I saw V for Vendetta......

I went and saw V for Vendetta the other day. It was, as I had been told, a very good film. A very good propaganda film. I don’t mean that in a bad way. It is good film, very interesting, captivating even. But propaganda.

I won’t spoil the plot for anyone who hasn’t seen it but it is about what happens when people give up freedom for security. It delves into the depths of political depravity and corruption. The hero is an anonymous victim of the government who has become an avenger. A poetic, lyrical, homicidal loon but an avenger and a fighter for all that is good and pure. A fanatic willing to do whatever it takes to bring down the corrupt government. And his at first unwilling accomplice, Evie. Natalie Portman does a very good job playing this girl. She is at first saved by the avenger, then used by him. Then there is a plot twist I will not delve into yet but it demonstrates the absolute inhumanity of V’s obsession with revenge.

It is hard to write this without giving away the plot. I may decide it is worth it to blow the story but not yet. The villain of course is a conservative Christian fanatic who is willing to do whatever he has to in order to take power. He is a hypocrite, as of course is the other “Christian”, a bishop of the church of England, depicted in the show. In fact eh only good and noble people depicted in the show are a homosexual TV show host, Evie, and a dead woman whose letters are used by V to influence Evie. Wait, there is a police investigator who investigates what is going on and is willing to look into the secrets of the government. Then of course there are the common folk of England who all seem eminently unflappable and brimming with common sense. (I somehow suspect that the writer of the original graphic novel is English) America is pretty much out of the story, we have collapsed into civil war and anarchy.

I guess what bothers me about this film is the protagonist V. He is a terrorist and a killer. Or a freedom fighter, after all, one mans’ terrorist and all that. People I know speak of the film and view V as a hero, a man to emulate. But you know, I have talked to people like him. People with the same tone to their voice, the same certainty in their actions, I would say the same look in their eyes but you never see V’s eyes. Who are these people that have that surety of purpose? Taliban and Al Queda extremists who are talking about how they need to destroy western civilization, to free mankind from our corrupt and destroying influence.

So I guess I have a problem with the film. I liked it, I might buy it when it comes out on DVD but V is not the man to emulate.
Go, watch it, tell me what you think.

A martyr for the cause???

Zacarias Moussaoui gave the prosecution in his death penalty case everything they could hope for in his testimony a couple of days ago. He confessed to knowing about the Sept 11 attacks in advance, he confessed to lying about them to the FBI so they could go off as planned, he confessed to buying a radio in prison so he could listen to them when they happened. And to top it off he confessed to being the pilot for a planned 5th plane that he was to fly into the White House. He celebrated his efforts on the witness stand. He is almost certain to get the death penalty now.

But.....

Frankly I think he is lying through his teeth. A fifth plane? How can he say he was to pilot a fifth plane when he also claims only to have known about the two for the World Trade Center? And Richard Reid????? The "Shoe Bomber" was supposed to be his accomplish in this? Who else? Two aren't enough to pull it off. There were 19 hijackers for 4 planes on Sept 11. Other Al Queda operatives have said that Moussaoui was a light weight. He wasn't considered dependable enough to trust with such a serious mission. (which I grant you is exactly what I would say about a team mate that I wanted to save too)
It sounds to me as though Moussaoui is trying real hard to get himself built up to a major player so he can get what he wants, martyrdom. IF he dies in his cause he believes he will be rewarded in heaven. What kind of reward do you get if you live in a cage for the rest of your natural life? Probably not the virgins in paradise. Now I am normally a supporter of the death penalty. There are certain crimes that cry out for death, and frankly, I consider it much more humane that life in a cage, but in this case I am not interested in being humane. He wants mayrtyrdom, he wants to die for his cause. Well, let's not let him. Let's keep him alive for a long, LONG time. Let him die a sick, feeble, old failure of man.

No Fire....

I was told the other day that my posts recently haven't had much "fire" to them. No Passion. He said the exception was the one explaining my thoughts on the Mercy Killing scenarios. I kind of thought I had some going on the illegal immigrants thing or the Katrina voting drivel but I can see why he might not think so. Really, there isn't a whole lot going on right now that really lights me up. I mean the whole war thing is pretty much down to "Trench Warfare" now. Those who are convinced that "BUSH LIED!" and "WE need to GET OUT NOW!" aren't going to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. And those who Cry "Support the Troops!" and "Support Bush" aren't either. Everyone runs around listening to others to think the same way they do and getting all their information from Blogs that write what they want to hear.
Seriously, Am I the only person who goes out and finds people's blogs that are diametrically opposed to what I think? I am a regular contributor on several like that. I am not always sure they appreciate my presence. Actually I suppose some must because every once and a while one of them pops up here. But not often.
Maybe I should just stick to telling Afghan stories and putting up my latest cooking endeavor. Food usually gets a pretty good response.

At any rate, on a less angsty topic, Go out and read Sergei Golubitsky's book, Fencing is my Life. Even if you aren't a fencer it is quite interesting see the kind of training that a top. (VERY TOP) international athlete goes through. It also gives an interesting view of the collapse of the Soviet Union from one of the Athletes inside it's massive sports program.

Back again

I am back from working in my sisters house for awhile and will address the questions I posed in my last post. Thanks to those who commented. Although frankly I was a bit surprised by how few commnets there were. But then, my readership is falling off too so I guess it works out.

Situation one: In the 1840s, a male Native American sees female from a warring tribe staked to tree and being set on fire by females from the raiding tribe. The male, from the raiding tribe, shoots female tied to tree through heart killing her before she is engulfed in flames.

I would say yes. Although the arguement could be raised that he could have ridden down there and stopped it. Frankly I doubt that this is a true event. I don't think many raiding parties took their women with them on raids thus the odds are agaisnt this happening.

2. In the Iraq War, an Iraqi insurgent is fleeing from U.S. forces in a civilian vehicle. During the chase he is shot in the head, creating a gaping wound from the back of the skull to the front of the skull, 1 inch wide and 6 inches long. Brain matter is exposed and a part “the size of a man’s fist” is blown out. The medic assesses the insurgent and concludes that “there is nothing that can be done for him” and informs the leader of the operation he is going to die. Although unconscious, the insurgent’s arm is moving in a ratcheting motion, and appears to be a reflex motion of some sort. He has lost 1½ liters of blood. Air evacuation is not authorized, and the insurgent objectively appears to be suffering. The leader of the operation shoots the insurgent in the head killing him.

Yes, I can see the justification for this and would probably do it too. I admit to being a bit biased on this one as I know the guy who was the shooter.

3. During the Falklands War, a Prisoner of War is voluntarily moving munitions, when a round explodes. The POW is caught on fire, and can be seen moving clearly through the flames. A medic attempts to get to the POW, but the heat of the fire is too great. The British medic fires 4 rounds into the POW until he stops moving.

Yes. I would do the same. The question was raised in the commnets of the previous post about the availability of a hose or fire extinguisher or just geting the guy to stop drop and roll. Ammo fires are very hot and the whole area was in all likelyhood engulfed in flames. I would have shot him and hope that if I were in a similar situation, someone would shoot me. Burning alive is NOT my prefered method of dying.

4. A Solider sees movement on the ground in front of him and cautiously investigates. It is a wounded Vietnamese Soldier, injured the night before in a battle. He is lying there with half a meter of intestines spread over the ground. A closer look revealed that most of his head was blown off, exposing his brain tissue. His arms and legs were twitching as if trying to crawl; his face was in the dirt with his entrails pierced by sticks. His bloodied body was covered in dirt and leaves, and digested rice was oozing out of the large shrapnel wound in his slashed stomach. The Soldier shoots him twice in the heart, killing him.

Yes again. Why leave a man to suffer? Although shooting him is a big dangerous as it advertises you presence to any other enemy soldiers in the area.

5. In the Vietnam War, near a downed helicopter, a U.S. Ranger found a U.S. Soldier who was staked to the ground by his hands, feet, and neck. His face was scared and mutilated, and he had been skinned from the upper chest to his waist. His flesh had been eaten by flies, maggots and jungle animals, exposing his intestines. The Soldier was still clinging to life, but moving him would almost certainly kill him. Still conscious, the Soldier begs the Ranger to kill him. The Ranger shoots the Soldier in the head, killing him instantly.

Same as 4. Without hesitation.

6. A U.S. Soldier is evacuated to a field hospital in Iraq. He has sustained massive head trauma, exposing brain matter, some of which was blown out. He has also lost both legs and one arm when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device. The Soldier is not expected to live more than an hour, and is miraculously fading “in and out” of consciousness. Expecting the Soldier to die shortly, the attending surgeon administers an analgesic that will eliminate any pain, and certainly shorten his life. The soldier dies 10 minutes after the administration of the analgesic.

Frankly I am not sure if this counts as a mecy killing. It is not specified that the doctor deliuberatly gave him a lethal does, just enough to remove pain and "cerainly shorten his life." Hardly fits it with the other cases. I rather suspect decisions like this are made in emergency rooms across the country daily with no fanfare at all.

7. In 1799, French troops are marching through Syria on a campaign against the Turks. During the campaign, 50 French troops are stricken with the bubonic plague, and are dying in a military hospital. The prognosis for the troops is grave, and none can be evacuated on their own. The Turks are closing in on the hospital, and will be there within hours. Knowing the tortuous fate of the French Soldiers in the hands of the Turks, poison is administered to all 50 French troops stricken with bubonic plague and all but 7 die.

Probably not justified. Althugh the Turks had a well deserved reputation for brutality I don't think this was a proper course. Volunteer doctors should have remained with the patients and and surrendered. That being said, there may have bben some actual reason to uspect the Turks would slaughter them all although it is clear that they didn't as there were survivors of the poison, the plauge, and the Turks. A bad call and un justified in my mind.

8. During World War II, in the Burma Campaign, 19 British Soldiers are severely wounded. The doctor estimates they all will die in a matter of hours. The wounds are horrific; from complete loss of the body from the hips down, to gaping head wounds, to exposed intestines. The doctor estimates he can save 30 different soldiers if the troops carrying the 19 can be used to evacuate the 30. The Japanese are hours away from closing in on the British location. The commander orders that none of the his Soldiers shall see the Japanese. The 19 Soldiers are each shot in the head by the doctor.

Yes, justified although the commander should have done it himself rather than passing responsibility on to the doctor.

9. During World War I, the British were battling the Germans in prolonged trench warfare. A British Soldier is severely wounded by artillery, and has lost a leg and an arm. Bleeding profusely, the Soldier is unable to be moved because he is in “no man’s land” between the trenches, and is expected to die. A medic administers a lethal dose of morphine to the wounded soldiers.

Probably not. Many severly wounded men were brought out of No Man's land allduring the war. In fact truces were often called for just that reason. Apply a touniquet and leave him for later collection.

As for ranking them from the most moral to the least, well all of the ones I felt were justified are in my mind equalling oral. the least defensible one was the last, followed by the french doctors and the plauge victims.

Mercy killing have ALWAYS happened in wars. Always. And I do think it is a defendable and justified action. Prehaps a bit less so now with the advent of truely effective medical evacuatioin and the better trauma treatment available today. but in times when there is not evacuation possible and it is realtivly clear that the person is doomed anyway. Do it. I would, and as stated above, I would hope those with me would do it for me.

An interesting survey....

I received this little qustionaire recently from an Army Lawer who described it thusly:

I am now working on my Master's of Law degree at The Judge Advocate General's School, and as part of that degree, writing a thesis on mercy killings. As part of the thesis, I have traced the history of combat-related mercy killings, and created a short survey regarding actual scenarios. All but one are actual incidents. I am trying to gauge the morality of different historical examples of combat-related mercy killings. Although the survey is not scientifically reliable, it will help in generating conversations and discussions about such conduct.

He sent it out to a lot of people who had posted on mercy killings or extensivly on the war in Iraq. I thought it was interesting enough to repost (with his permission) I look forward to seeing your comments. YOU will note that I have not included my answers to these questions. (yet) I am more curious as to what you say and will put mine in the comment when I get close to a computer in a week or so.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please read the following scenarios and highlight or circle the answer to the question following each scenario. At the end, please list the scenarios in order of morally appropriate conduct, with the most moral being first, and the least moral being last.

Killing Scenarios

Scenario A – In the 1840s, a male Native American sees female from a warring tribe staked to tree and being set on fire by females from the raiding tribe. The male, from the raiding tribe, shoots female tied to tree through heart killing her before she is engulfed in flames.

Is the killing moral? Absolutely • Probably • Unsure • Probably Not • Absolutely Not

Scenario B – In the Iraq War, an Iraqi insurgent is fleeing from U.S. forces in a civilian vehicle. During the chase he is shot in the head, creating a gaping wound from the back of the skull to the front of the skull, 1 inch wide and 6 inches long. Brain matter is exposed and a part “the size of a man’s fist” is blown out. The medic assesses the insurgent and concludes that “there is nothing that can be done for him” and informs the leader of the operation he is going to die. Although unconscious, the insurgent’s arm is moving in a ratcheting motion, and appears to be a reflex motion of some sort. He has lost 1½ liters of blood. Air evacuation is not authorized, and the insurgent objectively appears to be suffering. The leader of the operation shoots the insurgent in the head killing him.

Is the killing moral? Absolutely • Probably • Unsure • Probably Not • Absolutely Not


Scenario C – During the Falklands War, a Prisoner of War is voluntarily moving munitions, when a round explodes. The POW is caught on fire, and can be seen moving clearly through the flames. A medic attempts to get to the POW, but the heat of the fire is too great. The British medic fires 4 rounds into the POW until he stops moving.

Is the killing moral? Absolutely • Probably • Unsure • Probably Not • Absolutely Not

Scenario D – A Solider sees movement on the ground in front of him and cautiously investigates. It is a wounded Vietnamese Soldier, injured the night before in a battle. He is lying there with half a meter of intestines spread over the ground. A closer look revealed that most of his head was blown off, exposing his brain tissue. His arms and legs were twitching as if trying to crawl; his face was in the dirt with his entrails pierced by sticks. His bloodied body was covered in dirt and leaves, and digested rice was oozing out of the large shrapnel wound in his slashed stomach. The Soldier shoots him twice in the heart, killing him.

Is the killing moral? Absolutely • Probably • Unsure • Probably Not • Absolutely Not

Scenario E – In the Vietnam War, near a downed helicopter, a U.S. Ranger found a U.S. Soldier who was staked to the ground by his hands, feet, and neck. His face was scared and mutilated, and he had been skinned from the upper chest to his waist. His flesh had been eaten by flies, maggots and jungle animals, exposing his intestines. The Soldier was still clinging to life, but moving him would almost certainly kill him. Still conscious, the Soldier begs the Ranger to kill him. The Ranger shoots the Soldier in the head, killing him instantly.

Is the killing moral? Absolutely • Probably • Unsure • Probably Not • Absolutely Not

Scenario F – A U.S. Soldier is evacuated to a field hospital in Iraq. He has sustained massive head trauma, exposing brain matter, some of which was blown out. He has also lost both legs and one arm when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device. The Soldier is not expected to live more than an hour, and is miraculously fading “in and out” of consciousness. Expecting the Soldier to die shortly, the attending surgeon administers an analgesic that will eliminate any pain, and certainly shorten his life. The soldier dies 10 minutes after the administration of the analgesic.

Is the killing moral? Absolutely • Probably • Unsure • Probably Not • Absolutely Not

Scenario G – In 1799, French troops are marching through Syria on a campaign against the Turks. During the campaign, 50 French troops are stricken with the bubonic plague, and are dying in a military hospital. The prognosis for the troops is grave, and none can be evacuated on their own. The Turks are closing in on the hospital, and will be there within hours. Knowing the tortuous fate of the French Soldiers in the hands of the Turks, poison is administered to all 50 French troops stricken with bubonic plague and all but 7 die.

Are the killings moral? Absolutely • Probably • Unsure • Probably Not • Absolutely Not

Scenario H – During World War II, in the Burma Campaign, 19 British Soldiers are severely wounded. The doctor estimates they all will die in a matter of hours. The wounds are horrific; from complete loss of the body from the hips down, to gaping head wounds, to exposed intestines. The doctor estimates he can save 30 different soldiers if the troops carrying the 19 can be used to evacuate the 30. The Japanese are hours away from closing in on the British location. The commander orders that none of the his Soldiers shall see the Japanese. The 19 Soldiers are each shot in the head by the doctor.

Are the killings moral? Absolutely • Probably • Unsure • Probably Not • Absolutely Not
(But the commander should have had the balls to do it himself if he wanted it done.)
Scenario I – During World War I, the British were battling the Germans in prolonged trench warfare. A British Soldier is severely wounded by artillery, and has lost a leg and an arm. Bleeding profusely, the Soldier is unable to be moved because he is in “no man’s land” between the trenches, and is expected to die. A medic administers a lethal dose of morphine to the wounded soldiers.

Is the killing moral? Absolutely • Probably • Unsure • Probably Not • Absolutely Not

Scenario Rankings – From the most moral to the least moral, please list the scenario.

1. ___ 2. ___ 3. ___ 4. ___ 5. ___ 6. ___ 7. ___ 8. ___ 9. ___

Illegal Immigration

People keep making a big fuss about our porous borders and how many illegals are swarming into our country. Usually when they do this they start talking about walls, fences, militarization of the border, and penalties for illegals in the country. Sounds a lot like the "War on Drugs". And it will be about as successful. (i.e. Not at all)
If you want to stop the importation of a product, in this case illegal aliens, you do not try to cut off the supply because that will not work. As long as there is a demand the supply will keep coming. You have to cut off the demand. How do you do this? Well by implementing strict and harsh penalties on people who knowingly hire illegal workers. a 5 or 6 thousand dollar a head fine would be a good start. If companies were facing that kind of penalty they would make damn sure the people they hired were legal. IF no one hires the illegals they will stop coming. They will go somewhere they can get a job and earn money.
Of course this won't happen because some will scream that it is discriminating against Hispanics. NO, the law wouldn't do that. Certain companies might do that in the "better safe than sorry" approach to hiring but that could be settled pretty quickly in the regular courts system with lawsuits against discrimination.
The bigger problem of course is that no one really wants to stop the flow of cheap labor. They would rather rant and scream, and have a political ax to grind than do something. They realize that if the cheap labor went away prices would jump all across the country for everything from groceries to houses. (especially groceries)
The politicians would rather throw money away at walls and "border security" than solve the problem in the only way it can be solved. Because that way there is a big thing they can show their constituents, and no one at home is getting hurt by having to pay fines or higher prices. (higher taxes eventually but that is in the future, and who cares about that?) Expect a lot of thud and blunder but nothing that will actually accomplish much.

On a different note, I will be away next week working on the house my sister bought. I will have no internet access while doing this so I will be out of touch. Have fun all.

Why?

Ok, what makes the Katrina evacuees special?
I was listening to the radio again and heard a group of people complaining that there are not plans to set up satellite voting centers all across the US so the Katrina victims can vote in an upcoming election "in person". Apparently expecting them to do like everyone else in the country who is displaced, namely absentee ballots, will disenfranchise them.
Why? What the hell makes them special? I mean not even soldiers get special satellite voting centers. If you want to vote and you aren't at home you have to do an absentee ballot. Why are the Katrina evacuees special? Answer, they aren't. If they can't fill out the form to get an absentee ballot then TOUGH LUCK!.


If you think I am wrong tell me why.

Corporate cannibalism and incest

Well, I am sure somewhere there has been a more blatant example of corporate cannibalism and incest but it would be hard to fine. In 1984 the US government broke up Ma Bell, AT&T that is, into several "Baby Bells" which in short order began to eat one another through corporate takeovers. Then last year, one of the Baby Bells, SBC, ate Mama by buying At&T. Now to continue the cycle At&T as a subsidiary of SBC is trying to buy Bell South, one of the last of the Baby Bells.
She's backkkkk....... Ma Bell is back. (pending of course governmental approval of the merger.)
Strange, strange, strange.

On a different note, I got an email from a friend today that said

You a’re the #6 result on Google for a search for "“exmi". #2 on Yahoo. And #1 on MSN.

Too bad that doesn't get me more hits. But I thought it was humorous.

Food, food, glorious food.....

My roommate and dear friend, Stephalopogus just moved out and I fixed her dinner before she went. Afghan chicken. It is a simple recipe:

*2 large Cloves garlic
* 1/2 tablespoon of Salt
* 2 cups Plain, whole-milk Yogurt
* Juice and pulp of 1 large lemon, 3-4 tablespoons
* 1/2 tablespoons cracked black pepper
* 2 large Whole chicken breasts, about 2 pounds

Put the salt in a wide, shallow non-reactive bowl with the garlic and mash them together until you have paste. Add yogurt, lemon and pepper.
Skin the chicken breasts, remove all visible fat and separate the halves. Bend each backward to break the bones so the pieces win lie flat. Add to the yogurt and turn so all surfaces are well-coated.
Cover the bowl tightly and refrigerate. Allow to marinate at least overnight up to a day and a half. Turn when you think of it.
To cook, remove breasts from marinade and wipe off all but a thin film. Broil or grill about 6 inches from the heat for 6 to 8 minutes a side or until thoroughly cooked. Meat will brown somewhat but should not char. Serve at once.

It says it should be served with flatbread and yogurt. So I also made Nan and served it up. We weren't really sure what to do with the yogurt, put it on the bread, on the chicken, eat it on the side? We tried all three options but generally preferred the chicken without it. Over all though, a very successful meal. My variations on the recipe included using boneless chicken thighs instead of breasts because that is what I had in the house, I also didn't mix the marinade ingredients in the way described. I just dumped them all into the yogurt and stirred.