"Why We Fight" Movie Review

I just finished watching the film "Why We Fight," a documentary by Eugene Jarecki. I wasn't sure what to expect going into it, as I noticed that it had interviews of both John McCain and Chalmers Johnson, and followed the story of a man joining the army, and of a veteran who now forbids her children to join the armed forces. All of this made for a very balanced and nonpartisan look at what makes our nation go to war.

The backbone of this film (and many other looks at the modern military) lies in Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he warns the American people of the rising "military-industrial complex." For those of you who are not familiar with the phrase, it is the loose organization between Congress, the Pentagon, and defense contractors. This association is the recipe for the expansion of the military: Congressmen want jobs (from defense contractors) in their home districts to help their own careers, the Pentagon wants more strength and freedom (in the form of new equipment, more bases, and looser rules), and the defense contractors want more money (in the form of government contracts to make weapons of war). The movie investigates the military-industrial complex, and how it affects both the decision-making process in Washington, the media's portrayal of events, and the public's opinions.

Most importantly, Jarecki warns against the United States taking the same path as Rome, changing from a small republic, into an empire, into a superpower and oppressor. To me, this is a nonpartisan issue, one that all Americans can rally around. We do not want the government to be able to take advantage of our patriotism, our love of freedom or our families, and scare us into supporting a war against a non-threat such as Iraq. The documentary also follows the path of Wilton Sketzer, a man whose son died in the World Trade Center, who goes from hating the terrorists and supporting the war in Iraq to realizing that the government lied to support the invasion. I hope that, like Sketzer, people who watch this film will realize that obeying the government isn't the same thing as loving your country. We have to think independently about all government decisions, or else there will be another Vietnam or Iraq, both of which the government blatantly lied the public into supporting.

"Blood and Oil" Review

Somewhat recently, I read a book called "Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum" by Michael T. Klare. To be honest, it was a couple months ago and I have really procrastinated in writing this review. But now that it's summer and I have time on my hands, I'd like to showcase what I think is a great read.

As you may be able to infer from the title, the book is about oil. And about blood, meaning the wars fought over oil. The reason for this is that Klare wrote a book, "Resource Wars" (which i have yet to read) which argued that wars are fought mainly over resources. But Klare later realized that oil was a much larger factor than any other resource. But why is this? Why does oil create more conflict than any other resource, whether it is gold or diamonds, food or water, stone or wood?

Everything in our modern society is based off of oil, which is why everyone feels the crunch when oil prices rise. Shipping, and therefore the prices of every good you buy in a store, is affected by fuel costs. The list goes on, but Klare is a much better linguist and scholar than I, and explains oil's importance in the introduction to this book.

Because of its importance, which is really the main point of the book, is that oil is the one resource that has been deemed a matter of national security. Due to this, the government can use oil as a reason to use the military wherever it sees fit. Putting aside the obvious relation to the Iraq War (which is not the focus of this book, which I liked), the United States supports many countries, namely Saudi Arabia, due to oil. But I will not go into a summary of this book, which you could probably find on sparknotes. All I would like to say is that this book has a great balance between history and current events to be both nonpartisan and interesting.

To give my own opinion, this book is a must-read. Before I read it, I never understoof why people always claimed that the Iraq War was started over oil. But now I now understand the argument, and whether or not you agree with it, this book will show you the reasoning for it. But I think that it was quite nonpartisan, criticizing FDR just as much as George W. Bush. And most importantly, Klare does not merely say that the current situation is bad, but he actually produces some ways to fix it. Klare explains his points well, with intelligence and articulation. The bibliography is huge, and it contains a nifty index. I'm definitely going to read some more stuff by Klare, or on the subject.

Here's where you can buy the book (I bought it at Barnes & Noble for $16):

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Oil-Consequences-Dependency-Petroleum/dp/0805079386/ref=ed_oe_p

"Sicko" Review

So the other night, I watched "Sicko," the documentary about healthcare by Michael Moore. I was expecting a great documentary, due to the popularity of Moore and the number of awards he has won. And I got even more than I expected.

First of all, I would like to say that I supported a universal healthcare system before I watched the movie. What I was really looking for were some facts and statistics to back up my ideas, rather than the simple belief that healthcare is something that everyone deserves, no matter their income level, like education and protection by the law.

But the film was focused much more on individuals and their experiences with the healthcare systems in the USA and abroad, which were actually quite interesting. A lot of people have had bad experiences with the American system, including employees of big insurance companies. These accounts were quite moving, as they exposed how greedy and profit-driven the companies really are, as employees would get bonuses for turning down the highest number of customers' claims. There were also people who were victimized by the system, and had lost loved ones or been sent into poverty due to the greediness of the HMO's.

There were some statistics, however. A lot of them were interesting, such as that the USA has 50 million people (about 1/6 of the current population) living without healthcare. That the USA is ranked #37 in the coverage of its citizens, below small and poorer countries (France being #1). Some of the statistics were so outrageous that I did not even believe them, such as when Moore states that the US's infant mortality rate is higher than in most other industrialized countries. I looked up the fact later, and it is true that the US is rated below all developed nations but Latvia in the number of children who die in their first month of life.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html

After I discovered this, I appreciated Moore's work much more. He showed some very shocking facts, which show how poor the health of our nations really is compared with countries with socialized health care. He also showed the perspective of Candians and British citizens and doctors, to refute the claims that socialized healthcare is poor, slow, or bad for doctors.

And perhaps my favorite part of the movie was when Moore points out how many things in this country are already socialized. Americans' irrational fear of socialism, and how it will lead to *gasp* communism seems to be one of the main blocks of universal health care. But so many things are already provided by the government, such as police, firefighters, libraries, education, and the postal service. These are things that are deemed necessary for society and as rights for citizens, yet they could easily be privatized. So why is it that health care doesn't make the cut for the list of government-provided services?

The only negative I could find with the film was that Moore glorified universal health care more than it probably deserves. He made it seem as if it was a perfect system, praising Cuba for having socialized health care, and made it seem as if it was better to live in Cuba than in the US. As I said above, I support government-run health care, but I don't think it's a perfect system. Everything has some pros and some cons, and even if socialized health care is better than privatized, that doesn't mean it is perfect.

All in all, this is a great movie and I highly recommend it. It is quite depressing at parts, but it's both thought-provoking and entertaining. And as it is said in the film, this issue isn't a partisan one. Even members of the Conservative Party in Canada and Great Britain support universal health care, as it is a basic human right. If we can unite behind universal suffrage, equal protection under the law, and equal education, why not health care?