You know, you're probably not that far off. There really are a lot of Hollywood films already that portray military personnel and veterans as victims and people with mental disorders or traumatic nightmares. Few movies portray the military as it really is, or even in a reasonable facsimile (because there's a lot that can't be portrayed on film).

Loved Primer and now I'm starting Forty Shades of Blue on Netflix thanks to this review.

Also, yes, to echo what several others have said, thanks for slamming Little Miss Sunshine. It was horrible and disturbing. I was embarrassed, sickened, and confused as I watched it -- both over the content and over the relentless hype surrounding it.

I might be in the minority here -- but I don't understand what the hubub is about this image. I don't get why Ebert uses it, why it would shock and upset feminists (more than almost anything else featuring beautiful women), or why people are reacting to Ebert's use of the image as if he were a sick, sick man (that much was certain before his posting of the image).

I could be looking at this the wrong way, but as I view it, it seems it's not a "rope," but a tie. A tie that's clearly loose on her neck, which doesn't suggest strangling. Her right arm is up, and if you look to the left side of the photo, you'll see that she has a leg up, too, indicating there's some life there. Her skin is white and clean and there's no sign of a struggle here. I get the whole "She looks drugged and dragged" thing, and I have no idea what they tag line "suits for men who hate women" is about, but I really find this image as easily suggestive of him paying more attention to the tie than to the woman. As if maybe she seductively put the tie around her own neck and he took more of an interest in that than in her readiness for...whatever she's ready for... Perhaps the tag line means that men who love "clothes before hoes" might be the ideal consumer here.

Plenty of left-leaning folks are calling this the most disturbing ad &c, but perhaps they've never seen the American Apparel ads evocative of child-porn or some other kind of exploitation or...I'm sure there are plenty of other provocative fashion ads (Calvin Klein anyone?) that are more clearly suggestive of darker things. For instance, the first image of a 17 year old girl in this "best/worst" slideshow where NYMag calls out the suit ad as the most disturbing: http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/12/december_e.... Or what about image 2: http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/12/december_e...? Or whatever's going on here: http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/12/december_e....

The new mascot should be a WWI soldier to honor the real "Fighting Illini" and the men honored by the Memorial Stadium.

Thanks, Swamp_Thing. Green is not, to my knowledge, a professor, if that makes you feel any better. I have not had a single professor at UI teach anything nearly as offensive as Green's letter -- and whatever they teach, they use evidence and facts to support their claims, while remaining open to opposing views supported in a similar way.

David Green is not speaking for the University here. Please know that the University administration has gone to great lengths to support veterans on campus. I can't reveal my sources, but certain faculty and staff have told me they were deeply offended by Mr. Green's letter as well. He spares no one in his screed that takes aim at the students, the administration, the military, the government and people of Israel, and even the "poverty-drafted" service members whose service he at once impugns and later uses as a leverage to shame the Block-I students. He is not representative of the professionals I know at the school.

Appears to be the legitimate history -- see more info here: http://www.library.illinois.edu/archives/features....

My understanding is that they look at the sports in terms of "per 100,000 participants" or something like that and football is number one. I forget what the name of the study is, but it's been tracking the injuries for a few decades now. I believe they also have a special section on cheering, even though the government doesn't consider it a sport thanks to the feminists who designed the Title IX legislation. If I understand the study correctly, if less than 100,000 participate in the sport, they attempt to weight the numbers accordingly. I doubt they have a category for solo sailing around the world.

There also may not be enough data to calculate the actual risk for a 14 year old. What's the risk for any person of any age? I have no idea and google isn't doing real well at helping me. I do know that one other 16-year-old Aussie girl and Abby Sunderland's 17-year-old brother completed non-stop trips, but this girl's trip is going to involve stops at various ports for R&R.

Now, I think teenage drivers are at a bigger comparative risk than this girl is, too. At least in the US.

The question should not be about whether she or others should risk their lives. We risk our lives every day and often with very little gained in return. Those who may have to risk their lives to save hers are doing so with the understanding of the costs, accepting the risk probably in a far more conscious way than someone who buys a halogen lamp or lays down to sleep in a water bed. The risks and costs and whatever else associated with search and rescue and so forth are assumed by society regardless of the age, population, or relative stupidity of the person being sought/rescued. This is the way we behave because we're good to each other, generally. I find it hard to imagine this girl's trip is any more irresponsible than some party of drunk 30-somethings on a day trip off the coast of Florida. I'd be willing to bet it's statistically more likely that those casual boaters are at more risk than this little girl. But nobody is pitching a fit about their seaworthiness or questioning their own/their parents' motives.

That's probably because it's pretty hard for people to jump to the "they're doing this for the attention/fame/glory/money/record books/book deal/movie deal...etc." motive regarding the casual boaters. But when a serious young sailor wants to challenge herself, it seems fairly easy to assume she's doing it for all the wrong reasons...or that her parents are making her do it for all the wrong reasons.

I think the question should be about whether the risk is worth the benefits. It seems to me that the benefits of a solo trip like this are astronomically greater than the benefits of high school football, cheerleading, or solo driving. I'd assume the risk exposure is a lot lower, too, considering this isn't something she's going to do every day of her life until she's 18, or every weekday late summer through late fall for the next four years. This is something that will challenge her skills, her character, and her endurance. What parent stands in the way of that type of opportunity?

It seems that even while we decry nanny states and government interference in the lives of adults, we accept that it should interfere in the lives of children -- or it should step in and interfere in adults' decisions if they affect children and we disagree with them, whether or not our disagreement is reasonable or our cause is just. I think that in this world of peewee sports leagues for every sport under the sun, where children are forever being herded about to this game or that lesson or this play date, we've come to underestimate our children. It was young men not too much older than this young girl who surreptitiously joined the Marine Corps during conflicts of old and won medals for their courage, their tenacity, and their sacrifice.

Perhaps the biggest benefit of this trip will be to show the world that young people are capable of more than we give them credit. Perhaps it will inspire other young people to think beyond their immediate surroundings and to look at the world as their domain. I'm 31. It wasn't until I graduated high school and joined the Marine Corps at the age of 18 that I considered the world open to me. Until then I thought I had to rely on my parents to escort me through the world and since they never left Illinois, I never did either. I'm sure I'm not alone in that experience. I can't help but wonder how different my choices might have been if, at 14, I was told that the world was MY domain -- that I didn't have to wait until I was an adult or a college graduate to begin to make my mark beyond the walls of middle school or high school.

I, for one, think this is a pretty awesome thing and probably worth all the risk.

Check out this article to hear what John thinks of gay marriage: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-el.... He's in a civil partnership and says he's opposed to using the word marriage.

Amazing! In his first paragraph he basically justifies carpet bombing and collateral damage. Sure, the left decries military practices that result in collateral damage -- but that's because it's not their action. When they do it, it's an option of last resort. And they do so knowingly and with care, apparently. "Surgical strikes" like coming to "pay lip service to a roomful of kids at the Marquee" might be a valid tactic, Oberst concedes, but not nearly as effective and damaging as the boycott, which he likens to carpet bombing. There you have it, ends justifies the means. I love how reliably inconsistent this pecker-headed leftists are. They're like children who believe everything they do is justified, but anything anyone else does is not. Only we can spank children (I think we're still able to do that, right?).