Sometimes it hurts right away.
Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg and Matt Damon collaborated to make “Saving Private Ryan” a few years back, the World War II blockbuster featuring the costly and heroic rescue of a “sole survivor” deep behind enemy lines. Devin Nunes, a California congressman, asked them to throw their star power behind legislation codifying the rights of actual sole survivors, since one of his constituents, having lost two brothers in Iraq, requested and was granted a return to the US. Upon his return, Army Specialist Jason Hubbard got exactly what he was entitled to by law: Nothing. No benefits, no GI Bill, no separation counseling. He was asked to pay back his enlistment bonus.
Would the Hollywood power trio care to lend a hand?
An e-mail reply from Hanks‚Äôs agent, Meghan Hurlbut, to a Nunes staffer said the mega-star had ‚Äúpolitely declined‚Äù the request for a signature on a letter of support…
Spielberg had a similar response, conveyed to Nunes‚Äôs office through Robert Rozen, a lobbyist for the Directors Guild of America…
Damon‚Äôs agent, Jennifer Allen, said Damon was in Europe shooting a movie but would get back to Nunes‚Äôs aides. He never did, they said…
They’re very busy, you know. Making movies, making money. There’s never enough time, never enough money.
“Saving Private Ryan” highlighted the sacrifices of “The Greatest Generation” for many who hadn’t read Tom Brokaw’s book. Coming as it did only a few years before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, it’s plausible to believe that many of those who raised their hands to fight and die for their country overseas in this generation were inspired by the heroism of the characters portrayed by Hanks and Damon in Spielberg’s film.
And hey, they all made a tidy fortune off it too. So, you know: Win-win.
requested and was granted a return to the US.
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen the movie, so pardon any misstatements, but didn’t Pvt. Ryan elect to stay in the fight?
Not to judge Spec. Hubbard, mind you, nor the merits of his not qualifying for benefits which, to be honest, seems somewhat crass given the sacrifices his family has made.
Seems like someone should have given him some separation counseling… to tell him what he was walking away from with nothing to show.
Seems if the Specialist had been smart (and perhaps the Army too, there are two sides to this) he should have simply been reassigned to a stateside post.
So what’s the big deal? He got what he asked for. I’m sorry that he lost his brothers, but that’s about it. As far as his benefits go, why should he get them? He didn’t complete his enlistment contract. If he was on his second enlistment that would be different. As fas as the Army just stationing him in the US goes, why should they? If this bill passes, what’s next? Should an only child be prevented from serving? What about the only male child?
There is one major difference between WWII and now. In WWII the majority of people were drafted. They didn’t have a choice. There never was a “Sole Surviving Son” law.
I won’t get involved in the “sole survivor” issue. It can be approached from several different directions. What I will comment on is Tom Hanks, et al, and their response, or lack of, to the issue of support for Jason Hubbard. Unless it is an issue that the left is ga ga over… global warming, abortion, save the whales, etc, they have no interst in getting involved unless they can fatten their pocket books. Although Hanks was involved in the building of the WWII memorial..there’s gotta been some lucre hidin’ in the bushes there. Got no proof…just a hunch.
Hmmm…just a thought. Seems that there was a “sole survivor” thingy, but it had to do with serving in a combat zone I believe. Could be wrong though…it’s happened once or twice before.
I don’t see your point Guy. Why should they suport a law that we don’t need? We have a volunteer military, if we still had a draft then I could support this.
As the father of two Army veterans who’ve both served in Iraq and as a taxpayer, I would fall in-line with Guy on this question. Why withhold the benefits? Two brothers not returning from Iraq already, I think the couseling is at the very least, recommended, if not required.
I would prefer the survivor’s return stateside be one of success rather than that of the weight of the family’s redemption. His adjustment to the load he shoulders and role to fulfill shouts for assistance. Must the Army be harsh in it’s beneficence?
By the way, Tom Hanks has found the time from his busy schedule recently to make a public video statement of support for Mr. Obama.
Jim,
I’m not sure I understand your question. Would you please rephrase it? What point and who is they?
Actors never practice what they preach from the pulpit of their films. Ever. Wankers.
Guy,
By they, I was referring to Hanks, Spielberg and Damon. I was asking why should they be expected to support this bill just because they made a movie? As far as benefits are concerned, why should he get them? He asked for what amounts to a hardship discharge and it was granted. He didn’t finish his enlistment, he didn’t fulfill his contract, why should he be entitled to benefits?
There is no way he would have ever been allowed to seperate from the Army without formal, written counseling describing in detail what he would and would not be entitled to. This Soldier CHOSE to give up his benefits.
I would have thought that Matt Damon is too dumb to collaborate. I always thought his best part was when he played a member of the film actors guild in Team America, World Police.