|
(AP Photo/2006 Fox Broadcasting Co., M Becker)
|
Our hero, Jack Bauer, of 24, has returned. And, Jack is in his best form. He has aged slightly, but he just as clever and philosophical in getting the job done.
The show is fast pace and then some. My blood pressure goes up substantially during each episode. In fact, once I had to change channels to catch my breath. I constantly have to tell myself this is just TV.
It is TV, but 24 makes the mind go flying as well as the bodies on the show. It is terrorism at its worst. With the exception of the final victory, the "bad guys" are usually always winning. And, guess what they are: dark skinned and most likely have names like, "Ahmed."
Well, we weren't attacked in 2001 by boys from Alabama, and to say that 24 does not add to ethnic harmony is somewhat a given. We did have Timothy McVeigh; but, we can say, that in the final analysis, he spared all of us and chose to be out of here.
Here's what 24 does for me. It gives me a passing thought that maybe there is some truth to what the zealots are saying about Iraq and Afghanistan: fight them over there or fight them here. No, I'm not backing away from my position on Iraq, but always want to be objective. We "drugstore cowboys" can afford to be; the thought is a "what if?" We have to admit that we have not been attacked since 9-11. For the entire TV program, 24 spells out the fact that an attack is eminent. It is chillingly realistic.
Should all Americans watch it? I think so or as much as they can take. There's something strangely compelling about thinking about the "what ifs" of terrorism. We have the evidence of its existence and possibilities since 9-11: the Spanish airport bombing,the British subway train bombing, and the foiled airline plots to name a few. And, these were not a TV show.
None of this glazes over the debacle of Iraq, Had we fought the Iraq war with foresight and clarity, we might be in a different spot now. And, it is not going away.
My suggestion is that the "powers that be" need to give an adjunct job to the writers of 24. Mostly, what I think they could do is show us how to combat those who want to destroy our way of life and help us to get on with it. At the very least, we need to keep Jack Bauer handy. God bless us. KT
Related Article:
All About Jack Bauer and TV Show 24(Three articles about Jack Bauer and The TV Show 24)
| | |
(Marine Corps/Sgt. Brian M. Henner/Handout/Reuters)
|
In a sense, the inequities of war are nobody's fault. Here is a good example. NPR(National Public Radio) reported on a support soldier in Iraq who is a bigtime bird watcher.
He has chronicled all his bird watching on a blog(now a book-Birding Babylon: A Soldier's Journal from Iraq) .
This is an example of the incredible ingenuity of soldiers. He has been doing this since he was fourteen and so this isn't something new. He is in the National Guard, but his job's difficulty is based on where he is deployed in the country. He is in a safe environment, by in large, not involved in life and death struggles. In many ways, he is able to take his year and do something useful. Because he is a support soldier; he is not involved in day to day combat. Based on his great love of bird watching, his year in Iraq has been great. He has made good money, comes home a hero, life is good.
Contrast this with a combat soldier in Iraq. The combat soldier's life is on the line everyday and he sees his buddies killed and wounded. The duties of the "birder" and the combat soldier are hardly equitable in the big picture. This isn't a put down of the "birder" soldier. More power to him for using his year productively. But, an example of the inequities of war.
It was the same in Vietnam. We had nine support soldiers for every single combat soldier. Many lived the "life of Riley" so to speak. I met this Sergeant Major who was in Vietnam for five years. Know what his job was? Ferrying USO show girls or the local entertainers to various NCO (non-commissioned officer) clubs in and around Saigon. He made so much money that he paid cash for his house.
Why is this important? It is only in terms of understanding. All wartime soldiering is not equal.
Originally written January 22, 2005, but still relevant today as it was in Vietnam
| | |
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
|
In our Republic, we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are governed by the very wealthy. Our new Speaker of the House of Representatives is probably the wealthiest member of Congress or one of them for sure. Is this bad? I don't know.
Just recently I read where the next presidential election will probably cost $1 billion meaning each parties candidate will need to raise $500 million. Who can do this? Who has the connections or power or money to do this? Certainly not the "average joe". Bill Clinton was an exception and had already been in public office for years.
What we hope is that in our very peculiar type of American pluralism, wealthy means that pluralism is a cornerstone of governing. Plainly put, this means basically that in a land of various minorities, the majority insures that the minority rights are preserved; in our case, insuring the poor or those less fortunate have a voice. This is very tricky in a country of 300 million citizens, not to mention all the other groups who may not even be citizens but who have a stake, i. e., illegal immigrants.
To be honest, I think we are doing pretty well. But, I'm not sure that overall, it is good for us to have only the wealthy in office. Are those who have never known the pain of hunger or racial discrimination truly the best to govern?
KT
| | |
(AP Photos/Bebeto Matthews)
|
Today, we hear lots about hero soldiers in Iraq. And, in a sense, it is good. It trivializes heroism a bit because all soldiers are not heroes just because they are soldiers. They are doing their jobs; it is what they have chosen.
Being in a war zone, in some measure, automatically qualifies a person as a hero. I believe it. But, like in all situations, there is a degree of danger, of sacrifice, and even of commitment.
Without a long definition of hero, let's say on occasion someone does something so self-sacrificing that the word "hero" is truly applicable: The soldier, who without thinking, places himself in danger like jumping on a grenade(God Forbid) to save others or a soldier, who in the course of fighting, stands in the "breach" so to speak and dukes it out with the enemy. To call someone who does this in war a hero is not a hard thing to do; they are heroes.
But, there's another type of person who fits in a different category. What about the person going about his daily business and is hit suddenly with a situation that requires the ultimate sacrifice? Take for example, Wesley Autrey, the father of two children who jumped onto the New York City subway tracks and saved a young man. What made him do it? Is he a hero? Yes.
We can psychobabble all we want too, but without a doubt, we are talking hero. Was it his Navy training or some sort of innate response that made him different? I don't know, but he's a hero.
Wesley's individual sermonette to us has to be, "Would we do as Wesley did, without thinking? Are we inner directed enough?"
Let's apply the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan. Jesus tells the story to teach a lesson. A man(stranger) has been beaten by robbers. Those who happened on the man crossed to the other side, even the religious types. Finally a Good Samaritan(Samaritans were despised by the Jews at that time) stops and helps the man. Jesus, then asked the question "Who was the neighbor to this stranger?" Good story.
However, to make it applicable to us, what about this? We happen by the man while he is being assaulted by the robbers. What would we do? Wesley Autrey would jump in and help. Would we? God bless Wesley. His selfless act inspires me. KT
| | |
|
New Book: VietVet Memoir 
Commentary