Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

Several weeks ago, there was a major milestone in the war in Iraq that did not receive the news coverage it merited. As NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reported on June 29th about that milestone, "Pentagon and military officials report that the withdrawal of most U.S. military forces from Iraq's major cities has been completed a day ahead of tomorrow's deadline."  However, even with this dramatic change, American soldiers based in that country will continue to face real threats there as they work in partnership with the Iraqi military. One of the threats that Americans will continue to face in that nation is the threat of explosive devices, a threat that is explored in the new Iraq war film “The Hurt Locker”.

“Three members of the Army’s elite Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) squad battle insurgents and one another as they search for and disarm a wave of roadside bombs on the streets of Baghdad- in order to try and make the city a safer place for Iraqis and Americans alike.” So states the website of the film in describing the film's plot. The movie, like many other films about the war in Iraq, has been criticized by some in terms of its overall message about the war. (i.e. Does the movie support the war? Is it anti-war?) I can completely understand the rationalization behind such questions that speak to the intent of the film.

However one feels about the motives of the creators of this film, though, I think the film does an excellent job in capturing the intensity of being in a war zone and especially the immense intensity of a team of soldiers whose goal it is to disable explosive devices. While watching the film, there were numerous times that I wanted to look away from the screen so as to avoid being surprised by a bomb that suddenly explodes as it is being disarmed. The men and women who are in Iraq today disarming bombs have no such luxury and if a bomb explodes while they are trying to disarm it, they will likely be killed or seriously injured by it. With that in mind, I think the movie does a good job in conveying what this work entails and the inevitable risks that these soldiers, like so many others, face in doing their jobs. 

On the other hand, I did have some concerns about the portrayal of the soldiers in the film. At times, some of the characters take unnecessary risks and the lead character himself puts himself and his team at a greater risk than is necessary in the war zone. I understand that soldiers on such a team are in danger because of the job itself but was it necessary for the filmmakers to say that some soldiers are so willing to put themselves in danger that they invite greater danger into their lives? Was it necessary for the film to make it seem like war and danger are druglike experiences that soldiers can become addicted to? Such ideas seem out of place in a film like this that has a much greater story to tell about a group of soldiers that we do not hear enough about.

Again, overall, I did enjoy the film for its portrayal of how soldiers often put themselves in harm’s way to protect the citizens of foreign countries. The men in this movie work to disable explosive devices knowing that a simple mistake or an overeager terrorist could kill them at any moment and those risks and acts of bravery should be explored more in films. 

Even after the recent milestone in Iraq, such bravery is still on display from our soldiers in that nation and in other nations and movies like "The Hurt Locker" remind us of the incredible risks that our soldiers continue to take for the benefit of others.

When Sen. John Kerry, a pro-choice Catholic, ran for president in 2004, several bishops decided to deny him communion. A poll done at the time by Time magazine showed that 73 percent of American Catholics disagreed with that decision, and 83 percent said the bishops’ move wouldn't change their vote.

For Obama, respectful disagreement and a willingness to recognize differences was the animating spirit of the presidential campaign, and it was central to his Notre Dame speech. That is the kind of politics many Catholics practice. They’re tired of watching the church grasp frantically for control at the expense of truth and love. In America last November, it showed: 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama.

Dallas Mavericks' owner (and billionaire entrepreneur) Mark Cuban has gotten in trouble with his blogging. Any fears that your blogs might cause you trouble?

Cuban is living proof that even the billionaires' club has an IQ bell curve. Gates defines one end, Cuban the other. I'll let you decide which is which. The only trouble my blogging may cause is that much of it concerns organized crime and its infiltration of Wall Street.

The AFL-CIO is planning one of the largest state rallies in favor of "card check" legislation on Saturday in the home state of one of organized labor's frequent targets: Wal-Mart,

The union is expecting 1,000 attendees at a rally in Little Rock, Ark. on Saturday, in what the AFL-CIO says is one of the biggest non-D.C. events to date in support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

If I were advising a candidate, I would advise him or her very strongly that this is not someone you want to embrace.

In the course of their cordial exchanges, the conversation turned first of all to questions which are in the interest of all and which constitute a great challenge ... such as the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one's conscience.

There is great room for debate over the effectiveness of government stimulus programs, and over how much impact a focused "shovel-ready" spending program would have achieved by now. What is not debatable is that changes in the American economy and workforce are favoring service sectors where women are abundant and that the current severe contraction is centered on sectors where men, especially working-class men, predominate. That an emergency economic recovery program should be designed with gender in mind is itself remarkable. That, in current circumstances, it should be designed to "skew" employment further towards women is disturbing and ominous.

When I turned 11 years old, my father gave me my first hunting rifle with a sling that has “Katie P.” stitched on to it. Three elk, four deer, and two javelina later, this rifle has come in handy over the years during our many successful hunting trips together.

I’m from Arizona, and you have to be 21 years to take the Concealed Weapon Carry Weapon Permit class and to own a pistol. Today is my 21^st birthday, meaning this birthday is my dad’s most anticipated, important and exciting birthday of all (besides when I turned 10 and was eligible to go hunting for the first time), and the gift my father gave me fully supports the second amendment.

He let me know that he put a card in the mail, and that my gift was a certificate for the concealed carry course when I got back home. He also threw in that if I wanted to get a pistol, we’d go pick one of those up too.

Long live the second amendment.