As a part of the marketing push for the release of a new HBO Miniseries titled The Pacific, Tom Hanks, an executive producer of the show, has been making the interview rounds.

The new series, Mr. Hanks tell us, will be different from traditional war films in that it will include American racism and terrorism.  Quoted in an interview with CNSNews when asked about his racism comments (here):

…I have talked to all sorts of people who have, in the vernacular, used incredibly racist terms about the people on the other side of the fence, and we can see all the time that comes over in the regular news media from their side, from the other side, terms that can only be viewed as racist…

Now I don’t disagree with Mr. Hanks at all in that war vets from today and yesterday tend to still hold disdain for their once mortal enemies and that they do in fact use “racist” terms and in the course of war, some have committed acts which when viewed on the sidelines can appear inhuman.

However, Mr. Hanks continues:

But let’s just take the word “racism” out of it and put “ignorance” instead, because it’s, racism, is a mere virulent form of what that ignorance is….

& here’s where Mr. Hanks & I part ways, because what he describes isn’t “ignorance” any more than any other normal emotion is ignorance.

Don’t misunderstand me – racism is one of the lowest forms of thought in existence, but using dehumanizing and racist terms during war shouldn’t necessarily be on the same continuum because it’s foundation is not one of hatred, but one of survival.

When society, asks of its people, to go to war, face death, whether for the just cause of self-defense or the noble cause of stopping the ongoing Holocaust, they ask a great deal.  While historically this might not seem true, we know that humans are not born with a desire to kill other humans.  Taking a human life, even in self defense for most people is difficult and fraught with psychological consequences.

One of the ways societies, military units, and even individuals prepare themselves to take human life in war is to devalue it through language.  The use of racist terms is one of the consequences of this behavior and serves as a coping mechanism for those asked to kill.

Additionally, the term itself is meaningless, so long as it be negative and collective.  If I think about individual combatants, they become more human than if the group is just a bunch of  ________.

Even during the beginning of the Revolutionary War, our freedom fighters would pick fights with armed British soldiers, get fired upon, then make claims of oppression & murder.  The most famous example being the “Boston Massacre“.

A mob fully angered provoked armed sentries who fired in self-defense.

One of our founding fathers, John Adams, successfully defended the 6 soldiers against trumped up murder charges.  The press and many average citizens saw the enemy that was the British solider as a terrorist and themselves as saviors of freedom.  Stated simply, for most people, we were the good guys and they were bad guys.

& the same happened during WWII.  Even with noble and just causes, we tried to dehumanize the enemy in an attempt to reconcile the need for war.

Mr. Hanks continue:

“I’d like to think that as our time has gone by and as Americans have found themselves in 2010, ignorance is being replaced by a certain amount of enlightenment and racism is going to be replaced eventually by an acceptance. It’s just taking an awfully long time.”

Here again, I agree with Mr. Hanks.  Racism is a childish ideology, but so long as people on this planet want to do others  harm, we will need to be willing to do seemingly unbearable things to stop them.  As has been stated many times over, freedom is not free.

Let’s just hope that the certain amount of enlightenment Mr. Hanks discusses includes a basic understanding of human nature, combined with enough humility to not judge others as “ignorant” when in reality all they are trying to do is reconcile their desire to see others live compared to the actions required of them when called.

On this day, in 1941, Japan struck Pearl Harbor.  Watch actual news coverage of the event:

Some color footage, including interview with people who were there:

To read the full analysis, you will likely need to register and possibly pay, but Stratfor just announced A Possible Bin Laden Sighting:

A blurry image of a person resembling Osama bin Laden appeared in Abu Yahya al-Libi’s video sermon commemorating the end of Ramadan.

I guess I failed at this as well by twittering about the rescue of the captain from the Somali pirates, but from here on out, I think the term terrorist is a much better description.

Either way, after an amusingly easy defeat of the idiotic terrorists this past weekend, they have apparently decided to step up efforst in what appears to be a direct challenge to the US administration and other world leaders.

From AP (article):

MOMBASA, Kenya (AP) — Undeterred Somali pirates went on a hijacking spree, brazenly capturing four more ships and taking over 60 crew members hostage in the Gulf of Aden, the waterway at the center of the world’s fight against piracy.

Pirates have vowed to retaliate for five colleagues slain by U.S. and French forces in recent hostage rescues — and the top U.S. military officer said Tuesday he takes those comments seriously.

These brazen Somalis of course have very little faith in the US to stay the course after the  abandonment of the country in 1994 in a blown operation made famous in Blackhawk Down.

Let’s hope our resolve stays stronger this time to keep international waters safe from those that wish to do nothing more than terrorize others for monetary gain.

As FBI negotiators backed up by several naval warships attempt to secure the release of an innocent hostage on the open ocean, the terrorists are now making demands.

AP (here):

A Somali in contact with a pirate leader says the captors of a U.S. sea captain want a ransom and are ready to kill him if attacked.

How about – if you leave the hostage unarmed, we won’t kill you?

While watching the Sunday news shows, Fox News Sunday, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, as well as Real Time with Bill Maher.  The commentary of those representing Mr. Obama’s opinions reminded me of utopia.

As with many people, I first learned the word Utopia as a small child in grade school.  As we have all learned, utopia is that wonderful society where crime, pestilence, incivility, and all the bad things that humans seem prone to do disappear. Shortly thereafter however, we learned that this society is fictional.

That was apparently true until these past week’s events.

To begin with; the facts.

Mr. Obama went to the G20 conference this past week to discuss the current ongoing financial crisis.  & while he gave a great speech about it’s highlights and togetherness, each item we asked of our international allies was denied.  The only thing that seems to have happened is an overall agreement that all countries need to attack this problem (as if this were needed to begin with) and an increase in the strength of the IMF with pledged funds.

Secondarily, Mr. Obama used some time this weekend to deliver a stirring speech about a world without nuclear weapons.  This of course took place while North Korea and Iran continue to openly disregard non-proliferation treaties and feckless UN resolutions.  North Korea even took this opportunity to test Mr. Obama by test launching a long range missile they have recently developed.

Mr. Obama’s response was to ask for yet another UN resolution, as if somehow the mere fact he became President will change North Korea’s known behavior.

However, according to the pundits that presume to speak for Mr. Obama there is absolutely nothing to see here but the great things that took place.  Their two main points seem to be:

First, the world likes us again.  It doesn’t matter so much what took place at the G20, all the world leaders who hated Mr. Bush loved Mr. Obama.  Additionally, he got agreement on the IMF.  Sure, it was only pledged money and none of it really exists yet, but there’s agreement to help poorer countries around the world as well as their own.

Second, since the President’s goal is that of a world without nuclear arms, he is acting accordingly.  It doesn’t matter that North Korea and Iran are acting in defiance because the President is pushing our goal of a world without nuclear arms.  Remember, you can hug people with nuclear arms…

Both of these points are clearly without thought and merit.

The first point about being liked is just disgustingly childish.  Also, getting countries to agree on working to solve a crisis they have already been working on seems comparable to getting them all to agree the world is round.  Sure, if agreement is the goal, then you have accomplished your goal, but I’m unsure what usefulness comes from having agreement that already existed.

The second point though, is concerning. Mr. Obama’s point is that we will reduce are arsenal in conjunction with Russia to make the world a safer place.  As if Russia, the US, the UK, and other rational countries having nuclear weapons is even remotely analogous to the irrational regimes of Iran or NK having them.

This is like saying a cop operating a pistol is the same as a person with known mental problems operating a pistol.  There are currently only two countries on the earth looking to get nuclear weapons while simultaneously proclaiming their intent to use them.  Having a belief that disarming Russia or the US will help this situation seems naive.

Additionally, if our populace actually began to act as if we didn’t need defenses because we believe the world is something it’s not, we are surely surrendering our freedom just as if we had capitulated to the crown all those years ago.

My only hope is that POTUS and his staff understand that history will always prove war to be the norm and not the exception.  As much as we’d all like to live in a world where we don’t have to fear tyrants and dictators threatening other countries’ security, this is not the world that exists now.  Nor will any reasoning based on an understanding of history, should we expect this world to exist.