I’ve been engaged in a twitter discussion with some good friends and acquaintances (and, being that it’s twitter, with some folks I don’t know from Adam) about the upcoming film Act of Valor . The film, for those who were comatose during the Super Bowl ad blitz, is a Navy recruiting video on major steroids that features several active duty SEALs and Special Warfare Combatant Crewmen in uncredited roles. According to the Wikipedia entry: Act of Valor began as a recruitment video for the U.S. military’s Naval Special Warfare Command. In 2007, Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh of Bandito Brothers Production filmed a video for the Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen SWCC which led the Navy to allow them to use SEALs for Act of Valor. None of the SEALs’ names will appear in the credits of the film. Relativity Media acquired the rights to the project on June 12, 2011 for $13 million and a $30 million in prints and advertising commitment. Deadline.com called it “the biggest money paid for a finished film with an unknown cast”. The production budget was estimated between $15 million and $18 million The discussion surrounding the film has largely been whether it is, in the words of Air Force veteran @JimmySky , “exploitative” – and if so, why that is and who exactly it is that’s being exploited. According to a recent WSJ story on the film , “the project offered filmmakers access to SEALs as well as military assets, but no funding.” The article also notes that: the “goals [of the film] were to bolster recruiting efforts, honor fallen team members and offer a corrective to misleading fare such as “Navy Seals,” the 1990 shoot-em-up starring Charlie Sheen as a cocky lone wolf. “In the SEAL ethos, the superman myth does not apply. It’s a lifestyle of teamwork, hard work and academic discipline,” said Capt. Duncan Smith, a SEAL who initiated the project and essentially served as producer within the military. The article continues: For two years the filmmakers had inside access to the Navy’s elite and secretive force for an unusual assignment: to create a feature film that starred real-life SEALs—not actors—in lead roles. The movie, “Act of Valor,” is not a documentary. Instead, it straddles reality and fiction, military messaging and entertainment. It features strike scenes written by the SEALs themselves, jarring live-fire footage and a body count that would rival any ’80s action flick. Yet the movie, to be released in February, was designed to set the record straight on a group that the military says has been routinely misrepresented in film. Now, I need to offer a dual disclaimer up front: (1) I’ve only seen the preview and this excellent albeit brief review by Jeff Quinton , not the movie itself, and (2) I’m firmly biased in favor 0f pro-military (and particularly pro-SOF) films that provide the greatest level of accuracy that Hollywood can muster. For example, I thought Black Hawk Down was an excellent film (even if Josh Hartnett was horribly miscast as a Ranger), and I share the community at large’s loathing for ridiculous movies like the aforementioned Charlie Sheen Navy SEALs flick. The difference between the buzz about Act of Valor and the better of its predecessors appears to be primarily focused on the fact that Act of Valor features active duty NSWC personnel (and that the movie’s advertising blitz has been very vocal about their participation) in a film that has a fictitious story line, as opposed to , say, Black Hawk Down , which told a true story but used actors to do so (rather than “ being marketed on the basis of [having] real Rangers “). This, in turn, blurs the line between fiction and reality, while using valuable Department of Defense equipment and personnel to (according to former PAO @FPWellman) make money for Hollywood . While I understand the concerns, though, I’m far from convinced by them. Military participation in Hollywood projects is nearly a century old, and the Department of Defense maintains an entertainment media office specifically to provide “U.S. military assistance in producing feature motion pictures, television shows, documentaries, music videos, commercial advertisements, CD-ROM games, and other audiovisual programs.” According to the Armed Forces Press Service: To achieve maximum accuracy in movies and on television, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and DoD have liaison offices to help guide filmmakers through the process. The services operate independently of each other in this endeavor but share office space on the same floor of a Los Angeles building. The Defense Department’s entertainment media division is run from the Pentagon. “If we decide to cooperate on a project, we stay with them throughout all the scenes that have military or DoD depictions,” said Army Lt. Col Paul Sinor, a public affairs officer with that service’s Office of the Chief of Public Affairs. This task covers a broad spectrum, from making sure uniforms and equipment are correct to coordinating filming on military bases, said Air Force Capt. Christian Hodge, a project officer with the Air Force Entertainment Liaison Office. This cooperation has included technical advice, but it has also included equipment and personnel. The F-14s, F-5s, and A-4s in Top Gun were real military aircraft, as were the MH-60s and Little Birds in Black Hawk Down , and the F-22s in Transformers and Iron Man . However, as obvious as this statement may be, the cooperation goes farther than advice and hardware – it includes people , too. Every live action shot of a military aircraft, for example, includes active military crew members operating those aircraft. The fact they’re not credited among the primary cast is immaterial; they are participants in the film, just as the Naval personnel in Act of Valor are. Further, films like Transformers have featured active duty personnel in significant numbers (such as the Airmen serving as extras in this shot ), and have provoked little if any consternation as a result. Given all of this, it seems clear that the real issue is the fact that the film’s advertising touts the participation of active duty SEALs and SWCCs, rather than their participation. Does that mean, in turn, that the issue with the film is that a conscious effort is being made to make people aware of the presence of active military personnel in the film, rather than featuring military technology without overtly acknowledging the real soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines operating that technology on-screen? The other issue, raised by former Army officer Tim Matthews , is “the general sentiment…’shouldn’t these SEALs being out shooting REAL bad guys?’” I think the response to this one is fairly easy: from Blue Angels and Thunderbirds pilots to the Golden Knights, STARS, and Leapfrog jump demonstration teams, tip-of-the-spear military professionals are put to use on a daily basis not in offensive operations, but in operations that improve outreach and recruiting and build civil-military relations (and still more serve in administrative and staff positions, as liaison officers, etc.). Tim deserves credit for being consistent, as he believes that the “Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Golden Knights, bands, etc, are a poor use of resources.” However, these functions will continue to be performed by those who are skilled enough at their military jobs to participate in them, and outside of the fact that it’s on a big screen instead of over an airfield, I see no significant difference between the role of active duty SEALs in Act of Valor and that of that top 0.001% of F-16 pilots in the Air Force that makes up the Thunderbirds demonstration team. For me, the bottom line with Act of Valor is this: it’s a film that features Hollywood-DOD cooperation just like countless other war and action flicks over the last several decades. Yes, it’s a film with heavy Navy Special Warfare involvement, so I expect a level of accuracy and attention to detail that is far higher than almost any other military or combat film; yes, it’s almost certain to have a level of energy and action that far surpasses the day-to-day experiences of NSW operators; and yes, it is at heart what it’s always been: a Special Warfare recruiting video. H0wever, I’m simply not convinced that there’s any “exploitation,” “opportunism,” or anything else to be found here besides an action film that uses real operators, real support staff, and real stories to achieve a level of realistic sensationalism that very few of its predecessors have been capable of – and that’s just fine with me.
Not so long ago, the Great Satan to the labor movement was Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker — who faces a union-led recall election later this year. This week, if perhaps temporarily, that title is being claimed by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels whose signature Wednesday made Indiana the only right-to-work state in the upper Midwest and one of only two such states in the entire northeast quarter of the nation. (See right-to-work state map here .) Labor unions would like you to think that right-to-work laws outlaw unions. But what they actually do is say that a person can’t be compelled to be a union member or pay union dues in order to hold a job. In other words, right-to-work laws increase the economic liberty of all Americans while threatening the funding sources for union bosses in states where workers are held captive to big labor. This of course threatens Democrats whose life blood is that same union money. Indiana is the 23rd right-to-work state and the first state to adopt a right-to-work law since Oklahoma, which took that step in September, 2001. The industrial, labor-dominated states of the Midwest’s “Rust Belt” such as Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio have for years been losing jobs (and population) to the South, where there are legal protections of workers’ and employers’ freedom. Indiana is aiming to become a Midwest alternative to those southern states. Republican Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, quoted in the Indianapolis Star , described an Indiana company which was going to move to Alabama but is now staying put, as well as saying that “a company from Michigan was planning to go to a ‘right to work’ state in the South. When they saw what was happening here, (they) invited the state to bid. . . . We are now in consideration for those jobs.” If Indiana can show that its new law is a magnet for jobs, it may turn out to be the first domino to fall across a part of the nation which has been rapidly losing manufacturing jobs while Democrats’ desire to protect union coffers has trumped their desire to promote their citizens’ prosperity. Although less discussed than Indiana’s move, Virginia also struck a blow for public finance rationality and to protect that state’s right-to-work law. With the state’s lieutenant governor casting a tie-breaking vote in the state senate, the legislature passed a bill that
Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) learned a valuable lession today about member’s desire to go back to the practice of earmarking pet projects. Toomey and McCaskill offered an Amendment to the STOCK Act that would have created a new Senate point of order against earmarks in bills. They were met with bipartisan opposition to this common sense idea. The Earmark Elimination Act of 2011 offered by Toomey and McCaskill in the form of an amendment creats a point of order against language in a bill or report that was specifically requested by a Senator or House member for either a tax provision, narrow eligibility criteria benefitting a specific entity or a targeted tarriff that would fit the below definition. Providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process. Basically, if a Senator or Representative sends a letter to request a new bridge or highway in the district, they would need 67 votes to move forward with this project. Toomey and McCaskill lost this vote 40-59 with thirteen Republicans siding with porkers to reinstate the practice that allows members to funnel projects to the home state. Brian Baker, President of Ending Spending said today thhat we was disappointed in this vote. I am disappointed that the Senate has failed to pass a permanent earmark ban. We appreciate the efforts by Senators McCaskilland Toomey to end earmarks. The American people are frustrated that their elected officials can’t stop spending their hard-earned tax dollars on boondoggles, such as a bridge to nowhere. With the current earmark moratorium expiring at the end of 2012, if Congress does not end this destructive practice once and for all, the earmark favor factory will re-open for business. These inside the beltway elites just don’t understand that earmarks are the gateway drug to overspending. When will they prove to the American people that they can control their appetite for spending borrowed cash on projects that are not necessary for the future of America? The Tea Party may need to send another strong message to the members of both parties in Washington that they will not tolerate members who refuse to cut the size and scope of the federal government.
Read more:
Senate Porkers Defeat Earmark Ban
Reports are coming in (via @ CFHeather ) that a former Obama ’08 staffer – one Zach Edwards, formerly with the 2008 Obama campaign in Iowa and currently up until the arrest working for Link Strategies*, a company affiliated with Sen. Tom Harken (D, IA) – has been arrested for identity theft. The Iowa Department of Public Safety puts it fairly succinctly : “According to the Criminal Complaint, on June 24, 2011, Edwards fraudulently used, or attempted to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz and/or Secretary Schultz’s brother, Thomas Schultz, with the intent to obtain a benefit, in an alleged scheme to falsely implicate Secretary Schultz in perceived illegal or unethical behavior while in office.” In other words: Edwards is accused of trying to pretend to be Schultz in order to get Schultz in trouble. The crime is listed as an ‘Aggravated Misdemeanor,’ but if convicted Edwards could face jail time.
Quick background: the Obama administration has rejected plans for an additional pipeline to transport ethical oil from Canada to the United States, despite the fact that support for this project is bipartisan, and in fact favored by traditional Democratic allies in organized labor (who were reasonably expecting that they’d be able to get some jobs out of it). Anyway: while reading this darkly entertaining article on how proper, blue-collar labor unions are smarting over the way that Barack Obama prefers to cater to liberal environmentalists over letting a working man, well, work, I came across this passage: “Unions and environmental groups that praised Obama issued a joint statement lauding his decision to go slow – and blaming the House GOP…” – well, no need for Democratic party agitprop, is there? Particularly when it’s as clumsy as the default Green-derived pap that we typically get these days. Still, let’s look at the unions that support the Obama administration on Keystone, shall we? List via here : CWA. That’s short for Communications Workers of America . Self-explanatory: they’re a media/communications union. SEIU. Or, Service Employees International Union . Health care, government, property services. UAW. United Auto Workers , of course. You probably remember them; they used to make cars and whatnot. Well, they still do; just increasingly not the cars that people buy. Transport Worker’s Union . Transit workers. As in, subways and commercial air flight. United Steelworkers’ Union . If you’re wondering why they joined this one, it’s because they didn’t get the original pipe-making contract back in 2009. Oh, I’m sorry: did I type that out? Oops. Amalgamated Transit Union . Best described as “Drivers who don’t drive industrial transport vehicles.” So, basically, to spell it out: the unions broke down into three groups on this. The first group consisted of the unions that actually would be employed during a pipeline project. They’re for Keystone. Then there’s the second group, which consists of unions that won’t make a dime directly off of a pipeline project. They’re against Keystone. And then there’s the USW, which apparently doesn’t give a tinker’s dam that their union brothers and sisters get work if they’re not getting a piece of the action. I’ll leave you to decide which is the most reprehensible group of the three. Moe Lane ( crosspost )
Original post:
The phony union split on the Keystone pipeline.
