Platoon

                Serving in a war changes a person. It changes a person dramatically. It can totally change someone’s point of view, their whole outlook. This type of action and change is shown during the movie Platoon. People come in to serve with one view or belief, and leave with another.

 In this movie, Charlie Sheen’s character, Chris Taylor, comes to serve in Vietnam.  He comes from a rich family, and he had everything set out, he had it made. However, he dropped out of college, and decided to fight overseas, just to be a rebellious kid to his parents, and to prove them wrong. He did it to show them that he was capable of doing such things. He comes in, and doesn’t realize what he is getting into.

There are many conflicts going on during his deployment. Soldiers at camp often have disagreements. Their leaders are often disagreeing and feuding as well. It was almost like there are two sides on their camp. Sargent Elias is more of a happy and loving personality. He cared about the soldiers, and thus, the soldiers were fond of him.

The conflict in camp is mainly between Sargent Elias, and Sargent Barnes. Sargent Barnes was more of a “tough love” type of leader. He always wanted control of what went on. He didn’t care as much about all of the soldiers, he was much more of a selfish leader than Elias. These all caused the majority of camp to not like him near as much as they did Elias.

Elias and Barnes had a lot of conflicts, and they didn’t always get along well. Then, during battle, Elias was running back towards the American soldiers, and Barnes shot him. Not many people saw this, but Chris Taylor did. Taylor was shocked that anyone would do such a thing to their own fellow soldier, and it upset him a great deal. However, time went on, and people started to learn to live without Elias, no matter how much they liked it or not.

Then, another chaotic battle occurred. The Vietnamese ran invasions all over the American camp, they had them surrounded. The American soldiers had nowhere to go. They were scrambling, fighting for their lives, trying to survive. Many from both sides died, and Sargent Barnes was wounded badly. He called to Taylor “get me a medic, boy”. Taylor then pointed his gun at Barnes, and shot him dead right then and there.

War is a complicated and tough thing to go through. As Charlie Sheen’s character points out, “I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy; we fought ourselves.  The enemy was in us.” He is saying that not only are they fighting against the Vietnamese, they are fighting against themselves. It makes the war so much tougher when you are fighting both the enemy, and yourselves. Trying to deal with all the external conflicts would be hard enough, I would imagine. And not only did they deal with that, but they were working against themselves too. That’s why the war over there was so tough for them. It was almost like they couldn’t make any progress when they fought amongst themselves, and that was a common theme for that group.

13 Days

            Personally, I liked watching this movie. It gave me an inside look at what went on during those stressful and intense 13 days, it also showed just how close we really were to war with the Soviets. More than anything, this movie taught me that being the President of the United States would be so much more stressful than I had ever imagined.

            The movie 13 Days was about what went on during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and how the president and others in the White House went about handling the situation.

            The film started with the discovery of the missiles in Cuba by American spy planes with cameras on them. People were frantic, and they weren’t sure how to approach the situation at all. President Kennedy, his brother Robert F. Kennedy, and Kenny O’Donnell are working non-stop, around the clock to try and figure out what approach they should take, and when they should carry out this approach. There was discussion of invasion, of airstrike, and of a blockade of Cuba. Officials had meetings discussing it, and they had debates arguing about it. They spent a lot of time trying to all come to an agreement on the matter. However, after a lot of time discussing, and thinking, President Kennedy finally came to the decision to carry out a blockade of Cuba.

            The blockade was then set and no ships carrying any sorts of offensive missiles were able to enter the country. The American ships would inspect the Russian ships, and if there were missiles found, they were sent back. There were a couple of close calls, in that miscommunication almost forced troops to fire weapons. Luckily, all of these confrontations were avoided in the end, and so was an all-out war with Russia.

            There are many conflicts stirring in this story, with the obvious, biggest conflict being between the two countries on the verge of going to war. Others include the conflicts in the White House. Do we invade? Do we declare war? Do we carry out an airstrike? Should we blockade? The list just goes on and on. Yet amongst all these, probably some of the biggest conflicts were internal. For instance, President Kennedy had so much going through his mind. He must have been torn apart by all of the tough decisions he had to make in such a short amount of time. But he remained calm, and didn’t show the people of America any sort of fear, or anger, or frustration. That, in my opinion, is very impressive.

            In my opinion, the movie 13 Days is a great film. It is very educational, and it taught me all about the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how it was handled. I honestly never would have guessed we were just that close to a World War III starting, but this movie proved me otherwise. And in my mind, that is what made it so good. It was entertaining, and it kept the viewers on the edge of their seats. I also thought the actors did a great job of portraying their characters. I really liked the fact that I got to see every single step of what was happening behind the scenes, and it gave me a close-up view of what went on.

A Loss of Innocence

Part I:

Yes, I do think that the nation did lose its innocence after the assassination of President Kennedy. We were moving toward peace and understanding, but after the assassination we went into a life of riots and wars. Kennedy was making progress in the aspects of peace, and I think it would have been great for the country. However, it was all ended on that November morning in 1963.  Instead of living a life of peace, life JFK was moving towards, the country was known for nothing but a huge act of violence that morning, and it would change everything. It just made the people wonder what could happen next, and they wondered why this could happen when things were going so well. Everyone was living in constant wonder, and always thinking about what could possibly come next.

The assassination had a huge effect on American people at the time. The majority of the people really liked JFK and they favored the decisions he was making. They supported him and stood behind him, but then, it was taken from them. They were lost. They had so much hope and optimism, and that was crushed and demoralized after Kennedy was killed. It turned the hope into doubt, and the aspirations and positive attitude into worry and fear. They didn’t know what to think, they didn’t know what to expect. They were hurt and living in fear of not knowing what would come next. Although it wasn’t any single one of the Americans’ faults at the time, they blamed themselves. They thought that it was almost their fault for not being more protective, or for being so laid back on gun laws and restrictions. They were hard on themselves for not taking action and for not taking action to help prevent this. It was probably unnecessary in a way, because it wasn’t the American peoples’ faults that the president was killed. It wasn’t in their control, as much as most of them would have liked it to be.

Part II:

Yes, I think that the acts on 9/11 did have the same effect on the people. They were living good, almost care-free lives at the time. But after that horrible day, they could do nothing but worry and wonder about what would strike next. It was unsuspected, and we were shocked, to say the least.

Again, some of the people blamed themselves. I don’t believe that they all did, but I do think that some did. Some people didn’t blame themselves. They knew that it wasn’t in their control. But the others asked themselves why they didn’t prevent it. They wondered to themselves why they weren’t less oblivious to those acts before they had happened. They wondered why they didn’t take action to make it harder for hijackers to gain access as easy as they did. They wondered how they could be so blind to what was going to happen, how they let it happen so easily. However, again, it wasn’t any of their faults. But they still blamed themselves for the tragedy that occurred. It was a big event in American history. It was the day the people realized that we have to take action and be more protective of what we have, because it can be taken from us at any moment.

Part III:

I believe that it was not one single person that killed John Kennedy. I think that there was a conspiracy, carried out and covered up by the government, which was behind the murder of JFK. All of the videos, articles, stories, and movies I have seen about the assassination lead me to think that there is no way that one man could carry this out. I am not saying that I don’t believe Lee Harvey Oswald was involved, because he very well could have been a part of it. However, I am saying that I don’t think Oswald did it alone. I believe he had help, a lot of help. He wasn’t capable of pulling that off single-handedly, and I don’t think anyone would be. All the signs point to a conspiracy in my opinion. I believe that the government planned the murder of President Kennedy because they didn’t like the peaceful and anti-war approach he took.

Also, I do not believe that the deaths of RFK and MLK shortly after were a coincidence. I think that they were killed for the same reasons as JFK was. A group of people didn’t like the approach they took, or the direction they were taking things, so they were murdered as well. A lot of people close to the murder of JFK ended up dead soon after. Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, RFK, David Ferrie, just to name a few. I don’t think that all of these deaths could have been a coincidence. I think that they were all killed so that they couldn’t defend themselves, or get the truth out. I think the government killed them too, to help with the cover up of JFK. 

Trump-Nixon Comparison and Contrast

Many times history is said to repeat itself, and that statement may be true with this situation. The election campaigns of 1968 and 2016 have been strikingly similar in a few ways so far. Yes, they have had their differences, but some of the tactics dealing with police that Donald Trump is using today almost mirrors the way Richard Nixon approached it in 1968.

                Trump is trying to gain votes by rallying behind police officers nationwide, saying that they are “some of the most mistreated people in the country”. This statement is very similar to what Richard Nixon had said, claiming himself as the “law and order candidate” of that election.  He was supportive of the police and all their work and he made it known.

Nixon’s approach was well thought out, and it worked. A big reason that probably helped Nixon’s cause that violent crimes were much on the rise in 1968, going up 85% in nearly 7 years (according to usatoday.com). Thus isn’t the case today, in which this approach may not be quite as effective in gaining votes for Trump. However, one reason it may work for Trump, is that his stance has forced his opponent, Hilary Clinton, to take an anti-police force stance. She has stated that “police violence terrorizes communities”.  This stance that she took may help Trump gain many more votes from people that support the police, which would be good for his campaign efforts.

So, all in all, this stance from Trump is quite a “déjà vu” moment, so to speak. And we will have to wait and see if Trump’s efforts pan out like Nixon’s did.

"Asian Auschwitz"

I think that  what was talked about in this article, having to do with Unit 731, and all that went on inside of the unit, is just terrible. They did things to torture humans that are almost unspeakable. It is so hard to imagine this stuff being done to human beings, and I don’t know how some of the people working at the unit were able to carry out these experiments. Some are just so gruesome and so horrible, that it’s unimaginable.

There were many things that definitely stuck out to me. For example, they would decapitate prisoners just to test the sharpness of their swords, and they would dissect live human bodies. They also purposely infected Chinese with the plague, syphilis, and cholera as well. They also did stuff such as inject horse urine into the prisoners’ kidneys, and they exposed their livers to x-rays. All of the experiments that they conducted were so gruesome, and so terrible. Stuff like this should have never been happening. And not only was it terrible that the Japanese conducted these, but they still refuse to give China an apology for what they did.

Also, I don’t think it was the right decision for the U.S. government to buy out all of the records from the camp. We just decided that as long as the records were in our hands, there was no damage done. But that is totally not right. The damage caused by this camp is so terrible, and so dreadful, that nobody should ever be able to get away with it. But once we were in control of the records, there wasn’t much more spoke about it. Only in recent years has it been brought out, and some of the people who worked there under Ishii have spoken out about the things that went on inside of the camp. I think that it’s sad how people were able to get away with such things so easily.

This article definitely caught my eye, and got me very interested, but it also made me wonder how things like this ever went on.

World War 1 Blog

It has been greatly debated whether or not America should be a neutral country in what’s going on in Europe, and whether or not we should side with Great Britain, and aid them. We, America, need to side with Great Britain, and be prepared to give them the help they need in a war situation. There isn’t really a choice for us. We need to have everything ready to go for combat, right now. If we continue to waste time, many more innocent lives will be taken. We must step in and take care of things.

All of this conflict was started when Franz Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria-Hungary, was assassinated by Gavrilo Princep, a Serbian man. If those people are willing and able to take down the Archduke of Austria-Hungary, what will stop them from taking the lives of innocent civilians? Without our help, they could continue to kill; they could end many of the innocent lives of our allies. We must show our nationalism, and show some pride in our country. Help them win this war, and represent our country well while doing it.

Another reason that we must intervene, is that we have many ancestral ties to Britain. Many current Americans either are from Britain, or have family members that still live there. Going and fighting for the lives of our families and ancestors is the right thing to do. Also, if we were in Great Britain’s situation, and we were threatened to lose many innocent lives, wouldn’t you like the help of another country on your side? You bet you would.

Helping to solve this will be the best decision we can make. It will only strengthen our friendship with Great Britain, and it will take care of things much faster, while losing many less lives. We can’t afford to sit here and let this go on over there. We must come together with Britain, and resolve these conflicts.

               

Muckraker Blog

This article is about a business that has been accused by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Justice Department of redlining, which is when banks choke off lending to minorities. Hudson City Savings Bank approved 1,886 mortgages to areas in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in 2014, while only 25 of those loans were to African Americans. Hudson agreed to pay over $30 million to settle the lawsuit, although they deny doing any wrong.

Redlining was very common in the 1960s, when banks would openly starve minorities of receiving home loans. It was even backed by the federal government. Redlining became illegal in the U.S. in the 1970s, but that hasn’t stopped businesses from continuing it. They typically try to hide it, by placing their branches outside of minority communities. Today, it has started to return in the United States, and it is an issue that needs to be figured out.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97902498-6303-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3tEU7zFS5

http://muckrakerfarm.com/2015/10/redlining-home-loan-discrimination-re-emerges-as-a-concern-for-regulators/#more-1974