This is one of those movies one only need see once, and the imprint is forever made. There is so much in the film, based on eyewitness experiences of the Byelorussian genocide during World War II, that one cannot approach it with a brief summary.

It’s not easy writing about this imposing film. It’s not something as simple as Saving Private Ryan or Apocalypse Now. It’s much, much more. Saving Private Ryan was pretty much soldiers storming Normandy and making their way into France to hold a bridge against all odds with a cameo by Ted Danson. Personally, I found the premise of the film insulting, as it basically created a situation in which the lives of one group of soldiers were considered to be worth less than the lives of the one Private Ryan. It’s one of the reasons why I cringe at the prospect of seeing another Spielberg movie. He’s got his moments, but his films overall leave me feeling manipulated.

Apocalypse Now is another overrated film. Better to see the documentary of how it was made… but the soundtrack in the main film makes no sense at all. The thick synthesizers sound more appropriate for a cartoon. Martin Sheen works out all right as the Marlowe figure, but Coppola should have gotten Klaus Kinski to be Kurtz. He should have also gotten Werner Herzog to direct. The fact that I can address both Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan is testament to their accessibility and to the difficulty in confronting Come and See.

I cannot be dismissive of Come and See. I cannot find the adjectives to address it. It is more than a tale of a young man that joins partisans: in its two hours, it stands in stern judgment of offensive war and those who advocate it. It does not allow excuses, nor does it permit the so-called Nuremberg Defense: “We were only following orders.” The Russian auxiliaries, the SS, the regular Wehrmacht, all of the Nazi thrust to wipe out the Russians are there, and all are guilty. There are no beautiful cameo actors to stride across stolen scenes. It is as if the Russians rose from the earth and the Germans emerged from the mist to battle for their lives, and we are there to see it. There are no fancy special effects: the bullets are real, the bombs are real, and the toll on the actors is real.

The film was shot in chronological order, so one watches the aging effects of the war on the film’s main actor. When he appears greyed, shattered, wrinkled, and broken at the end, we do not see a Hollywood makeup job. We see an actor that lived as his character did for nine months – starving, marching, harrowed by the sights around him.

Much of the dialogue in the film is delivered head-on from actors confronting the camera, looking directly into our souls. The music aids the psychological heaviness and impact. The film is so involving, we don’t have time to think “my, what lovely cinematography!” It’s every bit as involving and demanding as Das Boot, but with the added burden of being a documentation of genocide.

Come and See is a film that demands to be seen and then reflected on. It is not entertainment. It is a conduit for pondering, questioning, and a search for answers.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Madoff,

How are you? I am fine. I heard on the news that you were both very sad after you found out that Mr. Madoff’s fraud was going to be public. Sudden publicity can be shocking, so I can understand why you both might be depressed. What bothers me is that you did not feel sad enough to not perpetrate the fraud in the first place.

I’m not saying that I’m perfect. We’re all human, and it’s human nature to make mistakes. It’s also human nature to sometimes do bad things. When we do a bad thing, though, we’re supposed to be sorry for it and to try and undo what was done. You both, however, used the court system to try and keep some of the money you had basically stolen from others. Because the US Government accepted the plea, you both now get to keep some of that money. This is bad because it is not good.

Your scandal made lots of other people very sad. Many of those people are still sad. They are deeply and profoundly sad. Some of them thought that the deep and profound sadness was behind them after they got out of the Auschwitz murder camp, but you found a way to shatter their peace and security in their last days on earth. When I tell people about how life can be unfair, I will be sure to use that as an example, Mr. and Mrs. Madoff.

I don’t think I’m being overly judgmental to say that what you did was bad and that you need to try harder to make it right. You’ve still got some of that money and before you say you need it to live off of, think about what the people that you made very very sad are going to live off of. They were planning to live off of the money you are living off of.

I hope you both choose to make things right while you still have time. As long as you’re alive, you can change and do the right thing.

Please try harder,

Dean Webb

This is a list of remediation rates for Dallas-area students that enroll at junior colleges. If you’re not in the Dallas area, just Google up your district name and the keywords “college remediation.”

Now a word on the statistics: you can also see the number of students per graduating class that went to junior college. The percentage of remedial students is a percentage of that number, not the total graduating class.

So why would a student need remediation if he or she was able to graduate high school? Is this evidence of the existence of social promotion, which was supposed to be wiped out with the testing regime imposed waaaaay back in 1990-91? As it turns out, the NCLB act has given it new life.

If a school is going to be considered unacceptable, unclean, and untouchable with a too-high dropout rate, no school administrator is going to want to have a student drop out. Students that fail courses drop out, so the pressure is on to get these guys to pass and graduate. What they do after graduation is not an overriding concern of the school district, at least not enough to take on the real overriding concern to keep from being rated non-performing because of a bunch of kids that, for whatever reasons justified or otherwise, do not perform well at their campuses.

I’m against the idea of schools arbitrarily kicking out students or using expulsion to target unpopular minorities, but I’m equally against the idea of the Vietnamization of schools, where statistics are the end-all and can be tweaked to hide the fact that the actual mission is not being accomplished.

And, the fact is, for all the efforts made at so-called reform, which is actually a bunch of micromanagement and statistical fudgery from above, we still see that nearly all the schools in the Dallas area – and they’re by no means alone – still graduate students that need to be taught what they were supposed to have been taught.

Is it the fault of the teachers? The parents? The administration? The society in which we live? The students themselves? Yes. But the key to success in the schools is not to be punitive. The best program I have ever taught in has been in my own church’s education system. There, the emphasis was on having the right spirit, the right attitude about education. There, we invited the students in. If they did not attend, that was a matter for a case-by-case assessment, not a blanket ruling. We invited the students to participate in the lessons and to find their own value in what we taught. For those who chose to be there, many had a fantastic experience that affected their lives for the better.

I was a student myself in that program when I was in high school, and I don’t remember specific lessons, but I do remember the spirit of that classroom. I remember the teacher’s love and dedication to us, her students, and how that love helped us to enjoy what we were learning. I then think over to my other great teachers in the schools I attended, and it’s the same with them. I don’t recall specific lessons, but I do remember that attention, that love, that dedication, that care for each of us as individuals, rather than as an aggregate of data for accountability reports.

That’s what made my schooling great: the teachers on the front lines that taught with love, often in spite of what their administrators were doing to them. As a teacher, I know I’ve brought that same love and dedication and, yes, I have taught in places where it was in spite of what the administration, state regulations, or NCLB did to me.

I see the numbers for my high school on the list and I have to think that maybe, just maybe, the solution in dealing with the remediation problem might just be in junking the government-mandated high-stakes tests and other punitive metrics and instead dealing with each student as an individual – and realizing that, in a free country, some individuals will simply choose to not participate with the others. They will be left behind. It is sad, but we have to move on.

Facebook fan page for my class. Like it and survive this year!

There is no American flag in heaven.

Whether you believe in heaven or not, there is still no American flag there. God is not an American, and neither is Jesus. I state this in a position contrary to one seemingly adopted by hard-right conservative Christian ideologues.

Neither God nor Jesus has signed any sort of trade deal, mutual defense pact, or even a treaty of goodwill with the USA. God, therefore, is not on our side. He’s on His own side and those who are not with Him are against Him.

Who is against Him? Jesus said one cannot serve both God and Mammon. Mammon is the Hebrew word for money, not some arcane Philistine deity. Mammon is money. Money is the world made to go ’round by money. Money is not love – it is cruelty, it is interest rates, it is moral hazard, it is corruption, it is that, when loved by man, becomes the root of all evil. To say otherwise is to lie.
Continue reading →

I picked up this film at the Half-Price Books this past weekend and enjoyed it greatly. Perhaps “enjoyed” is the wrong word… it’s an incredibly brutal war movie. I should say that I appreciated its importance and scope greatly. It’s a magnificent film and is superlative as a war movie.

I watch war movies because of what they have to say about the human condition, both about the soldiers that fight and the people that make the films. I feel that war movies as a genre deserve a system of rating that considers them as war movies, to the possible exclusion of other elements.

The first consideration is how much stuff gets blown up. Wars are about destruction, and that has to be depicted strongly, or the film must deliver significantly in other areas. Even if a film is near-perfect in other areas, an absence of massive, cyclopean destruction will prevent it from being a consummate war film. In this regard, Tae Guk Gi delivers. Some would say that it over-delivers. The film has a strong advisory that is warranted for its stark, graphic, brutal depiction of what war can do to a human body. The film does not flinch from hand-to-hand combat with improvised weapons, shells rending bodies, or massacres of innocents. The violence makes it difficult to watch, but compelling as well. There is much to learn in that this is a true face of war, and it is ugly. 2 points for the blowing stuff up.

Next, I want to assess the honesty of the depiction of war. Every great war movie is also an antiwar movie. A movie that glorifies an aspect of the conflict is propaganda. Tae Guk Gi glorifies heroism, but on a personal, rather than national level. It questions so-called “national heroes” as fabrications of propaganda, with their actual deeds perhaps best left unknown. Tae Guk Gi is most certainly an anti-war movie. The war moves across Korea and devastates the whole of it. The characters are all complicated, regardless of their side, which aids the impact of the film. 2 points for honesty without propaganda.

Third for me is a question of veracity: does it ring true? I’m a military historian, and I cringe at ignorance of history. Ignorance of history leads directly into propaganda and mythology and glorification of war, which there should be none of. Tae Guk Gi is painstaking in its detail, down to the anti-communist brute squads that executed South Korean citizens in liberated areas for suspicion of collaboration with the Communists and the North Korean slaughtering of villagers in the path of the South Korean advance. The uniforms are impeccable and the equipment period- and theatre- accurate. I enjoyed seeing the North Koreans equipped with the proper USSR 1938-era war surplus, as happened historically, along with the evolving quality of equipment for the ROK forces. 2 points for veracity.

After veracity, I want to see empathy for the other side. Not sympathy, but an understanding of their motives – empathy. I don’t want the contending army to be simply “the bad guys.” I want them to be the enemy, but I want to see them act intelligently and not be a set of cardboard targets to blast apart. I don’t want to see a film that’s little more than a first-person shooter game. Again, Tae Guk Gi comes through on this count. The North Koreans aren’t idiots. They also aren’t a nameless mass. We see their soldiers, their officers, their prisoners of war, and each character has a memorable impact. There’s also a great Chinese mass charge scene that incorporates CGI and live action properly… unless the filmmakers really did hire 100,000 extras to charge up a hill for 20 seconds… but the scene conveys the idea of a mass charge more than any description I’ve read. I understand the Chinese style of fighting more now. 2 points for the empathy connection.

Finally, I need intensity of experience. I need to feel like I’m there, in the midst of the conflict. Tae Guk Gi is excellent in that regard. The cinematography uses a number of artistic touches that again and again put me directly in the trenches, bunkers, and city ruins. Blood, dirt, and bullet casings fly up into the lens, giving me more than a 3-D experience. I travel in time with those touches. 2 points for the intensity, 10 total.

Tae Guk Gi is what I would consider to be a consummate war film. It has it all, plus bonuses I did not need to consider because of its attainment of superlativeness without their consideration. This is not a romance. This is not a teenage angst vehicle. This is a WAR movie, and there is much to learn from watching it. If you like war movies, you owe it to yourself to see it.

Slavery. There, that was easy.

States’ Rights? OK, sure… state’s rights to do what? Oh yeah, own and keep slaves. Economics? I’ll agree that was a reason as well, due to the economics of chattel slavery. The entire way of life among the Southern elites was dependent upon the exploitation of chattel slaves from African peoples. The economic and social pressures from the North threatened slavery as an institution and, by association, the power of the rich white landowners. The Northern elites were pressing their advantage in Congress to turn the South into an internal colony of the United States, and the South objected to their dwindling numbers and the inability to spread the institution of slavery to the West.

They could not spread westward because, in their way of putting it, exploiting cheap Mexican agricultural labor was cheaper than owning slaves. With secession, slavery did not have to spread to maintain political power. It also meant less political and economic power for the North, so the Civil War became an extension of USA’s imperialism. The Civil War was a war over the nature of American slavery: chattel or wage/debt?

The banks of the North made the Union victory possible by lending money to the USA in the form of a perpetual debt. We are still paying interest on that debt. Therefore, I can conclude that the banks won the Civil War, making the institution of chattel slavery a thing of the past and wage and debt slavery the law of the land.

Americans have a disturbing trait in that they do not wish to examine their history objectively. Historians are anomalies among a people that prefers hagiographers and mythologists when dealing with its past. Southerners want their historical forbears to have fought for States’ Rights. Northerners want to have their forefathers to have fought to free the slaves. This in spite of the fact that poor Southern whites themselves seceded from their own states so they would not be poor men dying in a rich man’s war and how Lincoln only freed the slaves in the areas of the nation in which he had no power to do so.

This romantic approach to the past extends to all American wars. We have to claim victory in every one of them, no matter what the reality indicates. The War of 1812 was a pointless war, fought to a draw against a distracted Britain. The Mexican War was a theft perpetrated against a weaker opponent, born of a baldfaced lie to Congress: how can we “win” in that situation? The USA lost the Civil War: I told you that the banks won that conflict. The Spanish-American war was another mugging, this time of Spain. World War One was fought to make sure France and England could pay back the massive loans they took out from US banks to buy US-made weapons, so the banks won that one, too. There’s so much mythology around World War Two that I’ll concede to anyone that the USA won it, even though I have some strong, well-formed opinions about that one.

Oh, I can’t resist. FDR was trying to get the US involved from the get-go. US escorts tried to draw the foul from German U-boats. The navy posted its fleets forward to Hawaii and the Philippines, provoking a Japan already angered over a US oil embargo. Once in, the USA demanded unconditional surrender, which hastened the Holocaust: the Nazis realized they couldn’t negotiate their way out of things, so they’d have to kill Jews and Gypsies and Poles and Russians and others that much faster, before they ran out of time. FDR didn’t even use US bombers to take out the rail lines bringing victims to those murder camps, even though they could and they knew exactly what was going on. Germany and Japan both eventually surrendered after US bombers firebombed their cities, but the Cold War began as an extension of WW2-era rivalries. I can’t say that the US won WW2, since we didn’t defeat our other main rival, the USSR.

After WW2, the USA simply didn’t bother declaring wars, so any reason behind the use of military force became a fiction. The USA did not win the Korean War: China won that one, since it secured the existence of the buffer state of North Korea. The Chinese armies succeeded in driving the US-led forces back to the 38th parallel and held their ground against US and ROK counterattacks. The Communists also won the Chinese Civil War, in spite of US backing for the Nationalist side. The USA lost Vietnam: we exited the war before the inevitable collapse of South Vietnam occurred, but not before we invaded Cambodia and caused that nation to plunge into the clutches of the Khmer Rouges. We did not achieve our goals in that war, so we lost it.

I can’t say the US won the war to liberate Kuwait since we precipitated that war by encouraging the Kuwaitis to slant-drill into Iraq and then letting Iraq know we’d not interfere if they sought punitive measures against Kuwait. That war resumed in 2003, with the goal of making Iraq into a US client state: that adventure has failed miserably and US forces remain in a nation they failed to remake in our image. There’s Afghanistan, too: nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans. It’s not the “graveyard of empires” for nothing.

Our soldiers can fight valiantly: I do not question that at all. What I question is why they were fighting in the first place. The USA has never had a truly defensive war in its history. We rationalize and claim this just cause or that semblance of victory, but there’s really no way our nation can win in such actions. Until we are honest about our history, we cannot hope to be more sober in our use of force.

I recently saw an excellent war movie from South Korea, Tae Guk Gi. I say it is excellent because it shows all of the war and does not let any side escape scrutiny. Both sides fight bravely. Both sides commit atrocities. Both sides become confused and paranoid and, finally, reckless in their bloodshed. The victory in the film comes from the main characters’ ability to rediscover their humanity in the midst of the revolutions of blood. There is a strong honesty in that film that I find absent in American treatments of war that tend to focus more on the main characters’ struggles against a larger enemy. There are exceptions in US war movies: Saints and Soldiers, Pork Chop Hill, and Black Hawk Down, but even in those I detect some latent cheering for one side over another. While we’re ready to be honest on a personal level about the lives of the soldiers, we are not yet ready to be honest about the way in which we fight wars or in the ways in which wars have been lost in a national sense.

Which brings me back to the Civil War: both sides were pushed forward by their rich men, and it is the rich men who always seem to win wars, for they are the ones that lend the money to fight those wars. They are the ones that own the arms factories. They are the ones that sacrifice nothing and gain everything there is to gain from a war.

“ARTICLE 7: EDUCATION
Sec. 1. SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FREE SCHOOLS. A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.” – Texas Constitution

Governor Perry is big on the death penalty, but I’m going to do my bit to try and keep him from killing the dreams of Texas students any more so than he’s already done. And for class size notes, the Texas state capitol requires one adult per 10 children on tour. I guess student-teacher ratios DO matter.

“Permalink Fix & Disable Canonical Redirects Pack” can fix the Firefox error that says “Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.” I know that because I’m running it after upgrading to WordPress 3.1 crashed my site with the redirect bug. I’m posting this just in case someone out there is searching for the answer. Every page with the fix helps.

Let It Bleed stands as a critics’ favorite among the Stones’ catalog. For me, it will always be a huge disappointment.

I grew up with lots of music in my house. In particular, my mom loved playing The Rolling Stones – up to 1967. After that year, she didn’t spin any of their platters. I grew up to Between the Buttons, 12×5, and December’s Children. I loved those albums. I believed that they could very well be in the running for “World’s Greatest Rock Band” based on those tasty tracks. But my mom refused to play the post-’67 Stones. Why, mom? “They’ve been dead from the neck up since 1968,” was her reply.

One day, many years later, I questioned my mom’s judgment. After all, she didn’t like Led Zeppelin… maybe there was something to the Stones after 1967. I’d heard their stuff on the radio and liked some of it. So I tried out Let It Bleed. It had “Gimmee Shelter,” “Midnight Rambler,” and “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” all songs I enjoyed. It promised to be a true pleasure, one of the greats.

Whaddya know, my mother was right.

Those three songs were the only ones I did like of the nine on offer. Most of the album sounded like a drug-fueled bar crawl. I didn’t hear the spark and brilliance I knew from their earlier work. I got the feeling the album was successful because the Stones were popular and that, therefore, anything they did had to also be successful. Success also meant importance, so the album became something on the order of Paris Hilton – famous for being famous.

I like a third of the album and can’t stand the rest. I really don’t like it. 3 out of 10 and I’ll defend that.