Is Quentin Tarantino an "Inglorious Basterd"?

We have been studying some quite perilous times these past weeks in AIS.  All of these times have been associated with wars, some more than others.  Though there may be things about the past that we would like to change, such as wars and civil liberties issues, any sane person knows that what's done is done.  The past can't be changed.  Quentin Tarantino, however, begs to differ.  He directed a 2009 movie titled "Inglorious Basterds".

'Inglorious Basterds" is based off of World War II.  Tarantino adds fictional characters and events.  I don't want to spoil the movie in case any of my readers have not yet seen it, but Tarantino does rewrite history.  If you don't have the patience to watch a movie that is about 3 hours long (although I suggest you do, it is a very good movie), then click here to read a quick synopsis of the film.  I personally was neither offended nor appalled at the rewriting of history.  It is very entertaining, and provides an ending that would have saved millions of lives were it true.  I know others, though, who disagree with Tarantino's choice to end the film the way he did.  I have one Jewish friend (who i am guessing would like to remain anonymous) who absolutely loved the movie.  His parents, on the other hand, were enraged by the alternate ending.  Should something controversial like this be avoided at all costs, or is this being blown out of proportion?

A Perilous Blog

A project looming ahead for us deals with many of America's wars, as well as civil rights disagreements that happened during or as a result of the wars.  This broached in my mind a very recent issue that has been debated ever since it was put into act.  This is the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, more commonly known as Arizona SB (Senate Bill) 1070.  To sum up the Act, it allows Arizona police officers to investigate anyone that they suspect may be an illegal alien.  To learn more than just the basics of this Act, click here.  I'm sure that most, if not all of us in AIS would disagree with this Act.  It discriminates harshly against those with a Hispanic background.  What truly shocks me, more than the outrageous Act itself, is the fact that when this Act was put into play, a nationwide poll showed that 60% of those polled support the Act, while only 31% oppose.  I realize those people living in the South may be more inclined to support the Act, because they are more directly affected by illegal aliens.  Still, though, I can't see how a true American could condone this sort of blunt discrimination.  I agree that there needs to be something done about the amount of illegal aliens entering this country every year, but this Act is, in my opinion, definitely the wrong way to handle such a large issue.

The Pure Puritans

One topic present in The Crucible that we have discussed in class is religion.  More specifically, we have been focusing on the Puritans.  The Puritans are notorious for despising Catholics, so they do religious things in a completely opposite manner.  Evidence of this lies in the Conversion Experience.  This is where Puritans would sit before a congregation, who would decide if the Puritan partaking in the Conversion Experience was one of "God's Elect".  Long story short, God's Elect were people who were predestined to go to heaven.  This is where I have a problem.  If the congregation said you are not worthy of heaven, then you would live your life for no meaning, since you would be going to hell after death.  You would either live a sad life, depressed with the fact that the afterlife will not be pleasant, or you would live a frantic life, trying to save your soul by committing as many good deeds as humanly possible.  On the other hand, if one was chosen as God's Elect, he could live a carefree life.  No worries, no burdens, just live life for fun, since you know you'll end up in heaven.  But what if you took it a step too far?  You could say "Well, I'm already going to heaven, might as well steal, murder, and rape since there won't be any consequences."  Then the congregation would be stuck in a hole.  If they said "Okay, now you aren't going to heaven", then that would prove that their system is flawed, and most Puritans would lose their faith.  If the congregation, however, said that this villain would still go to heaven, everyone who was God's Elect might follow in the villain's footsteps, and create even more chaos.  I'm not trying to beat up on the Puritans here, since no religion is perfect, but i really see some major flaws in this system of choosing God's Elect.