.

WHAT ARE WE TO BELIEVE ABOUT IRAQ??????????????????????????

To say that the war and interpretation of it has to be incredibly confusing is an understatement of many a day. There are zealots on the margins with most of us in the middle attempting to sort it out. And, to attempt to be objective is a gargantuan task. Here's a good example, I am in an email group of highly educated and committed retired military types. It is as though we are living in different galaxies.

Sometime ago, I realized that there's a philosophy with many: do not confuse me with facts, I have my mind made up. I don't think this is true of me. I would be so thrilled if I could find one thing about our involvement in Iraq that is not messed up. When I hear the talking heads on TV, I am amazed: it is as though they simply don't face any sort of facts. Is the surge working? "Well", would be their answer. "We have made progress in Baghdad, people are not killing each other as much." Yet, the facts can be: 300 Iraqis and five soldiers killed today in Iraq. Their mantra: Facts should not interfere with their views.

WHAT ARE WE TO BELIEVE?

On the PBS's Newshour, which attempts to take an objective stance, I think, there's some guy whose group is spending 15 mil for ads showing how successful Iraq has been. Totally ignoring any facts. To him, they simply don't exist. And, the MoveOn.Org. guy, not a good spokesperson in my estimation, he counters. I admit that I come down more on the side of MoveOn.Org--no one except someone who is on anotehr planet cannot see that we have had botched war strategy from the beginning. Simply, however, what are people who care and trying to be informed, to believe?

A senator goes to Iraq, Republican type, comes back and says we need to start withdrawing 5000 troops by the end of the year: some general in Iraq immediately counters his view by saying how disastrous to pull out.

I CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE BECAUSE I THINK

The pro Iraqi war guy uses words like cut and run, defeat. Next comes a talking head, from the New Republic. He injects how we screwed up Vietnam by leaving. Nobody points out that our leaving was not disastrous nor did the so called, "domino" theory happen. Today, Vietnam is a peaceful country--every tourist describes the modern Vietnam in glowing terms. (To me, it doesn't speak well of news organizations to have some thirty something so called commentator who spouts off, knowing little and surely with no skin in the game on Vietnam or Iraq. Of course, in my view, can't compare Vietnam as a country and Iraq at all--Ho was a nationalist mainly. His goal always was to unite the country. Iraq is complicated by 2000 years of strife, with violence among the sects in a way of life which is not going to end).

Here is my prediction, knowing that my track record is dismal: I am the guy who said Kerrey was going to beat Bush. Most Americans who care and not all do, remember Vietnam: they are not going to put up with us staying in Iraq forever which we'd have to do to win and then I don't think we could do it, short of 2000 years.

All of the politicians and news types keep talking about September as if it was the Second Coming with General Petreous--what in the world is he going to tell us that we don't already know. Nothing but more confusion.

THE BEST ARTICLE I'VE SEEN ON IRAQ

The best thing that I've seen in ages is an article in last Sunday's NY Times by get this: 1 Sp4, 4E5s, 2 SSGs (thes are all soldiers and this is the kind of war we have: guys watching YouTube, emailing, etc., constantly--another example of this war, we have 75 bases in Iraq; one of them has a PX (post exchange) where a GI can buy a wide screen high definition TV. This is a war where we should have zapped Saddam and been out of there in 6 months).

These guys who wrote the article are in the 82d Airborne Division, all finishing 15 month tours. I'd love to see the rest of their career (meaning will they have to pay for penning this article) but I think we are in such a different era with the volunteer Army, not good or bad, just different.

This article is a litany of how we've screwed up in Iraq, simple facts. And, the confusing thing is that it is as though these guys have written this in a vacuum, as far as I can see--like so much else about Iraq, their comments are totally ignored. Here is just one paragraph from the article, "in short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse--namely the widespread use of lethal and brutal force." This is a great article, not because I agree with it but because it effectively spells out what the situation is. Not the denial that we are constantly hearing.

I agree with John Edwards about this: it really doesn't make any difference what Democrat is elected president, he/she will get us out of Iraq at some point. Ron Paul is the only Republican who would do the same and we know what chance he has.

I loved the way these soldiers ended this article, makes me proud, even as I am amazed that they've written it, "We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see the mission through." Instead of Congress listening to Generals, these are the guys they should be talking too.