policy with pop

Never Back Down from a Fight?

Given the title and the trailer, one would think Never Back Down is just an MMA (mixed martial arts) movie. But, there’s a little more to it.

Never Back Down takes The Next Karate Kid’s plot, mixes it with The O.C.’s teenage angst, and adds the over glorified scenery of The Fast & the Furious to make a predictable but action-packed film.

Now I actually enjoyed Never Back Down. I’m not saying it is Oscar worthy, but it was entertaining. While the movie is predictable, the fight scenes were pretty cool and realistic-looking. More impressive though is that lead Sean Faris showcased major acting chops alongside two-time Academy Award nominee Dijmon Hounsou. However, I’m sure movie watchers will focus more on the pretty people and the punches, kicks, grapples and chokeholds.

While it was an action flick, Never Back Down also tries to impart an important message – fight for a good reason. Now the message may be a little skewed because of all the fighting going on and the title Never Back Down seems to suggest otherwise, but the message is there (I think).

The movie actually discourages petty fighting. At first, Faris’ character, Jake Tyler, seemed to fight anyone who insulted him and his past. However, training with Mr. Miyagi Jean Roqua (Hounsou) eased that anger and gave him discipline. In fact, Roqua instituted a rule that Jake could not fight outside the dojo or he’d be kicked out.  

Moreover, when school bully Ryan McCarthy (played by Cam Gigandet) takes actions to provoke a physical response from Jake, Jake’s love interest points out, “Walking away and giving up are not the same thing.”

But, ultimately, Jake concludes that everyone’s got a fight. Fighting in self-defense and for the protection of others appears to be ok in his book movie.

Do you think fighting is acceptable if it is justified? What qualifies as a justified reason? Self-defense? Defense of others? Defending one’s honor? Promoting one’s reputation?

Or is non-violence always the answer?

Anthony Woods: The Democrats' New Dream Candidate?

Move over President Obama, there is a new groundbreaking candidate and campaign in town.

Anthony Woods at 29 years of age already has a compelling life story similar to the President’s background. Like Obama, Woods grew up in a very modest, single-mother household. Both are also African American men who happen to be Democrats and Harvard-educated.
 
But Woods is not an Obama clone. He stands in his own right as a historic candidate. Woods is a decorated Iraq War veteran, earning the bronze star for commanding 81 soldiers, who all returned home safely.

Woods’ bravery does not end at the battlefield. While attending the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Woods stood up against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and subsequently was discharged. As a result, he lost his military funding for school. Yet, Woods persevered and completed his master’s degree in public policy. Afterwards, he became an economic policy specialist. Now he’s running for Congress.

Anthony Woods may be Democrats’ dream candidate post-Obama’s victory. Woods breaks stereotypes in every way liberals could hope for. He’s black. He’s gay. He’s an Iraq War vet. He’s Harvard and West Point educated. He comes from humble beginnings. No story could be written better.

Because of his unique life, Woods has earned national attention, fundraised impressive amounts, and attracted a loyal base of supporters.

But, winning California’s 10th congressional seat in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher, who left the seat to take an appointment in the State Department, will not be easy for Woods. He runs against not one but three Democratic-establishment candidates. They are California’s Lt. Governor John Garamendi, state Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan and state Senator Mark DeSulnier.  The three Sacramento politicians have better name identification. But, ultimately, voter turnout in this special election will decide the winner.

The Democrat with the most votes in the primary will likely win the election outright. Sound familiar? Well, if Woods wins on September 1st, it may be one of the biggest political upsets in history, rivaling that of Obama’s victory against the Clinton machine. I’m almost certain a movie will be made if that occurs.

But, if Woods does not pull off a political upset in Northern California, he should take comfort in the fact that Obama lost his election for a congressional seat in Illinois in 2000.

Kings, No Queens: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Thanks to Hulu.com I have found a new show to watch – Kings. I’ve only seen the first episode of the NBC drama so far, but its strong storytelling makes it a compelling watch.

Set in a fictional world, Kings follows the inner turmoil of the absolute monarchy in the country of Gilboa. The first episode starts with the country at war. Modest farm-boy turned soldier David Shepherd emerges as a national hero after rescuing captured soldiers, including Prince Jack Benjamin, from enemy lines. 

As David is celebrated as Gilboa’s golden boy by both the country and King Silas, Jack is jealous and feels resentment towards his father. The playboy prince confronts Silas, wanting to know why his father does not give him the respect he deserves as a soldier and as his son. Startling revelations are revealed in their heated conversation. Watch:

This scene immediately made me think about the national debate on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, in which gay military personnel are discharged if their sexual orientation is revealed.

Originally enacted during the 1990’s, President Clinton hoped to find a compromised solution that would allow the LGBT community to serve in the military. Before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military did not allow any gay people to join the military. Once enacted, the law allows gay people to serve if they hide their orientation. If not, they’re kicked out.

Proponents of the policy argue that openly accepting gay military members hurts military morale and cohesion. Some argue that many recruits have conservative beliefs and would not feel comfortable being around openly gay people. They argue that this tension would hinder military performance. So just like Silas, they essentially argue that LGBT servicemen should “wrestle it to the ground.”

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is criticized by opponents as a policy that is degrading, unfair and hurts military power. They argue the notion that heterosexuals can’t serve with openly homosexual soldiers insults the professionalism of our straight men and women in uniform. Other countries allow for LGBT people to serve openly without a decrease in cohesiveness or morale. Moreover, opponents say that the policy is degrading as it forces gay people to hide who they are. And, finally, they argue that discharging needed military men and women, especially in time of war, is dangerous. Arabic translators are in high demand in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; however, more than 50 Arabic translators have been discharged because of “Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask” since the policy’s inception.

A number of people have called for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” including President Clinton’s wife (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) and a number of military higher-ups. President Obama has also stated he would like to see the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” His actions on this issue, however, have been… well… minimal at best. And congressional leaders, at least in the Senate, seem hesitant to put this issue up to a vote.

As politicians struggle with the future of this policy, what do you think? Should we take a King Silas approach and ask our gay men and women to hide who they are? Or would that mentality underestimate the professionalism of our straight servicemen and be an insult to the LGBT community? And what do you think is the best strategic military option?

Price for Truth: Scott McClellan's White House Tell-All

What Happened, the forthcoming memoir by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, is causing a political firestorm on Capitol Hill. McClellan is set to release the tell-all, in which he claims that the White House was a “political propaganda machine” that misled the public about the reason to go to war with Iraq. He also has less than kind things to say about strategist Karl Rove, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby (the former chief of staff to the Vice President) and even President George W. Bush.

As liberals find confirmation for their charges against the Bush administration, some conservatives are crying fowl. Bob Dole, a former senator and 1998 GOP presidential nominee, called McClellan a “miserable creature.” Dole believes that if McClellan had reservations about the war, McClellan should have spoken up or resigned at the time, instead of being a silent coward and enjoying the perks of his presidential position. Moreover, Dole is disgusted that McClellan is stating these charges to publicize and sell his book.

Interestingly enough, a liberal friend of mine, who is a young Iraq War veteran, recently emailed me asking me to sign a petition pressuring McClellan to donate proceeds of his book to an Iraq veterans groups. The petition, sponsored by MoveOn.org, argues that McClellan was an important player in promoting those alleged lies that led us into war and thus should not profit from those alleged lies.

What do you think about McClellan’s charges against the Bush administration and the timing of them? And, does McClellan have a moral obligation to donate his book’s proceeds to a group that helps Iraq War veterans?  Or is it socially acceptable the he make a pretty penny off his book given we’re in a world, where celebrities sell their newborn’s baby-picture to tabloids for millions of dollars?

I’d love to hear your thoughts and discuss them with you. Oh, and I want to know if you plan to buy his book. So comment away please.

(Thank you to my cousin, who served in the Iraq War, for supplying the picture.)