No longer will do we have a leader who is the butt of all jokes, a man who will be remembered for the funny things he said, the wrong things he did and terrible choices made. After a 45 year hiatus we have now obtained a true hero of the times. Not since the days of the Kennedies or Martin Luther King have we had a political, intellectual figure to admire. It is a shame that some people are middle-aged now, never having experienced anyone to fulfill this role. But I guess its better late than never, and while I have the honor of being 22 years old during this time, everyone can share the privilege of being home to the country that bred this man. Of course I also get the additional bragging rights of being present at the place where this historic event took place.
With November being right after scary month I figured a political movie might be the best choice to kick start the month. This was my second time seeing the movie and given the political circumstances it took on new meaning. As happened the first time, I was pretty much convinced of the conspiracy come the end. Though while I initially viewed this movie about three years ago, roughly one year ago I saw a History Channel special that aimed to refute the claims made. And so after seeing the refute I was back to being skeptical of the conspiracy.
Now I am back to the other side of the fence, believing the corruption and power that government can have over its people. Thinking to myself that while the History Channel made good arguments, they condensed a 43 minute refute against a 206 minute argument. I don't remember much from the History Channel special, but I do know that a hefty portion of the it was spent on the magic bullet theory, to which I say, Yes, given the position of the seats and where the car was located it could be possible that a single bullet did the damage. BUT, I still argue that the history channel had never disputed the claims of the Mr. X portion - the most shocking moment of the film, and admittingly the most questionable (the video I have attached). Considering I have never read the two books JFK was based on, I can only have faith that Oliver Stone didn't fabricate the entire story. The point being that this fifteen minutes of explanation is one of the most intense monologues ever. Yes, the History Channel made good counter-arguments, but when weighed against the amount of material within the movie I'm still not convinced. This is not to say that I am 100% swayed; its just that if I HAD to choose sides I'd have to go on Oliver Stone's.
It is for this reason that I am now frightened about what is going on. Everyone has heard Iraq being compared to Vietnam, and just like the Vietnam lead to the creation of Eisenhower's Military-Industrial complex and the vast amount of profit to be gained from war, so does Iraq. Last time I checked America had spent $450 billion dollars on the war and I don't think it takes a genius to understand that some of that money is profiting the CEOs of Lockheed and Martin, Beoing, Raytheon, United Technologies, and numerous other defense contractors. The current administration having changed its story for the Iraq war between WMD's, stability and democracy all seems to be avoiding that the general public understands the true intentions - oil and middle-east positioning. Not to mention that I'm sure that should McCain have maintained our occupancy it wouldn't be more than five years before a McDonald's, Starbucks and Wal-Mart began popping up all over the country, along with the vast amount of political positions dedicated to those who supported the devastating decisions.
This all brings me to the quote at the top of the page - notice a parallel? When I heard this spoken in the film I became freaked out, so weird was the connotation between a movie made over ten years ago, discussing events from over 40 years ago and how they tied into modern times. Everyone has heard of Obama being deemed the Kennedy of our time, and thus I can't help but feel nervous. His "change" ideology is almost an exact replica of what the people say about the Kennedy administration's. Thus, it all begs the question as to what would prevent all those who are benefiting from this war to not follow in the same footsteps?
I do not think this will happen. I do not hope this will happen. But the argument presented by Stone does make me nervous, skeptical and hesitant against those who possess the will and money to make such situations capable of happening. For all those holding esteemed positions, whether politically or militarily, I hope they have the strength to be responsible with the ramifications of their decisions and support.
Yet the focus I am more directed towards is the people like Willie O'Keefe, who possess an unsupported animosity towards the liberal ideals of others. His claims against Kennedy saying he caused more violence in the streets due to the equality given to African Americans is completed unfounded. I find this no different than the hundreds of closet-case racists who try to fallaciously speak that it is the blacks fault for their horrendous socio-economic positions, that welfare and affirmative action is unfair, or the ABSURD declaration that there is a difference between blacks and "n-words." The amount of education these people possess compared to ignorance they have is shocking. How people can overlook that this minority gained equality, or at least began to, only FORTY-FIVE years ago is appalling. These people seem to overlook how through being situated into specific areas local governments created the modern day ghettos, how their education is shit compared to whites, that to this day there is STILL NO EQUAL INTEGRATION! Although Barack is president and thus has made a major stride compared to half a decade ago it remains that when I go back to my home town the mall is dominantly white, along with the restaurants, library, pool - the suburbs are white, the ghettos are black! Why do people believe this is a conscious choice? Why would anyone willingly adhere to an awful class status?
The fact remains that hate is bread out of ignorance. When two people debate at a party and one gets upset is it wrong to assume that the person who is angry is the one who has no evidence or foundation for their claims? For instance, when people claimed Obama would lead to socialism, he is a terrorist, he believes in the preaching of Wright and thus is ultra liberal completely fail to defend these claims! In college, numerous students will have teachers that profess ultra liberal ideals, does that mean they adopt the same principles? No. This was a great election because for once people were able to see through the bold, controversial claims, people were able to see that THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT. Yet people refuse to admit the truth and are forced into feeling frustration manifesting itself into fear and hate. Why people find it difficult to change their values, beliefs and ideologies is beyond me. An open mind is the one of the greatest traits a person can possess. I myself have been raised from an extremely conservative background. Every single one of my family members with the exception of my grandmother and uncle is right-winged. It was when I took Sociology 101 during my first semester of college that I realized how much I actually disagree with the political upbringing I have had.
So I hope everyone can avoid the Willie O'Keefe mentality. Yet as this film has shown, whether it be 1968 or 2008, ignorant, irrational claims will continue to plague our culture no matter how positive the change is or can be.
1 comment:
So.....what are you trying to say?
change your font, times new roman is lame. You're not a Roman, are you?
Post a Comment