home > blog
Thu Aug 14, 2008
The Professional Solider
On a forty-four mile drive through the abandoned buildings of Detroit and the soulless landscape of its western suburban highways, there is no tool for maintaining one's sanity more necessary than a decent car stereo -- a nice six-disc player with mp3 capability, an assortment of pre-programmed channels, and solid speakers. I do that drive, and I have those things.
Somewhere around mile 30 this morning, I heard over those speakers the gasping breath of an exhausted NPR reporter discussing an evolving military situation taking place in Georgia. Since agreeing to tentative cease fire terms, the Russian and Georgian soldiers had apparently been quite neighborly, smoking cigarettes together, playing cards, and speaking as friends do. As people do. This same winded reporter went on to describe how tensions immediately rose when the Russian leadership began intimating that the cease fire may be ending. There was to be no more bumming of smokes, no more card games, no more laughing, chatting, and speaking as friends do.
Instead, there was to be guarded behavior, itchy trigger fingers, and glaring at the enemy -- as soldiers do.
The professional soldier is an interesting concept when you really stop and think about it. They are guardians of the state, focused on missions and outcomes -- on the whats and the hows but rarely the whys. Perhaps never the whys.
These soldiers -- in my country alone -- have defended the American union from obliteration, have defended part of Korea from a burgeoning dictatorial movement, have defended huge swaths of the world from the minions of one of history's most menacing, most threatening villains.
But that same villain required soldiers of his own. And so did America when it recently invaded Iraq. And so did the British when they extended their rule to half the world, when they oppressed the Scots and Irish, when they forcibly pried open the gates of China's tea kingdom.
Much like religion, the professional soldier can be a beacon of hope for the hopeless or a weapon of great power for the already powerful. I cannot imagine the Russian men and women and the Georgian men and women staring at each other down the barrels of their rifles have hardly any ill will toward one another. Certainly there may be some bad blood here and there, but one does not play cards with one's mortal enemy except perhaps in the cinema over a bottle of expensive whiskey and appalling predictable dialogue. In this case, these valiant men and women have become nothing more than pawns of the powerful. I have to wonder if a Georgian soldier who bummed a cigarette from one of the Russians might not care more for the soldier in his gunsights than the Russian President who sent his soldiers there in the first place.
In light of these events and in light of America's own war efforts, I find myself asking the question: Do professional soldiers have the right employer? In both Russia and the United States, the governments are ostensibly based on a democratic model whereby government is by and for the people. And professional soldiers are ostensibly paid to protect those people and the interests of those people.
But that's not what happens, is it?
George W. Bush, Dmitry Medvedev, any of the long dead kings of England -- these men are more systems than people. They build, maintain, and trade power, as "leaders" do. As power brokers do. Whether the country is "free" or "oppressed," the result is the same: Professional soldiers act professionally and are sent not to protect the interests of the people, as they are at least intended to "on paper." Rather, they are sent to aid in the building, maintaining, and trading of power on behalf of those who have it.
So again, one has to ask oneself: Do these professionals really have the right employer? Those Russian soldiers almost certainly share more with those Georgian soldiers than they do with their President in terms of needs and wants, dreams and fears. But it seems increasingly possible that they will be asked to shoot those people, not because the soldiers have been wronged, not because any massive and egregious offensive occurred against Russia, but because the President says so. Sounds awfully familiar to me.
Paraphrasing the famous quote from Churchill, we already have the best form of government to ever exist. But I can't help but ask myself every day, isn't it possible there's something a little better out there?
[0] comments (0 views)
Fri Aug 08, 2008
Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself — and Ronald Reagan
Franklin Roosevelt was afraid of precisely one thing: Fear. At least, that's what one might gather from the famous quote, now something of a cliche, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Cliche or not, FDR was on to something.
Consider the United States' current perdicament: After the attacks against America on September 11th, 2001, did the average American have much reason to actually fear Islamic terrorists than he or she did five years prior? Plots against American soil have been planned and executed for years, some successfully -- like Oklahoma City -- and some not -- like rumored attempts to destroy LAX. One "successful" assault against our homeland was all it took to shackle us to our fear.
Certainly, the death and drama of those events warranted emotional reaction. But if its how we face difficult circumstances that help define us as people, it can be said that Americans are a fearful lot.
But what has done more damage? The attack or our fear of another attack? The attack killed more than 3,000 people and destroyed a symbol of American economic freedom and dominance. Our fear enabled an imbicile-warlord to take us to conflict that has cost five times as many American lives and dozens of thousands of foreign lives, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars and possibly the very economy for which that symbol stood. Our fear has paralyzed us and made us tolerant of abuses of civil liberties, ignorant of the abhorent government action taken against our fellow man in secret, and desensatized to torture.
Fear is powerful.
I couldn't help think of all of this when I was engaged in a discussion of Ronald Reagan at a recent family dinner. Often given credit for single-handedly ending the Cold War, one of the reasons Reagan is revered is that he took our fear of the Soviets away by crumbling their Empire within his mighty fist.
But were the Soviets the thing to fear -- or was it our fear itself?
Was it a Soviet attack that drove thousands, if not millions, to prepare bomb shelters? Was it Soviet propoganda that drove us to believe that if the USSR launched a nuke there'd even be a reason to try to survive a world-ending nuclear holocaust? Was it a Soviet invasion of France or England or Canada that had us worried that they would impose their militaristic will even age-old countries and allies and that we would be next?
Or was it our own government that made us afraid?
It's easy to look back, not paralyzed by any fear of my own, of course. But it's precisely that hindsight that is so important to our learning process as a country. It's now widely accepted that we have known, even as far back as Truman, that the Soviets were not economically viable. But our own military, our own CIA, used a post-WWII environment to argue for a wide variety of reforms that favored their own particlar branches of bureaucracy. And before we knew it, our government was telling us to be afraid of the big, bad, babushka wearing folks from across the pond -- in part because they were a large country with nasty weapons and a form of government in direct opposition to our own, but perhaps in larger part because it was simply politically expedient.
If that's even remotely true, is Reagan's role -- which has been debated even without this discussion of fear -- all that impressive? And whether it is or not, can that possibly outweight the atrocious things the man did as President of the United States?
A quick stroll down memory lane:
Reagan broke a government union, sending air traffic controllers, who work hard and have historically been underpaid for the stress of their jobs, back to work under threat of losing their jobs.
He literally ignored the entire AIDS epidemic, not acknowledging it, not respecting it, and not discussing it at all. And oh yeah, not funding any research or analysis of the disease or its social impact whatsoever.
His signature adorned the law that opened the door for companies like Clear Channel to destroy small media and tiny radio stations. If you have ever begrudged the lack of quality, diverse, unique radio programming, blame Reagan.
In the early 80s, his work in deregulating the so-called S&L business lead to a rush of S&L's getting into business in which they had no business being. The result? The S&L crisis. (By the way, it's more than a little similar to Bush's deregulation of mortgage rules and the 2007 subprime crisis. Rich bankers make a bunch of money, and some of the ones that fail even get a government bailout. The common person? They got shit.)
Put Rhenquist and Scalia on the bench.
Two words: Iran Contra. Sure, he's got plausible deniability, but he appointed those people and if he didn't actually know what was going on, it speaks volumes regarding his leadership.
Started the war on drugs -- thank you, Nancy, for the green t-shirts -- and initiated the first mandatory minimum laws, which were overtly racist, offering virtually no penalty for white cokeheads while it sent black crack users to jail for years.
Oversaw the SEC when it "deregulated" to allow institutions to engage in "mark to market" accounting, whereby one essentially counts hypothetical future prices as the current market price. The most notable example of such accounting? ENRON!
Does overseeing the eight year period under which one of the most diplomatic Russian dignitaries of the 20th century was his counterpart make Reagan a good President? Wouldn't we still have been better off without him and his cadre of former Nixon advisors? And didn't the fear of the USSR, the fear of drugs, the fear of government over-regulation lead to our belief that he was great?
Nothing to fear but fear itself, indeed.
[0] comments (0 views)
Mon Jul 14, 2008
Favorite TV Shows
Been watching West Wing repeats lately after having finally caught up in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica television show. I have a lot of rants building, but before I post any of them, I thought I'd put forth a quick list of my top 10 favorite programs of all time:
Honorable mention: Seinfeld, Home Improvement, Frasier, NewsRadio, SpinCity, Murphy Brown, Star Trek: Voyager, Babylon 5, Nip/Tuck
10 - ER
Oh, seasons 1-4, where have you gone? The show died when Carter and the teenie-bopper chick got stabbed in the bathroom. But it really went over the edge when Dr. Greene died. If you would have just ended the f-ing show then, it would have been the single greatest series finale in the history of television. But now? The series will probably end with Carter coming back from Africa with Ebola and placing the whole ER in lockdown except Abby will escape to get a drink and have lesbian sex with Neela while Pratt argues with Kovac and Weaver over who gets to be head of the ER. Sigh.
9 - Firefly
Absolutely hilarious sci-fi western. Intentionally disjointed, this is 100% quirky and 100% delicious television.
8 - Heroes
Only one real season and one writer's strike-shortened season in, I absolutely love this show. As long as they avoid over-extending themselves in coming seasons, this ought to be a real classic. Thus far, they've refused to cave into pressure to push the story faster than it needed to go, doling things out in a more realistic timeframe, giving the characters time to adapt in meaningful ways. Great combination of comic-style superpowers with fairly elegant drama.
7 - Star Trek: The Next Generation
The rebirth, sans Shatner. Great because it gave sci-fi a chance in the modern television world again. Better than great because of Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner. Fricking awesome because of Q and the Borg. Still, it's just shy of DS9 in my mind because it never really learned how to use all the characters and kept the show too episodic.
6 - Gilmore Girls
Fast-paced, hilarious show that actually makes excessive use of pop culture references work and work well. Thank you, Amy Sherman-Palladino. I know of no other writer that can make references to from Adolph Eichmann to Paul Anka and manage to always be both funny and touching.
5 - The West Wing
The first four seasons (and bits of season 7) are some of the best drama ever. But when it jumped the shark, it jumped HARD.
4 - SportsNight
Sorkin's best writing. He's been recycling jokes off this show for years now, and the people on this show were just so freaking loveable.
3 - Battlestar Galactica
Ron Moore is a genius.
2 - Veronica Mars
Noir-themed detective show with a hot actress and absolutely flawless, sharp writing? What's not to love.
1 - Star Trek: Deep Space 9
As good as it got with Star Trek, especially once it hit season 3. A darker, more brooding series that put humans out of their perfect, cozy Roddenberry nest.
[0] comments (0 views)
Tue Jul 08, 2008
Jesse James, Chief Executive Officer?
About ninety minutes into Andrew Dominik's film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, I remarked, "If Jesse James were alive today, he'd probably be a fucking power tie-wearing executive."
I haven't the slightest clue if the film's portrayal offered by Dominik and Brad Pitt captures the essence of Jesse James or not, though it seems fair to point out that James' descendents are effusive in their praise of the movie. But should this incarnation of James be anything like the mythical criminal anti-hero of American legend, it might be fair to stand by my comment.
Jesse James, CEO.
Why not? Despite his saintly portrayal in popular literature as a southern Robin Hood, James essentially stole to line his own pockets and did so with a ruthlessness that is as at home in the boardroom as it is in a bank robbery. In the film, he leads a member of his gang to the middle of a deserted, wintery woodland trail where James shoots the man in the back with a coldness unmatched even by his snowy surroundings. And he beats a child, perhaps in rage or perhaps simply because he can. His weapons travel everywhere with him, and his trust extended not far beyond his own person. How is that much different than the nearly crazed, psychopathic attitude it must take to helm an international conglomerate that thoughtlessly rapes the environment or engages in "marketing" by creating quasi-addictive childhood snacks that share commonalities with adulthood foods? How is that much different than a person who would cut his employees loose in a heartbeat because of a bad economy while taking an eight-figure bonus for himself? How is that much different than an executive who will literally cheat in his books, accounting, and tax figures to save a little money for himself and his shareholders while denying the public the funds it so badly needs?
If there be one point on which to base criticism of my comparison, I suppose it would be that James seemed to target banks and luxury trains, the home of the wealthy. Screwing the wealthy to make oneself wealthy isn't necessarily admirable, but I can think of worse things James could have spent his time doing, especially in the mid-1800s.
What would someone like that think of today? He seemed bent on doing what pleased him and what suited his needs like any good CEO, but it seems that he was decidedly against the consolidated wealth both of the north and in those passing through Missouri like any equally good rogue.
So what the hell would he make out of insurance companies refusing to pay because a company neglects to inform an employee of changes to his policy? What would he make of a government that allows it to happen and refuses to allow people to sue the company for restitution beyond the smallest amounts?
Sadly, it seems that these arguments are older than the legend of James himself, like the ancient threads of the cloth that form our banner of stars and stripes. Why are we constantly torn between our selfish desires and recognizing our common needs? How is it that many of the aspects of the freedom sought by people like James and the Confederacy have been lost by virtue of extending that freedom to companies and capitalists? And why on earth do today's people seem OK with that?
I suppose I know the answers to those questions, but that's what makes them all the more puzzling. If I know the answers, certainly other people do as well -- so why can't we deal with these issues in ways that aren't as violent as James (or school shooters or riots or civil wars) and that aren't as ruthlessly elitist as insurance companies (or corporate farms or advertising agencies or oil conglomerates)?
Dominik couldn't have cared less about these issues when making The Assassination of Jesse James, I'm sure. But I can't help but see today's America in virtually every historical film I watch. This one dressed it nicely in the epic feel of a grand western, in superb cineamatography, and in excellent performances by Pitt as James and Casey Affleck as Robert Ford. Despite all those great things, perhaps this movie's greatest achievement is that it achieved a realism in portraying America in the faces of each of its characters -- from the wealthy train passengers with fear in their eyes to Jesse James, CEO.
Or perhaps I just need to shut up and watch something like Superbad.
[0] comments (0 views)
Wed Jul 02, 2008
Bad Blogger. Very Bad Blogger!
Oh, where, oh, where have all the blog posts gone?
Over the past two months, I've had countless ideas for what I could write about -- what I should write about -- but endless hours of extra work merged with immeasureably quantities of personal laziness and a newfound love of Battlestar Galactica to keep me from doing my bloggerly duties. I also haven't eaten, showered, or used a restroom in over 17 days and 4 hours now.
I kid. Sort of.
Some random thoughts to get me back on the right track:
Can Barack Obama continue to be the good person I've believed him to be, or are these early, minor slippages in his commitment to quality -- somewhat renegging on his pledge to use public funds, for example -- the first sign that every politician, no matter how "outside" the system, is destined to be macerated and disfigured by the acid of national politics?
My current favorite bands/music acts in no particular order: Nirvana, The Gits, Johnny Cash, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The Animals, Alice Smith, Fiest, Erin McKeown, Richard Hell, Wallace Roney.
George Carlin is dead. Fucking eh.
Do not ever question Joe Dumars, no matter how much your sports talk ratings depend on it. You will go to hell.
Creationists continue to annoy the living shit out of me.
Bureaucracy sucks, especially when you're a cog in it all and you recognize there's little to nothing you can do to help stop the machine. All my accomplishments are trivial.
I recently made perfect pulled pork. As in tapped-with-a-knife-the-meat-crumbled-like-my-will-before-Battlestar-Galactica-DVDs perfect. This is the most important thing I've done with my life lately, other than perhaps fix Suz's computer, which is still a work in progress.
I still think Mac sucks and Apple is no different than Microsoft, but I'm considering buying one. I can reconfigure it with more variety of types of tools and probably better overall performance. If only someone could build a computer that was powerful, configurable, easy to use, and had broad industry support. ARGH.
Th-th-th-th that's all folks.
[0] comments (0 views)
Sun Apr 27, 2008
Mel Kiper Should Make Minimum Wage
NFL Draft Day. As I've written before, I find it hilarious that such a big deal is made out of the NFL draft. Admittedly, I spend a lot of time watching it myself -- but observing the goings on of the Draft is different than drooling all over my television's rendering of Mel Kiper's hair helmet.
Another draft, another round of people criticizing the Lions. The truth is that none of us have any idea. But the ESPN guys would have you believe that they know everything. Kiper called the Lions' selection of Gosder Cherrilus a "stretch." Of course, three years ago, he said the Lions were brilliant for drafting WR Mike Williams (bust), and two year ago, he questioned their pick of LB Ernie Sims (stud). So I don't put a lot of stock in his opinion, especially when in the Sports Illustrated mock draft, the legendary Pittsburgh Steelers were projected taking Cherrilus only 9 picks after where the Lions took him with the analyst saying he exactly the type of mean, big offensive lineman the Steelers love. Doesn't everyone love mean, big offensive linemen?
SO WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE WHINING ABOUT THE LIONS' PICK THIS MORNING!?!?! Leave it alone, people. You've never seen him play. He's supposedly selfless. He's supposedly a football-obsessed dude. He's supposedly a beast of a man. If he can start most games by mid-next season and play consistent, above average football for 10 years, I'll be happy. But if he turns out to be at all like Ernie Sims -- another "huh?" pick that was ostensibly headed by Coach Rod Marinelli -- I'll be eccstatic.
Oh, and they picked up another mean dude who made more than ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TACKLES last year in the second round. Hello?
Everyone knows the Lions' Matt Millen is a mediocre Draft Day GM. Even outside that context, this was at least an average draft. Within that context, it may prove to be excellent. But what no one knows is which it will be. Even the best GM's make a number of mistakes and guesses. We'll have to wait and see.
A quick word on Mel Kiper. Just as I finishing this up, ESPN showed a montage of Mel being aggressive and indignant about people making what he considered to be stupid picks. One was acquiring Jim Harbaugh to pick Marshall Faulk versus picking Trent Dilfer. With the second pick overall. Faulk versus Dilfer. HAHAHAHAHAHA. He's wrong at least as often as he's right. There's nothing wrong with that -- unless you have entire websites built upon around your supposed expertise, unless you pretend to be THE expert on all college players heading into the NFL, and unless you have that damn haircut.
[0] comments (120 views)
Fri Apr 18, 2008
It's All About Me, Me, Me, Meeeeee!
Western civilization has always been driven by what its populace has wanted, steered by an invisible captain born of greed, lust, and ego. But it seems that fat, overgrown societies like the United States have a special gift for feeding on its own self-gratification.
Case in point: Americans are increasingly only consuming information that agrees with their worldview.
In some respects, this is hardly news. I suspect most of us knew this was happening for the past 5 years. But to have it quantified so clearly -- to see a legitimate social scientist say, "Republicans have dramatically dropped news sources that they perceive as being biased against their position.... They’ve completely fled into Fox and have left CNN, broadcast news and all the others -- including CSPAN, which is raw content." -- is disturbing. As Prof. Hollander goes on to say, only listening to convergent, similar viewpoints is akin to talking to oneself.
And that's exactly what Americans are doing: Each day, millions of us look in the mirror, framed in black, Sony-branded plastic, and say, "Yeah! You're right. You're so smart. People who think the opposite are idiots and they must be stopped."
It's no wonder that discourse, compromise, and civility in government are as dead as Henry Clay.
Personally, I believe the attitude is more pervasive than merely how we absorb our news and information. It has crept into the soul of American pop culture as well. Thousands of self-dilluted idiots throw themselves onto reality television programs because they think they're great singers or great talents or simply great. Those who are anything but often seem appalled at the thought, and those who watch in rapt attention are equally appalled when their favorite is expelled regardless of merit.
Reality programming is obviously but one small slice of the pie and a fairly extreme slice at that. But American Idol is one of the most popular television shows currently on the airwaves, and even if that weren't true, the phenomenon extends to the workplace, where one often values one's own opinion over the right solution even in front of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or to home, where people increasingly put their material or most immediately self-gratifying needs ahead of building meaningful relationships or "working" to enjoy more nuanced pursuits.
America is going to hell in a handbasket. But as long as it's my handbasket that matches my aesthetics, I imagine I'm not supposed to care anymore.
[0] comments (0 views)
Mon Apr 14, 2008
First Ribs of the Year
Fired up the smoker this weekend for the first time. The ribs were good, albeit a little burnt over parts. I simply have to perfect a brisket recipe this year. In the past, I haven't gotten up early enough in the morning to really do an excellent job. A good job, yes. But not an excellent job. A full cut brisket involves getting up at the crack of dawn, and I've sacrified quality for sleep a few times now, slapping the snooze key when I should be slapping the meat on the smoker.
That ends this year. Top notch brisket coming soon to a house near you. Well, if you happen to live near me, that is.
In fact, maybe I'll do brisket this weekend. Or spinach lasagna. Or Mexican.
This is another problem: I am constantly seeking other ways to cook, other things to prepare. I found what appears to be a great lasagna recipe, but I want to practice making my own pasta dough. I certainly am not going to invest time in both that and a 12-hour smoking run with a brisket.
Choices, choices, choices. Choices, indeed. I live an awesome life.
[0] comments (0 views)
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
