Richie Waves

By Bill O'Brien / Traverse City Record-Eagle

TRAVERSE CITY -- It's no secret that Michael Moore is among the country's most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq.

What's far lesser-known is Moore's empathy for the troops who've fought there.

Moore, founder of the Traverse City Film Festival that owns the State Theatre downtown, said the theater is implementing a new labor policy requiring all its contractors and vendors to attempt to hire veterans who served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moore described it as an "affirmative action" measure to help area veterans find employment opportunities when they return home -- opportunities that Moore said are severely lacking for many servicemen and women.

Moore's disdain for the war in Iraq is well-documented. He was booed on stage when he criticized the war and President George W. Bush while accepting his Academy Award in 2003.

His opposition to the war remains as strong as ever. But Moore said he's just as upset about the treatment of the troops fighting the war, ranging from the lack of high-tech equipment to protect the soldiers to their medical treatment and the economic and employment uncertainty they face when returning home.

"For the past couple of years I've been receiving letters from a lot of Iraq War veterans," Moore said in an interview Saturday at the State Theatre. "They can't find work, they can't get the medical help they need ... some of them even had their homes foreclosed."

Moore points to statistics to make his case. The federal labor department last month released unemployment rates for veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan that showed a 6.1 percent jobless rate for veterans who have served since September 2001. That compares to a national unemployment rate of around 5 percent in April. The jobless rate for veterans ages 18 to 24 was substantially higher, totaling 12 percent compared to 9.5 percent for non-veterans in the same age group.

The federal government also reported that 16,000 formal and informal complaints were filed from 2004 to 2006 by members of reserve forces who encountered problems getting re-hired when they returned from military service to their jobs.

"Instead of receiving our veterans with open arms when they come back, they get 'Sorry chump, there's nothing for you,'" said Moore, who's hired military veterans for key editing and production positions for his documentaries, including "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko."

"This isn't a political stance," he said. "We're a community-based organization and (veterans) need to know people in this community will do their best to help them find work."

Moore said part of his motivation to help veterans stems from his father, who served in the Marines and fought in the South Pacific during World War II.

"When he came back, he was able to go school, he was able to buy a house ... it's not like that anymore," Moore said. "Being the kid of a veteran, you're aware of this."

In another show of support for the troops, Moore said the State Theatre will begin offering free admission to active-duty military servicemen and women to any movies shown at the theater.

"They don't have a lot of money when they're in the military," he said.

Moore said he'll ask other businesses in the community to make a similar "affirmative action" pledge to veterans, and hopes the effort takes off across the region and the state.

"It's not enough on Memorial Day to remember the sacrifices others have made," he said. "It's about what sacrifices we are going to make to make it better for those who've served their country."

MichaelMoore.com : Area veterans get critical support

__________________
Prescription drugs are 16400% more deadly than terrorism.

prinţesă nină

ive never understood this logic of believing the war is immoral and wrong, yet showing unwavering sympathies for those that further it.
in my book the soldiers on the ground arent much better than bush and cheney. perhaps i might feel different about the ones that initially got sent over, but the ones enlisting years later? not a chance.

Beathag McMahon

What happens a lot, Nina, is that young people join the military for reasons other than fighting the war.
A high proportion of the young folks involved are from areas where they have limited opportunity for jobs. They are from rural areas, small towns, and inner cities. They have high school degrees, but not the desire and/or means to do more with their education. So they sign up. It's not a "draft" like it was in the Vietnam era, but it has the same effect.
And then there are the folks who want to get out but can't - they are forced to stay in because of the military's "stop loss" policy.
And many are from the National Guard - that isn't intended to do this sort of thing. They are supposed to help with natural disasters, or go on active duty if the country is attacked - not get shipped off to Iraq.

__________________
"Want what you have, do what you can, be who you are." Forrest Church

"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward together in the same direction." Antoine De Saint-Exuprey

"We need not think alike in order to love alike." attributed to Francis David

Ten

WEWT!


Princesta, the reason why people are sympathetic to the soldiers and not the government is because the soldiers often times:

1) Don't expect all the shit they get exposed to
2) Have not much going for them so getting involved with gov't support is the best way. They really push the military here in the states. All kinds of monetary incentives, free college, etc etc.

What they don't mention is that sometimes you don't make it to the point to where you can actually gain those incentives. Some people get cut out of the military in training - and then they're just kind of doublescrewed, because now they have a new disability ANNND don't qualify for *shit* because they never actually saw "real combat".

__________________

Richie Waves

President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.

He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.

Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.

At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs — one of the soundest investments in human potential — in the nation’s history.

Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.

Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.

This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military. It opposes throwing ever more money at the Pentagon for defense programs that are wasteful and poorly conceived. But as a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.

By threatening to veto it, Mr. Bush is showing great consistency of misjudgment. Congress should forcefully show how wrong he is by overriding his opposition and spending the money — an estimated $52 billion over 10 years, a tiniest fraction of the ongoing cost of Mr. Bush’s Iraq misadventure.

As partial repayment for the sacrifice of soldiers in a time of war, a new, improved G.I. Bill is as wise now as it was in 1944.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/op...on&oref=slogin

Midi Reifsnider

I see this attitude in Northern Ireland alot, and I can see the logic of it to a certain extent, but Beathag is also right when she says that many people join who have little option. It may appear that they do, but their social, economic and family situations leave them with little choice. Of course there are some who join up because they want to teach the "enemy" a lesson, but it's not the majority.

Even if we accept there are a certain amount of soldiers who do have questionable motives, we can't deny that they do a job that is likely to scar them for lives and while we might not agree with current conflicts, we might need them to defend us one day. We have a duty to look after them on their return regardless of whether we agree with the politics that sent them there.