Some Random Edgy Guy
Interesting, most women seem to think it's partly their fault, which is worrying. Maybe they're just too considerate and not wanting to give definitive judgement, but if someone molests then he (or she) is on the offensive, taking action and clearly to be blamed. It doesn't matter how short the skirt is or sth like that, if you grope - you're to blame.
It’s very depressing seeing the ratios. It should’ve been 100% the gropers fault. There’s things that i love about japan but the way they treat women brain washing them into thinking this is somehow their fault is unfathomable.
You definitely can't part from me. You're the one who gave birth to me. I'm the child you made to eat your anguish and sadness. It doesn't matter how many times you kill me, I'll always be born again. Because I'm your true soul. You wanted to throw away your feelings for your brother, and become an adult without me. I won't allow that. In this place, your don't need anything. neither the pain, nor the anguish of becoming an adult.
I was afraid to open my heart to someone. But I'm not afraid anymore. Even if I lose sight of it, there's always a path somewhere. People are connected through narrow paths. Even if sometimes they lose sight of them, there's no doubt they're connected. Welcome back, you. I'm back ,you.
You want to forgive them?
"Piss off" ?
But that's not true!
Hinata is already looking forward!
She's already walking!
We look for three things when we hire people. We look for intelligence, we look for initiative or energy, and we look for integrity. And if they don’t have the latter, the first two will kill you, because if you’re going to get someone without integrity, you want them lazy and dumb.
"Was... I wrong?"
もちろん彼女は悪くないと思う Hisao だが言葉が出てこない。Hanako の告白は続く。家事の前までは少ないけれど友達がいて周りとちゃんとやれていたこと。大火傷を負ってからは全てが変わったこと。周りからの反応で深く傷ついたこと。傷つくことを拒否するために人と関わることを止めたこと。自分が消えてしまえばいいと分かっていたが、人との関わりを止める方がより簡単だったこと。Yamaku 学園に行けば再び社会との接点を見つけられるかと思ったこと。そして Lilly に出会ったこと。Lilly と出会って友達になれたけど、Lilly は Hanako ができないことをなんでもできてやっぱり自分は useless だと思い知らされたこと。そして Hisao に出会ったこと。Hisao も Lilly と同じで Yuko と簡単に仲良くなれたりして、自分はすぐ不要なものとして切り捨てられてしまうと思ったこと。それは嫌だったこと。誕生日は世界中の人が疑いもなく正しくて幸せだと思い込んでいるので、useless な自分はとてもつらかったこと。朝、ベッドで寝ている Hisao を見て、やっぱり自分は切り捨てられてしまうと思ったこと。
語り終えて下を向く Hanako に対して Hisao は振り絞って語りかける。
つい数ヶ月前まで健常者だったが、突然心臓病を発症しそれまでの社会から切り離される。そんな彼為のために両親は障碍児のための学校 Yamaku 学園に転校させる。見慣れない disable （盲目、手足の欠損、聾啞）にはじめは驚いたり疎外感を感じたりしたが、それぞれのユニークな個性を知るにつれて（足を使ってすごい絵を描く Rin、義足なのにものすごく足が速い陸上部のエース Emi、目が見えないが深い洞察力を持ちできないこととできることの違いを見せてくれる Lilly、聾者だが生徒会長を務める Shizune） disable について理解をしていく。
しかし Lilly が家の用事でスコットランドに滞在している間、 Hanako の誕生日が来て、 Hanako の態度が急変する。順調に Hanako と friend-ship を築けていると思っていた矢先に Hanako は教室から姿を消し、自室に閉じこもる。 Hanako との関係が壊れるのを心配する Hisao だがどうすることもできない。 Hanako が姿を消してから Hisao はこれまでのことについて初めて考え始めた。そしてこれからのことについて自分が取るべき道を探し始めた。
Hisao の傷に触れた Hanako 。また一つ二人の絆が深まったように感じた。
はじめは Hanako を守ろうとしていた Hisao だが、結局それは間違いだった。
Katawa Shoujo とは disable である人々が able であることに焦点を当てた作品だ。例えば Emi は両足が膝より下がないのに、競技用義足で誰よりも早く走れるし、 Shizune は聾唖者であるがクラス委員と生徒会長を務めあげる才媛だし、 Rin は両腕が無いのにもかかわらず足で見事な絵を描く。そして Hanako の親友の Lilly は、全盲を苦ともせずクラス委員であり友人も多い社交的な女性だ。
それでは Hanako の disable と able は何なのか。実は Hanako には先にあげたヒロイン達のような disability は無い。右半身に皮膚がひきつれるひどい火傷の痕が残るが五体満足であり、他のヒロイン達のような明快なハンディキャップは無い。では Hanako の able は何か。目が見えること？耳が聞こえること？意外と足が早いこと？両腕があること？そう Hanako の able とはそれだけなのだ。 Lilly しか友人はいないし、他人の視線が怖くてたびたび授業を逃げ出すし、人から話しかけられると赤面してしどろもどろになる。 Hanako とまともに会話できるのは Lilly と Yuuko 、Lilly の姉 Akira、そして Hisao のみだ。Hanako の disable とは able の裏返し、彼女は肉体的に able ではあれど精神的に disable なのだ。
Hanako は過去のトラウマ（フラッシュバックに襲われて痙攣するレベル）のせいで、火傷の痕を見られることをひどく嫌がり恐る。そのため、普段は髪の毛で顔の半分を多い、人目が多い場所に行く時は大きな帽子を被りLilly の左側で小さくなり、顔の右側にある火傷の痕への視線を遮ろうとする。彼女が心を落ち着かせることができるのは、親しい友人と部外者が来ないところでひと時を過ごすことだけだ。悲しいことに、自分の部屋では外部からの侵入者を防ぐことはできても、彼女を苦しめる悲しい思い出が甦るのは防げないのだ。
小さい頃に火傷の原因となった火事により社会と切り離され、そのまま子供のまま育った Hanako は、 Hisao に庇護が必要な対象(=子供)としてではなく友人以上の人として見て欲しかったから自分の傷を全て見せたという子供のような思いを告白する。 Hisao はこの告白を聞いて自分が全く Hanako のことを理解していなかったことを痛感する。 Hanako の外面的性格ばかり見ていて Hanako がどう感じているかを考えていなかったこと。
In the opening scene of Patton (1970), the film’s namesake addresses a sea of troops about to be hurled onto World War II’s front lines in Europe and North Africa. General George S. Patton says, “Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country—he won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.”
The film Good Kill, which comes out this week, depicts a lieutenant colonel delivering a similarly rousing speech to a group of recruits about to enter combat. Only this time it’s with drones. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he says, “the aircraft you’re looking at behind me is not the future of war; it is the here-and-fucking-now.”
The movie, written and directed by Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, Lord of War), provides a harrowing look at warfare’s newest frontier through the eyes of a fictional drone pilot. Major Tom Egan (Ethan Hawke), a former Air Force pilot yearning to fly again, spends 12 hours a day fighting militant groups like the Taliban from a dark, air-conditioned bunker in the Nevada desert—more than 7,000 miles away from the battlefield. Through prolonged close-ups on his computer screens, the audience is complicit, forced to watch as his strikes claim lives. When the camera turns, the audience sees Egan gradually unraveling from the stress. Joystick in hand, he surveils and strikes targets seen on a computer screen, racking up casualties. And then, after his shift, he trudges back to his home in Las Vegas, where his wife (January Jones), children and the challenges of domestic life await him.
From World War II to contemporary conflicts, war films often highlight the humanity of soldiers, helping to connect civilians in the audience to the people and wars they once understood only in the abstract. Good Kill adds to this long cinematic tradition within the context of the U.S. drone program, a little-seen world filled with men and women at the forefront of modern warfare. “You can’t say you’re anti-drone,” Niccol tells Newsweek. “It’s like saying you’re anti-Internet.”
“The really exciting thing about working with Andrew [Niccol] is that he doesn’t really see this from a left-wing point of view or a right-wing point of view,” Hawke says. “He’s kind of coming at it as a humanitarian and a scientist.”
So how accurately does the film depict the lives and thoughts of these modern fighters? Newsweek reached out to a former drone operator, Brandon Bryant, to gauge how realistic the movie’s portrayal is and discovered that, in August 2013, early on in Good Kill’s production, he was contacted by a producer, who asked for his insights. Bryant critiqued an early version of the script, told his service stories and answered questions. But a few weeks in, he says, the producers became unresponsive.
This is nothing new to Hollywood insiders, who are used to the slow pace and false starts of independent filmmaking, but Bryant thinks the “snubbing,” as he refers to it, was because of a disagreement regarding one element in the script. Or rather, an element noticeably absent from it: the psychological impact of remote warfare on drone operators. “The psychological aspect is the most important part of this kind of film,” says Bryant. “Because what we’ve done is taken the warrior from the battlefield where...they’re no longer with their comrades.”
U.S. Air Force Maj. Casey Tidgewell (L) and Senior Airman William Swain operate an MQ-9 Reaper from a ground control station August 8, 2007 at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nev. Ethan Miller/Getty
In 2005, Bryant was a University of Montana student struggling to pay his tuition and searching for any way out of Missoula. He agreed to give his friend a ride to a nearby Army recruiting office that summer and weeks later signed up to join the Air Force. After several months of testing and training at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, Bryant was assigned to a windowless bunker on the periphery of Las Vegas, just like Hawke’s character in Good Kill. His job was to guide missiles to their intended targets via laser. He hated the work instantly, but, also like the film’s main character, Bryant knew he had to tough it out. In just six months during 2007, he says, he killed 13 people with four shots—some targets, others “collateral damage.”
He can recall every devastating detail of his first strike. Three men with rifles were walking along a road somewhere in Afghanistan; the two in front looked as if they were having an argument, while the third wandered a little behind them. Bryant says he had no idea who the men were, only that they were targets. Command ordered his team to aim a missile at the two men in front instead of the one in the back, as “two is better than one.”
Promoted LinksPromoted Links
RecommendedHuge Manta Ray Catch Angers ConservationistsKim Jong-un Assembles New ‘Pleasure Squad’ of Young WomenThe Beginning of the End of North Korea?The Full Beauty Photo Project: Big Women Bare AllWhen the smoke cleared, a crater appeared on Bryant’s screen, littered with the body parts of the two men. The third man lay on the ground, missing part of his right leg. “I watched him bleed out,” Bryant recalls. The third man’s blood, which on Bryant’s screen appeared white in infrared, drained from his body, pooled on the ground and cooled. “After a while, he stopped moving, and he became the same color as the ground.”
The horrors of his work soon wormed their way into Bryant’s subconscious. “I used to have a lot of trouble sleeping,” he says. “I just hated seeing my work when I closed my eyes.” This aspect of the job gets a nod in the film: As Egan retreats into himself and those he loves drift further away, he seeks comfort in vodka. Prolonged depression gives way to rage—Egan gets physically violent with his wife and angrily throws a bottle of liquor after a cashier makes a joke about his flight suit.
In 2011, nearly six years after joining the Air Force, Bryant turned down a $109,000 bonus and left. Upon exiting, he was presented for the first time with a report on his accomplishments: He was associated with 1,626 kills. “I felt sick to my stomach,” he says. “Civilians were being killed because leadership didn't care…. All they were doing was racking up tallies for their promotions.”
Bryant’s guilt weighed heavily on his conscience. On a trip to Best Buy in late 2011, he used his military ID while paying for a video game. A young man behind him noticed it. “You served in the military? So did my brother. He served in the Marines and he killed, like, 30 people. How many people did you kill?” In front of a store full of people, Bryant responded, “If you disrespect the taking of another person’s life ever again, I will find you and kill you in front of your family.” He was asked to leave the store.
Most Shared. Venezuela Officials Suspected of Drug Trafficking Shares: 1.8k Dick Cheney’s Biggest Lie Shares: 955 Requiem for the Cryosphere: Huge Antarctic Ice Shelf Is About to Disintegrate Shares: 596 'Staying Up Late With Letterman': Our 1986 Profile Shares: 431 Why It’s Not Actually Raining Spiders in Australia Shares: 175 Most Read Court Ruling on Immigration Could Rock Obama, 2016 Race Taylor Swift Premieres 'Bad Blood' Video at Awards Show GMO Scientists Could Save the World From Hunger, If We Let Them Singing the End of 'Mad Men' Dick Cheney’s Biggest Lie It was after Bryant begrudgingly told a therapist this story that he finally agreed with her diagnosis: he had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The issue of PTSD in drone operators is controversial. To someone outside the military, it might seem that a distinction should be made between those in combat who are on a conflict’s physical front lines and those operating on its technological front lines. But does such a distinction extend to remorse or guilt? Or to the difference between whether the blood that a soldier may feel is on his or her hands is there literally or just on a computer monitor?
Madeline Uddo, a psychologist and team leader of the PTSD clinical team at the Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, says PTSD can be diagnosed if a certain number of symptoms outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—the guide used in psychiatry to diagnose mental disorders—are present. She notes that the manual’s fifth edition seems to cover the experience of drone operators. Furthermore, a Defense Department study from 2013 found that drone pilots experience many stress disorders, including PTSD, at the same rate as aircraft pilots.
Hawke and Niccol say that soldiers like the fictional Egan and the very real Bryant are essentially test subjects, and that what the military asks of them has “never been asked of a soldier before.” It’s an admission that Good Kill is in uncharted territory, but they avoid saying that Egan has PTSD, although Niccol calls what Hawke depicts in the film “an approximation” of PTSD.
According to Zev Foreman, a producer on the film, the creators were determined to leave Egan’s diagnosis open-ended so the audience is able to better interpret how it feels about the drone program. Or, as Foreman puts it, “[we’re] not making a statement particularly about anything while opening up a discussion about everything.”
Still, Bryant maintains that the filmmakers, in telling a drone operator’s story, have a responsibility to weigh in on the remorse that many of them face, something he feels Good Kill largely fails to do. “I wanted [them] to make a powerful movie, not just an entertaining one,” he says. “[They] wanted to make something akin to Top Gun with drones…. They’re doing what our society does—marginalizing the traumatic effects of personal experiences.”
While this back-and-forth could be chalked up to an outsider not understanding Hollywood’s rules, it indicates a bigger issue: Although troops can perform their duties 7,000 miles away from battle, that doesn’t mean they’re safe. And although drones allow us to see into any corner of the world at any time, when it comes to the psychological effects this type of fighting has on our soldiers, we're flying blind.
Bryant is currently in an inpatient program designed to help him cope with his PTSD. “When I go back to those memories and my emotions get high,” he says, “I feel rage or extreme depression. It’s helping me manage those emotions.”
The only thing that's capital-T True is that you get to decide how you're gonna try to see it. This, I submit, is the freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well-adjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't. You get to decide what to worship.
It is our failure to become our perceived ideal that ultimately defines us and makes us unique. It's not easy, but if you accept your misfortune and handle it right, your perceived failure can become a catalyst for profound re-invention.
"Cleverness is a gift, kindness is a choice. Gifts are easy -- they're given, after all. Choices can be hard. You can seduce yourself with your gifts if you're not careful, and if you do, it'll probably be to the detriment of your choices."
or, "the most important thing in your life is to live your life with integrityand not to give into peer pressure to try to be something that you’re not, to live your life as an honest and compassionate person, to contribute in some way. So to conclude my conclusion, follow your passion, stay true to yourself. "
No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to Heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.
girl 1child a female child