I have done several things worth mentioning over break thus far: first and foremost, I've caught up on my sleep. Second of all, I finished my final college applications. Fourteen schools, twenty-something essays, and quite a few hours of my life, and it's done! Now the waiting game begins. And I've spent some of those waiting hours at the movie theater, which is out-of-character for me. Movie theaters make me nervous for some reason. That aside, I've seen two films over the break: the third installment in Peter Jackson's Tolkien-inspired The Hobbit trilogy, and a Mark Wahlberg flick called The Gambler. And, though this goes without saying, spoiler alert.
First of all, I need to discuss The Hobbit. Those of you who have read my blog in the past know that I'm a huge Tolkien fan. And if you think the Harry Potter series is better than Tolkien's work, then this is my reply: you're entitled to your own (completely and totally wrong) opinion. Virtually every character and plot device in Harry Potter is a cheap Tolkien ripoff in one way or another, from the main protagonists to the various monsters to the strong female lead to the concept of Horcruxes...but I'm getting sidetracked. And don't rush to assumptions from my harsh words. I love Harry Potter - it was an enormous part of my childhood. But comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is like comparing LBJ to Lincoln. That aside, Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings is, without a doubt, among the best film adaptations of a work of literature the world has ever seen. And as such, it's impossible to watch The Hobbit without comparing it to Jackson's previous trilogy. For the film adaptation of a book, it does an excellent job. But it pales in comparison to The Lord of the Rings. Part of that is hardly Jackson's fault - the studio initially signed him for a trilogy that started with The Hobbit (Tolkien wrote The Hobbit decades before he wrote The Lord of the Rings), but things changed and only LOTR was produced. When Jackson went back to produce The Hobbit, he had no choice but to do so as a prequel trilogy. You really can't blame him for deviating much more from the book in The Hobbit. And his interpretation of the events that happened while the book of The Hobbit takes place is spot-on. Gandalf's imprisonment and the confrontation with Sauron in Dol Guldur are heavily implied to have taken place by the grey wizard's lengthy tales in the early chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring. Anyhow, let's talk about the film itself...it was okay. It definitely deviates from the book, but it was all right. The performances weren't forced in the least. Sir Ian McKellen was excellent, of course, as Gandalf. Martin Freeman wasn't too shabby himself, in the big hairy shoes of Bilbo Baggins. And Richard Armitage captured the madness and redemption of Thorin Oakenshield - again, things that were implied in Tolkien's universe - perfectly. I expected the film to be one continuous battle sequence, but it wasn't. The Battle of the Five Armies didn't actually start for the first hour and a half of the film. Jackson spent a great deal of time developing the characters and underlining the sources of tension between the different factions. It was, all in all, a decent flick. I'd recommend it to all my fellow Tolkien fans.
Now for The Gambler. I wasn't expecting much out of this film. Mark Wahlberg hasn't been the best actor in the past. Heck, he hasn't even been a good actor in some films. But I was pleasantly surprised here. The film follows a literature professor (Wahlberg) who owes several hundred thousand dollars to a crime lord, thanks to his gambling addiction. The story is a very human one that perfectly captures the essence of addiction. Wahlberg's character gets a sort of a high off his gambling victories and pushes his limits accordingly, which lands him in debt. When he bets everything he has on a roulette game at the climax of the film, in the hopes that he'll win and come away with enough money to pay back the crime bosses he's in debt to, the strain and panic within the character is tangible. And even though (spoiler alert) he wins the bet, I was expecting him to lose. That's my favorite thing about the film. It shows the entropy of this man's life - how random everything is in his line of "work." And I say "this man" because as the film goes on, you start to forget that it's Mark Wahlberg up on the screen. This is, without a doubt, the best acting I've ever seen Wahlberg do. The side characters are excellent as well. John Goodman is excellent as one of the crime lords Wahlberg's character is indebted to. He's anything but typecast in this film - the jolly, somewhat nervous character he usually plays is gone, replaced by a cold, calculating, often cruel man. There weren't very many big names in the film, aside from Wahlberg and Goodman. And personally, I feel that this choice really helped the film. The characters were genuine and very human. Even the worst of the characters had redeeming qualities or moments, and that made the film what it was. It was a good movie - nothing exceptional, but certainly not a bad film.
There are still a few films left on my wish list. I definitely want to catch Unbroken before the conclusion of break. I have the book, but I've never had the time to read it. And beyond that, I'm waiting for American Sniper to be released across the nation come January. I've heard nothing but positive reviews for the film, which is what I've come to expect from Clint Eastwood. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The US This Week: The Interview (and North Korea)
You can't go on the internet these days without seeing a picture of James Franco and/or Seth Rogen. Ever since the North Koreans hacked into Sony and threatened retaliation if theaters showed The Interview, the film has sparked controversy across the nation. It's worth pointing out that North Korea denies any role in the hacking, but then again, why would we believe anything they say? North Korea took issue with The Interview several months ago, when details of the film were released to the public. In the film, two bumbling journalists (Rogen and Franco) are tasked with assassinating North Korea's portly basketball-loving Supreme Leader, Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un doesn't seem to appreciate Franco and Rogen's sense of humor. To some extent, many of us can relate to that. On the other hand, most of us wouldn't threaten to kill people who find the pair amusing. North Korea (or, in the highly unlikely event that some other group hacked Sony, that group) has no such qualms. Sony's decision to pull the film from theaters was criticized across the board. President Obama lambasted the decision as a huge mistake. For once, Congress was on the same page. Some congressmen even called for the movie to be screened on Capitol Hill. Sony has loosened its stance in the recent days: the film is set to be released tomorrow for a limited run, and there's even been some talk of the film going on YouTube. But this is hardly relevant. What is relevant is our not-quite-good relationship with the tiny Communist dictatorship occupying the northern half of the Korean peninsula.
In the speech where he criticized Sony's response to the threats, President Obama vowed to retaliate appropriately to North Korea's actions. Soon afterwards, the internet in the small nation was cut off. It's possible that this is a mere coincidence, but given the temporal proximity to Obama's statement, the chance of that is low at best. With the exception of the one Texan who recently fled behind the dictatorship's closed borders, most Americans probably want this to be the case. It would certainly give President Obama a helping hand, after one of the roughest years of his presidency. Screwing with North Korea's infrastructure and technology is something we can get behind as a nation. The Tea Party and the far, far left will undoubtedly take issue with whatever Obama does, but that applies to everything Obama does. If the FBI or the CIA is involved in the collapse of North Korea's internet, the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents will be happy. Kim Jong Un could use a taste of his own medicine for once. Even if he didn't launch or order the Sony hack, we can all agree he deserves it.
North Korea, we can all agree, is hardly a humanitarian nation. The notorious line of Kims - stretching from Jong Un through Jong Il to Il Sung - has quite a bit of blood on its hands. George Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment actually applies to the Democratic People's Republic. The Kims spend huge sums of money on luxurious foreign food while their people starve. If it wasn't for the international aid it occasionally receives, North Korea's population would be miniscule. That's the harsh reality of the situation - one third of North Koreans are critically malnourished. You can be jailed for posessing a bible or having the wrong haircut or owning a car. Two hundred thousand civilians live behind the walls of prison camps. If you break a law, your grandparents, parents and children will be severely punished as well. Secret police and informants, reminiscent of the Soviet Union's early days, are everywhere in the nation. And yet marijuana is legal. It's no wonder the rivalry between North and South Korea is so intense. It's worth remembering that South Korea only exists because "UN" forces (I use quotation marks because we all know which member of the UN the bulk of the fighting) chased them out. It's also worth mentioning that North Korea only exists because the bulk of the Chinese Army chased the Americans and South Koreans back towards the current border.
When will the conflict end? When North Korea goes too far. When China decides it wants no more to do with Kim Jong Un, and the rest of the world decides it's had enough of North Korea's garbage. That day will inevitably come. But it won't come because of a James Franco movie. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
In the speech where he criticized Sony's response to the threats, President Obama vowed to retaliate appropriately to North Korea's actions. Soon afterwards, the internet in the small nation was cut off. It's possible that this is a mere coincidence, but given the temporal proximity to Obama's statement, the chance of that is low at best. With the exception of the one Texan who recently fled behind the dictatorship's closed borders, most Americans probably want this to be the case. It would certainly give President Obama a helping hand, after one of the roughest years of his presidency. Screwing with North Korea's infrastructure and technology is something we can get behind as a nation. The Tea Party and the far, far left will undoubtedly take issue with whatever Obama does, but that applies to everything Obama does. If the FBI or the CIA is involved in the collapse of North Korea's internet, the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents will be happy. Kim Jong Un could use a taste of his own medicine for once. Even if he didn't launch or order the Sony hack, we can all agree he deserves it.
North Korea, we can all agree, is hardly a humanitarian nation. The notorious line of Kims - stretching from Jong Un through Jong Il to Il Sung - has quite a bit of blood on its hands. George Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment actually applies to the Democratic People's Republic. The Kims spend huge sums of money on luxurious foreign food while their people starve. If it wasn't for the international aid it occasionally receives, North Korea's population would be miniscule. That's the harsh reality of the situation - one third of North Koreans are critically malnourished. You can be jailed for posessing a bible or having the wrong haircut or owning a car. Two hundred thousand civilians live behind the walls of prison camps. If you break a law, your grandparents, parents and children will be severely punished as well. Secret police and informants, reminiscent of the Soviet Union's early days, are everywhere in the nation. And yet marijuana is legal. It's no wonder the rivalry between North and South Korea is so intense. It's worth remembering that South Korea only exists because "UN" forces (I use quotation marks because we all know which member of the UN the bulk of the fighting) chased them out. It's also worth mentioning that North Korea only exists because the bulk of the Chinese Army chased the Americans and South Koreans back towards the current border.
When will the conflict end? When North Korea goes too far. When China decides it wants no more to do with Kim Jong Un, and the rest of the world decides it's had enough of North Korea's garbage. That day will inevitably come. But it won't come because of a James Franco movie. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
The US This Week: Torture
Torture. Enhanced interrogation techniques. Human rights abuse. Necessary security measures. Unconstitutional brutality. Unpleasant logic. Call it what you like and think what you will, but there's no denying that the declassified, five-hundred-twenty-five page report on CIA torture during the Bush Administration is going to make heads roll.
In the event that you have an incredible amount of time to kill and are interested, here's the full text of the Senate's report on the subject:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/
Since the vast majority of you have neither the time nor the patience to peruse five hundred pages of report, I'll sum it up - the CIA's use of torture, it seems, has been a lot broader and a lot more varied than we previously believed. In addition to the classic method of water boarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning (I would provide a link to a video, but I can't access YouTube from the Herricks WiFi), the CIA has been engaging in rectal feeding and hydration, to say nothing of death threats and other fun things. Already, this has sparked considerable debate in the political world. Former Vice President Dick Cheney lambasted the attacks and defended the CIA, saying that "[he] would do it again in a minute." Naturally, the majority of Republicans are backing the CIA in this case. They claim that the report is heavily partisan and a political move on the part of the Democrats to discredit the Bush administration. Other Republicans - and indeed, several Democrats - hold that this move will only weaken America on the whole. The Democrat-led committee's motive for releasing the report is unclear at best, which gives the right a bit of credibility here. To me, it doesn't add up. Maybe releasing the report for all the world to see is the right thing to do, but it certainly isn't the smart thing to do. In fact, I'd call it an extremely stupid thing to do.
At the end of the day, I have to side with the Republicans on this one. 9/11 is one of my earliest memories, and it's made me a bit hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. My parents lost some of their best friends, and half my mom's family was in the city, involved in the rescue efforts. Security policy is one of my favorite subjects, and one doesn't need a bachelor's degree to see that releasing the report is counterintuitive to our nation's standing. Our efforts to come away from the attack looking strong didn't work very well, given the lengthy conflicts we entangled ourselves in in the Middle East. So why weaken our position any further? Our reputation took a heavy blow in the last decade, and our actions are the butt of jokes across the world. What's the purpose of giving Vlad Putin more ammunition to use against the United States? Sure, we're being honest by releasing the report, but the rest of the world couldn't care less about that. ISIS will view this as proof that they're right about America, kill a few innocents, and ramp up their recruiting campaign. Perhaps the recent terror attack in Sydney's close chronological proximity to the report's release wasn't a coincidence. Iran will decry the actions, and North Korea will start spouting their usual anti-American, anti-western, anti-democratic hash. And at the end of the day, the report really overplays the role of torture - let's be honest and call it what it is - in the CIA's interrogation tactics. The five hundred twenty-five pages of the report represent only a handful of the thousands of instances of CIA interrogation over the past thirteen years. Torture tactics, cruel as they are, have proved themselves to be effective, for obvious reasons. The CIA's "Enhanced Interrogation Tactics" supplied them with information that lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden, mere months before terrorist attacks he'd planned against the US and its leaders were set to take place.
The point I'm driving at is that this isn't a black and white issue. There's gray, and a lot of it. Torture is undeniably cruel, and infringes upon human rights. And there are those instances when the individuals tortured were innocent, or had no answers to the questions they were asked. But at the same time, there are those instances when torture provided the CIA with game-changing knowledge and vital information, and they used that information to defend the United States and the American people. All of this was done in an effort to make sure we - the civilian body of the US - could, and can, lead safe and secure lives, free from worry of foreign attacks on our soil. This is one of those instances when Dick Cheney is right. Because if I were running the country and had the option to use torture on a few individuals to potentially save the lives of thousands of people, I'd do it in a minute.
In the event that you have an incredible amount of time to kill and are interested, here's the full text of the Senate's report on the subject:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/
Since the vast majority of you have neither the time nor the patience to peruse five hundred pages of report, I'll sum it up - the CIA's use of torture, it seems, has been a lot broader and a lot more varied than we previously believed. In addition to the classic method of water boarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning (I would provide a link to a video, but I can't access YouTube from the Herricks WiFi), the CIA has been engaging in rectal feeding and hydration, to say nothing of death threats and other fun things. Already, this has sparked considerable debate in the political world. Former Vice President Dick Cheney lambasted the attacks and defended the CIA, saying that "[he] would do it again in a minute." Naturally, the majority of Republicans are backing the CIA in this case. They claim that the report is heavily partisan and a political move on the part of the Democrats to discredit the Bush administration. Other Republicans - and indeed, several Democrats - hold that this move will only weaken America on the whole. The Democrat-led committee's motive for releasing the report is unclear at best, which gives the right a bit of credibility here. To me, it doesn't add up. Maybe releasing the report for all the world to see is the right thing to do, but it certainly isn't the smart thing to do. In fact, I'd call it an extremely stupid thing to do.
At the end of the day, I have to side with the Republicans on this one. 9/11 is one of my earliest memories, and it's made me a bit hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. My parents lost some of their best friends, and half my mom's family was in the city, involved in the rescue efforts. Security policy is one of my favorite subjects, and one doesn't need a bachelor's degree to see that releasing the report is counterintuitive to our nation's standing. Our efforts to come away from the attack looking strong didn't work very well, given the lengthy conflicts we entangled ourselves in in the Middle East. So why weaken our position any further? Our reputation took a heavy blow in the last decade, and our actions are the butt of jokes across the world. What's the purpose of giving Vlad Putin more ammunition to use against the United States? Sure, we're being honest by releasing the report, but the rest of the world couldn't care less about that. ISIS will view this as proof that they're right about America, kill a few innocents, and ramp up their recruiting campaign. Perhaps the recent terror attack in Sydney's close chronological proximity to the report's release wasn't a coincidence. Iran will decry the actions, and North Korea will start spouting their usual anti-American, anti-western, anti-democratic hash. And at the end of the day, the report really overplays the role of torture - let's be honest and call it what it is - in the CIA's interrogation tactics. The five hundred twenty-five pages of the report represent only a handful of the thousands of instances of CIA interrogation over the past thirteen years. Torture tactics, cruel as they are, have proved themselves to be effective, for obvious reasons. The CIA's "Enhanced Interrogation Tactics" supplied them with information that lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden, mere months before terrorist attacks he'd planned against the US and its leaders were set to take place.
The point I'm driving at is that this isn't a black and white issue. There's gray, and a lot of it. Torture is undeniably cruel, and infringes upon human rights. And there are those instances when the individuals tortured were innocent, or had no answers to the questions they were asked. But at the same time, there are those instances when torture provided the CIA with game-changing knowledge and vital information, and they used that information to defend the United States and the American people. All of this was done in an effort to make sure we - the civilian body of the US - could, and can, lead safe and secure lives, free from worry of foreign attacks on our soil. This is one of those instances when Dick Cheney is right. Because if I were running the country and had the option to use torture on a few individuals to potentially save the lives of thousands of people, I'd do it in a minute.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Beginning
Life is a whole series of procrastinations and overcoming procrastinations. You start by putting off your middle school essays for later, because you can always do them later. Then you put off studying for the SAT, because you can always do it later, and you can always retake the test. And then you put off writing some of your supplemental essays for college applications, because they aren't due for another month. And then you put off writing the PiG paper, and then you put off writing your thesis paper, and then you put off studying for your medical school tests, and you're a brain surgeon with no idea how to operate on the human brain and everything is a mess thanks to procrastination! So here's the trick: how do you break out of the cycle of procrastination?
I'm definitely guilty of procrastinating. I started this post yesterday (Friday, December 12th), but decided to wait for a time when I was actually procrastinating to write the rest of this post and interrupt the flow. That time came...well, I suppose ti came about an hour and a half ago. I went up to the attic/my room to finish my last two supplemental essays, and found Google Maps open on my computer. Naturally, I screwed around on Google Maps for a few minutes, using the Street View feature to explore Cape Town. After that, I checked Facebook with a John Oliver bit in the background. I read the photography article for STAC and then pulled up YouTube, put on a documentary, and started playing a round of my favorite board game, Risk-solitaire. And even now, I'm tempted to put off my focus on this post to explain what Risk-solitaire is. The fact is, there are always things that we'd all rather be doing than what we are doing. I'd rather be watching Last Week Tonight than doing my supplementals. I'm sure you'd all much rather be on the beach or at a museum somewhere instead of cooped up in front of your computer. And with the Internet, it's easy to distract ourselves with any number of things. And these procrastinations and distractions are what keep me from starting things like supplemental essays or blog posts or PiG paper drafts or any number of things.
So, how do I deal with this? The first thing I do is I eliminate all distractions. I'll close out of any internet pages I have up, get any books I may be reading up on the shelves, and hide all non-work related objects from my line of sight. After that, I force myself to work. That sounds a bit more extreme than it actually is - I tell myself, "Okay, Brian, this has to get done. Get it done." And I do. I've found that that mindset helps me overcome a variety of things, particularly procrastination. Even when I'm working, I'm often tempted to distract myself by opening up Facebook or checking my email. "After I'm done," is always my mindset while I'm working. I can open up Google Maps later on, and conquer Russia in Risk-solitaire after my essays are all done. Every time I start working, I tell myself that I have to get this done. I don't give myself the option. Because given the option, there are very few people who wouldn't choose to distract themselves. After I'm finished with this post, I'll tell myself that I have to finish my supplemental essays. After that, I'll tell myself that I have to edit my PiG paper. After that, I'll tell myself to finish the English essay I have due later in the week, and then to continue editing my film, and then to study for Calculus and Physics, and so on and so forth. And at the end of the day (or perhaps the end of the weekend), I'll get it done.
So, how do I deal with this? The first thing I do is I eliminate all distractions. I'll close out of any internet pages I have up, get any books I may be reading up on the shelves, and hide all non-work related objects from my line of sight. After that, I force myself to work. That sounds a bit more extreme than it actually is - I tell myself, "Okay, Brian, this has to get done. Get it done." And I do. I've found that that mindset helps me overcome a variety of things, particularly procrastination. Even when I'm working, I'm often tempted to distract myself by opening up Facebook or checking my email. "After I'm done," is always my mindset while I'm working. I can open up Google Maps later on, and conquer Russia in Risk-solitaire after my essays are all done. Every time I start working, I tell myself that I have to get this done. I don't give myself the option. Because given the option, there are very few people who wouldn't choose to distract themselves. After I'm finished with this post, I'll tell myself that I have to finish my supplemental essays. After that, I'll tell myself that I have to edit my PiG paper. After that, I'll tell myself to finish the English essay I have due later in the week, and then to continue editing my film, and then to study for Calculus and Physics, and so on and so forth. And at the end of the day (or perhaps the end of the weekend), I'll get it done.
Monday, December 8, 2014
Alternate History (Take Two)
As you've probably gathered, I didn't find my first splurge into alternate history to be a waste of my time or a pointless gesture. I think I'm going to like this segment - there are so many possibilities for potential posts, so many different directions things can go in, and so on and so forth. Keeping with the spirit of World War II, I'm going to focus on the make-or-break decisions that eventually broke Nazi Germany: Hitler's interference in the invasion of the Soviet Union.
Here's some actual history: it's December in the bitter Russian winter, not far from the buildings and facades of Moscow. The Wehrmacht has arrived in all its terrible glory, having cut through eastern Poland and Belorussia (Belarus, then a part of the Soviet Union) to strike at the heart of great Soviet Empire. But they don't attack in force. After being repulsed before Moscow by the Russian defenders, the Wehrmacht holds back.
But what if they hadn't?
The Wehrmacht didn't strike the Soviet capital with all the force it could muster. In fact, after a few months of skirmishing before Moscow, it pulled back altogether. Why? Because Hitler wanted to focus on an industrial town hundreds of miles to the south, nestled along the banks of the Volga River: Stalingrad. Hitler's rationale for this move, as presented to German leaders, was that if the Wehrmacht took Stalingrad, it could march to the Caucasus Mountains virtually unopposed, and take advantage of the region's bountiful oilfields. The generals accepted Hitler's opinion for two reasons: they knew that the German Army's oil reserves were running low, and they also rather liked being alive. But this wasn't Hitler's motive for taking Stalingrad. By taking and destroying the city named for his arch-rival, he hoped to destroy Stalin's confidence and his psychological health. Hitler played Stalin like a fiddle for a bit, but he underestimated just how right he was about the Soviet Premier's instability. Stalin could not physically accept the possibility that the Nazis might take the city named for him. As such, he poured hundreds of thousands of Russians at the city, and the rest is history.
What if history had gone differently, though? What if, instead of letting his ego get the better of him and attempting to deal a psychological blow to his nemesis, Hitler did the logical thing and dealt a psychological blow to the Russian people by annihilating their ancient capital? Because it was entirely feasible for the Wehrmacht to take Moscow in the final months of 1941. If Hitler and his generals had sent the bulk of their forces at the Soviet Union's largest and most important city, it stands to reason that they would have taken it. They had the manpower, the firepower, and the machine power to finish the job at Moscow and destroy the city. This may not have fazed Stalin, but it certainly would have had an impact on the average Red Army soldier. It's important to remember that Russian borders stretched much farther before the German invasion of 1941 than they do today - the Soviets had annexed the eastern third of Poland, to say nothing of the lands we now know as the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Belarus. Ukraine - a large nation itself - was a Soviet puppet state. As such, Moscow was a great deal farther from the Russian border with the west than it is today. The Wehrmacht struck deep into Russia in the first few months of Barbarossa, and they struck hard. If Hitler hadn't reined in the armed forces and sent them packing for Stalingrad, it stands to reason that the Germans would have taken the Soviet capital. This would have crushed the morale of the average Soviet civilian. Stalin was crazy enough that he probably would have had a less extreme reaction to the notion of losing Moscow than to the notion of losing Stalingrad. The German center could have blasted away at Moscow while the southern army, which Hitler sent to Stalingrad first, kept Soviet counter-attacks at bay.
What would have happened to the world if the Russians lost Moscow? Well, the war in the east would hardly grind to a halt. Stalin would certainly keep up the fight. And there would be a great many Russians who would side with him. The fight would continue in Siberia, and it seems likely that the Russians would eventually halt the Wehrmacht's advance. But whether or not they would be able to strike back in time to keep the Germans from fine-tuning the game-changing technologies they were developing in 1945 - jet fighters, ballistic missiles, and even nuclear weapons - is unclear. Personally, I don't think that would happen. Since it was the Red Army that ultimately defeated the Germans, we can't say for certain whether the Americans and British would have been able to take on the Wehrmacht alone. Perhaps a campaign in the far-reaches of Siberia would spread the German army thin, and make it easier for the Western Allies to strike. Churchill might have been able to put his plan to march through Germany into the Soviet heartland into action in this scenario. Or perhaps the downfall of the Soviet Union would work against the western Allies, given that the Nazis would have had more time to develop technologies that were years ahead of anything the US and Britain had. We can't say for certain what would happen in this scenario. It would depend on other factors - what sort of a resistance would the Russian people mount? How long would the Red Army hold out? Would the Germans overextend their forces in the march through Siberia, leaving them vulnerable to destruction? We don't know what would have happened, because none of these things did happen. It's frustrating, to some extent. But on the other hand, not knowing is half of the fun.
Here's some actual history: it's December in the bitter Russian winter, not far from the buildings and facades of Moscow. The Wehrmacht has arrived in all its terrible glory, having cut through eastern Poland and Belorussia (Belarus, then a part of the Soviet Union) to strike at the heart of great Soviet Empire. But they don't attack in force. After being repulsed before Moscow by the Russian defenders, the Wehrmacht holds back.
But what if they hadn't?
The Wehrmacht didn't strike the Soviet capital with all the force it could muster. In fact, after a few months of skirmishing before Moscow, it pulled back altogether. Why? Because Hitler wanted to focus on an industrial town hundreds of miles to the south, nestled along the banks of the Volga River: Stalingrad. Hitler's rationale for this move, as presented to German leaders, was that if the Wehrmacht took Stalingrad, it could march to the Caucasus Mountains virtually unopposed, and take advantage of the region's bountiful oilfields. The generals accepted Hitler's opinion for two reasons: they knew that the German Army's oil reserves were running low, and they also rather liked being alive. But this wasn't Hitler's motive for taking Stalingrad. By taking and destroying the city named for his arch-rival, he hoped to destroy Stalin's confidence and his psychological health. Hitler played Stalin like a fiddle for a bit, but he underestimated just how right he was about the Soviet Premier's instability. Stalin could not physically accept the possibility that the Nazis might take the city named for him. As such, he poured hundreds of thousands of Russians at the city, and the rest is history.
What if history had gone differently, though? What if, instead of letting his ego get the better of him and attempting to deal a psychological blow to his nemesis, Hitler did the logical thing and dealt a psychological blow to the Russian people by annihilating their ancient capital? Because it was entirely feasible for the Wehrmacht to take Moscow in the final months of 1941. If Hitler and his generals had sent the bulk of their forces at the Soviet Union's largest and most important city, it stands to reason that they would have taken it. They had the manpower, the firepower, and the machine power to finish the job at Moscow and destroy the city. This may not have fazed Stalin, but it certainly would have had an impact on the average Red Army soldier. It's important to remember that Russian borders stretched much farther before the German invasion of 1941 than they do today - the Soviets had annexed the eastern third of Poland, to say nothing of the lands we now know as the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Belarus. Ukraine - a large nation itself - was a Soviet puppet state. As such, Moscow was a great deal farther from the Russian border with the west than it is today. The Wehrmacht struck deep into Russia in the first few months of Barbarossa, and they struck hard. If Hitler hadn't reined in the armed forces and sent them packing for Stalingrad, it stands to reason that the Germans would have taken the Soviet capital. This would have crushed the morale of the average Soviet civilian. Stalin was crazy enough that he probably would have had a less extreme reaction to the notion of losing Moscow than to the notion of losing Stalingrad. The German center could have blasted away at Moscow while the southern army, which Hitler sent to Stalingrad first, kept Soviet counter-attacks at bay.
What would have happened to the world if the Russians lost Moscow? Well, the war in the east would hardly grind to a halt. Stalin would certainly keep up the fight. And there would be a great many Russians who would side with him. The fight would continue in Siberia, and it seems likely that the Russians would eventually halt the Wehrmacht's advance. But whether or not they would be able to strike back in time to keep the Germans from fine-tuning the game-changing technologies they were developing in 1945 - jet fighters, ballistic missiles, and even nuclear weapons - is unclear. Personally, I don't think that would happen. Since it was the Red Army that ultimately defeated the Germans, we can't say for certain whether the Americans and British would have been able to take on the Wehrmacht alone. Perhaps a campaign in the far-reaches of Siberia would spread the German army thin, and make it easier for the Western Allies to strike. Churchill might have been able to put his plan to march through Germany into the Soviet heartland into action in this scenario. Or perhaps the downfall of the Soviet Union would work against the western Allies, given that the Nazis would have had more time to develop technologies that were years ahead of anything the US and Britain had. We can't say for certain what would happen in this scenario. It would depend on other factors - what sort of a resistance would the Russian people mount? How long would the Red Army hold out? Would the Germans overextend their forces in the march through Siberia, leaving them vulnerable to destruction? We don't know what would have happened, because none of these things did happen. It's frustrating, to some extent. But on the other hand, not knowing is half of the fun.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Alternate History (Take One)
In honor of the seventy-third anniversary of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, I'm going to discuss how the world would be different today in the event that history had gone a bit differently. This may become a recurring segment on my blog, depending how this post goes. If it's productive and makes me think, I'll keep it. If it's pointless and has no real worth, I'll drop it. So let's see how this goes! Here's the question of the day: How would the world be different if the Axis won World War Two?
That's a very broad statement - there are a lot of ways the Axis could have won the war. The odds weren't so much in our favor in the early years in the war. A few rational decisions on one highly irrational dictator's part would have altered the face of human history. For instance, let's say Hitler went through with his original plan to take Great Britain before the assault on the Soviet Union. We'd like to think this wouldn't have happened, but it very nearly did. Germany had the manpower and the industrial capability to finish the job - Hitler just didn't have the patience. If he did, the Luftwaffe would have worn down the RAF through sheer force of numbers before turning its attention to the Royal Navy. Once again, through sheer force of numbers, the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) would wear down on the British forces in the Channel. Then the Panzers would cross over, and the rest would have been history.
I suppose this is the statement I'm focusing on: what if the Nazis conquered Britain in the early years of the war? This is what we do know - Churchill, the Royal Family, the Parliament, and all the civilians who could would flee to another part of the Empire. Canada seems the most likely choice for the new seat of government - it's the farthest-removed from the ambitious, empire-building Japanese nation, and quite close to the United States. The America factor also comes into play - we were technically neutral up until Pearl Harbor, but we heavily favored the British. Churchill's grand plan for victory early in the war was to, and I quote, "...drag the United States in" to the conflict. Relocating to Canada would have put the British government in very close proximity to the United States. Within fifty miles, in fact, assuming the Canadian capital of Ottawa was chosen as the new center of British government. I don't think the American people would have taken kindly to a foreign army tromping around fifty miles from their soil with an intent to conquer.
How would the war progress from there? That would depend on quite a few things. In this situation, do the Japanese still attack Pearl Harbor? Do the Americans declare war on Germany before Pearl Harbor? And, perhaps most importantly, how do the Germans fare against the Russians? This last one warrants a post of its own, so perhaps I'll discuss it in the not-too-distant future. Because the Russian victory over the Germans was hardly guaranteed. Once again, if Hitler had made a few rational decisions, it wasn't only feasible - it was likely. But more on that later. If the Germans managed to beat the Russians, the British would be in trouble. Especially if the Japanese had declared war upon the United States, and the two powers had to split their navies and militaries to fight a two-front war. This is exactly what happened to Germany in World War Two, and it eventually destroyed them.
Here's the burning question that comes out of all of this: would the Axis have conquered North America? The answer is, in all likelihood, no. The American people were armed to the teeth - remember, this is long before the days of assault rifles. The average midwestern farmer was just as well-armed as the average German soldier. The full might of the American Army and whatever remained of the British Army and Canadian Army would be waiting for the aggressors. And the majority of those troops would be fighting on their home turf. And, assuming the Americans still won the Battle of Midway (or Japan stayed out of the conflict altogether), neither army would have to worry about the Pacific. The Old World would fall to the Axis or the Soviet Union, depending on who won, but Oceania and the Western Hemisphere would remain safe. Because an invasion of the British Isles would have cost a great deal of German lives. Churchill would have undoubtedly seen the British people make good on his words if the Nazis landed. An invasion of the US and Canada - nearly as large as, far more densely populated than, and far-better armed than the Soviet Union, to say nothing of their geographic isolation from the European continent - would be almost impossible. We could churn out tanks faster than the Germans could destroy them, and every man from eight to eighty would be in the field with a rifle. The Nazis couldn't feasibly win.
Unless, of course, they developed the atomic bomb...but that's another matter altogether.
That's a very broad statement - there are a lot of ways the Axis could have won the war. The odds weren't so much in our favor in the early years in the war. A few rational decisions on one highly irrational dictator's part would have altered the face of human history. For instance, let's say Hitler went through with his original plan to take Great Britain before the assault on the Soviet Union. We'd like to think this wouldn't have happened, but it very nearly did. Germany had the manpower and the industrial capability to finish the job - Hitler just didn't have the patience. If he did, the Luftwaffe would have worn down the RAF through sheer force of numbers before turning its attention to the Royal Navy. Once again, through sheer force of numbers, the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) would wear down on the British forces in the Channel. Then the Panzers would cross over, and the rest would have been history.
I suppose this is the statement I'm focusing on: what if the Nazis conquered Britain in the early years of the war? This is what we do know - Churchill, the Royal Family, the Parliament, and all the civilians who could would flee to another part of the Empire. Canada seems the most likely choice for the new seat of government - it's the farthest-removed from the ambitious, empire-building Japanese nation, and quite close to the United States. The America factor also comes into play - we were technically neutral up until Pearl Harbor, but we heavily favored the British. Churchill's grand plan for victory early in the war was to, and I quote, "...drag the United States in" to the conflict. Relocating to Canada would have put the British government in very close proximity to the United States. Within fifty miles, in fact, assuming the Canadian capital of Ottawa was chosen as the new center of British government. I don't think the American people would have taken kindly to a foreign army tromping around fifty miles from their soil with an intent to conquer.
How would the war progress from there? That would depend on quite a few things. In this situation, do the Japanese still attack Pearl Harbor? Do the Americans declare war on Germany before Pearl Harbor? And, perhaps most importantly, how do the Germans fare against the Russians? This last one warrants a post of its own, so perhaps I'll discuss it in the not-too-distant future. Because the Russian victory over the Germans was hardly guaranteed. Once again, if Hitler had made a few rational decisions, it wasn't only feasible - it was likely. But more on that later. If the Germans managed to beat the Russians, the British would be in trouble. Especially if the Japanese had declared war upon the United States, and the two powers had to split their navies and militaries to fight a two-front war. This is exactly what happened to Germany in World War Two, and it eventually destroyed them.
Here's the burning question that comes out of all of this: would the Axis have conquered North America? The answer is, in all likelihood, no. The American people were armed to the teeth - remember, this is long before the days of assault rifles. The average midwestern farmer was just as well-armed as the average German soldier. The full might of the American Army and whatever remained of the British Army and Canadian Army would be waiting for the aggressors. And the majority of those troops would be fighting on their home turf. And, assuming the Americans still won the Battle of Midway (or Japan stayed out of the conflict altogether), neither army would have to worry about the Pacific. The Old World would fall to the Axis or the Soviet Union, depending on who won, but Oceania and the Western Hemisphere would remain safe. Because an invasion of the British Isles would have cost a great deal of German lives. Churchill would have undoubtedly seen the British people make good on his words if the Nazis landed. An invasion of the US and Canada - nearly as large as, far more densely populated than, and far-better armed than the Soviet Union, to say nothing of their geographic isolation from the European continent - would be almost impossible. We could churn out tanks faster than the Germans could destroy them, and every man from eight to eighty would be in the field with a rifle. The Nazis couldn't feasibly win.
Unless, of course, they developed the atomic bomb...but that's another matter altogether.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Fear and Art (or Art and Fear?)
Fear is, of course, an unavoidable obstacle in any process. As someone who's enduring the college application process, the dreaded Participation in Government paper, and four Advanced Placement courses, I've run into a lot of the stuff in school in general. Naturally, our old friend fear is devoted to hindering the artistic process as well. I would say it's most evident when I'm doing monologues. When you're acting alone, it's easy to get distracted by a variety of things. In my case, since I don't really act or rehearse in close proximity to some form of media, it's usually something in my surroundings. Without someone to keep you going, it's easy to become distracted by a number of things. Fear and self-doubt are always major players here: what if I'm doing things wrong? Am I getting entrenched in something that could be better? Should I change up what I'm doing? It's similar when I paint. A lot of the time, I worry about how the image of the work I have in my head differs from the picture forming on the canvas. It's one of those things that shouldn't bother me, but does. A lot. At any rate, fear is an especially big obstacle in the painting process. It doesn't always figure into my writing, though, as I've got a few strategies to deal with writer's block. And I've started to apply these strategies to my daily routine - and, of course, to my artistic process.
As I mentioned before, I run into fear in my everyday life, thanks to schoolwork in general. Fear can be a motivator, and often is in these cases: fear of failure prompts studying and hard work, and studying and hard work tend to prevent failure. That's part of the reason why I'm getting this blog post done on Monday night when it isn't due for almost a week: between the essays, the tests, and the homework assignments I have later in the week, I don't want to have the post hanging over my head. It's the same thing in art: fear is a sort of omnipresent specter, lurking just on the fringes of view. Fear of not performing to the optimum level, or painting at a poor caliber, or writing The thing is, it can be used to your advantage. The fear of failure can drive you to put more work into your art, whether it's writing, acting, painting, or any other form. If you give into fear, though, fear will work against you. You'll procrastinate, distract yourself, and keep yourself from getting things done satisfactorily. Procrastination is the enemy of success, unfortunately. Naturally, it's much easier to procrastinate and preoccupy oneself with some distracting factor than it is to get decent work done.
Some distractions, however, can prove to be the opposite of distractions. For instance, when I'm writing, I often play some classical music in the background. It can break up monotonous sections without really interfering with the process as a whole. As I mentioned earlier, it's harder to procrastinate when you're acting with another individual, but easier when you're doing monologues or reading lines alone. My own strategy to deal with this problem is a new one for me: I take a two-minute water break and then attack the monologue from a different angle. This helps keep the lines fresher and newer, and alleviates my worries that I'll get stuck in a rut and keep doing something the wrong way. Changing things up a bit works almost universally for me. If I don't think a painting I'm working on is going well, I'll alter my brush strokes and change up how I'm layering things. The results aren't necessarily what I pictured going into the process, but they don't disappoint. Because if they do, I've learned to change things up and make them work. So what if it's nothing like what I pictured? Nobody cares. Getting into the process is the hard part, because of all the self-doubt I feel when I'm painting. Once I'm in, everything starts to flow, and the fear abates. That's a common theme here. Getting into the flow of things is where fear has the most power. Once you begin, though, fear starts to lose its hold.
As I mentioned before, I run into fear in my everyday life, thanks to schoolwork in general. Fear can be a motivator, and often is in these cases: fear of failure prompts studying and hard work, and studying and hard work tend to prevent failure. That's part of the reason why I'm getting this blog post done on Monday night when it isn't due for almost a week: between the essays, the tests, and the homework assignments I have later in the week, I don't want to have the post hanging over my head. It's the same thing in art: fear is a sort of omnipresent specter, lurking just on the fringes of view. Fear of not performing to the optimum level, or painting at a poor caliber, or writing The thing is, it can be used to your advantage. The fear of failure can drive you to put more work into your art, whether it's writing, acting, painting, or any other form. If you give into fear, though, fear will work against you. You'll procrastinate, distract yourself, and keep yourself from getting things done satisfactorily. Procrastination is the enemy of success, unfortunately. Naturally, it's much easier to procrastinate and preoccupy oneself with some distracting factor than it is to get decent work done.
Some distractions, however, can prove to be the opposite of distractions. For instance, when I'm writing, I often play some classical music in the background. It can break up monotonous sections without really interfering with the process as a whole. As I mentioned earlier, it's harder to procrastinate when you're acting with another individual, but easier when you're doing monologues or reading lines alone. My own strategy to deal with this problem is a new one for me: I take a two-minute water break and then attack the monologue from a different angle. This helps keep the lines fresher and newer, and alleviates my worries that I'll get stuck in a rut and keep doing something the wrong way. Changing things up a bit works almost universally for me. If I don't think a painting I'm working on is going well, I'll alter my brush strokes and change up how I'm layering things. The results aren't necessarily what I pictured going into the process, but they don't disappoint. Because if they do, I've learned to change things up and make them work. So what if it's nothing like what I pictured? Nobody cares. Getting into the process is the hard part, because of all the self-doubt I feel when I'm painting. Once I'm in, everything starts to flow, and the fear abates. That's a common theme here. Getting into the flow of things is where fear has the most power. Once you begin, though, fear starts to lose its hold.
Monday, November 24, 2014
The US Today: Ferguson
It's 11:13 AM today, Monday, November 24th, 2014, as I'm typing this. The high school's Wi-Fi won't let me publish posts in school. There has been no verdict in the case of Darren Wilson yet. That may not be the case when I get home this afternoon.
The Grand Jury is set to meet today, and they are expected to determine the fate of Darren Wilson, the infamous officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, on August 9th, setting off months of race riots and police militarization. The St. Louis suburb of Ferguson is preparing for the worst: shops are boarding up their windows, people are buying firearms, and protesters are reportedly preparing for battle. Members of the New Black Panther Party were arrested by the FBI for attempting to acquire explosives. The Ku Klux Klan has threatened to use lethal force against the protesters. Jay Nixon, Missouri's governor, has sent in the national guard. And people across the nation are holding their breath.
It's times like these when I really, really hate the media. I always hate it, of course, because all the major stations show one of these two things: socialist garbage or Tea Party hash. There is no sensible middle ground in the modern media. The purveyors of socialist garbage screamed, "It's because he's black!" and people believed it. The dispensers of Tea Party hash screamed, "Look at all these evil protesters!" and people believed it. The biggest problem in our society is that lots of people will believe anything they see on the news. Take the people who watch Jon Stewart like I watch the BBC International news. I love the Daily Show as much as the next guy, and I think Jon Stewart is hilarious. But he isn't a news anchor. He's a political satirist. The thing is, MSNBC isn't all that much better than he is. And I don't think I even have to mention how bad Fox News is. All three - MSNBC, Fox News, and Jon Stewart - only report one extreme view, without paying regard to the logical counterarguments of sensible individuals on the other side. What this nation needs is a bipartisan news network that isn't afraid to call out the mainstream media.
But I digress: back to Ferguson. There are two sides of the story about what happened with Michael Brown. The Far Right's version of the story - that Wilson only fired in self defense - plainly isn't true. The officer got off at least ten or eleven shots at Brown, hitting him with six (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/26/audio-recording-allegedly-captures-at-least-10-shots-fired-in-michael-brown-killing/). Now, I have family members who are police officers, so I know what I mean when I say that eleven shots is a bit much for self-defense. But that doesn't mean the Far Left's take on the tale holds up any better. Forensic evidence makes it pretty plain that Brown wasn't standing still with his hands up - blood was found in Wilson's car. That means that Brown was very close to the car when he was killed, lending some credibility to Wilson's version of the event (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/justice/michael-brown-darren-wilson-account/). That doesn't make Brown's death right, and I would say that it doesn't justify eleven shots fired. Complicating matters even further, witness accounts aren't reliable here. Some eyewitnesses say that Brown had his hands up when Wilson shot him, others claim he was running away, others allege that he charged the officer even after taking a few bullets, and others say that he was at the car before Wilson began firing. At any rate, the witnesses are contradicting each other on every point here.
The disturbing thing is, riots are almost certainly going to occur. The fact that Jay Nixon has deployed the National Guard suggests that a lot of people in high places feel that there isn't enough of a case against Wilson for him to be convicted. A decision will come out later this afternoon, or maybe even tonight. And a lot of people on both sides seem to believe that Wilson will go free. And quite a few people in Ferguson, Missouri aren't very happy to that. So the answer is rioting? A disclaimer for this next bit: as a straight white middle-class male, I'm not the best guy to comment on oppression. But I still don't think that rioting is the answer here. America is about working with the cards you've been dealt and trying to use them productively, not about getting into a fistfight with the dealer. When there's a new president elected, the people who voted for them are happy, and the rest of the country deals with it. Texas threatens to secede, of course, but that's all hot air. Because, as a straight white middle-class male, I can say this for certain: rioting, looting, and assaulting people will hardly gain the protesters any sympathy from the majority of Americans. Sitting down and trying to work things out with the police department, or the state government, or just about anybody, would be much more productive. There would be a chance of making progress in this scenario. And who knows? The verdict hasn't been announced yet. Maybe the protesters will heed the advice they've been given by President Obama, Jay Nixon, and many regional officials, both black and white. People in Ferguson are preparing for the worst. Hopefully, the worst won't happen, and the community can attempt to repair the race relations in Ferguson, in St. Louis, and in America as a whole.
I'm home now. It's 8:23 PM, same day. The verdict hasn't been announced yet, but it could come at any moment now. This is a problem for me, because instead of doing my calculus homework, I'm checking Google News every thirty seconds to see if the verdict has been reached. It may come in a few hours, or it may come in a few seconds. Heck, it may even come as I'm typing this. Let's all hope for the best for the people of Ferguson and St. Louis, regardless of what the jury decides.
The Grand Jury is set to meet today, and they are expected to determine the fate of Darren Wilson, the infamous officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, on August 9th, setting off months of race riots and police militarization. The St. Louis suburb of Ferguson is preparing for the worst: shops are boarding up their windows, people are buying firearms, and protesters are reportedly preparing for battle. Members of the New Black Panther Party were arrested by the FBI for attempting to acquire explosives. The Ku Klux Klan has threatened to use lethal force against the protesters. Jay Nixon, Missouri's governor, has sent in the national guard. And people across the nation are holding their breath.
It's times like these when I really, really hate the media. I always hate it, of course, because all the major stations show one of these two things: socialist garbage or Tea Party hash. There is no sensible middle ground in the modern media. The purveyors of socialist garbage screamed, "It's because he's black!" and people believed it. The dispensers of Tea Party hash screamed, "Look at all these evil protesters!" and people believed it. The biggest problem in our society is that lots of people will believe anything they see on the news. Take the people who watch Jon Stewart like I watch the BBC International news. I love the Daily Show as much as the next guy, and I think Jon Stewart is hilarious. But he isn't a news anchor. He's a political satirist. The thing is, MSNBC isn't all that much better than he is. And I don't think I even have to mention how bad Fox News is. All three - MSNBC, Fox News, and Jon Stewart - only report one extreme view, without paying regard to the logical counterarguments of sensible individuals on the other side. What this nation needs is a bipartisan news network that isn't afraid to call out the mainstream media.
But I digress: back to Ferguson. There are two sides of the story about what happened with Michael Brown. The Far Right's version of the story - that Wilson only fired in self defense - plainly isn't true. The officer got off at least ten or eleven shots at Brown, hitting him with six (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/26/audio-recording-allegedly-captures-at-least-10-shots-fired-in-michael-brown-killing/). Now, I have family members who are police officers, so I know what I mean when I say that eleven shots is a bit much for self-defense. But that doesn't mean the Far Left's take on the tale holds up any better. Forensic evidence makes it pretty plain that Brown wasn't standing still with his hands up - blood was found in Wilson's car. That means that Brown was very close to the car when he was killed, lending some credibility to Wilson's version of the event (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/justice/michael-brown-darren-wilson-account/). That doesn't make Brown's death right, and I would say that it doesn't justify eleven shots fired. Complicating matters even further, witness accounts aren't reliable here. Some eyewitnesses say that Brown had his hands up when Wilson shot him, others claim he was running away, others allege that he charged the officer even after taking a few bullets, and others say that he was at the car before Wilson began firing. At any rate, the witnesses are contradicting each other on every point here.
The disturbing thing is, riots are almost certainly going to occur. The fact that Jay Nixon has deployed the National Guard suggests that a lot of people in high places feel that there isn't enough of a case against Wilson for him to be convicted. A decision will come out later this afternoon, or maybe even tonight. And a lot of people on both sides seem to believe that Wilson will go free. And quite a few people in Ferguson, Missouri aren't very happy to that. So the answer is rioting? A disclaimer for this next bit: as a straight white middle-class male, I'm not the best guy to comment on oppression. But I still don't think that rioting is the answer here. America is about working with the cards you've been dealt and trying to use them productively, not about getting into a fistfight with the dealer. When there's a new president elected, the people who voted for them are happy, and the rest of the country deals with it. Texas threatens to secede, of course, but that's all hot air. Because, as a straight white middle-class male, I can say this for certain: rioting, looting, and assaulting people will hardly gain the protesters any sympathy from the majority of Americans. Sitting down and trying to work things out with the police department, or the state government, or just about anybody, would be much more productive. There would be a chance of making progress in this scenario. And who knows? The verdict hasn't been announced yet. Maybe the protesters will heed the advice they've been given by President Obama, Jay Nixon, and many regional officials, both black and white. People in Ferguson are preparing for the worst. Hopefully, the worst won't happen, and the community can attempt to repair the race relations in Ferguson, in St. Louis, and in America as a whole.
I'm home now. It's 8:23 PM, same day. The verdict hasn't been announced yet, but it could come at any moment now. This is a problem for me, because instead of doing my calculus homework, I'm checking Google News every thirty seconds to see if the verdict has been reached. It may come in a few hours, or it may come in a few seconds. Heck, it may even come as I'm typing this. Let's all hope for the best for the people of Ferguson and St. Louis, regardless of what the jury decides.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
The US This Week: Immigration
Earlier this week, President Obama laid out his plans for immigration reform. The Washington Post makes Obama's plan easy to digest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/22/flow-chart-who-qualifies-for-obamas-immigration-offer/
They also have the full text of the speech:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-immigration-speech/2014/11/20/14ba8042-7117-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html
Of course, this has made big news, and not because of the reforms and what they entail. Not because they were widely broadcast, either. In fact, the only station that aired it was a Spanish-language news station. Apparently, people would rather watch Bones than learn about our government. Nice going, America. No, Obama's plan made headlines for one reason, and one reason alone: he plans to act unilaterally, without Congress, to get this plan into action.
Naturally, this is a pretty big issue. Not immigration. Immigration is a big issue, of course...but I digress. But Obama's choice to outline his plan for reform right after the midterm election raises some eyebrows. Nine days after he joked about sharing some Kentucky Bourbon with Mitch McConnell and working with the Republicans in Congress, there's this. In his speech, he asks Congress to give him legislation to work with. And in all honesty, Congress very well may throw together some legislation - you know, because the GOP will be in control once January third rolls around. Let's be realistic: Obama isn't going to want to put whatever the Republicans hand him into action. He timed this quite well - he beat the Republicans to the punch. He put this out there. And if the Republicans develop a plan that's more conservative than Obama's plan, they'll take an even further hit in the ever-crucial Latino vote. Needless to say, Congressional Republicans are royally pissed off. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place now, and whatever happens will probably make them look bad. At any rate, they're not going to sit down and let Obama put his plan into action without a fight. And so, the Republicans are saying that Obama's plan is in violation of the Constitution and an overreach of executive power. So let's take a look at that: is Obama's plan to act without Congress in violation of the Constitution? If we're going to be literal, yes - there is no explicit statement in the constitution for executive orders in general. But as we know, every president in American history has issued executive orders. And the past three Republican Presidents - Bush Junior, Bush Senior, and even Reagan himself - ordered parallel legislation to what Obama plans to implement, letting some individuals in the country illegally stay. So what's the issue here?
The issue here is that executive orders are technically supposed to be passed in accordance with Congress. I say technically, of course, because there's no set standard for Executive Orders. That aside, I highly doubt the Republicans in Congress had any intention of going against Reagan when he acted before they gave consent. I imagine many of them said, "Whatever you desire, O Supreme Reagan!" Jokes aside, there was no real issue in those cases, because Congress didn't care very much about what the president was doing. That's not the case in today's overly partisan society. At the end of the day, Congress's issue has very little to do with immigration. They don't want Obama walking all over them. That's why they're making a stink. But how will they react? I don't think even they know how. Maybe there'll be another government shutdown. Maybe they'll sue him. Maybe they'll pass legislation that directly conflicts with Obama's plan, which would cancel out his executive order. To the disappointment of extremists like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, impeachment almost certainly won't happen. As I've mentioned in the past, there's a rift between the moderate wing of the party and the extreme right. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell may be right-wingers, and they may be willing to fight against Obama, but the overwhelming odds are that they won't go that far.
The thing is, this may not be the best thing for Democrats in the long run. If Obama goes through with this and isn't stopped, it'll create a precedent. The president will have much more power and much wider control. And there may very well come a day, if this happens, where a Republican president chooses to pass sweeping orders against abortion, or gun control, or a number of hot-button topics. I'm not saying that it's going to happen, but I'm saying that checks and balances aren't a bad thing. We don't want one individual to become too powerful. Because we all know what happens when that sort of thing happens.
They also have the full text of the speech:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-immigration-speech/2014/11/20/14ba8042-7117-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html
Of course, this has made big news, and not because of the reforms and what they entail. Not because they were widely broadcast, either. In fact, the only station that aired it was a Spanish-language news station. Apparently, people would rather watch Bones than learn about our government. Nice going, America. No, Obama's plan made headlines for one reason, and one reason alone: he plans to act unilaterally, without Congress, to get this plan into action.
Naturally, this is a pretty big issue. Not immigration. Immigration is a big issue, of course...but I digress. But Obama's choice to outline his plan for reform right after the midterm election raises some eyebrows. Nine days after he joked about sharing some Kentucky Bourbon with Mitch McConnell and working with the Republicans in Congress, there's this. In his speech, he asks Congress to give him legislation to work with. And in all honesty, Congress very well may throw together some legislation - you know, because the GOP will be in control once January third rolls around. Let's be realistic: Obama isn't going to want to put whatever the Republicans hand him into action. He timed this quite well - he beat the Republicans to the punch. He put this out there. And if the Republicans develop a plan that's more conservative than Obama's plan, they'll take an even further hit in the ever-crucial Latino vote. Needless to say, Congressional Republicans are royally pissed off. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place now, and whatever happens will probably make them look bad. At any rate, they're not going to sit down and let Obama put his plan into action without a fight. And so, the Republicans are saying that Obama's plan is in violation of the Constitution and an overreach of executive power. So let's take a look at that: is Obama's plan to act without Congress in violation of the Constitution? If we're going to be literal, yes - there is no explicit statement in the constitution for executive orders in general. But as we know, every president in American history has issued executive orders. And the past three Republican Presidents - Bush Junior, Bush Senior, and even Reagan himself - ordered parallel legislation to what Obama plans to implement, letting some individuals in the country illegally stay. So what's the issue here?
The issue here is that executive orders are technically supposed to be passed in accordance with Congress. I say technically, of course, because there's no set standard for Executive Orders. That aside, I highly doubt the Republicans in Congress had any intention of going against Reagan when he acted before they gave consent. I imagine many of them said, "Whatever you desire, O Supreme Reagan!" Jokes aside, there was no real issue in those cases, because Congress didn't care very much about what the president was doing. That's not the case in today's overly partisan society. At the end of the day, Congress's issue has very little to do with immigration. They don't want Obama walking all over them. That's why they're making a stink. But how will they react? I don't think even they know how. Maybe there'll be another government shutdown. Maybe they'll sue him. Maybe they'll pass legislation that directly conflicts with Obama's plan, which would cancel out his executive order. To the disappointment of extremists like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, impeachment almost certainly won't happen. As I've mentioned in the past, there's a rift between the moderate wing of the party and the extreme right. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell may be right-wingers, and they may be willing to fight against Obama, but the overwhelming odds are that they won't go that far.
The thing is, this may not be the best thing for Democrats in the long run. If Obama goes through with this and isn't stopped, it'll create a precedent. The president will have much more power and much wider control. And there may very well come a day, if this happens, where a Republican president chooses to pass sweeping orders against abortion, or gun control, or a number of hot-button topics. I'm not saying that it's going to happen, but I'm saying that checks and balances aren't a bad thing. We don't want one individual to become too powerful. Because we all know what happens when that sort of thing happens.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
The US This Week: The Election's Results (And What They Mean)
I called it.
The GOP has swept to power in the senate. With Alaska's Dan Sullivan win in a close race announced earlier today (Wednesday the 12th), the Republicans have a total of fifty-three seats to the Democrats' forty-four and the two seats held by Independents. Only one seat remains - a Louisiana spot, set to be determined in a runoff election come December, in which the Republican candidate holds the edge. Regardless, the Republicans are firmly in control in both houses of Congress, as well as in many states. Many typically blue states, namely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland, elected Republican governors. This puts both parties in an unusually precarious position for the future, and I'll explain why.
1) 2016
The Democrats and the Republicans have the opposite problems when it comes to the next two presidential elections. The Democrats have one candidate (who else but Hillary?) who's in position to receive the nomination, whereas the Republicans have many individuals. This may seem like a good thing for the Democrats. And for the next ten years, it will be. Emily and Jess's film group, in one of their mid-titles, described Hillary as the forty-fifth president of the United States. And that's probably true. There's really no competition for Hillary on either side of the aisle. The GOP is fragmented between the moderate conservatives, like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and the hardline extremists (Rick Perry, anyone?). Say what you will about Romney - he gave the GOP a rallying point, because he united the two warring factions within the party. For that reason, lots of Republicans want him to run again. But he won't, for two reasons: first, he's already said he would never put himself through that process again. And secondly, even if he does, Hillary would cream him. There aren't any Democrats who pose a significant threat to Clinton. Let's be honest here, nobody really wants President Biden. And even though there's been some speculation about Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, she may not even run. And even if she does, Hillary will crush her. Our own Andrew Cuomo wouldn't hold against her. Nor would California governor Jerry Brown. Things are looking pretty good for the Democrats in the next ten years. The thing is, ten years is a blink of an eye in terms of world history.
2) 2024 and Beyond
The thing is, the Republican position right now is what the Democratic position may very well be come 2024. There are a lot of elections between then and now, but as of now, there is no real successor to Hillary. The fact that she has no competition will serve the Democrats well in the next two presidential elections, but once her two terms are up, who will replace her? Many of the figures who would have been in that position by 2024 lost their seats in this election. Governors, senators, congressmen and women...the left took a big hit. There are plenty of Republicans, on the other hand, like Mike Pence and Bobby Jindal (governors of Indiana and Louisiana, respectively), who are relatively secure in their seats, and very well may be come 2024. Either one of these men, or any of the other secure members of the Republican party, could become a serious contender for the unlucky Democrat nominated to succeed Hillary. And odds are, the outcome would favor the Republican. Take Bobby Jindal, for instance. He's a first-generation Indian-American, so he would hold plenty of appeal for immigrants. At the same time, his right-wing views on economics, education and taxation make him a favorite among Republicans around the nation. Some consider him a potential nominee in 2016. If the Republicans are smart, and they're smarter than most of us would like to think, they'll save Jindal for 2024 (or 2020, if Hillary's first term doesn't go so smoothly). The only realistic scenario in which the Democrats will hold the White House in 2024 will be if Hillary's presidency is phenomenal, and they coast to success on the wave of that popularity. If that doesn't happen, we can expect the White House to turn from blue to red come January 2025.
The GOP has swept to power in the senate. With Alaska's Dan Sullivan win in a close race announced earlier today (Wednesday the 12th), the Republicans have a total of fifty-three seats to the Democrats' forty-four and the two seats held by Independents. Only one seat remains - a Louisiana spot, set to be determined in a runoff election come December, in which the Republican candidate holds the edge. Regardless, the Republicans are firmly in control in both houses of Congress, as well as in many states. Many typically blue states, namely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland, elected Republican governors. This puts both parties in an unusually precarious position for the future, and I'll explain why.
1) 2016
The Democrats and the Republicans have the opposite problems when it comes to the next two presidential elections. The Democrats have one candidate (who else but Hillary?) who's in position to receive the nomination, whereas the Republicans have many individuals. This may seem like a good thing for the Democrats. And for the next ten years, it will be. Emily and Jess's film group, in one of their mid-titles, described Hillary as the forty-fifth president of the United States. And that's probably true. There's really no competition for Hillary on either side of the aisle. The GOP is fragmented between the moderate conservatives, like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and the hardline extremists (Rick Perry, anyone?). Say what you will about Romney - he gave the GOP a rallying point, because he united the two warring factions within the party. For that reason, lots of Republicans want him to run again. But he won't, for two reasons: first, he's already said he would never put himself through that process again. And secondly, even if he does, Hillary would cream him. There aren't any Democrats who pose a significant threat to Clinton. Let's be honest here, nobody really wants President Biden. And even though there's been some speculation about Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, she may not even run. And even if she does, Hillary will crush her. Our own Andrew Cuomo wouldn't hold against her. Nor would California governor Jerry Brown. Things are looking pretty good for the Democrats in the next ten years. The thing is, ten years is a blink of an eye in terms of world history.
2) 2024 and Beyond
The thing is, the Republican position right now is what the Democratic position may very well be come 2024. There are a lot of elections between then and now, but as of now, there is no real successor to Hillary. The fact that she has no competition will serve the Democrats well in the next two presidential elections, but once her two terms are up, who will replace her? Many of the figures who would have been in that position by 2024 lost their seats in this election. Governors, senators, congressmen and women...the left took a big hit. There are plenty of Republicans, on the other hand, like Mike Pence and Bobby Jindal (governors of Indiana and Louisiana, respectively), who are relatively secure in their seats, and very well may be come 2024. Either one of these men, or any of the other secure members of the Republican party, could become a serious contender for the unlucky Democrat nominated to succeed Hillary. And odds are, the outcome would favor the Republican. Take Bobby Jindal, for instance. He's a first-generation Indian-American, so he would hold plenty of appeal for immigrants. At the same time, his right-wing views on economics, education and taxation make him a favorite among Republicans around the nation. Some consider him a potential nominee in 2016. If the Republicans are smart, and they're smarter than most of us would like to think, they'll save Jindal for 2024 (or 2020, if Hillary's first term doesn't go so smoothly). The only realistic scenario in which the Democrats will hold the White House in 2024 will be if Hillary's presidency is phenomenal, and they coast to success on the wave of that popularity. If that doesn't happen, we can expect the White House to turn from blue to red come January 2025.
Friday, November 7, 2014
The Accidental Masterpiece: The Routine
The eighth chapter of Michael Kimmelman's The Accidental Masterpiece, which focuses on the comfort people derive from their routine, is entitled The Art of Staring Productively at Naked Bodies. Don't get too excited - the chapter's primary subject is artist Philip Pearlstein, who painted nude portraits in a time when abstract art became the norm. Pearlstein received some flak from the art world for his realistic paintings, but pursued his passion nonetheless. Kimmelman describes many aspects of Pearlstein's process and routine, which he experienced firsthand every Tuesday for several months as part of his research for the book. I won't re-word Kimmelman's work and explain Pearlstein's process here. Rather, I'll discuss the concepts of process and routine. We're all creatures of habit, after all, and we all have some sort of a routine. Mine involves waking up at around 6:30 (because my alarm never goes off), showering and brushing my teeth, surviving the school day, enduring rehearsal, eating some dinner, getting work done, listening to some classical music to wind down, and going to bed. It may not be the best system, but it works for me. And try as I may, it's very difficult to alter my routine. For instance, my alarm actually went off at six morning, but rather than get up with it, I stayed in bed for another half an hour. Our routine gives us something we know well to work with, and we try and stick with it. As Kimmelman mentions early in the chapter, we try to get something constructive out of our schedules, and sometimes we succeed. Oftentimes, we don't. We are creatures of habit, as Kimmelman puts it, and our habits aren't necessarily the most productive things.
Side note: I'm experiencing major technical difficulties. My laptop won't publish the blog post, and my desktop's mouse is basically broken. It's telling me it's low on battery (I put new batteries in yesterday). And it takes an average of thirty seconds of clicking to get five seconds of mouse-use. There's no exaggeration there at all. This sort of thing is the reason why my blog has its particular title.
Side note: I'm experiencing major technical difficulties. My laptop won't publish the blog post, and my desktop's mouse is basically broken. It's telling me it's low on battery (I put new batteries in yesterday). And it takes an average of thirty seconds of clicking to get five seconds of mouse-use. There's no exaggeration there at all. This sort of thing is the reason why my blog has its particular title.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
The US This Week: Midterm Elections
Today is Election Day. You all know what that means...PiG paper stress! Oh, and the fate of the country in the immediate future will be determined. It's hard to say which of these two has more of an impact on my life - as you can probably tell, the PiG paper isn't my favorite thing in the world. But it's easy to see that the outcome of these elections will probably be earth-shaking, regardless of which candidates are chosen.
I'll discuss the House of Representatives first, because there isn't much to discuss. This past term, the House has been held by the GOP. And that's not likely to change. A few seats may change hands, here and there, but the Republican majority can rest at ease in the house. The Democrats do have a chance to win the house, but there's a better chance that my PiG paper stress will completely dissipate in the next day. In other words, don't get your hopes up about a blue House. In the other branch of Congress, things are much more interesting. The Democrats have held the senate for the past eight years. As of right now, they have fifty-three seats to the Republicans' forty-five (Vermont and Maine each have an independent representative in the Senate). But that figure is likely to change. How drastically remains to be seen. Different sources say different things, but the one thing that's clear is that the Republicans are poised to make gains in the Senate. The GOP is campaigning on a strong-defense, anti-Ebola, secure-border platform. Personally, I think the GOP is going to take the majority in the senate. But I don't think it'll be because people agree with their platform. My theory is that a lot of votes for Republicans won't really be votes for Republicans: they'll be votes against the Democrats. One Democrat in particular, really. It's no coincidence that President Obama has stayed off the campaign trail. His popularity - or lack thereof - poses a huge threat to Democratic candidates in swing states across the nation. The fact is, the promises of hope and change haven't become reality for many Americans. The issue over the border is another problem - Rick Perry was complimented for taking action in Texas. Yes, you read that right - Rick Perry was praised for sending the Texas National Guard to secure the border. ISIS and Ebola are big issues in the campaign as well, even though we all know Ebola is hardly a big issue. And then there's the not-quite-smooth rollout of Obamacare. At the end of the day, Republicans are essentially campaigning on the fact that they disagree with the President on such issues. And that seems to be what plenty of Americans want to hear. We'll see how things turn out later tonight.
Don't fret too much about New York itself, though. One thing Rob Astorino deserves credit for is running a race we all know he won't win. Cuomo's chances of holding onto his seat are as good as the GOP's chances of holding the house. The state legislature, in all honesty, will stay in Democratic hands. Because this is New York, and that's how the state rolls.
I'll discuss the House of Representatives first, because there isn't much to discuss. This past term, the House has been held by the GOP. And that's not likely to change. A few seats may change hands, here and there, but the Republican majority can rest at ease in the house. The Democrats do have a chance to win the house, but there's a better chance that my PiG paper stress will completely dissipate in the next day. In other words, don't get your hopes up about a blue House. In the other branch of Congress, things are much more interesting. The Democrats have held the senate for the past eight years. As of right now, they have fifty-three seats to the Republicans' forty-five (Vermont and Maine each have an independent representative in the Senate). But that figure is likely to change. How drastically remains to be seen. Different sources say different things, but the one thing that's clear is that the Republicans are poised to make gains in the Senate. The GOP is campaigning on a strong-defense, anti-Ebola, secure-border platform. Personally, I think the GOP is going to take the majority in the senate. But I don't think it'll be because people agree with their platform. My theory is that a lot of votes for Republicans won't really be votes for Republicans: they'll be votes against the Democrats. One Democrat in particular, really. It's no coincidence that President Obama has stayed off the campaign trail. His popularity - or lack thereof - poses a huge threat to Democratic candidates in swing states across the nation. The fact is, the promises of hope and change haven't become reality for many Americans. The issue over the border is another problem - Rick Perry was complimented for taking action in Texas. Yes, you read that right - Rick Perry was praised for sending the Texas National Guard to secure the border. ISIS and Ebola are big issues in the campaign as well, even though we all know Ebola is hardly a big issue. And then there's the not-quite-smooth rollout of Obamacare. At the end of the day, Republicans are essentially campaigning on the fact that they disagree with the President on such issues. And that seems to be what plenty of Americans want to hear. We'll see how things turn out later tonight.
Don't fret too much about New York itself, though. One thing Rob Astorino deserves credit for is running a race we all know he won't win. Cuomo's chances of holding onto his seat are as good as the GOP's chances of holding the house. The state legislature, in all honesty, will stay in Democratic hands. Because this is New York, and that's how the state rolls.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
The World Last Week: The Ottawa Shootings
We all know what happened last week...except we don't. Not yet.
We know that a Canadian of Libyan descent, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, went on a shooting rampage in the vicinity of the Canadian Parliament. We know that 24-year old Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, who was guarding a war memorial in the area, was shot and killed. We know that Zehaf-Bibeau was killed by Sergeant-At-Arms Kevin Vickers, who retrieved a handgun and shot the shooter near Canada's parliament. It wasn't the first shooting in Canada that week, either - a soldier was killed in a hit-and-run Quebec just days before.
We don't know what prompted Zehaf-Bibeau's rampage. But I can guess.
Canada, along with Australia and the United Kingdom, is engaged in the bombing of ISIS alongside the United States. In the days leading up to the attack, Zehaf-Bibeau supposedly made comments about wanting to kill the people who were killing Muslims in Iraq and Syria. It stands to reason that Zehaf-Bibeau, who was kicked out of several Canadian mosques for his hardline views, was attempting to avenge the deaths of his fellow extremists by attacking the seat of the Canadian government. This raises quite a few questions for us, chief among them: are we safe from this type of attack?
For what it's worth, I think we are. We're definitely safe from an attack identical to Zehaf-Bibeau's, and there's one reason: gun culture. Zehaf-Bibeau was armed with an illegally-owned firearm, but it wasn't an assault rifle or a semi-automatic - it was a lever-action, thirty-caliber Winchester rifle. Cpl. Cirillo was unarmed when he was gunned down. Canada's strict gun laws keep gun violence down to a very low level, but this is the trade-off. We all know what would happen if a terrorist pulled a Winchester in Dallas or Montgomery or Little Rock. Canada's policies, which benefit its citizens at large, stand in stark contrast to America's, and the main drawback is very visible here. Living in America, it's astounding to me that a nation's center of government would be so poorly defended that a man acting alone, armed with a World War One era rifle, could get within striking distance of key national leaders. Because ten terrorists armed with assault rifles wouldn't make it halfway up Capitol Hill without being gunned down.
I suppose the main point I'm driving at is that American society is radically different than the society of our northern ally, in spite of the historical, linguistic and cultural ties we share. It's a chilling reminder of America's role in the world, and that assisting us can hurt our allies in ways beyond our control. We're a superpower, and one of the world's most formidable nations. But a faceless coalition of enemies scattered across the globe is devoted to destroying our security and our way of life. It would not do for us to be caught off-guard as Canada was last week, and as we were thirteen years ago. The world is always watching us - we need to perform accordingly.
We know that a Canadian of Libyan descent, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, went on a shooting rampage in the vicinity of the Canadian Parliament. We know that 24-year old Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, who was guarding a war memorial in the area, was shot and killed. We know that Zehaf-Bibeau was killed by Sergeant-At-Arms Kevin Vickers, who retrieved a handgun and shot the shooter near Canada's parliament. It wasn't the first shooting in Canada that week, either - a soldier was killed in a hit-and-run Quebec just days before.
We don't know what prompted Zehaf-Bibeau's rampage. But I can guess.
Canada, along with Australia and the United Kingdom, is engaged in the bombing of ISIS alongside the United States. In the days leading up to the attack, Zehaf-Bibeau supposedly made comments about wanting to kill the people who were killing Muslims in Iraq and Syria. It stands to reason that Zehaf-Bibeau, who was kicked out of several Canadian mosques for his hardline views, was attempting to avenge the deaths of his fellow extremists by attacking the seat of the Canadian government. This raises quite a few questions for us, chief among them: are we safe from this type of attack?
For what it's worth, I think we are. We're definitely safe from an attack identical to Zehaf-Bibeau's, and there's one reason: gun culture. Zehaf-Bibeau was armed with an illegally-owned firearm, but it wasn't an assault rifle or a semi-automatic - it was a lever-action, thirty-caliber Winchester rifle. Cpl. Cirillo was unarmed when he was gunned down. Canada's strict gun laws keep gun violence down to a very low level, but this is the trade-off. We all know what would happen if a terrorist pulled a Winchester in Dallas or Montgomery or Little Rock. Canada's policies, which benefit its citizens at large, stand in stark contrast to America's, and the main drawback is very visible here. Living in America, it's astounding to me that a nation's center of government would be so poorly defended that a man acting alone, armed with a World War One era rifle, could get within striking distance of key national leaders. Because ten terrorists armed with assault rifles wouldn't make it halfway up Capitol Hill without being gunned down.
I suppose the main point I'm driving at is that American society is radically different than the society of our northern ally, in spite of the historical, linguistic and cultural ties we share. It's a chilling reminder of America's role in the world, and that assisting us can hurt our allies in ways beyond our control. We're a superpower, and one of the world's most formidable nations. But a faceless coalition of enemies scattered across the globe is devoted to destroying our security and our way of life. It would not do for us to be caught off-guard as Canada was last week, and as we were thirteen years ago. The world is always watching us - we need to perform accordingly.
The Accidental Masterpiece: Finding Yourself When You're Lost
This seventh chapter of Michael Kimmelman's The Accidental Masterpiece discussed the quality and caliber of art that is created under extenuating circumstances. Though it explains multiple occasions when the artist's situation inspired their art, or even turned the individuals into artists, the primary focus of the chapter is on Frank Hurley, a photographer who participated in two nightmarish Antarctic expeditions, the second of which had a happy ending. As a history buff, I was surprised that I'd never heard of Shackleton's 1914 expedition. I knew all about Mawson's ill-fated expedition, not to mention the Norwegian Roald Amundsen's successful voyage, before reading this chapter. But Ernest Shackleton was not a name I'd ever heard, to my knowledge. Both of Hurley's expeditions are harrowing stories of survival in the face of extreme hardship. It's surprising Hollywood hasn't taken his story up yet - I'd watch that movie. With a decent cast and a solid director, it'd be better than most films coming out of LA these days...but I digress. The point is, Frank Hurley was a certifiable lunatic. And I think he and I would have gotten along famously. The man was unbelievably passionate about what he did, and his thirst for adventure was insatiable. Kimmelman was right - Hurley probably enjoyed every minute he spent stranded in Antarctica. I doubt he'd have cared if he perished on any of his voyages, so long as his photographs survived him. There's something undeniably admirable about that degree of devotion.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
The World This Week: Chemical Weapons
This is a big one.
Remember when Bush launched Iraq War Two (the 2003 invasion, with Iraq War One being the Persian Gulf War) on the grounds that there were active weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And how it all blew up in his face when there were no weapons of mass destruction there?
Well, as the world learned this week, that second part of that equation is a bit flawed. Because there evidently were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And there were a hell of a lot of them at that.
This first link goes to a version of the actual document. The second link goes to an article on the subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-intelligence-documents-on-chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
So Bush was right! Well...no, he wasn't. Not from what we know at this point, at any rate. The key word, as the Times points out, is active. The chemical shells mentioned in the article, and the several thousand like them, were not being used actively by the Iraqi military. The overwhelming majority of them were buried in various sites around Iraq, relics from old battles. The far right, as one would expect, is having a field day nonetheless. The far left jumps on the word active, undercutting the significance of this discovery - something the Times does not do.
I said earlier that from what we know at this point, Bush's claims about active chemical weapons were unfounded. But the fact that inactive chemical weapons were discovered - in the thousands, no less - during America's time in Iraq makes it far more likely that active chemical weapons did exist, and may still exist, in the region. That second bit is the most frightening part, because the section of Iraq where most of the inactive chemical shells were uncovered is currently in the grips of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Assuming there were, or are, active chemical weapons in Iraq, it would stand to reason that they'd be in this same area. If ISIS were to get its hands on chemical weapons...that story wouldn't have a happy ending. In all honesty, we'd probably be looking at Iraq War Three. That wouldn't end well - certainly not for ISIS, and certainly not for us. One only has to look at the last two Iraq wars to understand why we'd feel the bite in the end. Is there a long-term answer? Can America do anything to help in the end? Or will we only make things worse for everybody by involving ourselves? Your guess is as good as mine.
Remember when Bush launched Iraq War Two (the 2003 invasion, with Iraq War One being the Persian Gulf War) on the grounds that there were active weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And how it all blew up in his face when there were no weapons of mass destruction there?
Well, as the world learned this week, that second part of that equation is a bit flawed. Because there evidently were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And there were a hell of a lot of them at that.
This first link goes to a version of the actual document. The second link goes to an article on the subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-intelligence-documents-on-chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
So Bush was right! Well...no, he wasn't. Not from what we know at this point, at any rate. The key word, as the Times points out, is active. The chemical shells mentioned in the article, and the several thousand like them, were not being used actively by the Iraqi military. The overwhelming majority of them were buried in various sites around Iraq, relics from old battles. The far right, as one would expect, is having a field day nonetheless. The far left jumps on the word active, undercutting the significance of this discovery - something the Times does not do.
I said earlier that from what we know at this point, Bush's claims about active chemical weapons were unfounded. But the fact that inactive chemical weapons were discovered - in the thousands, no less - during America's time in Iraq makes it far more likely that active chemical weapons did exist, and may still exist, in the region. That second bit is the most frightening part, because the section of Iraq where most of the inactive chemical shells were uncovered is currently in the grips of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Assuming there were, or are, active chemical weapons in Iraq, it would stand to reason that they'd be in this same area. If ISIS were to get its hands on chemical weapons...that story wouldn't have a happy ending. In all honesty, we'd probably be looking at Iraq War Three. That wouldn't end well - certainly not for ISIS, and certainly not for us. One only has to look at the last two Iraq wars to understand why we'd feel the bite in the end. Is there a long-term answer? Can America do anything to help in the end? Or will we only make things worse for everybody by involving ourselves? Your guess is as good as mine.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
The Accidental Masterpiece: Maximizing Your Time
I'm beginning to lose track of which chapter I'm on in the book...five? Six? I take that as a good thing, of course. If your primary concern while reading a book is what chapter you're on, there's a problem you need to fix. At any rate, this chapter of Kimmelman's The Accidental Masterpiece dealt with the ways artists try to "Maximize Their Time." Kimmelman took a more literal view of this idea, discussing artists like Jay DeFeo and Eva Hesse, who were both terminally ill and died before their times, and Charlotte Salomon, a Jewish artist who died in Auschwitz after years of hiding (albeit in plain sight) in the French Riviera. That aside, Kimmelman spent a noteworthy amount of time on the more metaphorical meaning of the statement. I took this figurative view - to me, "maximizing your time" when it comes to art means making sure your art will be there for posterity in the eons after you've gone. One point Kimmelman makes early on, about the "eternal attraction" of art, made me think of my old pal Tolkien. I've learned from documentaries I've seen on Tolkien's writing (yes, there are documentaries on Tolkien, and I have watched them), which included interviews with his children, that he didn't have any set influence for many of the elements in his book. The descriptions were inspired by his own experiences, of course, but there was nothing he had in mind for the themes. For instance, the Black Land of Mordor isn't based on the possibility of nuclear war, or Nazi atrocities, or the Soviet regime, or anything of that sort. Mordor is based on whatever the reader thinks it's based upon. There is no wrong view, because Tolkien didn't have a view (which would therefore be considered the "right" view). Anybody - literally, anybody - can assign their own meaning to what Mordor, or the Elves, or the Men, or any of the other elements in Tolkien's works is representative of. And they'll be right every time. That's a big chunk of what makes Tolkien's work so endearingly popular - anybody, in any time period, can find meaning in his work. And as such, Tolkien's works will live on until the end of civilization. Or until people stop reading books...which is the same thing as a societal collapse, if you ask me.
Monday, October 13, 2014
The Accidental Masterpiece: The Art of Collecting
In this fifth chapter of Michael Kimmelman's The Accidental Masterpiece, entitled "The Art of Collecting Lightbulbs," Kimmelman explores the nature of the "art" of collecting. I put the "art" in quotation marks because, as Kimmelman argues, collecting is a form of art that is hardly recognized by the "hoity-toighty" art world. His anecdote to Albert Barnes speaks for itself in this case. For this chapter, I'm going to deviate from my standard chapter response - an analysis of the anecdotes, commentary on his form, and so on - and get a bit more personal. First off, the subject of Hugh Hicks' lightbulb collection intrigues me to no end. As a history buff, I find it amazing that one man was able to compile relics from so many different places from multiple periods of time. The fact that his entire collection of seventy-five thousand bulbs fit in his basement alone astounds me. Beyond that, Hicks' comment about reincarnation is pretty interesting in itself. I can't be the only person who's looked at people who died just before they were born and wondered if there was any significance. Jimmy Stewart died thirty days before I was born, and he's a pretty stiff guy...all jokes aside, you can't help but look at people who lived before your time and see some similarities. It's probably just the power of suggestion, like the mumbo jumbo about zodiac signs that applies to most people. That the man William Hammer, who collected over a hundred thousand light bulbs, died only a month before Hicks' birth is an amazing coincidence, if not a bit odd. Personally, I'd rather be the second coming of George Washington than the second coming of one of Thomas Edison's workers, but hey - to each his own.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
The World This Week: Ebola
There's only one international issue in the headlines this week, but it seems everybody's talking about it. The recent outbreak of a strain of the Ebola virus spread to America through a Liberian national named Thomas Duncan, who passed away Wednesday morning. Duncan's case brought up a firestorm of controversy here in the states, primarily due to the way it was handled. Half the country, it seems, believes that more should have been done to help Duncan. The other half is appalled by the fact that he made it to American soil. In the past few days, President Obama and the US government have enforced screenings for signs of the virus, including such symptoms as fever, on all flights bound for America from the nations where the disease has taken hold. Some feel that this action is ultimately unnecessary, as victims of the virus can carry the disease in their system for several weeks before the disease begins to manifest itself. Others are shocked that such action wasn't taken sooner, citing Duncan as a prime example. And there are those that believe all US flights to and from the afflicted countries should be suspended until the epidemic runs its course. Many of Duncan's family members have been put into a form of house arrest, isolated from the general public until it can be said with certainty that they aren't carrying the disease. Some Americans feel that these actions are incredibly damaging to the people they impact. Others feel that the measures taken are necessary, though some of these individuals are angry that such measures had to be taken in the first place. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I don't want Ebola to get into the country again, but what can we do to stop it? I think Obama has the right idea here: we should be both reasonable and cautious. If someone shows symptoms, they should not be allowed entry into the US. If someone who's been exposed to someone who may have been in contact with the virus develops symptoms, they should be hospitalized immediately. We need to keep our eyes open and use common sense to deal with this problem. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
Monday, October 6, 2014
The Accidental Masterpiece: Effortless Art
In chapter four of The Accidental Masterpiece, Kimmelman delves into the ways in which people were able to create a form of art, as he put it in the chapter's title, "without lifting a finger." He starts up the chapter with the tale of Ray Johnson's strangely artful suicide, and the events that may have inspired Johnson's actions. Kimmelman's detailed analysis of Johnson's life and his style, combined with his attention to the artist's seemingly insignificant quirks and peculiarities, lends a lot of weight to his theory about Johnson's suicide: that he wanted to leave a lasting impact on the art world. In a way, Kimmelman seems to argue, Johnson's death was his most profound work of art. Beyond his discussion of Johnson's art, both in life and in death, Kimmelman discusses the fine, fluid line between art and life, and the ways in which the two intermingle. His point about people destroying and/or desecrating images of rulers they hated, naturally, caught my attention. It's interesting how things not intended as art - in this case, statues or images of leaders in an attempt to show their power - can inspire a reaction as fervent as this. The statues have, as Kimmelman puts it, an "aura," something he describes as being characteristic of art. To use his example, a statue of Lenin would be much more than a hunk of steel or bronze or stone. For the moment, it would become Lenin. It would be a symbol of Soviet authoritarianism and the lack of opportunity, and the people would tear it down. It's an interesting paradox, but undoubtable.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
The Accidental Masterpiece: Perspective
In this third chapter of The Accidental Masterpiece, Kimmelman delved into the concept of perspective. In an excellent bit of writing, he blended his discussions of the physical perspective with those of the inner point of view throughout the chapter, juxtaposing mountain views with Duchamp's surprisingly well-received R. Mutt urinals on the very first page. Kimmelman's main point in the chapter was that each individual has their own unique perspective, which gives them the capacity to appreciate that which others may not. Paul Cezanne's appreciation for Montagne Sainte-Victoire, mentioned by Kimmelman in an anecdote to his own experience, serves as an excellent example of this theme. Cezanne painted Sainte-Victoire again and again and again, in different styles and from different vantage points around the mountain. Plenty of people would be unable to appreciate Cezanne's fascination with Sainte-Victoire, but there were many others who can appreciate his fascination and the work it inspired. One of the most profound points I took away from the chapter was that one person's opinion doesn't matter: somewhere in the world, there is someone with the opposite opinion. That's probably one of the only sure things in society. Humanity's extinction may not even be a given - we may very well develop the technology necessary to flee earth and establish ourselves throughout the galaxy and the wider universe. But that's irrelevant. What I'm getting is that, if one person doesn't like your art, or your style, or your technique, there will always be other people who will appreciate it. What one person thinks doesn't define your art. Or anything you do, for that matter.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
The World This Week: Hong Kong
In a flashback to 1989, pro-democracy protests are in full swing over in China. In a bit of a deviation from the aforementioned situation, Hong Kong, rather than Beijing, is the locus of the protests. As of now, these protests are ongoing, with no end in sight. Clashes with the police have begun, inciting mixed reaction among the protesters. Some pro-democracy groups have called for the protests to end, while others have cheered those who stayed out on the streets.
To put the events into perspective, check out the slide show at the beginning of this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/28/world/asia/china-hong-kong-students/
Anyhow, this is hardly an insignificant event. Protests of this sort are no small thing in China. The 1989 protests, centered in Tiananmen Square, were quelled by a full military response, complete with tanks and the like. It's likely that such an event may occur, should the protests continue. In spite of some efforts to liberalize the country, China remains one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world. Mao's China saw many more deaths than Stalin's Russia, and many times more deaths than Hitler's Germany. To be fair, Mao didn't order the majority of those deaths, but his policies did encourage them. Another factor at play here is Hong Kong's history. Up until the first of July, 1997 (exactly one month before yours truly made his big debut), Hong Kong was part of the British Empire. As such, it enjoyed freedoms unknown to the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people. Hong Kong retains more freedoms than the bulk of China, with a high degree of autonomy from the People's Republic. It isn't anything like America, though. I won't bore you with an in-depth analysis of Hong Kong's political structure (for a brief overview, I'd recommend the BBC's profile of the region: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-16517764). At any rate, democratic sentiments are high in Hong Kong. It'll be interesting to see how this scenario plays out on the world stage.
To put the events into perspective, check out the slide show at the beginning of this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/28/world/asia/china-hong-kong-students/
Anyhow, this is hardly an insignificant event. Protests of this sort are no small thing in China. The 1989 protests, centered in Tiananmen Square, were quelled by a full military response, complete with tanks and the like. It's likely that such an event may occur, should the protests continue. In spite of some efforts to liberalize the country, China remains one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world. Mao's China saw many more deaths than Stalin's Russia, and many times more deaths than Hitler's Germany. To be fair, Mao didn't order the majority of those deaths, but his policies did encourage them. Another factor at play here is Hong Kong's history. Up until the first of July, 1997 (exactly one month before yours truly made his big debut), Hong Kong was part of the British Empire. As such, it enjoyed freedoms unknown to the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people. Hong Kong retains more freedoms than the bulk of China, with a high degree of autonomy from the People's Republic. It isn't anything like America, though. I won't bore you with an in-depth analysis of Hong Kong's political structure (for a brief overview, I'd recommend the BBC's profile of the region: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-16517764). At any rate, democratic sentiments are high in Hong Kong. It'll be interesting to see how this scenario plays out on the world stage.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
The Accidental Masterpiece Chapter 2
This second chapter of Kimmelman's The Accidental Masterpiece, entitled The Art of Being Artless, focuses on "art" created by those who are hardly artists, or rather, art marketed to the masses. The chapter starts with a discussion of the history of photography and the ways in which it became widespread (technically the chapter starts with an anecdote to the author's past, but I'll discuss that later). Kimmelman discusses how the camera became a way for people to try to preserve themselves and what they did for posterity, which links back to a theory we discussed last year: all art is inspired by the human fear of death and desire for immortality. He goes on to delve into the ways in which photography was "art-made-easy," recounting instances of other artists who tried to make art simple for the common man. He discusses the extent of this phenomenon, noting that the people who delved into these simple forms of art ranged from common criminals to world leaders. In the end, Kimmelman links it all back to photography, and discusses the theme of the chapter as I interpreted it early on (this is where the anecdote to his past comes in): photographs hold a certain meaning for those who were involved in taking them, especially amateur photographers. When you don't know the people in the photograph, or who the photographer is, the meaning is open to interpretation. I think that's a really powerful point. An amateur photograph taken seventy years ago, if it was taken by a family member or family friend of yours, can have as much meaning to you as a Picasso or a Pollock. Perhaps even more, if you personally knew the subject.
Oh, and one last note: I had to see if I could find any pictures of paintings done by Churchill, which Kimmelman mentioned. And he was right - the old Prime Minister wasn't half bad. Churchill had an excellent eye for detail and the interplay of light with a landscape. In a way, I suppose, that shouldn't come as a surprise.
Oh, and one last note: I had to see if I could find any pictures of paintings done by Churchill, which Kimmelman mentioned. And he was right - the old Prime Minister wasn't half bad. Churchill had an excellent eye for detail and the interplay of light with a landscape. In a way, I suppose, that shouldn't come as a surprise.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Update: Scotland's Referendum
The announcements are underway. One by one, the subdivisions of Scotland are beginning to submit their totals. At this point, twelve out of thirty-two have declared. The current standing: 47% Yes, 53% No. And something about this has changed me. More specifically, it's made me question my dislike of the English. I can't even bring my self to say hatred at this point. I'm starting to feel bad for the Brits, almost as though I've misjudged them. The England I hate wouldn't have allowed a referendum of this sort to take place at all. Perhaps even more instrumental in my change of heart is the realization of how this would impact the US. I mentioned a few of the impacts on the world yesterday, but the realization of how an independent Scotland could damage one of our strongest allies never quite set in until now. It could greatly impact the UK's military capacity, at a time when it needs to be stronger than ever. It would take away a huge source of the UK's wealth and derive them of a huge source of their economic power - as previously mentioned, Scotland has huge oil reserves. And there's no guarantee that an independent Scotland - which is a very real possibility at this point - would want to align itself closely to the United States. I'm getting a bit worried at this point, and I'm starting to think that a choice of "No" might be better for everybody. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm saying it: Scotland might be better off if it stays with Great Britain.
Yea or nay, long live Alba.
Yea or nay, long live Alba.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
The World This Week
This week - and by this week, I mean tomorrow - Scotland is holding independence referendums. What this means is that by tomorrow evening we should know whether Scotland will become its own nation (in more than name) and secede from the United Kingdom. As of right now, the two camps - the nationalists and the unionists - are just about even in the polls. The big reason for the nationalists' desire for independence is neither cultural nor economic - it's political. The Scots feel that they're being underrepresented in the English Parliament. Prime Minister Cameron and the Queen have offered a compromise which would give the Scots more power, but it may have been too little, too late. We'll find out tomorrow, I suppose. And I'm sure many of you who've read my blog before can guess which camp I support. But the western world will be rocked if Scotland secedes.
1) What will happen to the British government?
In an ironic twist of fate, British conservatives - the main voice of unionism south of the border - stand to gain the most from an independent Scotland. Britain's Labor Party - roughly the equivalent of our Democratic Party - has a great deal of support in Scotland. Britain's Conservative Party - the counterpart of the Republicans - currently holds the majority of the British parliament. The Labor Party would take a hit in its number of seats if Scotland were to secede. The Conservatives would not. At the very least, Scottish independence would not be a factor in helping the Labor Party or hurting the Conservatives.
2) What will happen to Europe?
If Scotland becomes independent, it will have to answer two very important questions: will it join the European Union? And what about NATO? Well, Scotland's as-yet-unofficial leader, Alex Salmond, intends to try and join the European Union, but there's no guarantee the Scots will be welcomed, or even accepted, into the organization. The Spanish Prime Minister in particular, no doubt fearing that an independent Scotland would inspire Catalonian nationalists, is virulently opposed to admitting the Scots into the union (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11101758/Spanish-Prime-Minister-gives-EU-warning-to-Scots.html ). As for the second point, an independent Scotland would have to join NATO, which Salmond seemingly intends to do. Such action could be vital for Scotland, which brings us to my final point:
3) How will the British react?
In theory, if the Scots vote for independence, the British will pack up and leave. Theory and practice, history has taught us, are seldom the same thing. There's no guarantee that Cameron's government will simply let Scotland go. Scotland has huge oil reserves, enormous fish stocks, and no standing military. English troops may very well remain within Scotland, or attempt to hold onto the country for their motherland. If Scotland joins NATO, this would solve that problem for them - England can hardly invade a nation they're bound to defend as a brother. But if the Scots remain outside of the organization, which seems likely in the near future (Salmond insists on removing all nuclear weapons from Scotland if the nation becomes independent, which would be a bit of a headache for the leaders of NATO) - well, Britain is our ally. We would stand with Britain. Obama might not, but I'm not sure how much weight his voice holds in Brussels.
Oh, I'm in a bit of a predicament. The Irish nationalist in me wants Scotland to become independent, but the American nationalist in me wants Scotland to stay with the UK and in so doing remain our ally. We'll just have to see what tomorrow brings.
1) What will happen to the British government?
In an ironic twist of fate, British conservatives - the main voice of unionism south of the border - stand to gain the most from an independent Scotland. Britain's Labor Party - roughly the equivalent of our Democratic Party - has a great deal of support in Scotland. Britain's Conservative Party - the counterpart of the Republicans - currently holds the majority of the British parliament. The Labor Party would take a hit in its number of seats if Scotland were to secede. The Conservatives would not. At the very least, Scottish independence would not be a factor in helping the Labor Party or hurting the Conservatives.
2) What will happen to Europe?
If Scotland becomes independent, it will have to answer two very important questions: will it join the European Union? And what about NATO? Well, Scotland's as-yet-unofficial leader, Alex Salmond, intends to try and join the European Union, but there's no guarantee the Scots will be welcomed, or even accepted, into the organization. The Spanish Prime Minister in particular, no doubt fearing that an independent Scotland would inspire Catalonian nationalists, is virulently opposed to admitting the Scots into the union (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11101758/Spanish-Prime-Minister-gives-EU-warning-to-Scots.html ). As for the second point, an independent Scotland would have to join NATO, which Salmond seemingly intends to do. Such action could be vital for Scotland, which brings us to my final point:
3) How will the British react?
In theory, if the Scots vote for independence, the British will pack up and leave. Theory and practice, history has taught us, are seldom the same thing. There's no guarantee that Cameron's government will simply let Scotland go. Scotland has huge oil reserves, enormous fish stocks, and no standing military. English troops may very well remain within Scotland, or attempt to hold onto the country for their motherland. If Scotland joins NATO, this would solve that problem for them - England can hardly invade a nation they're bound to defend as a brother. But if the Scots remain outside of the organization, which seems likely in the near future (Salmond insists on removing all nuclear weapons from Scotland if the nation becomes independent, which would be a bit of a headache for the leaders of NATO) - well, Britain is our ally. We would stand with Britain. Obama might not, but I'm not sure how much weight his voice holds in Brussels.
Oh, I'm in a bit of a predicament. The Irish nationalist in me wants Scotland to become independent, but the American nationalist in me wants Scotland to stay with the UK and in so doing remain our ally. We'll just have to see what tomorrow brings.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Critique of Bonnard's Work
Scene from Bonnard's Life
Here's a satirical scene from the life of Pierre Bonnard, loosely inspired by events entailed in Michael Kimmelman's The Accidental Masterpiece.
Bonnard enters from
the balcony, writing in his journal. Marthe stands at the kitchen table,
disapproving.
Bonnard
Ah, c’est très beau aujourd’hui. Vivre la
France!
Marthe
Pierre,
get your scraggly-bearded ass in here!
Bonnard
Merd.
Walks over to Marthe.
What
is it, my dear?
Marthe
Your
little whore killed herself today, genius. You’d better not be going to her
funeral.
Bonnard
What?
Who’s dead? You don’t mean…Renee?
Marthe
How
many other little whores do you have? Wait a second…just how many other little
whores do you have?
Bonnard
None,
none, none but Renee. Quite obviously, she was my only mistress. The only woman
I ever slept with outside of marriage.
Marthe
So
there were at least two others?
Bonnard
Merd…how
did you find out about my fling with Renee, anyway?
Marthe
Well,
I use my shopping budget to hire men to spy on you.
Bonnard
That
explains why you spend the money and never actually buy any clothing…I should
have caught on sooner.
Marthe
Maybe
you should have paid more attention, you crapbag!
Bonnard
I
did break things off with Marthe. Poor thing must have killed herself over it!
Oh, how did she die?
Marthe
Well…
Bonnard
No,
no, no, I can’t bear it! It’s too unbearable to hear!
Picks up a newspaper.
Marthe raises an eyebrow.
I
never said anything about it being to unbearable to read.
Marthe
You
artists are all crazy.
Bonnard
Thank
you, dear…Well, this is a bit odd.
Marthe
What
is?
Bonnard
Well,
this first paper says that Renee shot herself, but this paper says she drowned
herself! And this third one says that she was found in a garden!
Marthe
Well…maybe
it was all three, Pierre.
Bonnard
What
are you talking about, Marthe?
Marthe
Well,
Pierre, you know I’m sort of the jealous type.
Bonnard
I’m
quite aware, sweetie. You insist on modeling for me, and you won’t let any
other artists in for fear they’ll steal my ideas. You won’t even let Matisse over
for a beer.
Marthe
Don’t
even get me started on that Matisse. And you insist on me modeling for you,
dumbass! Anyway…I decided to make sure she wouldn’t try and steal you away from
me again, so I went over to her house yesterday.
Bonnard
You
killed Renee?
Marthe
Yep.
Bonnard
How?
Did you shoot her? Or did you drown her? Or did you bury her alive in her garden?
Marthe
Wow,
you’re taking this pretty well…
Pauses.
I
drowned her in the bathtub. Then I shot her for good measure, and chucked her
out the window for good measure.
Bonnard
That’s
a bit over-the top, Marthe. I didn’t know you had it in you.
Marthe
Oh,
for God’s sake, you dumbass, I didn’t kill Renee! I just said I did to scare
you out of cheating on me again.
Bonnard
That
would make a lot more sense, I suppose. I mean…you’re not really a bodybuilder.
Marthe
I
would have hoped that a man who spends half his waking hours painting nudes of
me would know that.
Bonnard
That’s
true…well, I’m off to Renee’s funeral. Don’t wait up, dear.
Marthe
Oh,
hell no! First off, it’s eight in the morning. Second of all, you’re going to
spend your days getting rid of all the pictures of her! Photographs, paintings,
and so on! You’re never talking about this skank again, comprenez-vous?
Bonnard
Oui,
Madame.
Marthe
Bon.
Now go to your room!
Bonnard
Oui,
Madame.
He exits. SCENE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)