Valkyrie

To start, let me just say that if you haven't seen this movie, you might not want to read my review. It's very good, and I'd hate to be the one to spoil such a heart-stoppingly suspenseful story. I don't intend to go into too much detail, but you never know when you might accidentally give something important away.

Now obviously, any film based on World War II brings strong emotional reactions from many people. This is no exception. The suspense created in this film has me sitting on the edge of my seat, even while watching it the second time. The single greatest strength of this film is that inspires hope. Through some miracle of writing that I will never understand, this movie, despite all my knowledge of history, despite the fact that I have already seen it once before, can still make me hope that the ending will turn out differently.

Let's start with the plot. This film is centered around a plot by certain members of the German army, who were outside of the Nazi party, to assassinate Adolf Hitler and in doing so end the war. Now, obviously we all know that this plan must have failed, as Hitler is known, or at least widely theorized (I don't believe there is proof as of yet, but if there is please correct me), to have committed suicide. Though I am not very well versed in the history of this event, I'm told that the movie is fairly accurate in this regard. The story takes us through some preliminary steps, effectively showing the political atmosphere in Nazi Germany as the conspirators piece together a plan for the assassination. This culminates in the actual attempt, which ultimately fails.

Of course, that makes it all sound very depressing. And let's face it, it really is. But as I have said, this film's strong suit is the hope it inspired in me in spite of what I knew to be the conclusion. Even as I watched this movie, having already seen it once, I found myself wondering if this time, just maybe, the plan might succeed. In the back of my mind, I knew it wouldn't of course. The terrible disappointment I felt when the best laid schemes went sour seems almost comical considering I knew how it would inevitably end. Overall, this film gets a ten in the "Emotional Response" department.

Now, let's move on to the acting. I don't mean to rant, but the acting in this film was flawless. The characters were portrayed so effectively, it almost felt as if the footage was real. Maybe that sounds a bit crazy, but I couldn't have asked for better.

There were some minor flaws, however. One which stood out to me was that a majority of the actors playing roles in the German army were British. Sounds nit-picky, but it diminished the atmosphere that the film tried so hard to create. Another was the actor playing Hitler. This might have also had to do with the writing, but it seems as though the film went a bit overboard. True, Hitler was a messed up guy who really was going crazy towards the end....But was he really that creepy?

At this point I have to address what is possibly the most important aspect of this story. There is an important message to consider here. Almost all of these brave men were German soldiers. And believe it or not, they were not evil baby-eating puppy-killing robot zombie monsters. They were good men. They were soldiers, and patriots. The German army was not comprised of exact clones of Hitler, it was comprised of soldiers, and patriots. The soldiers were not evil (mainly...every military force has its crazies), they fought for their country as bravely as our own, even in the face of impending defeat. That's something to consider, and I think that it might not be considered enough in a world where we demonize everything to do with Germany in WWII.

To conclude, I have to say I really just enjoyed this movie. The historical event by itself is interesting enough, and the film presents it beautifully. To be honest this review is really unnecessary, the film speaks for itself. I can't describe the emotions it causes with words. And so, there's only one more thing to say: Go watch it yourself!

Baby's First Gun

Personally, I do not find this picture to be overly offensive. I don't like it, but it delivers the message it was meant to deliver. However, there is one large question that surrounds the image: Should a child actually be depicted holding or within reach of a gun? I don't think so. It is certainly an effective technique, appealing to every parent's emotions. But in a way, that makes it tasteless. Arguments should be made based on facts and ideas, not manipulating someone's emotions.

The message of the image is obvious: keep guns away from your children. As I said, it effectively delivers this message by inspiring fear in every gun-owning parent. The other side of the gun-control debate would most likely respond with a story about how a law-abiding citizen with a gun could have saved someone's life. Both are manipulating emotions, and both make an effective point. The difference, as I mentioned before, is that this image presents a gun within reach of an infant. Stories are one thing, but the image itself lakes taste and is sometimes less effective for it.

So, in the end, I do believe that this image went too far. The same could be accomplished with words, and has been several times in the past. This alternate method can work, but in some cases it might also lose ground with parents who find the image offensive. The anti-gun side of the argument often uses this tactic, presenting shocking images meant to make parents think for the safety of their children. Unfortunately for them, I don't buy it.

The Evils of Social Networking

"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else." -Benjamin Franklin

The issue of social networking is a very controversial issue, made so by the terrible tragedies surrounding it. These websites, such as MySpace and Facebook, have become very popular among young people and increasingly with the older generation as well. Unfortunately, instances in which children fall prey to predators lurking on said websites have become more common as well. Parents everywhere are concerned that these websites allow predators to access their children more easily. Meanwhile, the owners of these websites seem to want to ignore this issue. Naturally, there has been a general outcry over the their lack of responsibility. Hypocrisy? Most assuredly.

Let us for a moment examine the screwdriver: a common tool, often necessary for even the simplest of tasks. One of these is most likely present in almost every American home. There are no limits on who can buy them. There are no regulations on how they should be used. Why would there be? Now, let us picture this simple tool in the hands of a murderer. Suddenly that screwdriver looks pretty sharp, doesn't it? The fact is that any tool can be used in ways that are improper, or in some cases illegal. Should we limit access to screwdrivers? Perhaps require a background check, and a two-day waiting period?

I think we can all agree that this sounds pretty ridiculous. Yet for some reason, people always want to impose limits on the tools available to us. The creators of MySpace did not make a haven for child-molesters. They made a tool. The function of this particular tool is communication, nothing more. Who we communicate with is not decided by the tool, it is decided by us. How we use the screwdriver is not decided by the screwdriver. It's a simple concept that is not grasped by angry parents across the country. Why, you ask? Responsibility.

If you cut yourself with a knife, who do you blame? The knife? Probably not. If you poke yourself with a needle, do you sue the needle for being too sharp? Hey, you might win! But again, probably not. If you find out that your child is the victim of an internet predator, who do you blame? Suddenly, it's far more serious. Obviously, the predator is to blame, but who else is guilty? The predator would not have reached your child if not for the internet. Clearly, the internet should be held responsible, right? Well, not exactly. The internet is a tool. Much like the knife, if you don't use it right, you might get cut. So who is to blame? The child? Maybe, but then the child really can't be expected to know any better, especially if they are very young. In the end, the responsiblity falls on the parents.

The parents paid for the access to the internet. The parents failed to teach their child about the dangers of communicating with people who they did not know. The parents allowed their child to use a website which allowed the predator access to the child. And now that it's happened, will the parents step forward and take the blame? Will they accept that they have indirectly caused this harm to their child? Probably not. They will point fingers in every direction they can. The website is just the most convenient target. Excuses fly everywhere as the parents attempt to lay the blame on someone else, and because of that lack of responsibility the tool must be limited. The knife is made blunt, the needle is bent, and suddenly the CIA is looking into your criminal record when you go to buy a screwdriver. Sound funny? Give it time.

Stick to it.

If I had to create a bumper sticker that modeled my philosophy for life, it would be, "Stick to it." I can't count the number of times since I left Catholic school when people, friends or otherwise, have told me I'm wrong. Wrong about religion, wrong about morality, wrong about politics, you name it. I've done my best to defend what I now know for sure is right. And now, a (slightly) older and wiser human being, I can look back and say that I am certainly glad I did. People sometimes criticize me for it. "Stubborn" and "uncompromising" are words I hear often. Fortunately, this particular stubborn, uncompromising guy is the one who got it right.

Sticking to what I believe is what I think I've done best throughout my life. It's served me well, a worthy ally to stand with me against a formidable foe. Perhaps not always fun, certainly not always easy, but at the end of the day I can at least say I've made my parents proud.