Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Oscars and the Dead
The death of Heath Ledger has created a firestorm of speculation regarding a possible nomination and Academy Award for best actor. Most of the articles focus on how rare it is for the Academy to bestow an award upon a dead actor.
Veteran Oscar watcher O'Neil said was quoted in an article as saying "These awards are all about hugs and there's something creepy about embracing the dead."
Funny, I though the awards were about honoring the best actors, films, filmmakers, and other film production staffs. If the best just happens to pass away during that year this makes his/her work no longer the best? The person was alive while the work was created, just not during award season!
This just shows that the awards are not about honoring the best in the business. The voting is not based on who was the best but on who the voter "feels" is most deserving at that time of the award, regardless of the quality of the competition. This is how we get Shakespeare in Love and George Clooney Oscars.
Why bother to honor the dead? It is not like they can personally get the award. Hollywood likes a story and celebrates its own history. That is why the Oscars are called the 75th Oscars and not the 2008 Oscars. Near the end of every Oscar telecast there is a montage film of those actors and industry participants who passed away during that year. Hollywood needs the dead and should honor a deserving dead actor.
This entire discussion could be moot if another actor puts on a stronger performance or a strong performance which is equally deserving of an Oscar. But the debate about whether or not to grant a posthumous award at all, even to a deserving recipient is ridiculous.
Veteran Oscar watcher O'Neil said was quoted in an article as saying "These awards are all about hugs and there's something creepy about embracing the dead."
Funny, I though the awards were about honoring the best actors, films, filmmakers, and other film production staffs. If the best just happens to pass away during that year this makes his/her work no longer the best? The person was alive while the work was created, just not during award season!
This just shows that the awards are not about honoring the best in the business. The voting is not based on who was the best but on who the voter "feels" is most deserving at that time of the award, regardless of the quality of the competition. This is how we get Shakespeare in Love and George Clooney Oscars.
Why bother to honor the dead? It is not like they can personally get the award. Hollywood likes a story and celebrates its own history. That is why the Oscars are called the 75th Oscars and not the 2008 Oscars. Near the end of every Oscar telecast there is a montage film of those actors and industry participants who passed away during that year. Hollywood needs the dead and should honor a deserving dead actor.
This entire discussion could be moot if another actor puts on a stronger performance or a strong performance which is equally deserving of an Oscar. But the debate about whether or not to grant a posthumous award at all, even to a deserving recipient is ridiculous.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Article Featuring Me: Online Education
I just dug this article up. The article was about online degrees and the reasons people obtain them. I was featured in the article as an online student.
Everything in the article is true, except for the MBA part. I probably won't complete that until 2010.
http://jobs.aol.com/article/onlinecampus/_a/speed-up-your-degree-opt-for-an/20071002131309990001
Everything in the article is true, except for the MBA part. I probably won't complete that until 2010.
http://jobs.aol.com/article/onlinecampus/_a/speed-up-your-degree-opt-for-an/20071002131309990001
Israel Returns Prisoners in Exchange for Dead Soldiers: Corrupt and Morally Bankrupt Actions
On Wednesday, 16 July 2008, the Israeli government exchanged live criminals in exchange for two dead soldiers’ remains. This was a result of a near unanimous decision in the Israeli parliament. New organizations are billing this as a close to the 2006 war which resulted from the kidnapping of the now returned soldiers’ bodies. The Israeli government has had a long standing policy of bringing their “boys” home, dead or alive at all costs.
The question I ask is: “What is the cost of such an exchange?”
It is mandatory that Israelis citizens of age must serve in the military. There are some exceptions to this but by and large, everyone serves in some capacity. I have not heard of any movement to abolish the mandatory service policy so I will assume that it will stay in place for the long term future.Therefore, there is no need for the military to have a public relations or marketing campaign to attract recruits. Surely, this policy would serve such a need but the need does not exist.
This leaves only two beneficiaries of the return policy: the deceased’s family and politicians.
I understand the idea of giving closure to the families of kidnapped of missing soldiers. An exchange does not solve this problem without possibly creating more families of deceased citizens as a result of repeat murderous offenses by those released. Israel has placed getting closure for these families above the lives of all other families in Israel.
I am not trying to be crass or insensitive, but a kidnapped soldier or a missing soldier should, given the nature of the enemy, be presumed dead. The only thing a returned body allows for is that single family to benefit. Why does it matter where the dead body is buried? Will those families offer solace to the new families that bury their children, brothers, sisters, and other loved ones in the same cemetery as a result of a repeated offense by one of the freed prisoners or the new and dangerous assaults made by an emboldened enemy?
It was an uneven exchange. The trade was not criminal for criminal or soldier for soldier. A murderous criminal serving a life sentence is not the equivalence of a victim of a crime or a soldier in a professional state army. A soldier is a defender of his government’s orders and policies. A murderer serves no purpose other than his own. It is not sanctioned by the government (although in this case it was recognized by the government as such). It is a private act of rage and destruction against a private citizen.
The international community has been absent in recognizing and distinguishing the types of prisoners that each side has. Israel should not be asked to return criminals in exchange for soldiers. These soldiers were kidnapped by an enemy state or government or group recognized by the government as a legitimate military force. As such, rules of combat should apply.
Imagine if Mexico kidnapped two American soldiers at the border and in exchange for the return of their remains wanted 400 Mexican gang members to be returned to their homeland. To take this one step further, these gang members would be set free upon their return and welcomed home as heroes. Even more, what if one of the gang members had murdered a Los Angeles police officer, a father right in front of his daughter, then the daughter, and caused the mother to smother her child in a failed attempt at saving both their lives from his murderous intentions? Now let us suppose such a deal is made. There is still a real possibility that those gang member prisoners can come back into the country and commit further crimes. Are you outraged? Does it seem uneven, even pointless to exchange the prisoners for the dead?
The international community, especially the German mediator, touted the exchange as necessary and a positive step in the right direction for the two sides. This statement shows a clear bias against the citizens of Israel. The government has acted in a corrupt and morally bankrupt manner in approving the exchanges. Political expediency and short-sighted thinking lead to a failed policy and a series of actions by the government that places a greater value on the dead than the living. By negotiating this exchange the International community and Israeli government legitimize the actions of the terrorist states and organizations. This creates a legitimate mode of action for the terrorists to free their criminal brethren.
The cost is too high. May the soldiers rest in peace, but perhaps they should not do so in Israel at the cost of future dead Israeli citizens. May the families find comfort in life, but not at the cost of future Israeli families losing a loved one. This policy must end.
The question I ask is: “What is the cost of such an exchange?”
It is mandatory that Israelis citizens of age must serve in the military. There are some exceptions to this but by and large, everyone serves in some capacity. I have not heard of any movement to abolish the mandatory service policy so I will assume that it will stay in place for the long term future.Therefore, there is no need for the military to have a public relations or marketing campaign to attract recruits. Surely, this policy would serve such a need but the need does not exist.
This leaves only two beneficiaries of the return policy: the deceased’s family and politicians.
I understand the idea of giving closure to the families of kidnapped of missing soldiers. An exchange does not solve this problem without possibly creating more families of deceased citizens as a result of repeat murderous offenses by those released. Israel has placed getting closure for these families above the lives of all other families in Israel.
I am not trying to be crass or insensitive, but a kidnapped soldier or a missing soldier should, given the nature of the enemy, be presumed dead. The only thing a returned body allows for is that single family to benefit. Why does it matter where the dead body is buried? Will those families offer solace to the new families that bury their children, brothers, sisters, and other loved ones in the same cemetery as a result of a repeated offense by one of the freed prisoners or the new and dangerous assaults made by an emboldened enemy?
It was an uneven exchange. The trade was not criminal for criminal or soldier for soldier. A murderous criminal serving a life sentence is not the equivalence of a victim of a crime or a soldier in a professional state army. A soldier is a defender of his government’s orders and policies. A murderer serves no purpose other than his own. It is not sanctioned by the government (although in this case it was recognized by the government as such). It is a private act of rage and destruction against a private citizen.
The international community has been absent in recognizing and distinguishing the types of prisoners that each side has. Israel should not be asked to return criminals in exchange for soldiers. These soldiers were kidnapped by an enemy state or government or group recognized by the government as a legitimate military force. As such, rules of combat should apply.
Imagine if Mexico kidnapped two American soldiers at the border and in exchange for the return of their remains wanted 400 Mexican gang members to be returned to their homeland. To take this one step further, these gang members would be set free upon their return and welcomed home as heroes. Even more, what if one of the gang members had murdered a Los Angeles police officer, a father right in front of his daughter, then the daughter, and caused the mother to smother her child in a failed attempt at saving both their lives from his murderous intentions? Now let us suppose such a deal is made. There is still a real possibility that those gang member prisoners can come back into the country and commit further crimes. Are you outraged? Does it seem uneven, even pointless to exchange the prisoners for the dead?
The international community, especially the German mediator, touted the exchange as necessary and a positive step in the right direction for the two sides. This statement shows a clear bias against the citizens of Israel. The government has acted in a corrupt and morally bankrupt manner in approving the exchanges. Political expediency and short-sighted thinking lead to a failed policy and a series of actions by the government that places a greater value on the dead than the living. By negotiating this exchange the International community and Israeli government legitimize the actions of the terrorist states and organizations. This creates a legitimate mode of action for the terrorists to free their criminal brethren.
The cost is too high. May the soldiers rest in peace, but perhaps they should not do so in Israel at the cost of future dead Israeli citizens. May the families find comfort in life, but not at the cost of future Israeli families losing a loved one. This policy must end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
