More Team of Rivals Noted

Lincoln: ""If I have one vice," he later quipped, "and I can call it nothing else,—it is not to be able to say no!" He then smiled and added: "Thank God for not making me a woman, but if He had, I suppose He would have made me just as ugly as He did, and no one would ever have tempted me."", [Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals] - p.177

Blogged with the Flock Browser

test

Some more quotes from Team of Rivals

Describing Mary and Abe:
p.107
"She was short and voluptuous, her ample bosom accentuated by stays; he was uncommonly tall and cadaverous.", [Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals]

Also described Mary Todd as capable of making 'a Bishop forget his prayers'.


I'm reading it as an ebook so my page numbers may be off.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Team of Rivals p.66

"Nor would his community understand the thoughts and emotions stirred by his reading; there were few to talk to about the most important and deeply experienced activities of his mind.", [Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals]

Discussing some of the toils that Lincoln experienced growing up.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Thoughts on Christmas « World in Motion

Thoughts on Christmas « World in Motion

Great blog post, I felt the need to share it.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Being Left-handed

Famous cross-dominant people

Leonardo da Vinci - Renaissance artist and scientist
Albert Einstein - Scientist
Richard Feynman - Scientist
Oscar Wilde - Playwriter and poet
Nikola Tesla - Inventor
Michelangelo - Artist
Benjamin Franklin - Scientist
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - Religious and political leader
Ludwig van Beethoven - composer
Shawn Michaels - WWE superstar

Great Quote from Nixon

I'm currently doing my research on Presidential Campaign (TV) Spots. While reading Diamond and Bates's The Spot, I found this great quote from the always colorful Dick Nixon:

"There comes a time in matters like this when you either got to shit or get off the pot...The great trouble here is the indecision."

Also found in his post-presidential memoirs, RN.

Buddha's skull found

The Telegraph reports on a possible finding in Nanjing:

Source: Telegraph (UK) (11-24-08)

The pagoda was wedged tightly inside an iron case that was discovered at the site of a former temple in the city in August.



The four-storey pagoda, which is almost four feet high and one-and-a-half feet wide, is thought by archaeologists to be one of the 84,000 pagodas commissioned by Ashoka the Great in the second century BC to house the remains of the Buddha.



Ashoka, one of India's greatest emperors, converted to Buddhism after waging a bloody war in the eastern state of Orissa. He is widely credited with spreading Buddhism throughout Asia, and across his kingdom, which stretched from Pakistan through Afghanistan and into Iran.



The pagoda found in Nanjing is crafted from wood, gilded with silver and inlaid with gold, coloured glass and amber. It matches a description of another of Ashoka's pagodas which used to be housed underneath the Changgan Buddhist temple in Nanjing.



A description of the contents of the pagoda was also found: a gold coffin bearing part of Buddha's skull inside a silver box. Although scans have confirmed that there are two small metal boxes inside the pagoda, experts have not yet peered inside. The pagoda is currently on display in the museum.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

New Series: Words I hate

Hate is a strong word, that's why I used it. Actually, an astute reader may take issue with me using the word 'hate' after reading some of my posts, but for now we can just call it that, for irony I guess. Anyway, I think I'm going to start a new series (hopefully more successful than my previous ones) regarding common words of today that I 'hate'. Generally these words will have negative connotations, here are a few examples I may consider:


gay (meaning stupid); good & evil (as in supreme good & evil); mainstream media; liberal & conservative; terrorist & patriot; bias...


I hope it will be interesting and controversial.

A New Foreign Policy

I agree:

One of the better political websites, politico.com, has a number of articles speculating that Obama will be hawkish in foreign policy. The likelihood Gates will stay at defense, Clinton going to State, Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, etc., seem to indicate influence from the less dovish wing of the party. That may be a premature assumption.

My colleague Steve Pane, an adept political commentator, music historian, professional pianist and pastry addict, noted that by putting ‘hawks’ in these positions it would make it easier for the US to leave Iraq more quickly — people who might have criticized it if outside would now be in the Administration. That’s true, though I think the issue goes beyond Iraq. If President elect Obama keeps Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, and puts Hillary Clinton in the State Department, he will have a credible team in place to create a new approach to foreign policy, one which likely could significantly cut military spending. This defies conventional wisdom, as Gates is seen as a Bush holdover who would seem to suggest some continuity, and Hillary Clinton ran as a hawk in her recent campaign.

Robert Gates was a leader in the Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton which advocated negotiations with other regional actors, including Iran and Syria. By all accounts, Gates agreed with that recommendation. When he joined the Bush Administration he could not advocate such positions publicly because he had to represent and implement Administration policy. By keeping him on, Obama could move towards those aspects of the ISG findings which President Bush rejected. It’s clear that as the US leaves, future Iraqi stability requires involving Iran and Syria, especially because of Iran’s intense influence on the Iraqi government and various militias. Gates is a realist, not a neo-conservative. Realists are less willing to use military means to achieve policy results, they focus on diplomacy, and in fact are willing to negotiate with enemies because that’s where you need diplomacy the most. Gates thus serves two uses for Obama: a) his approach to diplomacy is likely similar to Obama’s, and b) because he was in the Bush cabinet he will help lend credibility to the Obama foreign policy from the right.

Hillary Clinton as a hawk reflects an amazing metamorphisis from her earlier career. I have no reason to think that she really is a hawk, or truly supports large military budgets. She was positioning herself for a Presidential run, and she knew that as a Democratic woman she needed to have credibility on security issues. Moreover, those who opposed the 1991 Iraq war were hurt later by that opposition, so she figured that supporting President Bush was smarter politically. Because of her recently won credibility on defense and security issues, she could also help Obama reshape American foreign policy.

So what needs to be done? First, the US to accept the reality that we are no longer in a position to simply demand things be done our way or we’ll just not play. If the US seriously negotiates and participates in efforts at creating international accords, we’ll have considerable influence on the outcome. We should do that and make necessary compromises in order to develop solutions to global problems. European and Asian states will embrace an America working for the collective good rather than focused solely on maintaining maximum independence and supporting a narrow national interest.

Second, the US needs to cut military spending and military commitments abroad. This is not something Obama could say in the campaign, as he would have quickly been painted as weak, not understanding the threats of terrorism and Islamic extremism. I would argue, however, that our military strength has been more a liability than an assett. It lured us into thinking there was a military solution to the terrorist threat and made Iraq a tempting target for military aggression. By some accounts the real cost of that war is now over $3.6 trillion, money which could have better been used to bring health to our economy. Even those who try to say we’ve succeeded in Iraq because violence is down have to admit that overall as a country that war has hurt us on numerous fronts. It does dramatically demonstrate that modern global problems defy military solutions. Solutions are primarily political, while terrorism requires not a major military machine able to win large wars, but a well oiled counter terrorism policy with special operations and sophisticated intelligence.

Obama should shift the military from “a big 20th century mechanized machine designed to fight for control of Europe” to a “sophisticated, intelligent, versatile athlete able to make well targeted interventions when necessary against both state and non-state actors.” Moreover, we don’t need to spend half the world’s military budget to achieve this; we can have an effective military option at a lower price, especially since no major power can seriously threaten our domestic security. The threats are small terrorist groups that escape the grasp of a huge military machine; we must adapt.

Finally, the US to seriously address the need for a global set of standards on economic regulation and development, environmental issues, and energy — the three E’s. Not only is there widespread agreement that action needs to be taken on these problems, but these are areas where real bipartisanship is possible. They can help guide the US towards a consensus on a more internationalist policy perspective. The US can show leadership and flexibility, compromising where in the past we’d have gotten up and gone home; leading where in the past we’d have avoided the issue. None of those issues can be dealt with at a national level alone, and all of them are of vital importance to the future of the planet. A cooperative and progressive America working with the rest of the world on these issues will symbolize a new era of American foreign policy, and play to the strengths of Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic skills in support of Obama’s vision.

So three major components: move towards a more internationalist approach, cut military spending and reorganize the military to be smaller and more nimble, and begin a major effort to build international agreements on energy, the economy and the environment. Done right, such a policy could not move us into a truly stable post-Cold War system, and avoid the perils caused by the economic and foreign policy failures of the Bush Administration.

Some people will never agree for military spending cuts, and of course, nationalists will always distrust international institutions. But the world is in crisis, Obama will have an overwhelming majority in Congress, and now is the time for some bold and decisive actions. I suspect the economic crisis will force cuts across the budgetary board anyway, and military spending is one of the least effective ways to stimulate the economy. Obama has proven that he will follow principle rather than political expediency; here he will have to show true leadership.

There are a couple biases about America. The European left often sees the US as a force for militarism, exploitation and evil in the world, while the American right sees the US as superior in ideology and values to the rest of the world. Both biases are absurdly off base, and represent caricatured views of a complex country with diverse opinions. A new foreign policy can bury these biases, and help build the foundation for dealing with the vast problems of this new century.

[From A New Foreign Policy]

I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Kudos to the Daily Dish for pointing this out:

The Onion

I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

BY JANET COSGROVE

CHRISTIAN

NOVEMBER 19, 2008 | ISSUE 44•47

ARTICLE TOOLS

Share This

Email This

Print This

Sponsored by

RELATED ARTICLES

Waitress Punished For Sins Of The World

JANUARY 30, 2002

Fellow Dormmates Warned About Christian In 462

SEPTEMBER 2, 1998

RELATED MEDIA

Slideshow:

Religion

SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

Onion News Network:

Christian Charity Raising Money To Feed Non-Gay Famine Victims

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

Everybody has this image of "crazy Christians" based on what they hear in the media, but it's just not true. Most Christians are normal, decent folks. We don't all blindly follow a bunch of outdated biblical tenets or go all fanatical about every bit of dogma. What I'm trying to say is, don't let the actions of a vocal few color your perceptions about what the majority of us are like.

Like me. I may be a Christian, but it's not like I'm one of those wacko "love your neighbor as yourself " types.

God forbid!

[From I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians | The Onion - America's Finest News Source]

Copernicus's remains identified

Source: Telegraph (UK) (11-21-08)

Researchers compared DNA samples taken from bones retrieved from Frombork Cathedral in northern Poland, long believed to be the scientist's last resting place, with those of hairs found in a book which once belonged to Copernicus.



The results confirmed that the remains are almost certainly those of the astronomer, who was the first man to put forward the hypothesis that the sun, not the earth, formed the centre of the universe.



Professor Jerzy Gassowski, who led the archaeological team that found the body three years ago in a grave near the altar, said that although they had been sure the remains were those of Copernicus "a grain of doubt remained" so they had sent a vertebrae, a tooth and femur to Uppsala University in Sweden.



Swedish scientists then took hairs from the astronomer's book, which is in the university's possession, and ran DNA tests.



"We collected four hairs and two of them are from the same individual as the bones," said Marie Allen, a genetic expert from Uppsala.



The new findings confirm earlier evidence that indicated the bones were those of the sixteenth-century scientist. A forensic facial reconstruction of the skull looked similar to a portrait of the astronomer, and the bones belonged to man of about 70, the same age Copernicus was when he died in 1543.

[From Copernicus's remains identified]

Because all the cool kids on Flickr do Scrabble shots

I agree.

Because all the cool kids on Flickr do Scrabble shots

Blogged with the Flock Browser

I think I just confessed my faith...

So this instance teaches all of us lacking in grammar that the 'tense' really does effect your meaning and how people see you. For example, I just accidentally confessed to being a devout Lutheran in my philosophy test. I meant to write, 'Leibniz, as a devout Lutheran'....but instead wrote, 'As a devout Lutheran, I think Leibniz'....oops. Now I need to explain myself as a heretic...or maybe I'll get a better grade as a Lutheran. Do Catholics like Lutherans or heretics more?

Hitler & Stalin

So I’m finishing up my research for a paper that is due on Thursday and the subject has become increasingly interesting, I must admit. At first, I was not that interested in studying the diplomatic relations between Hitler and Stalin from 1939-1941. For some reason, World War II just doesn’t interest me that much, I don’t know why, I can’t explain it logically I just find myself bored with the story at times. World War II is like the Wal-Mart of wars, and my disdain for Wal-Mart is coincidentally similar to my boredom with World War II - there’s just too much. The Second World War did everything big; genocide, firepower, dictators (at least four counting the latter days of the Vichy), human rights violations commited by ‘civilized powers’ such as the U.S., Japan, Germany, etc. I feel that for the study of World War II we are much better off being what Francis Bacon would have called the ant, gather as much information as you like but infer little. It’s inevitable that the closer one is to any historic moment the more flawed, biased and generally unobjective our view is on the matter. One of my History Instructors at SAHEC (Southeast Area Higher Education Center) once said that you should wait at least 50 years until you study a subject - that would render much work regarding World War II as useless. Now if you pressured me I wouldn’t tell you to do such a thing, throw away numerous scholarly accounts of the war, because it really boils down to a matter of taste. I am still developing my Philosophy of History along with my personal values and attitudes on a number of things, part of growing up I guess, so I will just call my views on World War II a prejudice of a sort. And keeping with traditional prejudice, it has no logical backing whatsoever.
Anyway, this post is about Hitler and Stalin, not my views on the period of World History from 1939-1945. I have read multiple accounts of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact/Nazi-Soviet Pact, its history and consequences. Which is basically the story of the alliance of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Two countries that ideologically hated each other, and somehow moved beyond such ideological quarrels to carve up most of Eastern Europe. In a twisted sort of way, its a beautiful story, something told on Lifetime or Oxygen with different character names and replace ‘carve up most of Eastern Europe’ with ‘love’.
Since I need to get my brain working so I can write the blasted paper I thought I would tell some of the story here. Prior to Hitler’s rise to power, Germany and the USSR shared a diplomatic-commercial-military ‘friendliness’ of sorts. They cooperated up until the author of Mein Kampf became Chancellor. The Soviets inevitablly wanted to know if Hitler and the Nazi government were planning to carry out Hitler’s vision in Mein Kampf, telling Berlin that they understood the difference between ideology and policy - always the pragmatists those Soviets. At a startling speed the two countries experienced a deteriation in relations. The Soviets recognized the threat the Germans posed, with Hitler’s military buildup, and began to make manouvers to check them. The Soviet Union spent much of the 1930s supporting a military doctrine called Collective Security. One neednot go into the details here, the doctrine spells out just how it reads. Of course, for the Soviets to have an effective Collective Security policy they required the help of France and Britain.
Triple alliance negotations began and ended in a rather quick way. The Soviets, especially Stalin, were suspicious of Anglo-French goals and they seemed to suspect that the two powers wanted the Soviets and Nazis to destroy each other. This was probably a hope, but a pipe-dream hope of the two. While these negotiations took place, Berlin began to make tentative overtures to the Russians. Why? Well, we are now in 1939 and Hitler had Poland on the mind. As plans began to finalize themselves and the German Army was prepared to invade, Berlin’s ‘overtures’ began to become more intense. Moscow quickly found itself as the prom date with the overzealous boyfriend. Like the boyfriend, Berlin made a lot of promises for the day after - some kept, others not. So the two ended up signing what various historians and politicians then and now have described as the most notorious diplomatic episode in the history of the world. Quite a description I must admit. The Commintern (Communist International) were baffled, briefly, with what to say - the fascists were the great enemy and now they were the ally. The ideolological shift from enemy to ally and then later back to enemy should not be hard to understand. Americans performed the same dance with their views on the Soviet Union before, during and after the Second World War. The period following the signing of the pact was marked by Hitler taking much of Western Europe and Stalin taking the Baltic and grabbing at the Balkans. Historians seem to regard the latter as the pretext for war Hitler used when he invaded the Soviet Union, June 1941.
Here, we come to Mein Kampf again. Therein we find a passage detailing how Germany’s future lay not in the West but in the East. Some Historians claim that Hitler always planned on invading Russia just as Mein Kampf had claimed, others, say that Britains refusal to lay down and die, coupled with a few key episodes in the Balkans were the reasons, not just the pretext, for invasion.
The reasons matter of course. One was policy and the other was ideology. There is a distinct difference in principle and those leaders who blur the two tend to repeat such blunders as Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812. As I research the two, I have gained a more intimate portrait of Stalin than Hitler. This may because Stalin was the star during this period. He was the prom date who the rest of the world was courting and only Hitler had what it took to win him over - I think it was the mutual love of facial hair.

John Ford's The Searchers

I hate westerns. Why? I hate them because they are stories of good and evil, innocent and corrupt, black and white - nothing in between. They are biblical stories for people have no right to be biblical.
The American West is an odd phenomenon in World History. Or maybe its not. I’m still unsure. Here we have the odd case of a group of people invading a land, a land they are sure they have a right too. The indoctrination of Manifest Destiny convinced this mass group of people that they were chosen by God to take land from someone else. Now land right disputes aren’t original but I find that few people defend their right to such land into the present day. At least, not in Western Civilization.
Yet, we still defend it; till the bitter end. I’m currently watching The Searchers and though the massacre of a family is a horrible event, we aren’t shown what these people or other peoples did to the natives. Imperialism is a nasty business, generally on both sides.  The natives are mocked, the natives are bedeviled, the natives are the ‘bad’ guy. John Wayne portrays the knswledgable cowboy. He knows ‘Engine’ custom enough to know how to “kill ‘em.” My favorite character is the reverend. Nothing like a holy man with a gun, he is descended from crusading stock I would imagine. At least in saving some of the wounded he has shown some moral fiber. 
At one point we are even told the distinction between a human and an indian. In war, soldiers are forced to produce some kind of moral relativism. Its how they stay sane. Those who later realize what they have done go insane - to some degree. So I can understand in the hunt making the distinction. Of course these distinctions also allow horrible acts to be committed. Slaughter and genocide because the criminal is sure he is right.
The point of me watching this movie is to look for the racial undertones. Filmed during a time of great upheaval in America, The Searchers has a lot to do with race. John Wayne plays a very sombre veteran of the Civil War (CSA Veteran to be exact). So that is your first clue to the race. Wayne’s dismissal of his ‘mixed’ adopted nephew is also telling. But, I think the man tries to prove he is mostly good & white, which serves as his deliverance. Apparently being white isn’t a right, its a state of being. John Wayne proclaims the insane woman isn’t white anymore. Debbie claims she has new people, I guess she isn’t white anymore either.
Its obvious that the entire movie is in reality the 1950s, they simply replaced cars with horses. Some of the women wear pants, Obviously John Wayne decided to start his own race war in his movies - Rush Limbaugh would be proud. I did enjoy the traditional domestic violence that accompanied the ‘50s portrayed in 1868. John Wayne is indeed the crazy white guy. Just watch him shoot at the buffalo, though his reason is practical if he was engaged in actual war, he must realize that he’s starving Debbie too. Moe’s wish for just a humble home and a rocking chair is also reminiscent of the ‘50s, simple values. We tend to forget also that Scar’s sons were killed by the white ma, maybe just an eye for an eye. 
How The Searchers manages to vilify official U.S. imperialism through the Yankee army but support personal U.S. imperialism is absolutely insane. On the bright side, I have learned to fully understand the psyche of our current president, there isn’t any! Wayne’s comments about speaking Mexican and American seem to pervade into our current society. The difference between American and English is the IQ of the beholder, I believe.

The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War, by Geoffrey Roberts

Today I just picked up a book at my university library, courtesy of inter-library loan, which kind of amazed me. I haven't even read the book, which is a detail of German-Soviet Relations up till the invasion by Hitler in '41, but what amazed me was the bibliography. 
When it comes to Non-Fiction I typically have a ritual. I start in the back. The Bibliography/Notes to me is the most important part of the book. It is their evidence of reserach done and my evidence that it is worth my time. I am relient on a worthy piece of literature to make my case so as such I need a worthy bibliography. Popular Histories typically lack a Notes section and sometimes even a bibliography, this irks me to no end. I'm not sure why Footnotes/Endnotes are so bothersome to the masses but I need them! Anyway, the book is approximately 200 pages of content and another 100 pages of reference material (Bibliography, Notes, Index). This impressed me. I'm not even sure if the author's writing is worth its salt but I like the fact he took the time to at least pretend he did some research. The fact that its incredibly short also pleases me since I'm quickly running out of time for my paper on Hitler and Stalin. 

Why I am a liberal

Today, on the back of my Starbucks cup was a new "The Way I See It," this one authored by George F. Will. Will discusses why conservatives are happier than liberals, while at the same time being pessimists. I certainly agree that when it comes to the government, true conservatives are rather pessimistic. So I thought I would discuss why I am a liberal, and my view on liberalism.
First, I would also like to lay claim to pessimism. While conservatives are generally pessimistic about the future they usually have some confidence in the here and now. Liberals wish for rapid change because the here and now is not adequate. We, I will admit, are a bit idealistic about the future. I would claim that neither side has a utopian view of any instance.
So why are liberals so pessimistic about the state of their country? I for one would quickly convert to conservatism if I thought the status quo had accomplished its goals. We can stop making demands on government, we can, as Mr. Will put it, experience the "pursuit of happiness" only when the government has made up for its previous mistakes. No government is perfect but in order for the citizens to benefit from the constitution we must first be pulled up and out of detrimental poverty. How can I argue that the government has no place in trying to benefit the worst off citizens, when that same government actively forced slavery on a race of them? I am not a white apologist, my paternal side leaves me at a 4th Generation American, but the government, I feel has never set things right. We cannot force the Japanese into camps, we cannot benefit from Hispanic servitude, we cannot ignore our past sins regarding slavery and failed Reconstruction. Let me be clear, I do not trust government one iota more than conservatives, but I believe the government has worked for itself, and worked for the priveleged for too long not to work for the lower classes. I do not blame today's conservatives for histories sins but I feel their solution will not bring about change for the impovershed, and for once I think government should help instead of hurt. When the government has not actively tried to keep a set people down, then and only then can we be left alone to make it on our own. Though they don't like it, I can find common ground with conservatives because we are both liberals. The historically ignorant among both parties will vehemently deny it, but we are all liberals. The difference is in what kind of liberal we are. I am a modern liberal, Mr. Will is a Classical Liberal. Maybe if we start with agreeing on that, we can find some kind of compromise.

test

test

Objectivity

Copleston mentions 'objective history' in his Introduction to Volume IV of the History of Philosophy.  Which to me, this is a farce. What man is truly objective? The most detached? The most indebted? The rich? The poor? The “middling class”? I say none of the above. Objectivity is the goal, not the accomplishment. Lessing says he would rather have the search for truth than truth itself; Lessing made the decision and we are all stuck with the consequences. The search for truth is our only goal; our Idols prevent us from ever really telling the 'truth'.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Fiefs

As a history major I tend to connect the past and the present more than your average Joe Six-pack (sorry, I had to do it in light of recent election soundbites). I work on the border of a fairly well-off WASP portion of St. Louis, between Des Peres and Ballwin; I go to school in the area of Town and Country (does it not scream old money?) and am currently doing an internship at the St. Louis County Headquarters located on Lindbergh directly across from the Frontenac Mall, which is well, the old money Pantheon.
Of course, I'm coming from Collinsville, IL which is the home of well, murder and a giant catsup (yes, it says catsup - I looked). So I do a lot of travelling and in my travels - from work to school to internship - I see a lot of nice houses and I see these nice houses set beside much smaller houses. So, every two or three houses is a small palace and the inbetween is either a buffer state between rich and rich or they are fiefs, which is the title of this blog and also my theory.
I think feudalism just disappeared from the mainstream but is still very much alive. The 'peasants' may call themselves middle-class (everyone does, probably even Michael Bloomberg) but they are probably the help of some kind for their much larger neighbor. In return their kids go to a slightly better school because the property tax of their neighbors house is the equivalent of the GDP of a third world country. Or, these houses are inhabited by illegals so their kids may not go to school at all, or they may not have any kids. Unlike feudalism of old, you aren't provided the quality protection that comes with servitude. It used to be that you depended on and only had to worry about the big guy next door, but now we have to worry about the scary world and the big guy next door will be just as quick to set the hounds on you as he/she would be to set them on someone else's peasant.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Russian Officials Attempt (But Fail) to Squelch the Nation's 1st LGBT Film Fest

I just don't really understand the fascination which the world apparently exhibits regarding what a couple (or more) do in their own beds. If it isn't harmful to either person (such as incest, rape, etc) I'm not really sure where the government's place is. Surely the State of Russia is not doing a morality play? 

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Last Thursday, the St. Petersburg fire department shut down both venues for Side by Side, Russia's first LGBT film festival, which was due to open that evening with a screening of Hedwig and the Angry Inch.

Alexey Bulokhov, a Russian citizen and Soulforce Director of International Outreach, was in St. Petersburg to present the Russian debut of For the Bible Tells Me So. He describes the scene:

...festival producers Irina and Manny and I arrived early at the venue. We were met with strong law enforcement presence. Electricity was shut off in the venue. There were regular policemen with demonstratively visible batons, representatives from the Ministry of Emergency Situations who typically deal with earthquakes, floods and other national disasters, a court bailiff and a transport van. Several supporters in the area informed Irina that there were two busloads of police in the side streets as well as several cars with what appeared to be private security personnel wearing ski masks."

In spite of this massive display of state power and intimidation, many of the planned screenings and events--including an unforgettable evening with John Cameron Mitchell--did manage to happen below the radar this weekend. It's a story of determination and ingenuity on the part of organizers and audiences alike.

Continue reading "Russian Officials Attempt (But Fail) to Squelch the Nation's 1st LGBT Film Fest"...

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Palin: Obama Is ‘Palling Around With Terrorists’ - New York Times

I will be so glad when this election is over. Seriously, we seem to lack any sort of restraint or intellect in politics. Of course now we do know a lot more about how Palin reads her news: through soundbites and headlines. So yes, Obama has met someone before who performed terrorist acts, acts performed when he was 8. Of course, the fact that he was never close to Ayers and has called his acts "detestable" but that is beside the point!

ABC News

Palin: Obama Is ‘Palling Around With Terrorists’
New York Times - 1 hour ago
By Kate Phillips In remarks at a Colorado airport hangar today, Gov. Sarah Palin tore into Senator Barack Obama with a twist that she ripped right from the headlines of this very newspaper.
Palin Says Obama 'Palling Around' With Terrorists ABC News
Palin Turns to NYT, Citing Article on Ayers Washington Post
CNN Political Ticker - The Swamp - Tribune's Washington Bureau - FOXNews
all 267 news articles

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Amazon's Kindle 2 leaked

Boy Genius Report gets ahold of some photos of the next-generation digital Reader from Amazon, and they seem real.

Though I'm currently using my iPhone as an eReader, this could of course change. I decided to use my iPhone because of the convenience and because I'm sick of having so many books in my overloaded bag. So I'm interested in such devices. Kindle hasn't really impressed me too much but I'll undoubtedly take a look at the device if I happen to have a chance. As for Sony's new device, mentioned in the article, it does really intrigue me. Apparently these readers are beginning to incorporate some touch screen technology but what really caught my interest is the mention of being able to annotate the text. As a student, this is a must. If I'm going to make a full conversion one day I need an easy way to totally highlight and scribble on my book. Of course, such features come with a price and Sony is asking for $400 for their lovely new device. Oh well, I'll keep my eyes open at the very least.

I do recommend anyone with an iPhone who is doing a significant amount of reading, purchase the Annotater [sic] app through Apple's App store it does allow for a significant amount of well, annotation.

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Test

Short Quip on the Revolution

Its been a long time since I've posted but I felt the sudden urge just now, so here I go.

I've been doing some light reading on the American Revolution lately, specifically regarding American Creation and Founding Brothers both by Joseph Ellis. While along the way, I've laughed and argued with the author I feel that I should point something out. Something that in my very naive opinion should be pointed out regarding revolutions. 

Inevitably, any tract published regarding the Revolution tends to mention other, messier, revolutions that succeeded it. The comparison is then made, from a 'bloodless' revolution in America to the Reign of Terror in France, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, etc. I think we look at things the wrong way, and we invariably compare apples to oranges. The American Revolution after all was not bloodless, it was a war of course, and it had its darker side. One man's patriot was a Tory's terrorist - and here I do not just refer to Colonial/Royal governors but printers and merchants as well. But, still, why is it that the American Revolution was apparently less bloody than its counterparts, even if you include the terrorism against loyalists? I tend to think that there are two reasons why it was different. 

I. The American Revolution took place in America. Kind of a misnomer but it should be said. This was not a revolution against England in England, like the Russian, French and Chinese revolutions. Thus, the Americans could fight an invading army and not literally there brothers. It could be asked, what is the difference between a revolution and a civil war? The Russian, French and Chinese revolutions, I think, were bloodier because they were closer to a civil war than the American Revolution. We should compare ourselves to India pushing out the British, not the French pushing out the French. 

II. The Americans were English citizens. Being under an English Empire resulted in being subject to English laws and victim or victor to English public opinion. To say we defeated the English is true. But only if you go so far as to say that they gave up. If the English meant to simply win like in a Continental War, and not keep the Colonies I believe the outcome would have been much different. Anyone who disagrees may wish to look to the next American war, the War of 1812. The only major victory the U.S. army received during the War of 1812 was with Jackson in New Orleans, after the war was technically over. They after all burned our capital, many would regard that as a total victory. 

Now, I do believe that in furthering the rights of man and political thought the Americans accomplished a great deal. The Revolution was flawed certainly, but it produced some of the greatest thought and actions in American History and, arguably in history itself. The Americans in many ways did "begin the world over again." Ellis acknowledges elsewhere that the Americans had the benefit of locale in their early republic. Who we were governed by and where we were I think is incredibly important to why we 'won'. 

Clumsy Tyrants

So I started reading my History of England text because I feel I ought to though the course is over. The text is, The Story of Britain by Rebecca Fraser. I trust my instructor, but the text is a little odd. For one it lacks any foot/endnotes or a bibliography, so I'm also using Simon Schama's A History of Britain documentary as a compliment. Anyway, I came across an anecdote in the text regarding William the Conqueror. Apparently upon landing at Pevensey William tripped and sprawled his full length after disembarking his ship. Fraser claims that the superstitious Normans saw this as an ill omen. William took advantage of the situation the story tells us, "the duke leaped up with earth clutched in his fists, he exclaimed that he had only wanted to grasp his new kingdom more closely."
Its a great anecdote but I don't believe it. I'm the first to admit my scarce knowledge of the subject I endeavor to teach one day but I have read the same story, almost verbatim, but with Caesar in place of William. So either both stories aren't true, William did trip and suddenly remembered his classical history or its merely a myth. It probably won't change the course of history if the truth goes one way or another in regard to the story but it can totally change my opinion of the author. Or, maybe it is true and I should change my opinion of the previous author who had recounted Caesar's story.
As historical anecdotes or stories go, this one also reminds me of the oft cited anecdote regarding military brutality. My own dad has mentioned the Japanese and their bayonets while in occupation of China. Most stories simply change the perpetrator and victim to suit their own story. The occupying force tosses up babies and tries to catch them with their bayonets in the midst of everything they are already doing. Its a nice sentence to remember in place of all the atrocities that may have actually occurred. It serves as a symbol, like saying, "Hey, if they'll bayonet babies its not hard to believe that they would do anything else!" I don't doubt that it has occurred at some point in time, but I'm also unsure of who actually did it.
Anecdotes (good & bad) make history interesting for the passing observer but we tend to confuse them. I think remembering an individual story is much better than a vague generalization. If someone wants a story about the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel or Anne Frank tops bayoneting babies any day.

Violence over Sex

I was watching tv, killing time this morning before I had to go to work and came across an episode of Step by Step. I never watched the show but it appeared like most other sitcoms, nuclear family, etc. The intention of this particular episode was to show the comedic implications associated with explaining sex to a little girl.
Well after she had learned from her parents she told others of course. The boy she played with was told by his parents after they learned what the girl was spouting out that he wasn't allowed around her anymore. The parents of the girl decided to have a meeting with the boy's parents. After a small argument they allowed the children to play together again, the girl told the boy to come over to her house so they could watch the nature channel. The boy's parents were naturally alarmed until the girl's explained that it was a violent week so he was 'safe'.
Their was the automated laughter in the background and the show carried on. Whether the laughter was over the lack of sex or the approval of violence over sex doesn't matter to me. I'm not on a crusade against Step by Step. But that sense of mind is the tone of America.
For some reason, we will send our children to the most violent and blood thirsty movies before we send them to one with nudity. I tend to think it is our strong Puritan roots in the American psyche. Abstaining from any kind of pleasurable activity while actively pursuing violent behavior. Maybe its out of fear. Sex brings on a lot of connotations, growing up and leaving the next for one.
I watch just as many violent movies and play just as many violent games as the next person so neither am I on a crusade against that. From my standpoint, parental unwillingness to discuss such matters for whatever reason for both issues needs to be addressed. I read last semester about Japanese child bearing. While we tell a child who say throws a ball at a wall to stop because its rude or bad for the wall; the Japanese associate feelings with the ball: how bad it must feel. It apparently is capable of instilling compassion in the child. Maybe we need a similar kind of compassion. Partake in all the fake violence you like but know the difference. I guess the next step would be watch all the porn you want but know the difference?
The fact is though, I don't care. I just want it to stop. Discussing why man can be so cruel seems like a distressing topic to a parent, not why man can love so much.

For her embarrassment

So today I was with my girlfriend and we were wrestling (totally innocent) anyway she ended up throwing me off the bed. I was rather surprised but the most shocking statement made was from her, "Ha!" she said, "you let your knight be kinged..." This wasn't an innuendo of any kind but it is rather encouraging if I ever decide to play chess with her.

Project Gutenberg

I've been aware of Project Gutenberg and the like for some time but only now have I realized their full potential. I took an 8 and then 5 hour train ride to and from Chicago during the first half of the week, during which I spent many hours reading The Sign of Four by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Decline and Fall by Gibbon through TextOnPhone which utilizes Project Gutenberg.
The availability of free books after their copyright has expired is a gift to the public. Now, regardless of class, race, and most importantly the end of all things, economic status one can read the finest classics of world literature.
Since the Project deems Gutenberg the honor of his name attached to their charitable work, I thought I'd discuss Gutenberg the man. (This will also enable me to utilize my new Britannica subscription.)
Johannes Gutenberg was a German printer who utilized a new form of printing that, "was used without important change until the 20th century." Apparently, what little we know of Gutenberg comes from financial documents with his name somewhere therein. When it was discovered that Gutenberg was working on something secret, those who were funding his exploits demanded a partnership. A five-year contract was drawn up and curiously it stipulated that if any of the partners died their heirs would not be brought into the partnership but compensated financially. Curious because one of the members did die and his heirs sued. Though they lost the trial revealed that Gutenberg was working on something new.
Gutenberg continued to work on the invention and he borrowed money from everybody. At least one who was willing at first would later sue Gutenberg wishing for a quick return on their loan. By 1455, Gutenberg had produced his famed Bible. Ten years later the archbishop of Mainz would pension Gutenberg but not before one of his loans from Johann Fust would backfire. Fust was the one who wanted a quick return and he won his suit, gaining control of many of Gutenberg's printing materials and printing on his own with them.
Some may criticize our canonization of Gutenberg because he was certainly not the first, and definitely not the first in the world. (The Chinese had discovered printing as early as twelve centuries before.) At least in the West, Gutenberg symbolizes so much. And for our minds it is much easier to put all that symbolism into one being. With Gutenberg we see printing and through the printing press we see the advent of journalism, the catalyst for the political pamphlet and a massive increase in books. If anyone has seen the global warming movie, The Day after Tomorrow you may recall the little soapbox about the written word. I tend to agree. The written word and through Gutenberg's its publication may be man's greatest invention.

The following are two links to Britannica's articles on the matter, one regarding printing and the other Gutenberg:

Gutenberg

Printing

Britannica

Anyone who happens to stumble upon my blog may note that the column to the right features (currently) 3 widgets from the encyclopedia Britannica. These are available free to anyone out there and can be quite helpful for the theme of my blog, useless knowledge. But the much more important tidbit of information I wish to share is Britannica's new WebShare initiative.
If you have not heard already, the folks at Britannica are offering full use of the encyclopedia to anyone who regularly publishes on a blog or website. They individually select candidates so creating a blog for the encyclopedia is probably a dumb idea.
Anyway, they were nice enough to grant me access so in the pursuit of my studies I'll be citing them. Those who do not have access will be able to view the articles I cite for free on Britannica's website.
Its an initiative to read blogs and we're advertising the encyclopedia for them, win-win I guess.

Animal Farm

I recently read George Orwell's satire of the Communist Revolution and the Stalinist regime. I actually read it on my iPhone through a wonderful site called textonphone but it happened to skip over the copyright date. So as I read the book innocently with only some vague knowledge of when it was published (my theory was off by about 20 years) I continued to see the French Revolution played out before my eyes.
Granted, from the flag the animals made down to the massacres of those supporting the rebel Snowball it was obvious that it could just as easily be communism. It is quite startling to me to see the two revolutions so paralleled. The removal of their king (Mr. Jones) followed by his attempt to retake the throne (Louis XIV was of course held prisoner but his fellow monarchs did attempt to put him back on the throne) and the republic that was established. This of course was followed by the creation of a common enemy (traitors instead of the aristocracy) and a Reign of Terror ending in Napoleon the pig becoming like the real Napoleon. All of this was coordinated by a massive propaganda campaign to literally change history.
I'm not saying that Animal Farm is not about Stalin and the USSR, but intentionally or not Orwell pointed something out to me that I had never noticed. Of course depending on how much lenience you give and what broad strokes the artist uses, you can always interpret something out of it. For example, Plato's description of a dictator in The Republic sounds just like Hitler and maybe even Napoleon as well.
Basically, a tyrant comes to power because the people need a strong leader after something horrible has happened. Depression, terrorist attack, war, etc. The leader comes to power by the good graces of the people who are blind to how much power he wishes to take from them. He then has to constantly make war on other countries or even individual groups so that the people always have not only a common enemy but also a constant threat which leads to the need for a strong leader. Many might say that everything turns out alright in the end, because the dictator eventually is overthrown or dies but who would want to take the risk? I think people need to realize when tragedies happen that the government's ability to react should be just as limited as it always should be. To say that it will all turn out all right no matter how much liberty we give up is to forget that in the past millions die in the process.

A Response to Being Black and Jewish

For class today, I read a piece called Being Black and Jewish out of The Multicultural Experience by Naomi Zack. Zack outlines a series of problems with having this cultural and racial montage.
I'd like to first state that I am neither black nor Jewish and if one has to know I descend from a line of Italian (check out the last name) and Irish parents who themselves no doubt have intermarried through other cultures to create this half-baked melting pot called me. So I cannot speak from experience as Zack does but at the same time the whole basis of Zack's argument is centered around a need for a common enemy. Zack states that,

...in fighting with each other in public, blacks and Jews are in effect addressing an audience that each side may hope is the real enemy of the other side alone but that is almost certainly the enemy of both sides.

To me, the word 'enemy' in addressing the white population is rather strong. The problem with such articles on race and racism is that it falls into the very trap it is describing and usually usually attacking by making such broad strokes. There is a commonly held notion among many a pleb and philosopher that man needs a common enemy, Zack apparently believes that race and a race war is the answer to this equation. While I will not deny that throughout history people are brought together and often are closest when they are opposing some common 'evil' whether it is another nation or a whole race, this being best exemplified by the Nazis in every way. I think that this common enemy is totally dependent on the education of either the leader or the common populace. Granted, it has been shown that many of the most educated are still willing to commit the most heinous crimes I feel that education in itself is a broad strokes term, it involves practical education as well as some kind of moral education - whether that is philosophy, general ethics or religion is up to the individual. So such common enemies I think can be divided into almost a pyramid, the lowest being race followed by religion and then ideology.
Race is a baseless attack made by casual observance of your opponent or your simple need for a reason to exploit him/her. Religion is really more introspective, one looks at his own religion which he perceives as flawless and compares it to what he perceives as the heresy of another. I only place religious attacks above race because it requires at least a little more thought. Ideology, good or bad, does require one to put together his own ideology in the process of attacking another.

Zack also mentions the need for the Jews to have a homeland. To guarantee that someday someone sends me a reply to all that I have stated I thought I would seize upon this as well. I disagree. At the very least I disagree on the locale. The Zionist movement was a secular movement and Palestine as a home was a mistake. Without being a Biblical scholar I hesitate to back this claim up but in passing reference I think that the Jews could only lay claim to Palestine as long as a Canaanite does not happen to come along. But on a practical level I feel that by choosing Palestine the Jewish inhabitants alienated their sole refuge at least since the Ottoman Empire. I back this claim up by simply stating that after Jewish expulsion from Western Europe, the Jews fled to Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire, Muslims treated the Jews like Christians as 'people of the book'. But this is an argument for another time so I think I'll stop here.

This was simply my little soap box and it is very possible that I may change my mind as quickly as I came up with my opinion on the matter. I do hope in the future to post more comments on my individual research, be it history or otherwise.

Summer

Its hard to believe but in just a week the semester will be over and I will enter into a three month long break. My goal is to avoid the trappings of such a break and stay active. So far I've wasted my Thanksgiving, Christmas and Spring breaks. There are a ton of books I'd like to read and undoubtedly more I need to read before the summer is over. Moreover, I've relocated from a small town of 3,000 to a decent sized metropolitan area and though I have been to several of the attractions in St. Louis before, I have not gone to one museum since I moved here back in August.
I'd like to go to the gym at least 3 times, ideally 4/5 times a week, I also hope I can get through many of the Enlightenment Philosophers, among others, in preparation for my Modern Philosophy class in the Fall.
Each break is like a new year, each time I make a resolution - here's hoping I stick to this one.

Liberalism

In this country (U.S.) I feel its relevant to discuss the true meaning of the political ideology, liberalism. Do not take this little soap-box tangent to be a defense of either political party.

Classical Liberalism emerged around the same time as Nationalism in Europe. Enough time had progressed between the horrors of the French Revolution and the fall of Napoleon for intellectuals to start looking at reform once again. They were, like the Founding Fathers and like the French Revolutionary Republicans, inspired by many enlightenment thinkers. For the Liberals of the mid-19th Century it was John Locke and his Second Treatise on Government. These Classical Liberals believed in a separate church & state doctrine; they believed in the right to life, liberty and property; elected representative assembles; limited government; and in many ways the British model of representative government.

Where the Democrats and Republicans of today disagree is at least a hundred years old. The latter half of the 19th Century and the social problems that come with an industrialized capitalist society were being increasingly commented on by many of the same intellectuals. Out of such social upheaval (poverty, illness, rights of labor) began to form a new liberalism. Welfare State Liberalism came out of this - the name sounds like it should be included in a Republican stump speech, no? Thus, the two divided and they remain divided throughout Europe and America.

I tend to be rather Painite so I guess I fall under the latter liberalism but it should be remembered that liberal is not a horrible term and both sides are liberal. Those in either party who stay true to their respective liberalism should receive some respect from both sides; they share a common heritage.

Research Journal

I've decided to post my journals after completing these two assignments since I was so preoccupied with research, I promise to do better this time (Though in respect to this blog I guess I'm promising myself).

On a separate note, I listened to a presentation regarding Polish author/poet, Czeslaw Milosz today. He attended law school and spent a year in Paris with his uncle Oscar. The presenter described how Milosz is different from other poets in regard to his distinct poems with distinct places in contrast to abstract poetry. His political views forced him to keep a 'low-profile' during World War II. Eventually he moved to California. Milosz's autobiographical poem, The Issa Valley, he composed during this era was incredibly detailed. The demonic mentioned in The Issa Valley may have been Stalin or Russia - not a huge leap for the presenter regarding Russian-Polish relations over the last two hundred years. Milosz personally dictated the history of Polish literature to his secretary when he realized there wasn't one available. Milosz spoke of the concrete and the personal. Milosz won the Nobel Prize in 1980 for Literature. His lecture encompassed topics as far reaching as history, style, memory, childhood, genocide, etc. He was notably irritated by the ignorance of Polish suffering during the Holocaust. Milosz retired in 1978, he eventually moved back to Poland after the fall of the Iron Curtain - he was forced out during the ascension of communism. Milosz died August 15, 2004.

A Separate Subject Entirely

While prodding my way through some assigned readings I came across a fact about Sylvester Stallone. It appears that during Stallone's draft-age years, Stallone was,

"teaching at a private girl's school in Switzerland, studying acting in Miami, and acting in a soft-core porn film titled A Party at Kitty and Stud's."

It is in a chapter from, After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection. The chapter deals with film's reflection of reality, and specifically its reflection of history. Obviously Rambo is fiction, but the films do act under the pretext that Vietnam could be won if we just killed enough of 'them'.

Congress of Vienna, post #1

Of the principal characters involved in the congress, Alexander is
probably one of the most interesting thus far. A man of extreme
contradictions he now replaces Jefferson as my archetype for a man of
contradictions. But this is just the beginning. Castlereagh,
Metternich & Talleyrand all had important roles so my opinion may
change.

Current Paper Topics

I realize I haven't posted to this blog in a very long time. Since then I've been through my 'first' semester at college, I came in with 27 credits so first is kind of an unusual word. Anyway this semester I have two major topics: The Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) & British Radicals during the French Revolution. If anyone stumbles upon this blog and has any recommendations, feel free to email me. I think I'm going to use this blog as kind of a research journal.