Hansel: Hotel Rwanda

In my opinion, first world countries have no particular responsibility to intervene when such political insanity occurs. What I picture America doing in such a crises is similar to the scene in which the United Nations officers threw his beret to the ground as he finds out that just the foreign nationals are to be evacuated. Another scene that looks similar to what I believe would happen if America intervened is the one in which the United Nations try to carry the refugees to safety only to be thwarted by the Hutu militia. My third scene that compares with America’s hypothetical involvement in Rwanda is the scene in which Paul calls Mr. Tillens, the Dutch owner of the hotel. We see Mr. Tillens in another country in a completely different situation. This mirrors how I feel most American civilians would feel about Rwanda. As discussed in class, Americans see Rwandans as the lowest of classes due to their different lifestyle. Thus, Americans do not care about the Rwandan genocide. I would also like to refer back to my first point: first world countries have no particular responsibility intervening when such political insanity occurs. I prefer a strong isolationist policy where it comes to intervening with foreign affairs. Interventionist policies are often fueled by imperialism. America believes that they are some sort of super power who can make everything better with the sweep of their hand and some AK-47s. We  believe that we can show countries the magic of democracy and crony capitalism and their country will be fine. In addition, we believe this with countries who have things that we need. Rwanda is not a particularly large exporter of things that United States consumes. Therefore, we do not very much care what is going on. Possibly if Rwanda had oil, we would have been over there cracking skulls and saving lives in no time. I would really like to say that first world countries with the resources should go and assist Rwanda in their times of struggle, but I know it would wind up getting botched somehow, instead of a simple act of charity or a sort of country companionship. 

Hansel: Human Trafficking

Image acquired from http://theinspirationroom.com

I do not believe the question should be as to what should the government do to put an end to human trafficking, but it should b “What should citizens do to help put an end to human trafficking?” I feel this way for two reasons.

The government will never be able to put an end to human trafficking, or any crime for that matter. This is why we should be careful when recommending policies. There is no perfect society in which things that most people see as bad do not happen. For that reason, I changed the question to include the word “help.” Anyone can do things to help human trafficking. Nobody can end it, even the government.

Going hand and hand with the idea that the government can help end human trafficking is the broad notion that government has to do something to help it. Why does government have to step in? Isn’t that just giving the government more power, which it will inevitably abuse? The Bush Administration instituted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act which set up standards and offices to combat the modern slavery. After fours years of the instituted program, advocates for the program were disappointed. What I don’t understand is how they are surprised. Is the United States government supposed to step in other countries and regulate their abductions and kidnapping? If we are consistent in our opinions on foreign affairs, than that appears to be an absolutely dreadful solution. Trying to add government regulations will not solve the problem, but just add more trouble for the government and increase spending.

Thus, the questions still remains, “What should citizens do to help put an end to human trafficking? I must admit, I did not know very much about human trafficking before we watched the film and read the articles. This, I feel, is the very issues. Not enough citizens are aware of this problem. The solution to this is not in government regulations or foreign affairs, but in the action of the citizens. We must fight human trafficking from the bottom-up, not from the top. If we continue to make citizens aware of this modern slavery through films, charities, private companies aiding the fight against human trafficking, then it will begin to appear in the public eye more often. Just look at environmentalism. It is still a problem, admittedly, but multiple corporations have taken aim in making things such as vehicles and house cleaning products that are more environmentally friendly in the midst of the growing concern for the environment. What I’m saying, basically, is that if we want change, we must cause it ourselves, and not depend on the government to solve all of our problems.

Hansel: District 9

I appreciate the social commentary of District 9 in their parallels with apartheid and xenophobia in general, but I think the filmmakers went about doing it in a way that almost took their credibility. The film gets a tad silly and hard to take seriously at times, particularly involving cat food for exchange. Silliness aside, I would like to address the message of the film that I enjoyed noting: xenophobia. The film shows how easy it is to despise a race of people because their customs and appearance. In the film, humans disown the aliens because of their appearance and behavior that humans found objectionable. This aspect obviously mirrors our idea of races and how cultural difference can separate societies. If we had looked past the differences, we would have cooperated with the prawns in order to better society in harmony with them. Instead, because of their ghastly cultural differences, we banish them and force them to a distinct part of the world. The parallels with the aliens fit well many a time, in my opinion. However, the Christopher Johnson story was hard to take seriously in the sense that he looks like a giant cricket but expresses sympathy, intelligence, and human body language and traits. In addition Christopher’s son was anything but cute and adorable. I realize that is the point the filmmakers tried to make, but I think science fiction writers must be careful when they make films that speak so much about society because they are bound by the fine line between silliness and respectable satire. Perhaps District 9 is supposed to be campy in some way, but they did not make it totally clear. The mockumentary style of film making was very creative and made the film much more entertaining to watch. It makes it more believable in a sense that if we were actually living through it, we would be viewing the story through media. In my opinion, this is one of the best formats for a socially topical film like this. It works for any film, however. I particularly remember from 2008, Quarantine being quite the scary film because of it's video camera plot style.

http://drnorth.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/distrcit-9-sign1.jpg

Hansel: Restrepo

The way Sebastian Junger wrote the article made it sound even more personal, how it was directed to Tim Hetherington personally. It shows how serious war media should be. I’m not saying every journalist should go out and risk their lives to get the news to people. Obviously, someone like a fashion or sports journalist would not be expected to do so. However it took pure journalistic passion of the two men to deploy themselves in Korengal Valley, one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan. I found it interesting that Junger mentioned the two journalists’ affinity for risk. It almost made them sound like soldiers themselves, like the guy who talked about how he does not know how he’ll make it back in America because of his love for shooting guns and the natural high that results. I imagine what kept them pushing through the terror they must have felt was the idea that they were going to get the truth to those whom have never seen what it’s like for soldiers in Afghanistan Media like this helps the overall mindset Americans have towards war, in my opinion. Through documentaries like Restrepo, civilians get a more accurate impression of what war is like now. This could affect their decisions in voting for a president that might be anti or pro-war. Regardless of how it makes them feel, it educates their standpoint more. Seeing numbers of how many soldiers died in a war has a temporary emotional impact, but not a lasting one. We see them as just numbers in a battle against the enemy. Through the documentary, we see them as human, not only in combat, but also eating and joking around with friends. The most affective scenes, in my opinion the ones in which the soldiers mention their family, like when the guy is working on his gun talking about his ranch back home. Also, when they are in the mess hall wrestling around with the cook, we get to see the human aspect of the soldiers. This might not be all too much of a change for someone whose family member is in the service, but for me the documentary provided a good outlook on men at war and the emotional effects that result.

Image acquired from 

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com

Hansel: Rendition

Torture is wrong legally, morally, and rationally. By legally, I mean that the United States government is not following due process with the law OR rules of war established in the Geneva Convention. One does not generally see countries doing this. It just fuels the idea of Americans feeling superior. Morally, most people would agree that torture is correct. Often, this is overlooked due to the fact that people claim terrorists should not be treated as human beings, but as thugs. We can see this by the look on Douglass Freeman’s face as he witnesses the torture. Rationally, torture does not work. The article titled “Outsourcing Torture” includes a section on it. We can even see it in “Rendition” by the fact that Jeremy El-Ibrahimi just listed names from a soccer team. Torture goes against the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments to the Constitution. The fourth, against illegal search and seizure, is broken simply by them stripping the suspected terrorist of his clothes. The fifth, due process, is obviously broken by the fact that they are punishing suspect terrorists without due process. The eight amendment, forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, is broken simply by the fact that what the torturers are doing in quite cruel and unusual. One of my questions regarding torture was how did it come about. Admittedly by one of the men who instated it, Michael Scheuer, it was created out of desperation. The government simply did not know what to do with the terrorism problem. I try not to directly crucify those who established the program because I can not think of another way to fight terrorists. When a nation is at war against ideas, such as religious terrorism, the rules of war might not always apply, especially in the case of the enemy using tactics that ignore the rules of war, as well. For example, how do we stop suicide bombers if they believe that they well be martyred? The threat of death does not stop them. Neither does shooting the terrorist while he is strapped with a bomb because of the dead man trigger where the bomb deploys when the grip is lost.

Acquired from cartoonstock.com

Hansel: The Social Network

Facebook is incredibly influential on the adolescents’ lives. The way we socialize is vastly different due to Facebook. For example, one of my best friends today is largely due to Facebook. I did not know him too well in real life, but I was Facebook friends with him. I started noticing that his posts and comments were quite hilarious and coincided with my sense of humor. Gradually, I started talking to him in school more and more often to the point where we became full on friends. Another example is how my mother continues to associate with her old high school friends displaced to other parts of the country. Due to Facebook, high school reunions are much easier to schedule. I also know some friends of mine who have suffered due to Facebook. This involved so called “cyber bullying.” Whether or not this is right, I do not believe in any way that there should be government regulations on social networking sites.  We should not waste our money making sure some kid does not get bullied on Facebook. It is not the government’s responsibility to do this, nor should it be in their power. If Facebook starts to abuse its power, people will simply stop using it. If they do not, it is their fault for partaking in something like that. Facebook knows this, which keeps them from abusing the power.

I know of some other social networking sites, most of them are less socially influential than Facebook. One of them is Tumblr, which is a blogging website. You can post text, however it is mostly meant to blog, or reblog, pictures that you think are cool.   Twitter involves nothing but status updates, most of which are along the lines of “My sheets were all twisted up today. #firstworldproblems” or the less popular “My soccer team kicks ass, but my brother runs a drug cartel. #secondworldproblems.” I have not really noticed any sort of social influence with Tumblr, other than possibly breeding a generations of whiny, introspective teenage photographers. Twitter, however, has a lot of influence. For example when Reggie Bush posted “Nice knowing u, New Orleans”, or something of the sort. Everyone interpreted it as him being traded away from the Saints. There was a big fuss over the whole situation. Similar occurrences have been reported involving athletes and celebrities of the like.

Hansel: West Wing

I do not think that the White House depiction in the pilot episode of the West Wing is entirely accurate. It reminds me of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in the sense that it is an accurate depiction of government in aesthetic, but not in action. Both Mr. Smith and West Wing involve synthesized action created by the hopes and opinions of the writers of what government should be. I believe that, like Mr. Smith, the pilot episode of The West Wing is a bit idealistic, particularly at the end when Jed (Martin Sheen) plays the daddy role to everyone in the office. If presidents were consistently able to be such perfect heroes, the country's problems would be far less significant. The president created in The West Wing reminds me of the hyper-competent sheriffs that are the protagonists in Western films. They basically have no flaws past that of some sort of cutesy quirk, such as running a bicycle into a tree. In addition, I doubt the problems of the White House officials are as juicy and scandalous as the ones the pilot. If so, they cannot be that consistent. The writers had to make it more entertaining, so they added the prostitute subplot. Franklin D Roosevelt (or was it Theodore Roosevelt?) is often considered a successful president because he was very populist in his policies, often mirroring that of the general population's opinion.

It is impossible for a president to fulfill all of the goals presented during campaigning. Candidates holler lofty goals, such as social healthcare and no more foreign energy dependence. One person alone, however cannot fulfill all of these goals. Whenever change must be brought about, it is best to approach it from the bottom up, meaning with the people. If one person is trying to arrange all of these policies, even with multiple degrees and assistance of advisers, he is bound to estimate wrong on some of them. Also, in such a large system as American government, even the president can not make an enormous difference given the system of checks and balances. This is not to imply that checks and balances are wrong, but that changes should be made through an organized, populist movement. We need candidates that reflect the general population, which is almost impossible due to the corporate allocations given during presidential campaigning. Populist candidates such as Al Gore, John Edwards, and Ron Paul have not done well in elections, therefore the incentive for populist support is low.


Photo acquired from tigersweat.com

Hansel: Socialism

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. This definition is from the merriam webster's dictionary website. At the risk of sounding objective to the assignment, this is almost exactly how I previously defined socialism. The only difference would be in an additional emphasis on the equal distribution of goods that the definition does not include. I must state that my entire argument of socialism is not comprised of "incentive." That is merely my objective case relative to capitalism. My other main argument against socialism is that the government runs production and distribution of goods. In an ideal sense, how is this at all a people's government? As an advocate of liberty and a economic system run by spontaneous order,  I do not believe this would at all be an effective means of production. Without competition, how would the government know what to produce on time? Just look at communist Russia, when people had to wait in line to get simple things. 

http://votebits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/socialism1.jpg

Well, this is pretty skewed, the world socialism under the communist arm and hammer. This is most likely not from a particularly reliable source. Communism and socialism are completely different political systems and to claim things such as Obama being a communist are purely ignorant. I will not spend too much time discussing it.

http://aaronjelcock.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/socialism_poster.jpg

I had to do some extensive browsing, but I finally found a positively slanted view on socialism. One thing I have a problem with is the word "hatred". Free market capitalism actually encourages friendliness through the means of buying. If Chris has money and needs paper towels, and Sean has paper towels and needs money, this transaction works out for the better for both of them. Through the intent of improving Chris's life, he has made Sean's life better, as well. How is that hatred? Also, how is it justice, as one of the words associated with socialism, to have a significant portion of a middle class citizen's wealth taxed and given to those who do not work as hard to forward their lives?

http://blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/socialism-illustrated.jpg

Of all the three interpretations, I can say I agree with this one the most. It is undoubtedly slanted objectively towards capitalism. In the ideal socialist sense, the blue shirt man would give his money to the apparent homeless man, but that is not completely the sense. If the blue shirt man were to give his own change to the homeless man, that would be something possible in capitalism, because the blue shirt man has the freedom to do with his money what he pleases. The man being pick pocketed most likely does not want to give his money away, as he might not be of favorable financial well-being. The yellow shirted man does not have a choice, however.

Hansel: Capitalism: A Love Story

Image acquired at failblog.com

I believe films with a heavy bias can change people's minds. Conversely, Capitalism: A Love Story did not change my mind in any way. It did have an effect on me in the sense that I looked into the theories of capitalism and socialism more in depth in an attempt to discuss the two better. One scene in particular that I found interesting, is the scene in which Moore attacks Reagan's "letting the bull loose" policy that resulted in significant job loss. As an advocate of free market capitalism, this was particularly jarring. In another scene that I thought fell almost completely flat, Moore uses Hurricane Katrina as a representation of capitalism at its worst. Practically everyone in the theater scoffed at its pure lunacy. 

Moore does not try to find common ground because he has several of his own ideas that he would like to portray instead of showing pro-capitalist arguments. Within the confines of time due to the mainstream movie market, he cannot make the film too long. One must remember that Capitalism is not entirely a persuasive documentary, but also a produced film with the intent on selling well. This confinement might not necessarily forward the most intelligent and respectful arguments. This is why I think Frontline does a better job in portraying the wall street bailouts. The problem with Frontline, however, is that is not nearly as entertaining as Moore's film. Frontline focuses more on giving straight information in the form of narration, photography, and direct words from individuals involved. Capitalism, however, uses emotional response, music, and even sarcasm to convey points. The latter is much more entertaining to watch and still gets the point across. It sacrifices detail, however. If a student in free enterprise were to approach me asking about the financial meltdown for a particular assignment or project, I would tell him or her to consult the Frontline special regarding the topic. If this student just wanted to know a little bit about it and did not seem extremely interested already, I would recommend Capitlism: A Love Story. In Moore's defense, I think he makes his films entertaining and you get a pretty good idea of his opinions and justifications. Although, at times, he dances on the edge of yellow journalism in the sense that everything can be sensationalized. For example, comparing capitalism and hurricane Katrina? How many people does he honestly think he can convince with that one? I also did not appreciate how much of the documentary was spend with footage of people crying. I realize emotion is a large part of argument, but in an argument of capitalism as quantitative as this, it is not in good taste as far as a respective argument goes.

Hansel: Drug War

http://www.leftycartoons.com/

There is very little that I can say regarding the war on drugs that has not already been stomped into the ground repeatedly by anyone with the proper ability to observe and analyze national occurrences.  Despite the fortune being dumped into the drug war, no improvement has been made.  (Sounds kind of like public education, but that's a whole other  issue.)  There are also other costs of the drug war, including broken up families, loss of constitutional rights, and spots in America's already severely overcrowded prisons.  Personally, I do not think that any sort of unity between Mexico and the United States, nor any sort of improvements in the policies will benefit the Drug War. Call me a pessimist, but drug policies have been tested and failed for entirely too long in America.  One would think that the government would pick up on this sort of consistent failure in policy, but what can you say?  Our friend Mario claimed that marijuana legalization would help the drug problem in the United States, and I strongly agree with him.  Often, in the legalization arguments, I hear that government regulation of the product will help prevent from unsafe condition of marijuana.  This, on the other hand, I do not even agree with.  What parents often worry about with pot is that some teenager is going to wind up with a bag of shitty Mexican dirt weed that is laced with cocaine and is going to kill their little  white Rastafarian poser son. This is a problem that is not only highly uncommon, but is also a problem that could be solved almost entirely by legalization of marijuana. Said white Rastafarian poser son is not very apt to visit the hospital when he starts feeling a little too funny from this tainted bag of herb, due to the regulations on his previous activities.  If companies were able to compete with marijuana sales on the terms of quality of the product, it will result in safer bags.  Said "shitty Mexican dirt weed" will become extinct, not to say that we would no longer import the product from Mexico, especially given how much America loves to consume other nations' goods. This will result in legal, less dangerous methods of crossing the border.  Let's say, for the sake of continuing the suburb boy narrative, pot is legalized, and this boy, for whatever reason, still buys pot from his friend down at the alley by Piggly Wiggly.  If this bag is tainted, he is much more apt to go to the hospital and get treatment.  This situation would be practically extinct in the days of legalization.  The previously mentioned point, in my opinion, would not only apply to marijuana, but to cocaine.  Obviously, the still existing laws regarding cocaine would be much more harsh as to refraining from driving, how much is legal to own, the age limit.  The points I hear against cocaine are often regarding the quality and the quantity.  People are afraid that the product will have other harmful, deadly contents, which is a problem eradicated by legalization.  Also, people worry that they will overdose.  Of course, this would still exist in the days of legalization, but treatment centers and regulations would help those in need of such just as treatment for smokers and alcoholics already exist.  I know several other points that support legalization, but I do not want to ramble on.  If you would like to hear more points regarding legalization, you should follow the link I put at the bottom regarding such.

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/  

Government using ENRON-esque accounting technique to lie about Drug War costs?  Fancy that!

If you really really care about prohibition, particularly regarding marijuana, this presentation by Loyola's own Dr. D'Amico, will capture your fancy.

Thank you for reading, please enjoy the links I put up.  Most of them are from a website run by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a "think tank" of sorts for Austrian economics and libertarian theory. I spend a lot of my day on this site.

Hansel: American History X

        American History X showcases notions of white supremacy while also presenting interjections. Few of these interjections are heard out, however. An example is the dinner scene in which Derek rants about Rodney King’s trial. Murray’s opinions are heard, but he presents them rather meekly, thus stripping his argument of its validity, in a sense. Absolutely no interjections are heard when Derek is being lectured by his father on his problems with Dr. Sweeney’s teaching style. Also, Derek gives a speech to all of his white supremacist cronies in their younger stages of bigoted organization. Most of the prejudiced opinions are presented in monologue form, as if giving the floor to these views. One could claim that this glorifies the opinions, which I began to believe myself until I took on a new standpoint on the screenplay. I think David McKenna wrote the screenplay this way to help the viewer hear the unpopular Neo-Nazi viewpoints and think of his or her own rebuttals instead of being spoon-fed a certain opinion. This assumes that the view is not a neo-Nazi, however. Neo-Nazis might interpret this movie as an inaccurate depiction or try to point out faults in Derek’s character that led to him losing sight of such a noble cause. I’m not exactly the consultant for that, however.

        Personally, I respect Tony Kaye for involving such harsh images in the film.  It helped portray the gruesome realities of impressionable teenagers of the lower class looking for a cause and meaning to their lives. Jarring portrayals such as the shower rape scene, the curb stomp scene, and the final death of Danny scene leave strong images in the viewers’ minds. These strong images leave lasting effects. The film shows how there is virtually no solution to the prejudice and racism will always exist among lower class areas of the world. The government cannot do anything about it, because although prejudice has gradually decline through the history of mankind, it will never get to a complete racial blindness.  While I am in no way prejudice, I believe that is how a significant part of the world functions.  People will always find a way to divide themselves, no matter how well the world is connected through information and communication. 

Since I feel really bad for being such a Debbie Downer, I’ll post a lovely gif to brighten things up...

Images acquired from www.ebaumsworld.com and www.tumblr.com, respectively.

BONUS:  Here's a really cool video to watch that's somewhat related to my rantings.  It's particularly interesting if you're into sociology or psychology.

Hansel: Good Night and Good Luck

Good Night and Good Luck and The Crucible both employ the theme of McCarthyism in the simultaneous use of parallelism.  Good Night and Good Luck paralleled McCarthyism with government actions such as the Patriot Act and the constant fear of terrorism.  The Crucible, however, paralleled the Salem Witch Trials with McCarthyism, which was a current issue when Arthur Miller published the Tony Award winning play in 1953.  What George Clooney was trying to portray as director and co-screenwriter of the film was quite reminiscent of Arthur Miller’s intent.  Both of the films offer jarring social commentary for their appropriate times, but I prefer to compare Good Night and Good Luck with one of my favorite films that just so happens to relate to the Red Scare:  Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.  These two films offer commentary on the United States’ dealings with Russia and communism, but in different lights.  Dr.  Strangelove is more of a humorous interpretation of the Red Scare.  This is evident through the constant use of phallic symbols, character parts, and utter exaggeration of ideals scarily similar to that of actual government officials at the time.  Good Night and Good Luck is more of a haunting rendition designed to make the audience more aware through emotional response more serious than that of the satirical Dr. Strangelove, shown by the stoic line delivery, the constant smoke stained shots, and the almost always intimate proxemics.  Though their intents differed, Stanley Kubrick and George Clooney used similar directing styles for their films.  One that particularly stood out was the use of black and white.  Also, the use of tight framing in practically all of Night is reminiscent of the office scenes in Dr. Strangelove.  One directorial facet of Clooney’s that I particularly enjoyed in the film was his use of music playing over scenes without hearing the actual scenes.  Kubrick employs this technique in the final mushroom cloud scene of Dr. Strangelove.  Finally, I have to note the aspect of Good Night and Good Luck that originally caused the link between the film and Kubrick’s.  In class, Tuesday, Prof.  McCay noted the aluminum ad that included a farmer shoveling manure, inherently implying what?  BULLSHIT.  That is exactly what American citizens were being fed through the media in the 50’s.  This type of symbolism is reminiscent of Kubrick’s use of cigars, missiles, planes, and god-knows-what-else as phallic symbols.  If I begin to think of any more parallels or interesting contrasts between the two films, I will add them to the 
blog.


Images aquired from http://dc340.4shared.com/ and http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com, respectively.

Hansel: Good

Maurice and Halder’s friendship starts out with Maurice being the more youthful character, wanting to live freely and spontaneously.  Maurice is sort of the hothead as some would put it.  Halder, however is the one who gets stepped on by life in the sense that he tries very hard to keep things going well for himself, which is exhibited in scene four in which he is hectically trying to take care of his mother while running a family.  He is tied down with more responsibility.  As the film continues and Halder becomes an SS officer, the roles begin to switch in the sense that Halder eventually loses his family for a younger woman, thus voiding responsibility.  He eventually does not have to take care of his mother anymore.  Maurice, on the other hand is being stepped on and discriminated by the increasing power of the Nazi Party.  The ultimate switching of roles is the scene in which Maurice, trying to keep what shred of dignity he has, begs Halder multiples times to purchase a train ticket to Paris for him.  We see Maurice belittled, similarly to Halder’s fear and belittlement in scene one.  Even the shots are similar:  in the way that Halder was projecting his discomfort at the beginning of the scene while sitting across from the SS officer, Maurice project his sitting across from a new, changed Halder.  The film depicts how their decisions put them in different situations, as well.  Halder cracks and joins the party, thus giving him privileges.  Maurice stays strong in his beliefs, even hard-headed, while under the pressure and does not finally decided to move out until it is too late for him to even acquire a ticket out of the country.  Good is a scathing commentary on human nature under extreme social conditions such as the Holocaust.  One would normally think that staying strong under pressure and fighting the flawed system would end up positively for a man’s well being.  Maurice’s evolution through the film shows how this proves untrue.  Similarly, Halder’s seemingly immoral decisions prove beneficial in the social sense.  Both of them suffer in the psychological sense, however.  Therein lies the horror of the Holocaust.  The film also might cause the viewer to think the he or she would never act as Halder did.  His decisions cannot be viewed as such, however, because people such as college students today have no idea what it is like to live under the conditions that Germans did in the 30’s.  

This film reminded me of a book I had read around eighth grade, titled The Wave.  Good and The Wave are similar in the fact that they both show how easy it is to get caught up in grouping. Also, they both exhibit the acceptance of those in the groups and the mistreatment of those who refuse to join the groups.    

 

Now how do you argue with such a noble cause as that?

Image acquired from http://www.isthisthechangeweneed.com

 

Hansel: str8 up G

My name is Stephen Hansel and I am from Slidell, Louisiana, which is an unexciting suburb on the north shore.  Needless to say, I am quite elated to be in a new college environment.  I enjoy film, music, and business.  I can sing, but I usually play guitar, bass, and drums.  I'm in a band called Yellow Light Accelerators, and we give away our music for free.  I enjoy wearing ties and oxfords, because I dress for success! (It’s actually because I’m painfully narcissistic.)  In addition, my favorite kind of music is Sam Cooke, Thelonious Monk, Bilal, and Caddywhompus.  I enjoy Sam Cooke because his singing style is soulful, adding a certain spontaneous element into his performance.  I love Caddywhompus because I feel that their style is close to my personality, like the songwriter and I are similar people judging strictly from the music.  My favorite genres include R & B, jazz, and noise rock.  Lately, I've been enjoying voice over other instruments, mostly due to the fun of performing and expressing oneself through vocalizing and various other techniques that I don’t even realize I use.  Politics and Reel Life will be an exciting class because I enjoy films, particularly regarding history and politics such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Public Enemy, and Apocalypse Now. I find myself reading more non-fiction and economics journals; however, I want to read more of the classics (hence, my future choice of fun English classes). It’s just easier for me to get through non-fiction because I enjoy knowledge and statistics, which is the same reason I greatly prefer college football to the National Football League.  I have never been outside of the country, although I do plan to study abroad, possibly in Europe. (I’m totally in it for the food.)  As far as academics goes, my major is Marketing under the College of Business.  Today, I signed up for various clubs including University Planning Board, NORML, Queer-Straight Alliance, Economics Club, and the Howlin' Wolves.  I figure I'll try every club that looks interesting and be more involved in the ones which I prefer.  I strongly look forward to this class and discussing film with my peers.