tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23125386424754860042024-02-20T11:01:35.060-08:00JoeTalkAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-11420824084210100362013-10-13T15:30:00.000-07:002013-10-13T15:30:20.433-07:00Odysseus' Gambit: Portrait of a Human Being<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMI2RIFIhYzNeFTkGNSe-xp-c_WQRwXF8xXOvQF_O-60kTliZH5w3UQ0h3xLUkzx9STnGqk-ZOuqFfeO3caYpiCzH09OubbCvkdfQ6ByHEKZCIkPtPRlh9vaFR3fNq0hFqa5cVzDPYBLM/s1600/poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMI2RIFIhYzNeFTkGNSe-xp-c_WQRwXF8xXOvQF_O-60kTliZH5w3UQ0h3xLUkzx9STnGqk-ZOuqFfeO3caYpiCzH09OubbCvkdfQ6ByHEKZCIkPtPRlh9vaFR3fNq0hFqa5cVzDPYBLM/s400/poster.jpg" width="282" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">On the surface, the story feels too ripe for telling. </span><br />
<div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
New York City, Union Square Park, a veteran chess player who, we assume, has a life story that will just blow us away. Who hasn't stood watching these men, wondering about the life decisions that brought them to play chess with unsuspecting gullible tourists, how they live, what they eat, where they sleep, what they can teach us about America, about the human experience. All of which sounds like perfect art school fare, the perfect sad and almost inherently maudlin tale that would allow you someone to connect the dots, add dashes of artistic flair, and viola! a perfect though sterile movie. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yet, somehow, in this deceptively short yet powerful documentary, Odysseus' Gambit, instead of taking the easy, simple way through the narrative, the stories dances on its own to show us the depths of one personality. Saravuth Inn, a chess master of Union Square Park, sits down everyday with his cigarettes and tries to make enough money playing chess with tourists. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3355687/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1">Alex Lora</a>, the director, focuses his lens on Inn and the bustling noises of NYC. The movie crafts a slow burning story that unfolds with subtlety that allows the story to breathe, to tell itself, without commentary or a moralizing streak. Inn, we see, is sometimes jovial, other times cranky multi-talented man. He is at turns funny, perceptive, ornery, self-pitying, and sometimes just downright angry. He knows that to take money to play chess is not really a job, but a sort of act to ask for money to subsist and so sometimes he plays the part, other times he shatters the illusion necessary for charity. The conversation turns uncomfortable, or too intimate at turns, when the details of this man's harrowing life emerges. A infancy of genocide in Cambodia, American goodwill turned sour, a precocious childhood in exile, no healthcare, increasing medical issues, poverty and the list goes on. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The camera adds much to the subtlety here. Instead of trying to craft a cohesive and coherent narrative, the camera cuts quickly between shots, and focuses on the strange and beautiful details of NYC: a cemetery of cigarettes, the symphonies of subway sounds, the jargon of the park residents. At each moment you expect some money shot, some life lesson, the camera cuts away, as if to tease us and expose our expectations as superficial. Framing the story is the chess player's explanations of how he plays chess, his craft. This makes the story about something more than sadness, an in this diversion, in its explicit mold as a symbol for life, the movie navigates between the compelling story of loving chess and the harshness of an arbitrary life. What emerges from the story is nothing less than the story of a full human life, without the need to create an easy pat narrative that ties it all together. Kudos. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Watch the movie <a href="http://www.alexlora.es/short-films/odysseus-gambit/">here</a>. (Scroll down past the trailer and list of awards.)</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-3053183555517919702013-07-04T14:18:00.001-07:002013-07-04T14:18:33.794-07:00Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature: On the Riddles of David Foster Wallace<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbm9XbpNu5z0OUF8UzBupKw7xSHPqsK_nquMm5owZ7grIgRD4xuNiQDjwHNQVTRlRjpv_1rZQQyWEEsLEsUx7ij144IOrlVP_t2ENlTf7LryVZVZWJXxpd7zSLQ16SRCxdF2BD1lGVl6Q/s360/top10_speeches_wallace.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbm9XbpNu5z0OUF8UzBupKw7xSHPqsK_nquMm5owZ7grIgRD4xuNiQDjwHNQVTRlRjpv_1rZQQyWEEsLEsUx7ij144IOrlVP_t2ENlTf7LryVZVZWJXxpd7zSLQ16SRCxdF2BD1lGVl6Q/s400/top10_speeches_wallace.jpg" width="400" /></a></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the stranger, perplexing, yet still highly enjoyable stories by David Foster Wallace is his story, “<a href="http://www.hotgiraffe.msk.ru/books/DFW-PatMoN.htm">Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature</a>” from the collection </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Oblivion.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In it, a dutiful son takes care of his mother, driving with her back and forth to her lawyer’s office on the bus. The mother, reaping rewards from a liability suit, elected to get cosmetic surgery which went terribly wrong, twice. She now walks around with a constant face of terrific panic and fear, which understandably, scares those around her. Her son, the narrator of the story, was involved in his own lawsuit with a 9-year old boy who fell through the roof of his space in which he keeps many deadly species of spiders. The boy fell and was killed. Past that, there’s not much narrative in the story. Rather, like much of the rest of </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Oblivion</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, it is a story of telling of a story. In the immediate presence of the story, the son and the mother are on the bus, and that’s all that really happens. </span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All of which adds to the confusion of the story. But DFW always loved paradoxes and riddles, and he piles them on in this story. While most of the story unfolds in a clinical manner befitting a person obsessed with the science of spiders, there are interspersed moments of narrative that appear as non-sequiturs. While the son discusses some minutia of spiders, he all of a sudden begins discussing the facts of the lawsuit brought against him. After reading the story once, and being left in a bit of scratching head situation, it feels as if DFW wanted us to feel confused, and wanted us to solve the riddles of this story. He purposeful doesn’t tell us names, and keeps the nature of the son’s obsession i.e. spiders, out of the story till the end. Many facts of the story only unfold with time, and many others are left out. The story also appears purposeless. While authors can make compelling stories out of the most mundane events, this feel trip to a lawyer on a bus feels purposefully purposeless, almost a sort of game, a chase to find clues and put together to get at the truth. </span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Perhaps the biggest confusion of the story is the title. The title is both a beautiful and old metaphor for philosophy, made most famous by the seminal philosophical book of the same name written by Richard Rorty. At first, and second, and even third glance, the connection between the book and this specific story is tenuous at best. Rorty’s book and philosophy, as a whole, fits in with DFW’s general thought. Rorty, to put it crudely, sought to undermine the classical sense of philosophy as providing the grounds on which to judge all our cultural knowledge. This is probably the most simple understanding of philosophy, which many have called a mirror to nature. I.e. we believe that somehow, through unique philosophical thinking, we can uncover the center of our knowledge, that which grounds how and what we know about everything else in the world. </span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">An offshoot of this belief is that the purest and best form of knowledge is scientific or philosophic, which is exactly what Rorty wants to undermine. For Rorty, and many other philosophers, including DFW’s favorite, Wittgenstein, philosophy is less about finding the truth, and rather about a unique type of therapy. For Rorty, systematic philosophy that creates its own system of thought and jargon is simply a choice of another type of discourse. In no way should philosophy or science be seen as more privileged, outside of its immediate realm. Though science and philosophy purports to tell us the whole truth about the world, it tells us a truth within a framework of rules. All of this type of thinking is therapeutic because it pushes a person away from the concretization and rigidity of thought. </span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Philosophy then, and for DFW we can say literature, is not about arriving at some truth, after which a person can rest, but philosophy and literature is rather a posture of openness to information, other people, and the outside world. It’s not hard to see this as part of DFW’s general thought in that his #1 fear was solipsism, the obsession with what goes on inside a person’s brain as opposed to real and fluid interaction with other people. Much of DFW’s themes, imagery and stories, depict people stuck in some sort of language game, whether that is the jargon of addiction, or advertisement, or psychotherapy. Consequently, so much of DFW’s writing attempted to break down the borders between different systems of language. Many of his stories unravel jargon, pointing to its border and emptiness, the need for constantly changing and new language. </span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But what does this have to do with this specific story, and couldn’t really any of DFW’s story have been called Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Probably, because any sort of explanation is hindsight and reconstructive. Yet, I do believe a synopsis quote from Rorty’s book provides the beginning of some keys to read the story in its fulness:</span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To see keeping a conversation going as a sufficient aim of philosophy, to see wisdom as consisting in the ability to sustain a conversation, is to see human beings as generators of new descriptions rather than beings one hopes to be able to describe accurately. </span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Classical philosophy in this breakdown assumed that not only was accurate description possible, but that it would bestow wisdom and change. To know, to categorize, was seen as enough in the way of understanding. The contrast is to see all sorts of language systems, all jargon self-contained and tell us very little about anything past themselves. </span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Looked at in this light, in the sense of language hardening into rigidity limiting true contact, this story oozes with the limits and pretensions of language. In fact, it is less a story per se and considerably more of a language game which highlights what happens when different systems of language butt up against each other and break down. The narrator, the son, has no conversation in this story at all. His job and obsession is scientific categorizing and he feels the need to consistently point out idioms as idioms, as if we wouldn’t understand the duality of language. His stiltedness gets so tough to deal with that at points, he seem clinically unable to feel or understand emotions, or any of the mess of life. He is the Uber-scientist and philosopher who believes he can capture the world through understand and the correct use of language, as he could break through to some center that would explain everything. </span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal;"><b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"></b></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="display: inline !important; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal;"><b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"></b></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="display: inline !important; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This story is a send-up of a prevalent, though outdated view of philosophy and science. Moreover, the story fits into the rest of Oblivion as most of the stories describe a person caught in the jail of their own brains. Here, the jail manifests in a sort of obsessive need to categorize which creates a distance and disables any sort of real communication. There’s also a sort of classic DFW irony in which we tend to think of language as the ultimate sign of humanity, but here, we see it as an evasion, a crippling jail that robs this person of any semblance of humanity. As an added layer, the riddles of the story ends up really going nowhere. There is no center of the story, no real key to understand its riddles, which is sort of the whole therapeutic point of Rorty’s book. </span></b></b></div>
<br />
<div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-2f907c65-ab87-955d-9ba6-bb78e22485e4" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-61068076413322999842013-06-26T13:47:00.001-07:002013-06-26T13:47:26.586-07:00The Doma Decision - Making Sense of it All <br />
<div dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-216a612c-8237-8652-2cb6-18bc7f832c4f" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibfn2l21sQRkLho1SVfrNEzU14EYYZlpZHBaBxou7WXasu8SJ9fZrZBjLPvC9k7RqMWMNvcLCp7uh7CWbGqdU-Fc7UZnTzWcJLKZrBAdIyQ02MynAYQQcWxPd-H1qIp8ZWlVqUZf0HbzU/s1600/171536109.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibfn2l21sQRkLho1SVfrNEzU14EYYZlpZHBaBxou7WXasu8SJ9fZrZBjLPvC9k7RqMWMNvcLCp7uh7CWbGqdU-Fc7UZnTzWcJLKZrBAdIyQ02MynAYQQcWxPd-H1qIp8ZWlVqUZf0HbzU/s400/171536109.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-216a612c-8237-8652-2cb6-18bc7f832c4f" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Whether
you agree with the outcome or not, The Supreme Court created history
today with its ruling on DOMA and Prop8. While the outcome feels clear
i.e. that the Supreme Court found the federal definition of marriage as
unconstitutional, how they did it, what arguments they used, is a
considerably knottier question. I hope to be able to clarify some of the
issues, arguments, and logic in this post. (Here’s the </span><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">opinions of the courts</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> on DOMA) (And for a more extensive background, check out previous blog posts, </span><a href="http://noconversationleftbehind.blogspot.com/2013/04/making-sense-of-doma-case-in-supreme.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, and </span><a href="http://noconversationleftbehind.blogspot.com/2013/04/making-sense-of-doma-part-2-on-nature.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">.)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In
a 5-4 decision, the majority struck down DOMA as unconstitutional
because it discriminates against a specific group of people for
conceivably no good reason. The problem with this, as we’ve mentioned in
previous posts, is that the case before the court entails the question
if the court has the right to judge on this case in the first place
(Unnecessarily convoluted, I know...) If you recall, this case in not a
normal case because there seems to be no aggrieved party here. Edith
Windsor has already won her case in lower appellate court, and the
President declared DOMA unconstitutional. Consequently, it looks like
both the plaintiff and the defendant want the same ruling i.e. that DOMA
is unconstitutional so how could this have made it the supreme court? </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">For
Scalia, that’s exactly the main problem with this ruling: the case
should have never made it to the Supreme courts. After he dismantles the
majority’s explanation for why it is indeed a real court case of
opposing parties, Scalia goes on to explain what he sees as the
essential difference between his opinion and the majority. Scalia paints
the disagreement as a fundamental argument as to the nature and scope
of the Supreme Court’s power. For Scalia, the court has a considerably
narrower scope that what the majority likes to claim. Scalia contends
that the main and fundamental purpose of the court is not to decide on
the constitutionality of any law, but rather to decide real and concrete
and actionable cases. Judicial review, he claims, is only a byproduct
of the need to judge real cases with immediate consequences, while he
believes that the majority see Judicial review, i.e. the need and
ability for the court to decide on the whether a law is constitutional,
as the main and foundational role of the court.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">We
have never before agreed to speak—to “say what the law is”—where there
is no controversy before us. In the more than two centuries that this
Court has existed as an institution, we have never suggested that we
have the power to decide a question when every party agrees with both
its nominal opponent and the court below on that question’s answer...We
perform that role incidentally—by accident, as it were—when that is
necessary to resolve the dispute before us. Then, and only then, does it
become“‘the province and duty of the judicial department to say what
the law is.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">He
therefore sees the court as woefully overstepping its boundaries in
this case. Kennedy doesn’t paint the argument in these terms. While he
himself does discuss the role of the court, he also believes that this
case is a real and actionable case in which there is claim and
controversy upon. He doesn’t see this as just deciding on an abstract
issue or just choosing to impose the court’s will on a public debate.
Scalia responds that this line of argumentation is a rationalization so
that Kennedy could decide on the larger issue, and that on it’s own,
the case shouldn’t have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place.
(It’s important to realize that Scalia, so far, has yet to say anything
about the actual legality of same-sex marriage. He is making a purely
legal point about the court and its responsibilities.) It should be
noted that Kennedy, as much as he does try to make it a regular case,
needs to do jump through hoops to do so, and ends up saying that though
it’s not a normal case, because of the importance and negative impact of
DOMA, the court should decide on this case, which, ironically is
exactly what Scalia disagrees with.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Scalia
proceeds to make many substantive points in proving that this case does
not fall under the jurisdiction of the court, whereas Kennedy spends
most of his opinion showing how DOMA is an inherently discriminatory
law. On
this front, perhaps because Scalia spends considerably more time on the
actual history and arguments, he sounds more intelligent and correct
given the premises and history he marshals. The majority opinion does
indeed seem to create a legal stretch and has a lack of precedence for
deciding that there is a controversy in this case between the two
parties, even though both the Executive Branch and plaintiff agree on
the unconstitutionality of the law. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">As
is most often true in his arguments, Scalia is less compelling in his
positive statements which try to defend DOMA as anything else besides
mean-spirited, than in his criticism. His critiques work much better than his vision, not for
his lack of intelligence, but for his naivete. Here is probably the most
salient example. Scalia tries to argue that DOMA’s motivations and
enactment was not inherently discriminatory because it served purposes
other than its actual discrimination, which leads him into this sort of
twisted logic:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“To
be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the
Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to
condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements,
any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con
demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> This is like saying pro-life doesn’t necessarily disagree with the
pro-choice, but rather they stake out different choices. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15;">Overall Scalia’s argument for the constitutionality of DOMA reads a bit
thin, as he tries to explain the validity and importance of that
specific law, but he makes numerous interesting and often larger points.
Essentially, which connects back to his first point, Scalia sees the judicial system as trying to take away the rights of the people to
actually make this decision for themselves.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">As
to that debate: Few public controversies touch an institution so
central to the lives of so many, and few inspire such attendant passion
by good people on all sides. Few public controversies will ever
demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our Framers gave us, a gift
the Court pawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a
system of government that permits us to rule ourselves.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">He
goes on to opine upon the dangerous rhetoric of the majority that paint
anyone who wants only hetereosexual marriages as evil:</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In
the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your
neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is
hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters,
especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end
proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that
disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be
politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier
times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered
ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that
it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We
might have let the People decide.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<div style="text-indent: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; text-indent: 36pt;"> Looked
at in the context of Scalia’s other opinions and decisions, it’s a bit
hard to take this 100% genuinely as he often seems to not care at all about other people's opinions. However, taken alone, it is a powerful
statement and call for a different sort of political conversation and
understand of the other side. Even if Scalia is coming down well wide of
the moral path of history, he does so in reinforcing values most of us
would accept - the freedom and autonomy to make our own decisions, the
divestment of power from huge institutions, and a political dialogue of
mutual respect and empathy.</span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
However, it’s pretty impossible to deny all of Kennedy’s points about
the inherent discrimination written into DOMA. (I focused on Scalia both
because he is more explicit, and just a better writer which facilitates
analysis. Moreover, Kennedy is considerably more straightforward in his
positive argument.) In this, Kennedy shine’s as a writer and a moral
crusader, considerably more so than his often clunky, repetitive and
almost mysterious legal arguments regarding the issue of standing and
controversy. Here, Kennedy states without an equivocations:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to
impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who
enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority
of the States. The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text
demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex
marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their
sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal
statute. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Kennedy
has many versions of this basic argument, but then, in his most
powerful statement of the piece, drops this great moment of moral
clarity:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the
Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to
dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being
raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more
difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of
their own family and its concord with other families in their community
and in their daily lives. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I hope this helped in terms of
understanding some of the basic arguments on the ground. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Thanks for reading, </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Joe Talk </span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-55395264796170872132013-05-28T12:26:00.000-07:002013-05-28T12:26:03.304-07:00First Impressions of Arrested Development - No Spoilers
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5k4HCHRZFP5JLRTEflUFgHbxz2yh_wCuIOzSNFVTEar8I69B62lLbZQ_UvEayhP1zsUpi7BL7Pusb01o9TuhfRwTC3MZ5lsO01XWERCz4jsy_yjslQMujTCJpOjAB8aB-e73yUHtByI4/s1600/url.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5k4HCHRZFP5JLRTEflUFgHbxz2yh_wCuIOzSNFVTEar8I69B62lLbZQ_UvEayhP1zsUpi7BL7Pusb01o9TuhfRwTC3MZ5lsO01XWERCz4jsy_yjslQMujTCJpOjAB8aB-e73yUHtByI4/s320/url.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I sort of told myself that I wouldn’t do this because of adulthood and things like that. That I didn’t need to wake up or stay up till 3 a.m. and binge on new Arrested Development Episodes, but it was hard to pass up on that kind of nerd obsessive opportunity. I didn’t watch all the episodes, but I watched more than half (9) and I watched at least one from each individual character. The show is fun and funny made me consistently smile, and it’s not that it’s not good enough as the earlier episodes, they are just different, perhaps too different. The most evident differences are the structure of the show and the turn into darker plots and tones. </div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
The problems with these episodes arise in the first episode, after which you wonder if maybe they changed the style and format of the show just for this first introductory episode. One flaw or problem or just important change is the decision to focus episodes on a central narrator, to follow that story alone throughout a 30 minute episode while neglecting most of the other characters. Consequently, it asks for too much from the plot and personality of the character of a show that always relied on cartoonish elements. So much of why the show worked in the first place had to do with these cartoonish parts: the lack of consequences, the non-sequitur in plots, the outlandish sketches, the tightly crafted stories that fit too well all working with overlapping smalls appearances from all the characters, not a focus on any one. It really feels like watching a different show inspired or based on the characters of Arrested Development - the new episodes lack the sharp editing cuts, layered plots, and the webs of quick, dense and fitting allusions. </div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
The show worked best when there wasn’t a focus on plot, but when plot served as a stage for the characters’ antics. But here, there is an obsession with exposition and plot. I respect the ambitiousness and intricacy of the attempt to weave together past and present, but we barely ever see them together, they can’t play off each other as a group and so it is just less dynamic and funny. One of the best scenes of the series works so well because we get to see everyone in contrast and in collusion with the other. The family sits in the living room, awaiting to hear from the P.R. person Michael hired: Lucille looks bored and judgy, George Michael awkward and nervous, Tobias happy and oblivious and then the scene just builds off of that. The P.R. agent runs through each character, including George Bluth skyping in from Jail wearing a purple yarmulka. This situational setup allows everyone to be perfect. But in the batch, none of this occurs, and it puts to much weight on individual characters as opposed to the brilliance of the group interactions. </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>It’s hard to say where the next big shifting decision came from, maybe from the decision to focus on one person, and therefore a need arose to create deeper and larger personalities than the comic portrayals of the first three seasons. There’s a strange seriousness and darkness in the new season that was completely absent and delightful in the first substantiation. Nothing mattered, no one fell too low, or was too degraded to care, and no one really got hurt or did anything terrible and demeaning. There was a real seriousness here that just felt jarring and at odds with the lovable insanity of the other seasons. There is now a sadness and humanity to the show that just makes it a different category of comedy and maybe that has it’s own value, but it doesn’t feel like Arrested Development. This has its benefits, most of the characters don’t work when we try to treat them like real people, but one storyline works wonderfully with some development. The parts of Lucille and George, especially the pretty spectacularly and shockingly mundane marital life, is just compelling and beautiful acting and writing. They sit and drink coffee together, or just talk, and it feels tender and you understand their love for each other, which was the first time I had a feel and deep emotion for any of these people. They sit and talk about themselves, about their children and lives, and while funny also just moving and sweet. </div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
The show chose to explore different emotional and narrative terrain, and that’s interesting and potentially creative, but that it feels different, qualitatively so from the first three seasons feels actually like a let down. So much of the excitement, and this is probably not a fair to standard to use, was to just have this awesome family back in our lives, with their strange idiosyncrasies and idiocies, and while there were moments and even episodes that felt like the old ones (Tobias and Lucille are pitch perfect), or even shadows of the old one, they often feel too different. It’s great to have them back, but it feels like they changed too much in the interim. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-17904599673965665112013-04-17T12:14:00.002-07:002013-04-17T12:14:42.042-07:00The Media and the Boston Marathon - An Exercise in Futility. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgceAcC4UhGmZh8f7bZxCu_4Zf5H8snTyoB7xIpqlJX8h6KeYjbWGQu7Fy_mqZKiyM8fy-bNudaGySua_F0uxNSwdgAYl8ShAyTvtZSVjzt1wpTCrviQrUTPPaeiCb3J_vQ8JghyZMfJ3M/s1600/BH6vVVWCIAIK4Q7.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgceAcC4UhGmZh8f7bZxCu_4Zf5H8snTyoB7xIpqlJX8h6KeYjbWGQu7Fy_mqZKiyM8fy-bNudaGySua_F0uxNSwdgAYl8ShAyTvtZSVjzt1wpTCrviQrUTPPaeiCb3J_vQ8JghyZMfJ3M/s400/BH6vVVWCIAIK4Q7.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div>
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.4191027143970132"></b><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.4191027143970132"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></div>
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.4191027143970132">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the wake of a horrific tragedy, we don’t know what to say so we now say everything. Where our knowledge and speech fails us, we fill that hole with with more and more “information” fumbling around for anything to take hold of as we feel wholly precarious. There is something both sad and human about this reaction. Human because it portrays our innate inclination to regain control after tragedy, our need to stabilize our lives and viewpoints with this tear in the fabric of reality. Sad, well sad, because it betrays our inability to live in ambiguity, and to confess the basic knowledge of our ultimate precariousness in the face of death. Instead we try to find anything to fill the void, and end up making asses of ourselves in every which way. (Most recently, in the race to first report on the capture of a suspect, CNN prematurely reported on a suspect, only to be caught looking like a fool.)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sooner or later, without anything to actually comment on, news outlet resort to one of two things: either commenting on how we react, or commenting on potential reactions if so and so is revealed. I’m not sure which I find more inane or less helpful. The reaction to other people’s reaction tend to sound sanctimonious (I know, I know so does this post...but I think there is a difference, I hope), and largely sounds like the whimperings of a pained person, unwilling to acknowledge their powerlessness.) The prediction pieces telling us what could happen when x y and z happen are not only largely false, but smack of even worse opportunism than those who use tragedy for political uses that will accomplish nothing. Do these people really think their predictions are correct or matter? How could a prediction at this point matter? There’s a particularly objectionable piece in Salon that sounds intelligent, but upon further inspection is just misguided and kind of lame. David Sirota supposes that if the culprit turns out to be a white person the world will not demand the demonization of a group, but if they are found to be muslim they will, thereby betraying a racist bias. Good point? Even if his point was correct and not specious at it does sound, it remains less clear what the article accomplishes. It takes an uncertainty and places the focus on our potential reaction, trying to create a more controversial angle, which, is as opportunistic as Pamela Geller jumping to attack radical Islam. One misguided predictive reaction piece begets another, which creates controversy, which then in turn requires a response etc. etc. etc. A whole industry is then magically created around our lack of knowledge. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some of this highlights the growing pains of digital media. Unprecedented access to immediate information, pictures, leads gives rise to a whole slew of opportunities and pitfalls. It offers opportunity for speculation, which in the wake of a tragedy and attack often only fosters a greater sense of confusion and panic. What really is the etiquette of posting graphic pictures that cannot be unseen? (The intentions often seem admirable, but it leads to shoddy analysis and even shoddier sharing. Many people in the immediate aftermath posted a picture of a young girl, the supposed 8 year old victim, only to later find out it was a 8 year-old boy...whoops? Can you imagine finding a picture of your child on the internet as the victim? Then there is the whole strange social rules that dictate twitter and facebook rules about what you must post, can post, and cannot post...)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This opportunism in the wake of tragedy highlights the general opportunistic nature of a for profit news media outlet. We easily see opportunism in the more blatant and explicit cases of using news for a personal agenda from columnists and politicians. Largely, after a tragedy the news world is faced with a tension between our human selves and our working selves. In his essay on reacting to 9/11 in small-town America, David Foster Wallace notices how Dan Rather’s outfit looks meticulously crafted to show him as sweaty, worried, and constantly at edge. There is an artifice to news that tragedy shatters. Tragedy tends to push everyone into a basic human existence, shorn of ideology, we value emotional outpouring. We care about life and death, about heroes, about justice and revenge. Largely it is a visceral experience, and consequently, we feel more heightened to the bullshit out there. We appreciate sincerity and chafe when it is clear that people are trying to manipulate us after a tragedy. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But, truthfully, all news is a sort of artifice, a pose that the outlets use in numerous fashions. The reactions are calculated, even when personal so as to fit in with a brand. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, but the absurdity of that stance, one that unnaturally distinguishes between journalist and human being becomes all the more ridiculous during times of tragedies. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In contrast, we can notice that the most important words and writing to emerge out of the attack are those from the arena of culture: comedians, talk show hosts, and writers i.e. those jobs where being a human is an essential part of the job are what people want in this time. Patton Oswalt’s </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/pattonoswalt/posts/10151440800582655" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">facebook pos</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">t flew around the internet, and the collection of late night hosts reactions to the tragedy were poignant and important. But this rarely deters news outlets from scrounging around for anything to blow up into something. Comedians, hosts, and writers generally keep their finger on the pulse of life and death, and maybe the news world should take a cue from the world of art, maybe we need to learn the art and value of silence, of defeat and patience. </span></b></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-34376655957476882182013-04-02T15:33:00.001-07:002013-04-02T15:33:42.776-07:00Making Sense of DOMA Part #2 - On The Nature of the Supreme Court
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<img height="241" id="irc_mi" src="http://media.theweek.com/img/dir_0094/47044_article_full/five-justices-appear-to-be-lining-up-against-doma-but-dont-count-your-chickens-yet-liberals.jpg?173" style="margin-top: 9px;" width="400" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">OK, so in the <a href="http://noconversationleftbehind.blogspot.com/2013/04/making-sense-of-doma-case-in-supreme.html">last post </a>we
laid the groundwork for understanding this case, to some extent. If confusion
remains, well, that’s part of the problem here. The Supreme Court is confused
as well. Some of the Justices don’t understand the legality of the BLAG, or the
middle position of the president who sees DOMA as unconstitutional but still
chooses to enforce the law. Chief Justice Roberts went so far as to call the
president a coward, or someone who lacked conviction, so confusion is built
into this case. But where does all this confusion come from? Let’s go back to
our initial question, why is the court getting bogged down in apparent
technicalities and not just deciding on this historic issue? </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">This frustration with the Supreme Court is a
historic frustration that dates back to the inception of the court. It asks the
most basic question about the court i.e. what actually is the purpose of the
court? You would think this is an easy question. We generally know the purpose
of the executive and legislative branches, but the judicial branch is
considerably murkier in its nature. (Think about it. The President and Congress play active roles, while the Supreme Court only reacts...) The first court, though symbolically
important, was largely a lame duck court because of this uncertainty, and
because of ambivalence about the power of the court. Eventually, the court grew
more stable and solidified its power, and then the biggest question facing the
court was the power of judicial review. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">Judicial review gives the court power to decide
on the constitutionality of an act of the president or congress. Though now
essential to the nature of the court, this power isn’t explicitly given in the
constitution. Rather, as Alexander Hamilton first argued, and then Justice
Marshall made famous, judicial review is inherent within the nature of the
constitution. The Constitution, as a code of law, is the highest law in the
land. Any subsequent laws that are created which violate the constitution must
be invalid because this subsequent law only receives its power from the
constitution. In other words, as Hamilton argues, you can’t have a servant
more powerful than the master. Or to put it in more contemporary terms, it’s as
if the boss delegated power to an intern, and that intern used that power to
undermine the boss, which doesn’t work.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;"> But who
decides on the constitutionality of the law? Congress cannot because they make
laws, and the president cannot because he enforces the law. Considering the
need for a separation of power, only the court can hold this singular power.
Fine, but shouldn’t judicial review allow the court to pass judgment on any and
all laws they want, why the need for complication? Isn’t this there purpose, to
protect and explain the constitution in each new generation? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">On a similar note, wouldn’t it be much more useful
for the court to serve in an advisory role so that even before laws are made, a
president or congress receives the opinion of the court? The Justices
throughout history, starting with the first court, decided that the disadvantages
of this advisory role outweigh the immediate benefits. In a little piece of not
well-known history, Bernard Schwartz reminds us that:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">The very first Court felt constrained to
withhold even from the “Father of his Country” an advisory opinion on questions
regarding which Washington was most anxious to have illumination from the
highest tribunal. In 1793 President Washington, through a letter sent to the
Justices by Secretary of State Jefferson, sought the advice of the Supreme
Court on a series of troublesome “abstract questions” in the realm of
international law “which have already occurred, or may soon occur.” Chief
Justice Jay and his associates first postponed their answer until the sitting
of the Court and then, three weeks later, replied politely but firmly,
declining to give the requested answers.<br />
According to the Justices’ letter
to Washington, both “the lines of separation drawn by the Constitution between
the three departments of the government . . . and our being judges of a court
in the last resort, are considerations which afford strong arguments against
the propriety of our extra-judicially deciding the questions alluded to.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">This story highlights two important and often
misunderstood aspects of the Court. First, the court was always seen as a last
resort. We tend to forget that in our desire to create change. Second, it highlights
the important limitation that the court can only decide legal cases. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">But what does that mean that the court only uses
judicial review in legal cases? Aren’t all cases legal? Not really. All cases
can have legal consequences, but not all cases are necessarily "legal" in this
sense. The founders established that a legal case is one that has “case or
controversy,” which later theorists established a three-prong test to determine:
injury, request for redress, and a real potential for the court to redress the
injury. This means that the Court would only hear a case that has a real injury
i.e. I am appealing a case in which I lost money, and a real request from that
party to redress the injury, and only cases in which the court can actually do
something. In grounding the Court’s limitations in concrete legal cases and not
abstract or political cases, the early Justices kept the separation of powers
intact.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">Why is this so important? As usual, it all flows
back to the foundation of separating powers. The early Justices realized that
it was imperative that the court not have political power i.e. the power to
veto a law, that court not be involved in the making of laws. Think of the
alternative. Imagine the Supreme Court could just choose to pass judgment on
any law they want to, or imagine that the President or congress, if they don’t
like a law could just push the law into the Supreme Court. This would not only
give immense power to the court in that they can stick their hands in any case
they want, but would blur the line between the powers. If the president or
congress is unhappy with the other branch’s decisions they could simply take
every case to court. Not only would this
clog the court, and involve the court in the making of the law, but it would
also take away power from the people, which is a crucial component to how laws
are made. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">Yet, as we can see in the DOMA case, this
position also comes with downsides. It’s no mistake or act of cowardice that the
President, despite the fact that he disagrees with DOMA, is still appealing to
the Supreme Court as an injured party. The president wants the court to rule on
the case, but realizes there exists little legal recourse to do so, ironically,
because most lower courts would overturn DOMA. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">Now, the court faces a choice between two of its
different jobs. It needs to protect the constitution, but it also needs to
protect the process of law and the integrity of the court. You can also think
about this distinction in terms of short terms and long-term goals. As many
note, even the more conservative justices appear ready to view DOMA as
unconstitutional, but given what we’ve discussed they don’t necessarily see it
as within their abilities to do so in this case. Now that sounds misguided and
even stupid, no? And if you think of it in this limited context, it is stupid.
It’s essentially letting a murderer get off on a technicality. Yet, if you
think of it in the long-term consequences of this case, it’s portrays a
perennially tough decision. If the court does decide to rule on the
constitutionality of this case, then it sets a precedent that potentially goes
against the nature and history of the court. If the court allows a case to go
through with no real party, no real injury, and no real request of recourse,
then it opens the floodgate to a breach in the separation of powers. So while
people might feel frustrated with the traffic in this case, you need to factor
in the long-term precedence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">Why does that matter? Because though you might
urgently care about the DOMA case, you wouldn’t want the court to have this
unprecedented power in a case you might disagree with. (This is always the
trade off. Roe V. Wade is celebrated by pro rights groups, but pretty much all
legal theorists etc. see it as a terribly argued and decided case where
political expedience won over legal prudence.) Moreover, different courts take
different approaches to the proactive methods of the court. Some courts take on
extremely active roles that many see as undermining the purpose of the court,
and others take on a more passive role and let the society decide the
questions. We can see this latter approach in this case. As many have noted,
the social question of same-sex marriage appears largely decided. Society is
turning more and more to embracing the issue. The court approves of this bottom
up approach to changing law because it sees itself as the last resort. It would
always rather that the people actually decide these cases, than the court,
because the government is a tool of the people, not a tool imposed upon the
people. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">Now, this approach can and often does slow down
change in a society, but it also stabilizes the change. So again, Justices need
to choose between stability and change, between the exigency of this specific
law vs. the precedence it creates. There is rarely, if ever, a case of a simple
black and white question of constitutionality. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.5pt;">To move into more explicit opinion mode, I
consequently think that calling this court politicized, or cowardly is
misguided. Reading through the briefs and oral arguments, it’s hard to see
these justices, yes, even the often homophobic Scalia as anything but people
who deeply care about the constitution. Justice Louis Brandeis once famously
said that what the court doesn’t do is as important, if not more important,
that what it does do. And while some of us might want the court to take a more
active role in deciding the important issues of our day, historically, that is
a dangerous role for the Court, one with many negative and destabilizing
consequences. In a time in which our default is to mistrust politicians, I feel
an odd sense of trust in this court, which might be naïve. These are many of
the same people who decided Citizen’s United, but at least in reading the oral
arguments and other statements, I still feel an abiding trust in their
integrity. In a time in which politics is undermined by a natural cynicism,
it’s nice to feel this sort of naïve trust in our officials. </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-43418458308865564982013-04-01T16:33:00.000-07:002013-04-01T16:33:41.660-07:00Making Sense of the DOMA Case in Supreme Court<br />
<div>
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.46091185975819826"><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><img height="356" id="irc_mi" src="http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/Courts/scotus_doma_AFP.jpg" style="margin-top: 30px;" width="475" />As the S</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">upreme Court appears on the verge of a historic (non)decision on LGBT rights, I thought it would be interesting to explore some seemingly odd details of the case. Part of this post seeks to explore why is this case is so convoluted. Why doesn’t the court just pass judgment on the constitutionality of anti-gay marriage laws? Is this not the essential purpose of the Supreme Court, and if the court somehow finds a way to not pass any decision, does that not show the cowardice of this court? The more you read about the case the more you get the sense that the court bogs itself down in tangential questions of legalese that have nothing to do with the imperative essential question: how can you legally discriminate between hetero and homosexual marriages?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Let’s take a step back first to look at the facts of the case. In 1996, President Clinton, along with a majority of both the House and Senate quickly passed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) into law. (Yes, despite all the excuses, an embarrassing cast of politicians rushed this bill into law, including some of our favorite politicians but that’s a different topic.) Right before that, Hawaii became the first state to legalize homosexual marriage, and people were worried that other states would then be forced to recognize the marriage status of same sex marriages from Hawaii. Consequently, they drafted the DOMA bill which posits two essential clauses:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Section 2. Powers reserved to the states</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 18pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Section 3. Definition of marriage</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 18pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The first clause posits that no state must recognize another state’s same-sex marriages. Consequently, if you did choose to get married in Hawaii you cannot move to a state that doesn’t recognize same sex marriages and expect recognition of your status. The third clause posited something considerably more ambitious. It stated that for all federal purposes, marriage would only be recognized as that between a man and a woman. Accordingly, even in a state like Hawaii, if a same sex couple married they would not be entitled to what amounts to over 1000 federal rights, exemptions, and benefits that heterosexual spouses are entitled to. People took umbrage both at the concept of the law and its manifestations. Many took offense at the limited definition of marriage, and even more took offense at the discriminatory practice of depriving a couple of the same rights simply based on their sexual orientation. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now is where things start to get tricky and complicated. After 40 years in a relationship, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Canada, though they lived in New York. Thea died in 2009 and Edith inherited her money but was forced to pay federal inheritance tax because the government would not acknowledge their same-sex marriage as legal. Windsor consequently had to pay over 300,000 dollars in inheritance tax, of which she then sought recourse for that money in court. In New York District court, she appealed her case and actually won. The court found clause 3 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 5th Amendment. Fine, great, good, right? Case over, you would think.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Well, not really, because when a state court rules a federal law unconstitutional the president and Congress tend to get involved, which complicates the matter. In the middle of the Windsor case, Obama, through Attorney General Holder released a curious statement that agreed that the third clause of DOMA is indeed unconstitutional and therefore said that it would not defend the law in courts, which is normally part of the job of the Justice department. (</span><a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is the actual statement, which indeed is a fascinating read.)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">However, it did say that in deference to the president and congress who created the law, Obama would continue to enforce the law until the court or congress told him otherwise. (This seems a bit strange and counterintuitive and that’s part of the complexity...) At the same time, the House created BLAG, a great name which stands for Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which essentially takes up the role of the Attorney General and appointed itself to defend the constitutionality of DOMA where the president would not. (How could the House just appoint itself into powers not normally in it’s jurisdiction? Good question, and that’s exactly what the Supreme Court wants to know...)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">None of this changes Windsor’s victory in the district court, but it explains why the Windsor case moved on past that victory. The Department of Justice, in effort to help BLAG, filed an appeal to a federal court despite the fact that the DOJ approved of the initial ruling on the unconstitutionality of the law. Why did they do this? It’s not explicit, but likely so as to push the case to a higher court to decide the issue. This is a bit sneaky for numerous reasons and smacks of the DOJ trying to have its cake and eat it too. Despite the fact that the DOJ essentially won in the initial ruling, it wanted a higher status ruling so it pushed the case up to Federal Court. BLAG wasn’t too happy with this strange situation and tried to show that the DOJ can’t do this because they received no injury in this case i.e. the intuitive claim that this is what the DOJ wanted all along, so they can’t then appeal the case as if they lost. (We will get back to this...) Windsor, seeing the mishmash here, asked for the case to be brought before the Supreme Court, bypassing the lower federal appellate court, which the Supreme Court rarely does. Windsor cited her old age, but it’s hard to imagine that is the true consideration. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Supreme Court decided to accept the case, but the case still went to federal appellate court and was upheld, thereby becoming the first federal court to declare clause 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. The DOJ then, in addition to Windsor’s request, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, and this is where we stand. The Supreme court will now decide on three questions. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1. Is Clause 3 indeed unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 5th Amendment? </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But before that, it needs to determine two other legal questions:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2. Does the fact that the president and the DOJ agree with the unconstitutionality of the law nullify them from being injured and therefore deprives them of the right to take the case to the Supreme Court? </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3. Does the BLAG having any standing as a party in the case? It’s a similar but opposite side to question #2 here. The DOJ and the president, despite approving of the court ruling want’s to have its cake and eat too, by getting the Supreme Court to decide the case. BLAG which disapproves of the court’s decision want to defend the constitutionality of the law, but it remains unclear what standing this unprecedented BLAG group in law. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If it doesn’t believe that the DOJ or the President has standing, i.e. the right to bring the case to the Supreme Court, then the court cannot rule on the case, thereby obviating question #1. Windsor can’t bring the case to the Supreme Court because she is not seeking a recourse for injury i.e. she already won. It’s hard to see that the DOJ is truly seeking recourse because they want the law overturned, so the case would have no legs to stand on. What makes this case somewhat unprecedented is that there appears to be no injured party here. Windsor won all of her lower cases, and the President agrees with the unconstitutionality of the case, and the BLAG, at first glance is not a real party. So what to do, and why does this feel unnecessarily complicated? </span><b id="internal-source-marker_0.46091185975819826"></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="display: inline !important; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.46091185975819826"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b id="internal-source-marker_0.46091185975819826" style="font-family: Times; font-size: medium; text-indent: 0px; white-space: normal;"></b></span></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="display: inline !important; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.46091185975819826"><b id="internal-source-marker_0.46091185975819826" style="text-indent: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here is where the nature of Supreme Court comes into play, and here is where people begin to call the court cowards, or followers, and this seems to be a prevalent sentiment, but predicated on an apparent misunderstanding of the Supreme Court. All of this we will explore in the next post. </span></b></b></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thanks for reading. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Joe</span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-86139480586163431032013-02-14T17:49:00.003-08:002013-02-14T17:49:43.124-08:00In Memoriam: Ronald Dworkin - One of the Greatest Public Intellectuals of Our Time<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Ronald_Dworkin_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg/220px-Ronald_Dworkin_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img alt="" border="0" height="293" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Ronald_Dworkin_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg/220px-Ronald_Dworkin_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Ronald_Dworkin_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg/330px-Ronald_Dworkin_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Ronald_Dworkin_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg/440px-Ronald_Dworkin_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg 2x" width="220" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
Philosopher and Law theorist Ronald Dworkin died today. A cursory look at his Wikipedia Page will let you know the countless accolades and accomplishments in his ambitious and productive life. I first encountered Dworkin and his works in a fantastic graduate course in Yeshiva University's Revel. In a class full of abstruse and unnecessarily densely written academic articles on the nature of Law, Dworkin's integrity, brilliance, and clarity separated him from above the book. His works, encapsulated in his most famous and most systematic book <i>Law's Empire, </i> attempts to infuse morality back into a theory of law. This central point requires exposition, but essentially, Dworkin fought against one of his rivals, John Rawls. Rawls, and his acolytes, largely adhered to a theory of law dubbed positivism. Though many disagree with the exact definition of positivistic law, essentially the theory assumes that law emerges only of established law, or written law. As my professor simplified it, positivists see the creation and understanding of law as a closed system, almost a mechanical, mathematical system in where there are always rules as to how decide even complex cases. Essentially, positivists conclude that morality cannot and should not play any role in how we actively create law. The body of law we have, as was passed down, contains everything in it so that we don't need to outside to the realm of morality to decide law.<br />
<br />
What this amounts to is somewhat the divide between someone like Justice Scalia, and someone Like Justice Ginsburg, or the republican vs. democratic approach to deciding law. Scalia, as is his wont, only cares about the original intent of the founders, regardless of the morality of the case. Dworkin would contest, convincingly so, that no clean divide between personal or communal morality can be separated from how we read the constitution or any case. Dworkin often pointed out the heavy ambivalence in the act of reading, an act that inherently brings to the table all the personality of a person. This doesn't do full justice to Dworkin's system of thought, but it highlights one of his greatest contributions to intellectual and cultural conversation - morality, and the nature thereof. As one of the cited, quoted, and prolific law theorists in our generation, Dworkin influenced countless next generation lawyers and law theorists, and also how we think about the nature of Law. Not a meager task for any thinker, but, and this speaks to Dworkin's ability, he appeared to never back down from any challenge. He took a theoretical world, one wholly disconnected from everyday normal life, into a system of law rooted and grounded in actual life, not in the semantic subtleties of the ivory tower.<br />
<br />
Regardless of the power of our Supreme Court Justices, Dworkin did not simply report on their decisions, he fought with their decisions. Even after Obamacare went through, Dworkin sticked to his guns in the sense that he found the arguments largely inane, even the arguments for Obamacare. He was also one of the most intelligent and outspoken against <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/25/the-devastating-decision/">Citizen's United</a>, the case which ridiculously gave a corporation the status of a human being in regards to free speech. While many saw this as a travesty of law, Dworkin attacked it as law and undermined the intelligence of that decision like no one else. He didn't care about controversy, just integrity, and no one felt outside the scope of his critical abilities. Outside the realm of his obvious expertise he tackled topics like morality and happiness, abortion, the rights of all people, evolution in schools, the rights of LGBT, and affirmative action. In fact, looking back, there appeared little he could not talk, persuasively, about. He largely stood outside of the system, unafraid to condemn anyone, whether president, or justice, or NSA, or pretty much anyone. It doesn't seem far fetched to say that as one of the last public American Intellectuals, he kept us in check, acting as the liberal check on an increasingly unregulated market policy, and the apparent dismantling of the constitution by the recent Republican court.<br />
<br />
On a more personal note, I looked forward to a new Dworkin article the same way some of us wait for that concert you are just dying to see. Regardless of the issue, reading Dworkin makes you feel smarter, challenged, and yes, even understood. The clarity with which he was able to see through the murkiness of politics was a rare trait in a world of academics that either wither in their corner of specialization or sell out to the more corporate society. Dworkin fought his beliefs, no matter the situation.<br />
<br />
He will be missed.<br />
<br />
You can read many of his <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/contributors/ronald-dworkin-2/">articles here.</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-56749846842649822162013-01-23T09:21:00.000-08:002013-01-23T09:21:34.701-08:00Obama's Inauguration Speech - A Close Read<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span id="internal-source-marker_0.1410422269254923" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.1410422269254923"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Inauguration speeches often amount to nothing more than overblown rhetoric and congratulatory statements. Yet, some, like both of Lincoln’s <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html">inaugural speeches</a>, signify a bold proclamation of intent, or an analysis of our founding document and principles, and an introspective investigation to the nature of American identity. President Obama’s recent inauguration speech, while filled with some congratulatory sentiment and puffed-up rhetoric represents a courageous and quietly brilliant affirmation, creation, and analysis of American vision and identity, or so I would like to contend. Given the luxury of a second term without the prospect of re-election, Obama unleashed in a subtle though clear manner an outlook for the future in rejecting the pettiness of much of the political world, specifically the Republican party. Obama achieves astounding success in this speech, one that preaches unity while implicitly calling out the Republicans, in providing not only a roadmap for the future, but also an American identity that warms our hearts. Obama's speech reminds us of the singularity of Americanism, with its attending responsibilities, rights, and obligations in a time when wearing the American tag feels inferior, when we see that our beloved country falls behind the world because of some obvious inadequacies. </span></span></div>
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.1410422269254923" style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In analyzing how he does this we will also come to a deeper understanding of what that vision entails. The first and most important rhetorical maneuver Obama uses is in expounding on the Constitution. Obama often uses bits and pieces of the constitution as the foundation of his phraseology, but here he does so not only to mine a common heritage, but for the purposes of a polemic. Obama begins in invoking what many see as the essential principle of Americanism: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then, in lines for the ages, he adds:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Obama posits that while self-evident, they always required more than their awareness</span></div>
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">to bring them to life, to action. He reminds us that this document we venerate made no claim of equality for women and endorsed the notion of slavery, or at least tolerated the institution. We did not stay hewn to the most literalist reading of the constitution, but sought fit to change and re-interpret as we grew moral consciences. Obama then goes to list how our historical experiences allowed us to grow with and past this initial vision. (This in of itself already signifies an attack on those Republicans or Tea party folk who claim to truly know the intent and purpose of the constitution.)</span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword</span><span style="text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed </span><span style="text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Step by step Obama dismantles any sort of fundamentalist argument about the constitution as perfect in of itself, or as obvious in of itself outside the context of history and interpretation. The constitution never demanded any freedom for slaves, no regulation of markets or the need to take care of our most vulnerable. In fact, each of these carefully worded and chosen instances directly attack what we now associate with republican claims. Gun nuts cite the 2nd amendment as a right to bear arms, despite the fact that no intellect with integrity could possibly espouse that the 2nd amendment not only allows, but sees it as an important right for any and every American to buy an automatic weapon. Republicans, famously, time and again see any sort of economic regulation as steps towards socialism, towards anti-Americanism, but experience has taught us that no matter the free market we need regulations. Obama then takes his next jab at the republicans who purport to speak from and for the constitution in positing that as Americans, we’ve learned and understand the importance of protecting our vulnerable, not the rich, not the comfortable, not the settled, but our most vulnerable. if you hear echoes here of the 99% they are purposeful, if you hear Obama decrying our political system’s obsession with wealth and power, again purposeful. Obama, it seems, has decided to take off his gloves and go bare knuckle with republicans who see Obama as destroying the fabric of our country. Obama offers a counter-narrative that shows the depth of the shallowness of much of the Republican rhetoric today, a rhetoric that fears immigration, vaunts militaristic pride, belittles minorities, and caters to the rich. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Further on Obama makes explicit what he hints at here. In other words, he goes for the jugular of the popular notion of republicans and what they stand for Obama insists:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it...We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Then, as we move forward, Obama amps up his explicitness and pushes forward perhaps one of the most liberal progressive visions for America in the past 40 years. He remarks on the insidious though quiet racism of our immigration policy, our abiding and prejudicial fear of homosexuality, our stubbornness to care only about ourselves, our distinctly American ability to quickly forget how we started, emerged, and thrived because of our commitment to immigration. More than most other countries we are a country of immigrants, built on the notion of creating a home for those yearning to be free. He comments on the absurdity of a nation with half as many guns owned as people in the USA, a place in which we cannot ensure safety to our most vulnerable, but can ensure easy access to killing machines. A country home to a party willing to stoop so low as to make voting hard for those who they know would vote against them. And perhaps the best just ass-whooping of Republicans today, Obama takes a clear and eloquent approach to global warming while insulting those who don’t believe in science:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We don’t need Obama to spell out who are those who don’t believe in the judgment of science for they are the same people he later refers to who, “mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.” What allows Obama to succeed so well in this speech is that he never actual names any names or any parties as guilty, or as wanting, but repeatedly calls for unity, for unified action against dogmatism. He posits a vision of the U.S. that leads, not follows, that learns from history, not simply from rigid ideology, and one that measures its success through its treatment of the most vulnerable, not the least. </span></div>
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>
<span style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
Of course, Obama excluded certain topics and a person can either feel slighted by their exclusion, or understanding towards the inability to include every ill of our society in this small speech. Obama, by now characteristically, though he spoke about slavery, though he invoked the memory and word of Dr. King, time and again refuses to address the real, tangible, and abiding racism inherent within much of our system. He spoke nothing about our woeful penal system, a system that brings shame upon America with each passing day, a system which jails more of its citizens than any other country in an unprecedented manner, a system still using the death penalty, a system skewed towards imprisoning minorities and the poor. He spoke nothing of women’s reproductive rights, or of the often shady politics of drones, of torture and issues of the same ilk. I do think these omissions matter, but I think the speech transcends the importance of the omissions. </span></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even if you found this speech as inspiring as I did, at this point, we know enough to not conflate the spoken word as real promises. All of us will wait and use this speech as a measuring stick with which to judge Obama's second term, but I think our cynicism glosses over the importance of a speech, a vision, and a president we can actually take pride in. Because, and let's be honest here, it's grown increasingly harder and harder to take pride in our country and our identity. We've gotten to the point that we often make ourselves feel better as Americans in pointing out the flaws of other countries, like children in fact.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The previous election signified an election of little substance, and most of us voted out of frustration more than anything else. It is hard to take pride in our economy or the ludicrousness of our fiscal cliff and debt ceiling "debates", or in our morally ambiguous foreign policies, and the countless domestic massacres only continues to besmirch our international reputation. We shouldn't quickly glance over the importance of a president who can tap into our sentiments and give them voice in elegant prose. Regardless of what you say about the days after the inauguration, the speech, the ceremony signified a rightful moment of pride and honor in a country often embarrassed of its own self. </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-40996679255932415272012-10-30T11:58:00.000-07:002012-10-30T11:58:55.411-07:00Rachel de Beer - A Folk Tale Written During Hurricane Sandy<br />
<div>
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.11547578778117895"><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Randomly stumbled upon this story on my Internet Sandy excursions. It’s a story that was initially passed down as a true story, but then came to be realized as a sort of folk tale. I have tried to retell it. I found it poignant regardless. Enjoy. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I gave up my life to find a lost calf. She was my calf, or my family's calf and I didn't feel any particular attachment to Frikkie, but I felt responsible as the eldest child to take care of everybody in our family, our dealings, our objects, our business. I did love Frikkie a little bit, but only because my little brother loved the cow even more. My little brother Joszef, about 6 year old at the time, I was 12, loved this cow. He loved most of the cows but he love this calf even more than the rest. I don't know, but Joszef always struck me as a bit odd in that way. He understood animals in an intuitive manner more than the rest of us. They listened to him, he calmed them down, even being only six years of age, he stilled calmed our animals down. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Joszef cried when Frikkie ran away. He cried a lot, this sensitive child. He felt so much pain for such a little kid. He scared us all in this way with the intensity of his pain, all his emotional suffering and wounds. But he calmed down and quieted the animals under all circumstances. Just his presence, but even more his touch and his voice. He sung them strange songs, foreigner songs he couldn't have learned from me, or Papa. He sung them to these cows, his friends, he would say, and they would calm down, as if drinking milk before going to bed. So we brought him along to maybe calm down old Frikkie in case we found her and she was scared in her cow body and hide. I didn't think he should go, but papa thought if I watched him, he could trust me, and Joszef would be alright, as long as I watch him, and how maybe he could help with the search party, seeing how good he is with Frikkie and all. I told Papa, I told him that Joszef is too young and something bad can happen to him.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Papa told me he loved me, but I worried too much like my Mama who died a few years ago. He told me he loved my Mama for her worry, for her care about other people, and that's why he loved me too, he told me. Like my Mama, I cared about those I love. I care more than other people, it's what makes special. I think Papa tells me this because he thinks I miss Mama. I do, but I don't think this helps. I don't think it does help me much, though I do miss Mama a bunch, but I don't think this helps because I know Mama cared much more than I do. People tell me I care, but I don't really care as much as they think. I mean, I love Joszef and my Papa, but not like my mother. She did everything for us. She always thought of us, always, like a good Mama, she helped us with our school work, and ran with us in the park, she tied our shoelaces even when we could, and she sang with us. She taught us to read. We loved her a lot, we all did. Joszef only knew her for four years and I knew her for ten. I told Joszef stories about our Mama. I finished all the stories I knew and he still asked for more. I started to make up stories that I thought would sound like Mama. I don't think Joszef noticed because he still asks me for stories. Sometimes, because I run out of ideas I take stories I know and make them about our family, and about Mama. Joszef might know. He is a very smart little brother. I think Papa is wrong. I think when he told me that I took after Mama, that I inherited her kindness I think he meant Joszef. Joszef followed in the steps of my Mama. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">He really cares, not just because he should care. I care for reasons. Joszef doesn't care. He loves people like mother used to - without reason, all people. I don't like all people. Some people make me feel sad, some make me scared, and others seem mean and selfish. I don't understand the selfish. Papa tells me I would understand the selfish in time, later in life, as if I missed some part or some experience to understand selfishness. Papa says he is often selfish, and sometimes its a good thing, and sometimes you do it because everyone makes mistake. But to me, I still don't know, selfishness never seems like a good choice to make. How could selfishness every help another person? Joszef was never selfish. He was just a little kid and I know that children can often be the most selfish, but we don't call it selfish when they are kids because children, my Mama told me, children don't understand anything besides what they need. They need to learn how to be selfless, how to be nice. But not Joszef. Joszef always cared too much. He was weaker because of that. He would never fight back or yell because he cared too much about the little child yelling at him. He wanted to make him feel better. I thought he was stupid because of that. I though all children should do the opposite of what he did. Papa told me that Joszef was special, different than the rest of the kids. That Joszef cared so much in a different way than anyone else we knew. I didn't believe Papa. I just thought Joszef was stupid because all my friends and people I knew where not like him at all. Sometimes I would treat him in a mean way just to see how he would react. He always reacted in a kind manner, maybe too kind. I tried to teach him differently. Mama and Papa both told me the same thing. We needed to treat Joszef differently. I didn't understand till recently. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Maybe since Mama died I understood more. Joszef, though just four, he cried a lot. More than me and Papa all together. He cried a lot, and all the time. He cried even when he didn't look like he was crying. Even when he walked with me to the store or something, he cried while doing everything, a quiet cry. Even a week ago, sometimes, I would find him crying and when I asked him why he was crying, he would say he didn't really know, or he just saw something pretty, but I knew he cried for Mama, still. I think he cries because he misses what Mama could have been. He imagines a lot, and he always asks for those stories and when he finds out how great Mama was, how much she loved us, he feels sad, very sad. I think that maybe sometimes I should tell him bad stories about Mama, like when she yelled at me or at Papa, or got angry and mean even for a minute. Maybe these stories would make him less sad, but I can't tell him these stories. He would feel too much pain to think of Mama like this. He loved to think of Mama as a sort of angel, someone who never made mistakes like me. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">I once believed that about Mama, and I still think she was more nice than mean, much more nice than mean, but she still said mean things, and hurt my feelings and Papa's feelings sometimes and I think that matters. After Mama died, Papa told me that now I needed to take care of Joszef more than before. He told me that I need to act like Mama to Joszef, if I could. That Joszef needs a woman to bring him up, and that now, at age ten, I needed to be a woman for Joszef. I needed to look out for him, protect him, because he said he was like glass, he told me he was this word fragile, could easily break, and that I needed to watch him, to stay close to him, to listen to him when he felt sad or wanted to cry. I did not want to take care of him like Mama did. I did not like him enough. He cried too much and never liked to run around. He liked to walk, or sit and try to read. Or just sit and stare and look at flies, or animals, or insects, or other people. He could sit and stare and just think and smile and laugh. We became friends in the past few weeks. I don't know about friends. But he liked me more, and I kind of liked him too, at least more than before. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">After Mama first died Joszef couldn't do anything besides cry. He just sat there or stood there and wouldn't play with the other children or do the small chores given to him. He couldn't do anything. He just cried like a doll who could only cry. He reminded me too much of the sadness and I thought that if he wanted to be sad fine, but why does he need to cry around us, why couldn't he just sit on his own in his room, why did he have to remind us all about the sadness? Papa said he understood my point, but despite the fact they he did understand my feelings, he thought that it would be better for us all to hear him crying. Both for Jozsef and for us, we can all stand to cry a bit more. I didn't like how he said that to me, as if I needed to cry more for Mama, as if Joszef was a better child because he cried more. He was a child, the baby of the family. Of course he cried more, I know, but I still thought he exaggerated, made stuff up because he wanted attention. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My Papa said to me that I was gonna to be in charge of Joszef. That I needed to take responsibility for him, and to watch him, and to make sure nothing happens to him, but most importantly to make sure he comes back, that he doesn't get lost, or doesn't get hurt. I told him that I could do it, of course, he didn't need to repeat it to me, but inside, I know that I felt scared and sick, and tingly. I felt like this was a bad idea. Not because I couldn't watch Joszef, because it felt like a bad idea, a bad night to go look for a calf in the dark. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Joszef held my hand as we walked into the forest but not because he was scared. I saw his face, I knew what his fear looked like, and this was a calm face. But he grabbed my hand and held on tightly just to hold on tightly. We walked together with two adults, two people who knew my parents but we didn't know them so well. A husband and a wife. They were nice to us, telling us to just stay close to them and not to worry, and calling out both of our names, "Rachel, Joszef" every couple of minutes to make sure they knew we were there. They called our names a lot and each time we both answered back loud and clear and strong in our name, as in some game. I yelled my name first and then Joszef called his name in a louder voice, he yelled louder than me. But we kept close to these friends because it was very dark and very cold. We walked in line to cover our section back and forth and then move over a little bit to the left and go up and down throughout the forest so that we could cover all the places Frikkie might have run off too. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We walked back and forth a lot Joszef holding on to my hand very tightly, his softer smaller hand fitting mine. He walked fast, without me telling him to walk faster just because he knew that we needed to walk faster, to keep up and to be safe. He just knew what to do. He walked fast with us and all of us called out Frikkie's name, we yelled her name but Joszef only said her name, softly, to himself and I could overhear him. He kept on saying her name as if speaking a secret language with the cow. He smiled a lot and held my hand and walked in my pace. I could see his smile because of his very white face. No one found Frikkie yet, and no one even found the smallest signal to where she could be. We walked for an hour just like this and made a circle, a big circle around the camp because we thought that she could only go so far. After an hour, for the first time, no one found anything. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We took a break for 30 minutes just to rest and to get more energy for the next round of searching. We all walked to the border of the previous search and then began and went further out in the same way that we did the first search, but now the second search took longer because we needed to cover more ground. Frikkie not only was loved by a lot of us, but she also cost a lot of money because she was supposed to give birth to many expensive and beautiful calves. She was important in these two different ways. So we looked for her in a very important way. Joszef didn't even want to rest, he kept asking why we all needed to rest if he wasn't tired? Rachel told him that some other people needed a break and that we all needed to walk together for safety. Joszef never calmed down, but didn't complain anymore as if he understood. It was already about 2 or 3 o'clock. We couldn't tell the exact time, but we knew somewhere between these times, or so people told us, but it felt right. So it was late. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Many people were tired and many people felt that if Frikkie was out for so long already, they assumed, that an animal, however sad it would be, an animal probably killed Frikkie and that we should not search anymore, because it was cold, and late, and so very cold that it would be better to wait till morning because, they told me, that we shouldn't put ourselves in danger to save an animal, that we should worry more about the human people than the animals, or any money. I agreed with them, but other people, the more powerful, or the people more people listened to, these people wanted to push on, they said that we need to take care of our property as if part of our family or we won't treat our property right in other future times something happens to our property. I didn't understand really what they might or why it made sense. I thought that it sounded strange, but I knew to respect these people and so did everyone else and so we continued to search. We searched in that same manner just moving further off, again until we found ourselves very far away from the camp from the other groups because we had to cover more ground. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We were still with our family friends and they still called our name, and we still answered. It was late, or early, at this point and we were all tired, even Joszef was tired, we wanted to rest, to save our energy. We stopped for a few minutes and Joszef fell asleep on my arm. He felt warm and held me like he trusted me more than anyone he knew in the world. He fell asleep after two minutes and I felt like I wanted to fall asleep, but I knew that I needed to stay up, that one of us needed to stay up to make sure we knew where we were and to see the adults, the older adults than me, to make sure we weren't lost. When he did fall asleep in my arms, like a little baby even though he was six years old, he did look a bit like a baby, and he did seem very safe and warm though I was cold and very mightily scared. I didn't let him now at all that I felt scared because I knew he would get scared because of my fear. And I knew he did not react well to fear, that sometimes he reacted worse than most other people, that he felt the fear more and I knew that if he felt all of this fear he would cry and he wouldn't be able to search anymore when he woke up from the nap. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I knew that he needed to stay safe and quiet and calm and not sad that he would be okay so I just made some noises to calm him to sleep then while he was sleeping made the same noises to keep him sleeping. I never did these voices before for Joszef and not really for anyone, I had no idea what to do so I just did what sounded and felt right. I don't know it could be that I remember something I never remembered before, maybe from what my Mama or Papa would do for me when I was younger, so I copied that idea or maybe memory and I just say shhhhhhhhh, but not as if to tell someone to shut up, but to calm them down, in a way that calmed the kid, so I did that. I held him as I sat down right against a tree and on the cold ground, and held him there like a baby, but a big baby, and rocked him back and forth and said softly to him this sound, longer than usual that I made, Shhhhhhhhh, shhhhhhhhh, over and over again until he fell asleep then stayed asleep. Even after he fell asleep I continued making this nice sound both for him but also for me because it made me calm because as much as I needed to remain calm for Joszef, now that he was asleep I found myself growing more scared and full of fear. I didn't know what to fear or why to fear at all, but I feared more for Joszef than for myself, or for anyone else really. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I really felt scared just for him, that something might happen to him, my younger brother, the only son of my father and my dead mother. Someone they loved very much, that I love very much, that I want to take care of because I am his older sister, and older sisters take care of their younger smaller and more sensitive younger brother who needs your help to do the important things in life and he really loves you because he knows that you take care of him, he loves you because he knows you would always protect him, and he loves you because you love him, and I do love him, I really do, even though sometimes he gets annoying and sometimes he can be mean to me on purpose, and sometimes I don't want him around because he is a burden to us all, with his crying and sadness and sensitivity, and how sometimes we say or I say that I would love for him to go live somewhere else I would never want anything bad to ever happen to him. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I realized in this weird moment that I would do anything to protect my little brother. I would hurt people, I would hurt a lot of people again and again even if it came to it, I realized, I would kill people. If I had to protect people, even though we all knew that killing was the worst sin you could do, I knew right then and right there that no matter what happened I would kill another person, even more than for myself, just to make sure that nothing bad would happen to my little brother Joszef with his little coat, and his little hat, and little gloves for his little hands. I realized that I would kill just to make sure he felt no real pain, I would kill even if the other person threatened just pain or just to make them feel uncomfortable. I would do everything in my power to destroy that other person, that the moment I thought about real pain to Joszef, to him even feeling like someone hurt his feelings made me want to kill that other person, and I would do it without even thinking about because something in me, when I think of Joszef feeling pain, something with in feels like an animal that wants to hurt another animal, I feel dangerous like an animal about to kill an animal for food. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I sshhhhhhh'ed so much that I began to feel sleepy and I thought to myself that I could fall asleep for a few minutes with Joszef in my arms feeling very warm and calm and breathing in his sleep so that I keep feel his life. We feel asleep holding on to each other, leaning on a tree sitting on the the cold floor, but we still fell asleep because we were both so tired and both now so calm because of the shhhhhhhhing. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mama and Papa used to talk us for walks in the woods. Papa not as much as Mama, but both would still walk us in the woods. Mama would always point out the different plants and animals in the woods, what we could or could not eat, what the animals ate, what the animals made. Mama loved the woods, she always told us that when she was a kid she also liked the forest and would spend hours in the forest sometimes alone, sometimes with friends, and how she liked to get to know the plants, how they looked and felt. She taught me how know which plants we could or could not touch, and which plants contained poison. She felt at home here, she would always say, but I never felt at home like she did. I liked when she would show us the different animals in the forest, nothing too big or too scary, but sometimes, not most of the time, but sometimes the animals would come next to us and say hi and smell us and walk away. I used to be scared of the animals, but Mama made me calm and taught me to be calm when an animal would come by to say hi. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I woke up with Joszef still cuddling next to me. The cold sun shone in on our faces and woke us both up. It wasnt so bright and it was foggy and very cold. I looked around and saw that I no one was around us. Not Papa, and not our family friends, and I couldn’t see anyone else searching for Frikkie. Maybe they found her, which would be good, but we were lost, and separated from our family and our friends, and I felt scared. Joszef looked scared, but he wouldn’t say anything about his fear and I felt thankful for that. I worried that if he worried I would worry even more, and I knew because Papa told me that when you are in trouble worrying never helps. We were in trouble. We were very cold and even though it was during the day there was a lot of fog and we couldn’t see anything or anyone. We held onto each others hand so as not lose the other person, and to stay warm. We were wearing very big coats, but it was still cold almost freezing and we hadn’t eaten anything in a while and we were both hungry. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I decided, because I was the adult and the older person, to search for the other people in the same way that we searched for Frikkie. We started by walking out past our tree, a tree that I ripped off some bark to remember which tree we slept next to, in case people came looking for us, then we walked out in a straight line then moved to the right and walked back that way. We came back to the tree then did all of that again to keep on going farther and farther away. We didn’t really know which way to go, but we needed to go one way. Joszef didn’t say much, but whenever I looked at him he smiled at me, a very nice and comforting smile that he smiled at me. He didn’t cry or ask me annoying questions. I think he understood our situation, and he understood that I didn’t know anything or know what to do but he smiled at me and told me he trusted me. I loved him for that. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mama once showed me an aardvark. She told me that aardvark was called that because those words mean a ground pig, because the aardvark always looks for food in the ground. I liked the aardvark because I thought it looked funny, with its big and weird nose. Mama used to tell me that sometimes aardvarks take out everything in an ant hill leaving them empty. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We searched a lot. We walked far then returned to our tree for a few minutes to rest. It started to now, a lot, and we got colder and colder and still didn’t have any food. Joszef was much smaller and skinnier than me, and therefore he shivered a lot from the cold, much more than me. We both were wearing a lot of clothing, but with the snow falling all over us, and the cold, Joszef shivered so much that I got more scared. We still held hands and I could feel his hand turning to ice and I got scared. He said we should walk more to find other people, but I wasn’t so sure. I was the adult here and I needed to make a decision. I needed to make a decision to either keep walking or to stay put and try to find some shelter or some food. I didn’t know what to do neither Papa or Mama ever told me or Joszef how to deal with something like this. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Joszef shivered more and more. He wouldn’t say anything bad about the situaiton, but I knew anyway it was bad. We were both very scared and didn’t know what to do and I worried that Joszef would get hurt, or worse die from being so cold and having no food to eat. Papa told me stories about people in our community who died from both of those and he told me that it was a painful death. I knew that I couldn’t tell Joszef about any of my worries, but I know that he worried about it too. He was a very smart little brother and he understood our situation. He told me that we should remember to walk around a little bit to not only look for food but to get our blood flowing. Papa used to say that all the time that we should move around to get our blood flowing and that it’s good to fight cold to keep moving. After some time though, we couldn’t move much we were so cold. We walked around some more and I noticed that Joszef started to look different. His skin looked like a sick persons, and he looked more cold than me. His skin was blue and a bit read, he looked beaten up but very white. I touched his skin with my fingers and his skin felt colder than my fingers. He still smiled but I could tell he was in a lot of pain. We couldn’t find any food, especially with all the snow coming down making everything look white with powder. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">At first, Joszef wouldn’t take my coat from me. He told me I was crazy, and that I must be cold too. I told him I am the older sister and that he has to listen to what I say and that he was colder than me and that he needed this jacket more than me and that if he didn’t take the jacket he would get in trouble with Papa when Papa found us. Joszef knew that my threat wasn’t such a real threat, but I think he understood how serious I was so he took my coat. The coat was too big for him and he tried to put it on his shoulders but I made him put it over his head because I remember that Papa told me that when you are cold it’s most important to cover your head. Joszef looked funny with my coat over his head and we both laughed for a second. I got colder when I took my jacket off, much colder, but I could tell that Joszef was warmer and this made me proud of myself and happy. I realized that if I didnt find Joszef a place to hide while it snowed that giving him my coat, or anything else wouldn’t help in the long run and that he would get hurt from the cold and snow if I couldnt find some way to protect him better than this. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We walked around a little bit to get our blood flowing and to try to find some food because the snow stopped snowing so hard and because we could walk a little better. Joszef saw how cold I was but also saw that I wouldn’t take the coat back. We walked around and still found nothing but I saw an ant hill, a very big ant hill covered mostly by snow but I could still tell it was an anthill. I walked over to it and with my sweater over my hand I brushed aside some of the snow. The ant hill looked strong and intact. My mother once told that sometimes, aardvarks as they looked for food would look for their food in an anthill. Sometimes, I remember her telling me with her soft kind voice, aardvarks will empty out the whole anthill making it look like an anthill from the outside but inside there will be nothing, just space. I remembered all this when I saw this anthill. I thought, maybe, Joszef and I could both hide in the anthill. We would need to make a small hole so we could get in and then maybe we could cover it up and it would provide us a place to rest and be out of the cold. Joszef thought it was a good idea so we first brushed off some of the snow from the anthill. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We kicked in a small hole, and Joszef crawled in and said that he felt much warmer in here, but he told me that he didn’t think we could both fit in there and maybe we should take turns. He got out and I tried to get in but I didn’t fit. Joszef wanted to make the hole bigger so I could get in but I had to explain to him that if we made the hole too big it might not work for either of us, and it might break. He didn’t really understand but I told him that for now, if it only worked for one person we needed to use it. I told him to go first, and that he should rest up and then after he rested up and got warm maybe we could switch spots. I lied to him, but I think both Mama and Papa would be proud of the lie I told him. In fact, I knew both Mama and Papa would be proud of everything that I was doing for Joszef. I was the adult and I was taking care of my younger brother because he couldn’t take care of himself. I was being a good older sister, and I knew it and this made me feel good. I was very cold on the outside but inside I felt very warm, like I used to feel when my mother would hug us after we came inside from the cold outside. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Joszef sat inside the anthill, and I told him I sat watch on the outside, but I really just wanted to cover the hole against the wind for him. I worried that even inside he would be too cold so I sat on the hole but made a little space so he could breathe, because I wanted him to be warm but also to have air. Joszef, I called from time to time, and he told me that he did feel more warm, and he felt tired and warm and comfortable and that he loved me and always loved me even though sometimes I didn’t seem to love him as much. I told him that even when I seemed angry I always loved him that you can be angry or annoyed with someone you loved and still love them more than anything in life as I loved Joszef. Joszef said he didn’t really understand but he knew how much I loved him and he loved me even more than that. I said I really felt the love and that his love was keeping me warm outside in the cold while the anthill kept him warm. He asked me every couple of minutes or so if it was time to switch. I told him not yet, not yet, and then he understand he didn’t need to ask so much. I told him that he was my favorite person in the world since Mama died and he said the same to me. He told me he missed Mama still, all the time, and I told him I knew that because he cried so much. He apologized for crying so much and I told him it was good that he cried so much because it reminded us how much we all loved Mama and how much we all still cared and remembered Mama. He said sometimes he cried because he felt like he couldn’t remember Mama besides for what I told him. I said not to worry because as he grows up more and more people will talk about Mama, about all the things she did for us and how much she loved us and that he will always remember Mama. He said that I reminded him of Mama. I really liked that he said that because I did think that if Mama was in this situation she would do like I did to protect Joszef, and I also knew that if she could see us now she would be both sad but very proud of how we treated each other. Mama always liked when we were nice to each other. I told Joszef that this was a very nice thing to say because I loved Mama and I always tried to act like her, and he said that I was the kindest person he ever met. I knew that this was a lie because Mama was nicer than me and didn’t say or think mean things about the people in her family, but right now I felt like Mama a lot and it made me feel very warm inside and tired. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Eventually, after about 20 minutes like this Joszef told me that being in the hole was making him sleepy and I told him he needed a nap to save his energy because we would need our energy to wait for all the people and family who would come to rescue us. Joszef said that he was scared and I said I was a bit scared too, but that we shouldn’t be because sooner or later someone, probably Papa or one of his friends would find us and we would go back home and take a very hot bath. Joszef felt good about that but told me that he couldn’t fall asleep right now because he felt too afraid and that he didn’t think he could fall asleep without a story. I asked him what kind of story he would want, my lips shaking at this point, making all sorts of noises, and he told me that if I could, please tell me another story about Mama because he loved when I told him all these stories about Mama. I told him I told him all of my stories about Mama. That I had no stories left. He said that couldn’t be and that anything can be a story, maybe one time Mama walked funny, or took me to a park, anything, even something stupid or not fun or funny.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I tried to think through my cold and teeth making noises but I couldn’t come up with anything. I really wanted to come up with something about Mama, a new story that I could tell Joszef so that he could fall asleep while warm, but I couldn’t remember anything at that point. I needed to tell Joszef a story because I really wanted him to fall asleep so that I could fall asleep and not feel so cold anymore. I asked Joszef if I told him about how pretty our Mama looked. He said that I told him all the time, but that he loved when I talked about how Mama’s prettiness. I talked about how her skin was softer than a babies and how I loved to just hold her hand or to brush her hair with my fingers, and how Mama always let me do that. Sometimes I would just rub my fingers over her hands and fingers to feel how soft her skin was. Her skin was softer than mine because I got my skin from Papa. I could hear Joszef short and loud breathes he would make when asleep and I felt good that he was asleep in a warm and somewhat comfortable place. I stopped telling my Mama story, but I kept on reminding myself in my mind all about Mama because it made me feel warmer. I remember that Mama had very pretty eyes that sometimes looked very blue and sometimes looked green. They always looked pretty and big and like they contained other worlds in her eyes, like she could see more than anyone else. I used to sit and ask Mama if I could just stare at her eyes and most of the time she said yes, but only for a minute because she was busy. Sometimes though, she would let me sit and stare into her eyes because she would say that when I stared into her eyes she never felt more loved than she did right at this moment. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
I could see her eyes looking at me as I got more cold and more tired. I felt really tired and all I wanted to do was to go to sleep just so I wouldn’t feel this cold. I realized that Joszef, however warm he said he was, couldn’t be that warm because my body couldn’t cover the whole hole. I took off my sweater, the purple one I was wearing, a heavy sweater, and used it to cover up the hole before I fall asleep just to make sure that Joszef would be actually warm for however long he could fall asleep. I saw my Mama’s eyes all blue and green, all warm just smiling at me as I fell asleep. I knew that if she could talk to me she would tell me how much she loved me at this moment and how proud she was of how I took care of my little brother. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_de_beer</span></span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-34145247700112445172012-09-28T09:13:00.001-07:002012-09-28T09:13:43.210-07:00The Maturation of Paul Thomas Anderson: A Review of the Master<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4vRXIrhyphenhyphenPhLzKs2DlpPNi5iooPZeQK1Sb3oeGQ9l1rX6dxclOWcpGplrYi59F6BO9NETv5UIDFtq-8QMkUPyeNk9_x0zs1-ZvtXkGPEejPJKjMXuugkTsdxj4VOkq1gU2SGdY5Da4GBQ/s1600/themaster1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4vRXIrhyphenhyphenPhLzKs2DlpPNi5iooPZeQK1Sb3oeGQ9l1rX6dxclOWcpGplrYi59F6BO9NETv5UIDFtq-8QMkUPyeNk9_x0zs1-ZvtXkGPEejPJKjMXuugkTsdxj4VOkq1gU2SGdY5Da4GBQ/s400/themaster1.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.8551207354757935"><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Generally, we try to speak and analyze art in a holistic manner. In fact, as many claim, we look to art to provide a sense of completeness and connectivity we find lacking in our experienced lives. For example, take </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Dark Knight Rises</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. We know what it is about i.e. both the end of a trilogy, a sense of completion to one of the defining myths of this decade, and a poor attempt at dealing with contemporary issues. The only question that stays with the viewer are questions of plot holes, a sort of geeky nerdiness that seeks to finds gaps in the story. Even something a little more highbrow like </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Drive,</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> or pretty much any movie we attempt to comprehend we discuss in normal categories of beginning middles and ends, and bring to bear upon it our standard tools of analysis. However, for the most part, in the better Paul Thomas Anderson movies, I cannot get a handle on the movies as a whole. They provide their pleasure in resisting a classic sense of interpretation, in confounding our sense of completion. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Maybe this explains the uncertainty many feel when we leave his movies. I always walk out feeling unsure, of what, I am even uncertain as to that as well, but I know I feel confused in some manner. Not that I didn’t understand what happened. No scene befuddled me, but I tend to miss how all the disparate parts of the film fit together. How the auteur level talent of Anderson’s cinematography fit with his writing chops, a writing both mundane and yet mysterious. In a sense, though used in a liberal manner, this partakes of a Kafkaesque style. As all critic’s note, Kafka’s stories beg for endless interpretation, but any systematic interpretation we try to apply to his work, or even one specific work falls of the pages like water off a duck. This holds true of Anderson’s most recent effort, the highly anticipated movie, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Master</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, a movie only superficially about a cult and more importantly about a relationship. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even if we cannot provide a cohesive and complete analysis of the movie, we can notice the levels of maturation this film signifies for the often avant-garde Anderson. The most striking aspect of </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Master</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, in light of Anderson’s previous films, lies in the lack of intrusiveness from Anderson himself. Importantly for his development as a director, I think we see the least of Anderson’s often purposefully heavy hand. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To appreciate this we need to take a short detour through his repertoire. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hard Eight</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, a movie all Anderson fans should revisit, indeed feels like a workshop effort of a young ingenue crafting beauty from nothing but the barest bones of a plot. You see Anderson’s decisions and talents all throughout the film, written with crayon. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Boogie Nights</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, in this analytic narrative, signifies a genius running wild: head down, not looking at the larger picture as he adds character upon character, shot upon shot to show what he can do with something this large. And yet, I can’t help feeling that in his ambitiousness he creates a largely untethered film, almost easily forgettable. Then in apotheosis of his highly idiosyncratic vision, one that seeks to recreate a place and era through separate short stories, in the most Andersonian of his films, we visit </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Magnolia</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Magnolia</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is a movie at once so jarring and moving as to compel the director to remind the audience of the artificial nature of the endeavor both in a highly crafted though enigmatic opening and peppered throughout, almost as if in code, until that divisive ending. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We do well to reacquaint ourselves with Magnolia’s ending. Famously, Magnolia ends in both a deux ex machina and a breaking of the fourth wall. All of the actors at the same moment sing a song together, and then, Anderson, channelling the God of the Old Testament rains down a biblical plague of frogs on the unsuspecting characters. Many found this cheeky, or infantilizing, or plain immature. Though late to the game, I found the ending of Magnolia delightful though perhaps misguided. To me, with all the necessary qualifications, I see these narrative intrusions as funny, jarring, but most importantly, reminiscent of the method playwright Bertolt Brecht coined and popularized known in German as </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Verfremdungseffekt, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">or more simply, the distancing effect. Brecht purported to use this method, which essentially breaks the continuity and the illusion of the narrative, to foster a more critical stance towards his work. His actors would address the audience so viewers would not get lost in the evocative and lulling emotional experience that precludes thought. Post-Modernists, we can realize, used this tool but for a different purpose. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For Brecht, this instruction allows the audience to critically question both the actions and idea represented in the play. For Post-Modern writers these methods allowed the reader to explore the nature of the medium itself. For Brecht these intrusions largely pointed to questions of judgment, value, and politics, for Post-Modern writers this distancing effect focuses the viewers on the act of entertainment itself, a somewhat tenuous difference, though an important one. This Brechtian comparison, though it sounds highfalutin actually proves valuable to understand the importance of music in the movies of Anderson. Brecht himself, in his plays used loud and jarring music to interrupt or to play over the action. With Anderson’s movies, I first thought that I need to adjust the volume settings on my TV or my Netflix, but then as I watched the movie one after the other in order of their filming, I saw this as a characteristic trait of Anderson’s films. The music, loud, tense, often in a manner incommensurate to the plot, lives in its own world and takes on independent importance. For Anderson, the music often takes the place of the dialogue and allows us to realize that we are watching something crafted, something artistic, something that deserves further thought. In both of these tools we can understand much of the singularities of Anderson as Brechtian, which brings us though to some of the indulgences of Anderson that often misfired in his earlier films. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">While all of Anderson’s films provide platforms for stellar performances, he often failed to match the acting, the setting, the cinematography and tone with equally compelling content. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hard Eight,</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> with its tenuous characterization and murky plot felt slight, forgettable, but you could see the beginnings of brilliance. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Boogie Nights</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, with its onslaught of people, sensory data and scenes failed to allow breathing room for any sort of attachment between characters in the movie and between the audience and these characters. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Magnolia,</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> while still somewhat sloppy, leaking at the edges, largely corrected many of these understandable excesses. Yet, the movie still feels like it lacks enough of a focus, an obfuscation engendered by Anderson’s enduring need to say something larger, to show something with such force as to undercut much of the potential power of the film. (Wait, did I tell you that this movie seeks to explore the nature of coincidence? Wait, I haven’t hinted at in since ten minutes ago...) Not that I didn’t love the film, but as many would agree with, it takes a lot to want to sit down and even watch two hours of that movie. Not because it takes something out of you, it does, but because certain parts of the movie grate on you with repeated exposure. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I tend to see these next slate of movies as the second stage of Anderson’s career. From </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Punch Drunk Love</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> on Anderson shifted from a panoramic view to a more intimate lens, focusing in each subsequent film on one male character </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">in extremis</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Punch Drunk Love</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> zooms in on an emotionally disturbed Sandler contending with his sisters and the maelstrom of love. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There Will Be Blood</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> focuses on an equally emotionally disturbed Lewis, though in an opposite manner. In </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Punch Drunk Love</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Sandler seethes beneath his anxiety, while Lewis signifies that same anger unleashed, a pure id, in love with nothing but his own abilities. Both of these are portrayals of man alone, rooted in a visceral terrifying anger that knows no bounds. Though some will surely note that </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Punch Drunk Love</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is a love story, albeit one tinged by emotional disturbance, it is truly much more of a study of one person. As enchanting as Emily Watson delivers her character, she is as much as an object of obsession as is Sandler’s pudding. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And yet, despite this shift to a smaller scope, you can still feel the at time both deft but leaden hand of Anderson in these movies. In </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Punch Drunk Love </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Anderson not only creates a sort of trippy recurring imagery that looks like what making a phone call sounds like, or what internal bubbling rage might look like, but the movie uses non-stop invasive music. The music, not only loud, but also tense creates fear and suspense where none exists even if you assume it mimics Sandler’s internal storm. Similarly, in </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There Will Be Blood</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead fame creates one of the most haunting soundtracks that transcends even the terrifying nature of Lewis’ character. I found the score not only distracting but manipulative. Greenwood’s brilliant soundtrack comes at you with a force of a battalion but often corresponds to nothing of the sort in the movie. It creates a ceaseless tension for its own sake, a tool used by Anderson since his first film. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Master</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, with these considerations in mind, does indeed feel more mature, more calm. We rarely see any sort of intrusion, any sort of Andersonian tic we would come to expect. Many scenes lack music, and even the Greenwood music this time around feels more subdued, more purposeful instead of scattered as if fired from a shotgun, it feels almost meditative more than fear-inducing. Moreover, for such a talented and nuanced writer, Anderson often shies away from ambiguity. While we might not understand all the individual pieces of the movies, we tend to understand the emotional struggles of the characters. In that vein, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Master</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> mines new territory for Anderson. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In contrast to what comes before, then, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Master</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> finds a stable center from which to branch out. Despite all the larger themes of the movie, the cults, the manipulation of a charismatic leader, the frightening will of a powerful women, our desire to lose ourselves in obvious idiocy, the trauma of war, ultimately what makes </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the Master </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">different, mature, nuanced is not this delightful background noise, but the almost unprecedented, complex, ambiguous, ambivalent and downright beautiful love relationship between Hoffman and Phoenix. Whereas </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Punch Drunk Love</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There Will Be Blood </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">focused on man alone, here we see men together, with the intimacy of soulmates. In this sense, Anderson appears to have achieved something he’s been attempting since his first movie. If Anderson picks up a theme he will not let it go until he feels finished with it. The ultimate Anderson obsession rests in the relationship between one generation and the next, and specifically between a parent and child. Anderson’s first stage repeated this trope in variable forms over and over again. In the second stage, he mostly gave up that theme for </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Punch Drunk Love</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, but revisited it in </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There Will Be Blood</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and made it the glorious center of </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Master</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. In a sense, much of the story, its vigorous Americana, and its glossy, often blurry cinematography creates a proper setting for one of the greatest, truest, and most compelling love stories I’ve seen on film in a while. While purely non-sexual, these characters feel drawn together, by what Lancaster Dodd would refer to as, “A process that began trillions of years ago.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddy Quell a volatile army veteran with clear emotional issues and a penchant for making makeshift alcohol that if consumed in the wrong manner could kill. Phoenix, with the help of makeup artists, transforms his body into a scarred, almost humpback wiry person who makes up for his physical deficiencies with an indomitable will to fight. His eyes burn whatever he stares at, and though he wears his pants a good couple of inches above his belly button he oozes an insouciant sexuality and animality. Hoffman plays an attempt at the opposite. In Lancaster Dodd, or Master, as his acolytes refer him, Hoffman serves up the model of refinement. Well kempt, hair always trimmed, clothes always matching and fitting, Hoffman plays it calm, cool, charismatic, compelling, and pompous though with enough world-weariness as to invite you in. Of course, this veneer of control only makes his inevitable outbursts all the more dangerous and exciting. Essentially, in a dynamic that engenders a complex kind of love, each of these characters have what the other wants.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For Dodd, surrounded by yes men and those with their own agendas, in Quell he sees someone differently but equally unbound and unhinged. Quell, while willing to follow Dodd, will not follow blindly, and this combination allows Dodd to explore the boundaries of abnormal behavior. Dodd sees Quell both as a truly kindred spirit, and as a challenge, as the ultimate test of Dodd’s genius. But past this, he sees something he cannot tame, representative of the more animalistic side of life he preaches against and he falls in love, immediately. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For Quell, as Dodd astutely points out in their short jail scene, Dodd signifies the only person left in the world who truly and actually loves Freddie. He might love him for a host of strange reasons, but he loves him nonetheless. In their first true scene together, when Quell brings Dodd a potent batch of his concoction, Dodd sits Quell down for “processing,” a mix of investigative psychology and pseudo-spirituality. This interview turned dialogue is one of the most riveting, interesting and just evocative scenes to grace the screen in years. When Hoffman repeatedly asks Phoenix if he often thinks about his inconsequentiality, you can sense the creation of an unbreakable bond. Hoffman and Phoenix create a sort of magical interpersonal connection, one which you can attempt to understand, but you do better to just enjoy. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In this manner, through this relationship, Anderson takes the craft of </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Boogie Nights</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Magnolia</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, the sort of disparate scenes thrust together and uses it for a more attainable goal. Whereas in these two previous movies he attempted to create a sort of transcendent whole, he harbors no such pretenses in the Master. Certain scenes could easily belong in pretty much any movie about anything. Specifically, Master Dodd takes Quell, and his daughter and son-in-law into the desert to choose a point on the horizon and to ride a motorcycle, as fast you can, until that point. Supposedly, in the narrative of the film, and in Dodd’s altered mind this exercise will affect some internal change, but it amounts to beautiful joyriding, to a life that Quell lives that Dodd know’s he cannot. The scenes pushed together provide odd portraits of this relationship unfolding, nothing less and nothing more. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The best relationships, we tell ourselves, are ones that contain unpredictability even after considerable time. In the end of the movie, a purposeful whimper of an end, Dodd and Quell break up on ambiguous terms. Quell, in line with the teachings of the Cause, Dodd’s movement, surmises before they say goodbye to each other that perhaps they will meet in another lifetime in different forms. In the greatest manifestation of love to grace the screen in some time, Dodd, looking wistfully at his now son Quell says, “If we meet again in another lifetime I know we will be the fiercest of enemies.” With that, Quell leaves to lead his own untethered life, and Dodd realizes his possessiveness of this unique persona can only result in heightened obsession, therefore, he must let him leave. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On a more meta level, when you title your film </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Master</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> you invite questions of self reference, regardless of your intention. When Paul Thomas Anderson titles his film the Master, a director and writer well known for his auteur often self-referential style, a director who despite the content of the film loves to focus on similar themes, tensions, and relationships, he begs the question if film represents a mastery of his craft. Or better yet, does this film signify Anderson finally honing all the disparate components of his talent? I cannot give an easy answer, and that might be the point. Art works as well, Anderson claims, when it only offers pieces, not a montage or a pastiche, but tenuous pieces that mimic the more random aspects of life. We do look for a holistic way to understand a piece of art we see, but Anderson, in his maturity, in his ability to accept a less is more policy might not have mastered the craft of film today, but certainly he mastered the art of artistic self-control. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
</b></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-63746127625906955932012-09-07T09:26:00.001-07:002012-09-07T09:26:27.355-07:00A Tribute to Rabbi David Eliach<span style="background-color: white;"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">When we think of the word daunting, we carry along with it unnecessary negative baggage. It calls to mind domineering authority, fear instead of love, and a sense of undue distance. Despite these extraneous layers, I think of the venerable, talented, kind, visionary, generous and brilliant </span></span><span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">Rabbi</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Dr. David </span></span><span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">Eliach</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> as nothing but daunting in all the right ways. As a child I knew him in two ways. First, as a role model for my mother, a person she feared, respected and love. The fact that </span></span><span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">Rabbi</span> <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">Eliach</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> could scare my mother, someone who scared all of girls campus in Camp Morasha, alerted me to </span></span><span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">Rabbi</span> <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">Eliach</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">’s stature. She recalled with trepidation the chance of seeing a letter from him in her mailbox in regards to speaking English in her hebrew class, an </span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">unforgivable</span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> sin at that time. When my mother would yell at me, I used to think, “If </span></span><span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">Rabbi</span> <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">Eliach</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> were present maybe he can make this fight a little more balanced.” I knew she chose the right person to look to as a role model. </span></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> also served as the chazzan for the high holiday services my family attended in the Yeshiva of Flatbush Elementary School. For those who have heard his voice, my meager description could only poorly approximate the range of emotions his voice captures and engenders in the congregants. My body still quivers when I hear his tunes or recall his voice as it sang the haunting dirge “U’Netaneh Tokef”, and my heart explodes with joy as I remember the triumphant tune to closing prayer, “HaYom.” Seeing Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span>, draped in his tallit, his sonorous voice completely at odds with his more frail body elicited dreams of angels, of the righteous of old pleading and even arguing with the Almighty. These indelible memories stay close to me; they nourish my soul in times of darkness and delight. The <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Rabbis</span> inform us that for the High Holidays we cannot choose our cantor, our representative before God, lightly. If you were going before the Supreme Court, would you not want the greatest lawyer in the universe representing you? Who else but Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> could possibly represent the congregation he helped build? </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Yet, this subjective account of this daunting intellect and religious leader, does little to capture the true power of Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span>. My generation lives in a post-historical world. Despite all the conflicts and war that disease our world, we know them only through TV if we know them at all. Our world cries out in pain under the weight of poverty, sickness, and death, but most people my age simply struggle to get through their own lives: to find jobs, to marry, to afford Jewish schools. We watch movies of heroism, of true love, but overall our lives retain none of the drama of the previous generation. Of course, the previous generation fought in wars and against anti-semitism to provide the comfort we now live in. But we all can see how this comfort can breed a comfortable apathy towards the issues that demand our attention. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Then I think of Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span>’s life and I marvel at his heroism, at his courage. In a barren Jewish world Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> resuscitated the modern Jewish community. As the dean of Yeshivah of Flatbush High School, with his visionary Ivrit b’ivrit curriculum, he redefined and set the standard for an academic yet religiously guided high school experience. As a student of that illustrious high school, I still benefit from the discipline of its rigorous studies, the memories of religious inspiration, and of course, through my passable hebrew (though I imagine Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> would find it lacking.) Even today, long retired from his mantle in Yeshivah of Flatbush, Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> still works with teachers to guide them in his accumulated educational brilliance. Amongst the myriad of accomplishments, we can easily forget that he helped begin the program of the post-high school year in Israel, a program that clearly changed the nature of development for Jewish teenagers the world over. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The love for his wife Yaffa, an infinite love, is the stuff of legends, the muse of Romantic poetry. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Speaking of love, if you have ever had the distinct privilege of either learning with, learning from, or even seeing Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> learn then you can begin to understand what we say when we speak of a love of learning. Recently, I found my grandfather, <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Rabbi</span> Meir Moskowitz, learning with his best friends Rav Bakst and Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span>. I saw these three giants sitting around a text, and I felt thrown back into the world of Ponovezh or the Chevron Yeshiva. Here, in this room, the Jewish chain of tradition felt intact, strong, unbroken. I felt overwhelmed by the beauty of history in the room, of accomplishment. My grandfather quickly got rid of me so as to return to his beloved studies, but just a glimpse was enough to elicit a few tears in my eyes. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To put this into perspective, as a teenager I mostly worried about girls, tests, and TV shows. Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span>, if he worried at all, thought of the Haganah, of how he could both help holocaust survivors and save the Jewish Nation’s soul and culture. The Talmud speaks of </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Talmidei Chachamim</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, our scholars, as walking Torah scrolls given their encyclopedic knowledge and brilliant intuition into the </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">halachic</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">hashkafic</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> framework. In the same manner, we can speak of people as the embodiment of a nation’s history. Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> given his storied life both encapsulates but embodies, with utter modesty, the scope of modern Jewish history. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Recently, after admiring mostly from afar for all of my life, I received the privilege of learning and talking to Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> in his apartment in New York City. I walked in shaking, not by choice, but shaking nonetheless. His apartment, elegant and spacious, impressed me by the scope of books aligned throughout his living room and dining room. He saw me admiring his collection and in a charismatic manner commented, “Yosef, these are only half of my </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">sefarim, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">at most.” As a bibliophile, I tend to judge people by their collections, but Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> put me to shame. I came in expecting to just let him talk for as long he would, but given his nature he inquired into my life. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">He cut right to the bone.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> What am I doing to forward the goals of the Jewish Nation, how is my hebrew, do I still learn, what is my vision for the future, what problems do I feel are most exigent? Though we come from disparate generations, Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> evinced a preternatural ability to empathize and understand my concerns and my thoughts of the current challenges we face as a generation, even if he disagreed. I came into our meeting with a sense of awe, and I left not only feeling justified, but with the awe magnified. We live in a time of cynicism especially in regards to our leaders. Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span>, despite the cultural jadedness, still commands our deserving respect. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some people live lives of poetry, others write poetry, while the rest of us enjoy the fruits of these labors. Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span> does all three. His love of Jewish ideas is only paralleled by his devotion to the Jewish people. His life, a historical one in the truest sense of the word provides a daunting inspiration to the generations that he taught, both directly and indirectly. I cower when I attempt to compare my life to his. Knowing his kindness, he would tell me not to engage in this irrelevant activity. I know he would tell me to stop thinking so much and to get up, and just do something, anything, but give, constantly to the world that needs you. Thank you Rav <span class="il" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">Eliach</span>. I cannot convey the extent to which you’ve affected mine and countless other lives. </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-35886957127025509622012-08-02T12:06:00.000-07:002012-08-02T12:06:02.353-07:00Some Quick Thoughts on the Siyum HaShas<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://assets2.static.vosizneias.com/uploads/news_photos/thumbnails/700_wrwidqxv23vc6nmycgbgesizuelavl6x.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://assets2.static.vosizneias.com/uploads/news_photos/thumbnails/700_wrwidqxv23vc6nmycgbgesizuelavl6x.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.4544018479064107"><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When I tell many people I went to the Siyum Hashas they first ask me, “Why?” which makes sense. I mean, look at this hilarious picture that now, numerous people have sent to me. (I was not profiled we all got a nice pat down,) I look completely out of place. Though it would require another longer piece, I didn’t feel out of place at all, which felt like a religious victory for numerous reasons. Regardless, I enjoyed myself and found it to be an illuminating night on many fronts. I didn’t stay for the whole event so I can’t give a rundown on what happened though I did live tweet it so you can find that under my twitter name @josephwinkler. So here are some thoughts from the night. Please keep in mind that if you do want a more positive glowing review that praises what a glorious and unified night it was you won’t find it here, not because I disagree, necessarily, but because so many other people covered that part of the event I would have little to add. So here are five points I don’t think would receive much notice. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1. The pervasiveness of technology </span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now, depending on your standpoint and values you might think of this as a bad turn of events, but everyone there from yeshivish to hasidic sported a smartphone. I even saw numerous people charging their smartphones at the station. During prayers many people took out their phones and everyone used their phone to take pictures and videos. Consequently, I find the whole conversation of whether or not to embrace technology as obsolete. Even in the ultra-religious world it is there and has entrenched itself into the deepest strata. It is no longer a question of using it or not, but how to use it. To that extent, I felt impressed by the Agudah extensive use of important technology without any polemic against technology. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2. The relative impressiveness of the Agudah </span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Though the event is an inherently political event, the Agudah divested many of the explicit comments of any political tinge. For the most part they really worked hard to create one coherent message of unification in an attempt at all-inclusiveness. Now, a cynic might say that their inclusiveness only went so far as their comfort boundaries, and when you hope to sell 90,000 tickets you literally can’t afford to exclude people, but given that the Agudah made a real attempt to depoliticize the event, to make everyone feel comfortable there, again to the extent that they could. I think they deserve some applause regardless of your religious stance. (In that vein, I didn’t expect any mention or display of recognition of the Israeli state, but they had Rav Lau there, and they even showed a picture of a daf yomi shiur in an Israeli air force base. Progress? Maybe. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3. Some of the demerits of the Event </span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Of course, even given number 2, some of the aspects of the event felt embarrassing to downright shocking. I can’t argue much with the, again, relative mistreatment of women because by now that cannot be shocking, but other parts were just beneath this type of event. Despite thanking all of the non-Jewish (even the phrase non-Jewish makes me feel uncomfortable as it places Jews at the center of the human universe) staff for their help, many of the rabbis then went on to disparage the non-Jewish world as striving for the wrong goals, as having the wrong values. Not only is this a sort of elitism bordering on racism, but to do so when hundreds of non-Jewish people can hear is downright thick. Do we really need to emphasize how they run to empty pursuits while we run to the transcendent pursuit of torah learning? Have we not grown past that? </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4. The Haredi obsession with the Holocaust </span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In a similar vein, I find the yeshivish/chareidi obsession with the Holocaust painful, outdated, and inappropriate. To state it bluntly, as many academics have noted, the Haredi world creates a narrative in which they serve as the saviors the lost world of the Holocaust. Hitler attempted to destroy our beautiful world of thriving Yeshivot and now we have wrought revenge on that monster by creating more and more yeshivot and bringing back to life the shtetls we lost in our Haredi enclaves. The fact that every speaker felt the need to make this point time and time again either goes to show how far reaching this narrative goes or the extent to which these speeches were calculated and thematic on purpose. I don’t think that I need to completely delineate the both the danger and falsity of this narrative, but simply, it simplifies the holocaust and creates a fake straight line between then and now that gives the Haredim a justification and a hero complex that allows them, without any critical thought to perpetuate their lifestyle and this myth of the Haredi life as the purest form of Judaism. (In that sense, it is also a false note for a celebration. We need to outgrow the shadow of the holocaust as well as suffering. Even those who live a more haredi life than me noted that the song they choice struck a plangent note in an otherwise celebratory event. The song beseeches god to look how much the Jewish Nation suffers but still learns torah.) </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">5. An onslaught of awesome people. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>This being a night of endless Jews, some stereotypes were fulfilled and some were broken. I found it kind of hilarious to see Jewish people filling Metlife stadium only to see a throng standing in front of a Cheesesteak sign trying to buy brownie bars and rugelach, or someone asking where this gate was and the person responding, well that is the budlite gate, just find the big picture of BudLite... In that manner, seeing people smoking cigarettes in front of a no smoking sign made me wish I brought a camera. A guy who sat next to us, Hasidic, kept on making the weirdest jokes to us, then when the press guy came to our section to take pictures he would not stop hounding him, begging him to take a picture then asking to see other pictures. Marvelous. In the train station, a hasidic man cut me off, to which I say to my friend, shocking a Hasid cutting me off. The Hasid then apologized. A yeshivish person wearing his suit like a 1950s mobster with a cigarette in his mouth asked me if I had a lighter. I said no, but I said that I was the right person to ask. We both laughed. </span></b></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-14564149317647160772012-07-26T11:54:00.000-07:002012-07-26T11:54:54.338-07:00The Theodicy Of Eichah/Lamentations - Grappling with Evil in a Postmodern World<br />
<div style="background-color: transparent;">
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.6753745884634554"><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Trying to say something new or relevant about theodicy is tantamount to attempting to say something creative about the writer Franz Kafka, or Radiohead. I love talking and writing about these artists, so here goes an attempt to talk about theodicy in light of the Jewish fast, Tisha Ba’av, a fast that commemorates the destruction of the temple amongst other national tragedies. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For the most part, people tend to think of theodicy as a settled matter, one way or the other. Either, the weight of evil proves so the absence of a god, or the irrelevance of god so conclusively that it obviates the need for further discussion, or the matter requires too much metaphysical speculation and Talmudic casuistic thinking that it provides nothing but the most superficial of intellectual answers. The only people who actually speak about theodicy in any sort of dynamic manner are the theologians of today who in general few people read. We find ourselves in theodicy limbo. The question retains its importance and its complexity while we feel that no answer could even begin to provide solace or intellectual satisfaction. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">After the Holocaust, most thinkers slowly realized the paucity of any previous answer to attempt to justify the ways of God in the eyes of man. Consequently, they opted to explain that though an answer exists, we cannot, with our limited human understanding, possibly fathom the divine reasons for the way of the world. Instead of focusing on the vexing questions, they explain, we should focus on how we can better both ourselves and the world. To an extent, this type of answer respects human dignity while at the same time it undercuts our human intellect. It posits that we would never deign to deny the pain and suffering or attempt to explain it away through a simplistic understanding of evil as tit for tat for sin. Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, one of the unsung thinkers of Jewish thought in the 20th century stated that any sort of theodicy you would not feel comfortable saying to a parent who lost their child is not any sort of theodicy we can endorse. Theodicy must not only provide academic answers but emotional solace. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">However, this type of thought also treats human beings as limited, and sets boundaries to human thought. They tell us both based on authority and experience not to delve into these mysteries of the infinite. It will provide nothing but frustration. But to whom will this suffice? We never think of the horrors of tragedy until it relates to us personally, but when it does, how many of us can truly take heart in the eternal mercy of a God we cannot ever in this lifetime understand? So much of our religious personalities these day centers on the questions we can ask, and if we take away the ability to ask this basic question then we deprive religious man of the great founts of religious frustration and inspiration. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Yet, what other options do we have? No one, in the history of thought has ever created a coherent, accepted, and holistic thought of theodicy. Even on an intellectual level, every answer in the long tradition has not stood the test of time. Every answer contains glaring and obvious logical holes on top of the fact that it fails to provide any emotional comfort. Dostoevsky, in perhaps one of the most famous pieces on theodicy give voice to this sentiment. Intuitively, or implicitly, we realize that much of what we call evil stems from free will. People hurt other people. Of course this doesn’t account for all sickness or natural disasters, but much of the evil in the world does stem from our ability to choose. Dostoevsky, in his dramatic fashion through the eternal voice of Ivan Karamazov, exclaims that if one child is needlessly killed so that the rest of the world can enjoy their free will then anyone who would create that world lacks any sense of Justice. A god that choose the pain of the innocent so as to give us free will is not any god that he would want to worship. I find it immensely hard to disagree with this argument. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">People love to point out that Judaism, traditionally, is a religion of protest. It never simply accepts the ways of God, rather, it frequently questions the way of God. Abraham protests God’s desire to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses protects the people from destruction, and Hasidic masters always defend their people from the prosecution of God. I find attempts such at these to distinguish Judaism from other religions slightly offensive, simplistic and misguided. As much as Judaism can be said to be a religion of protest, it is also, for centuries, a religion of acceptance of our harsh fate. Most immediate answers to the horrors of the Holocaust, if you read them today, would embarrass the staunchest of religious conservatives. Many rabbis simply adopted the prevalent sin theodicy in which the Jewish nation was being punished for a sin, whether assimilation, a lack of unity, and even Zionism. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Even with Abraham, if you read his conversation he evinces a skewed sense of justice. He beseeches god to spare the righteous inhabitants, but gives up when God tells him that not even ten righteous people live in Sodom. What about children though? Abraham doesn’t ask the simple question of how could a just God punish children for the sins of their fathers? Abraham, as well, and I thank my grandmother for this question, Abraham the defender of sinful strangers never even protests for a second the slaughter of his righteous son. No figure in the bible ever truly questions the ways of God. Rather, they question what appears as injustice. Even Job, the quintessential study on theodicy drops his questions after god appears out of the whirlwind and restores Job’s life to its previous glory. Most of the world receive neither of these courtesies. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If so, where does this leave us? It appears to leave us in a constant state of ambivalence. Even if we want to embrace a godly world, a world in which a divine being cares about us, about our children, our worries, our world, we must confront this unanswerable question. Enter the scroll of Eichah. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Eichah, one of the five scrolls in the Jewish bible is a lamentation written in response to the destruction of the first Temple. Written in a dense, terse, poetically rich and complex five chapters, it has been a challenging text since its appearance. To then attempt to extract a theodicy from Eichah seems like a losing endeavor. Despite all of this, I contend that eichah offers an interesting model of engagement with theodicy that both respects human dignity and our human intellect. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The most curious part of Eichah, besides its jarring poetics, is its lack of narrative coherence. At first glance, as many academics note, it’s hard to fathom how these five chapters fit together. If we look at these chapters in a holistic sense in terms of their stance on theodicy we see the same phenomenon. The first chapter largely consists of classic sin theodicy (see verse five,) in which the narrator easily accepts the justice of God’s punishment. Yet, chapter two turns a 180. Chapter 2 of eichah signifies one of the harshest chapters in the whole bible. In it, the narrator rails, yells, screams at God that he destroyed without any mercy (a phrase that is repeated no less than five times.) Twice, God is referred to as the enemy of the Jewish people, and at the end God is a God who can watch mothers eat their children in the streets without intervening. This is the theodicy of protest, not of sin or of acceptance. This same vacillating pattern repeats itself through the rest of the book numerous times. How though can we reconcile these conflicting strands. Scholars give numerous answers all of which make sense. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One answer simply explains that these voices represent temporal stages. Who says that these chapters need to have been written at the same time. In fact, it is clear from the text itself that chapter five was written with hindsight, with some distance from the tragedy. If so, then perhaps, these different sentiments arise at different points in the stage of national mourning. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Another answer, in a similar vein, doesn't see this as a temporal continuity but as the varied, layered, and complex feelings of a mourner. A mourner, at any given moment can feel both a sense of justice and a sense of injustice, anger and love can mingle with ease in the life and mind of a mourner. Consequently, given the disarray of life after the temple it would be shocking if we found any a coherent theodicy. While I like this answer, we need to realize its nature as wholly reconstructive. We only say this because we are backed into a corner, and when backed into a corner in the academic world one of the greatest ways out is to turn a weakness into a strength. Here, the incoherence of of Eichah turns into the beauty of eichah as it perfectly captures the tenor of mourning. Clever, but not so obvious. Furthermore, it relies on the fact that Eichah reads and feels like the immediate sentiments of a mourner. Eichah is raw, painful and harrowing. But we cannot let its power overshadow the fact that it is a masterfully crafted book. We generally don’t mourn or cry out in poetry. Rather, a poetic person like Jeremiah needs to channel these painful emotions through the prism of language. To then accept this theory we need to accept that Jeremiah purposefully wrote an incoherent text in order to mimic this feeling, which we can see as possible but not necessarily probable. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To modify this answer, we need to think of Eichah as more of a dialogic text. Mikhail Bakhtin, a famous Russian literary theorist, explicated a dialogic theory of literature in which certain texts can be read as engaging in an active, dynamic dialogue with previous texts, with itself, and with readers. To that, we can add that often in biblical texts there is a dialogue with God. This helps explain a curious facet of Eichah. Despite the harsh sentiments, the narrator turns from talking before or about God to talking to God (see chapter two verse 19 for the most jarring example of this.) Almost out of nowhere, after attacking the ways of God, the narrator will urge that we all turn to god and pour out our hearts. You can understand that these turns towards God soften the anger of the texts, but alternatively, you can understand that they frame the anger in the text in dialogues. What allows Jeremiah to oscillate between positions is not simply the complex emotions of a mourner over time, but as well, an extended conversation with God about theodicy. Theodicy, according to this, gains its importance not only as answer to an impossible question, but as an ongoing issue to discuss with God. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Theodicy is not something abstract that resides outside the realm of our messy reality, but neither is it simply a prod to do better deeds. We are owed an answer for the Holocaust, and for all tragedy. God, in this scheme does not want us to let him off the hook. Rather, what he desires an engaged conversation with Him. Theodicy is an endless prompt to deepen and broaden our relationship with God. Just as a husband and wife who don't fight but let their wounds fester will experience backlash, so too in our relationship with God, often referred to as a marriage relationship demands that we discuss everything, whether our joy or our anger. the experience of life. It is an essential part of our ongoing conversation with God. </span></div>
</b></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-36565137410550994712012-07-20T13:17:00.000-07:002012-07-20T13:17:15.689-07:00The Misguided Ambition of Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight Rises<div dir="ltr" id="internal-source-marker_0.5940199717638804" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Our
enjoyment of anything under the sun will always depend on our
expectations. Even when we go into a movie knowing nothing about it we
still work off our expectations. We generally know the genre i.e. a
sleek, savvy european thriller, so we can adjust accordingly. However, attempting
to parse through all of the expectations I bring to the TDKR would take
too long and yield few edifying results. We can say that as a baseline,
we expect the world from this movie. It must serve as a fitting end to a
story that has defined this cultural decade. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Before I attempt to delineate Nolan’s glaring weakness both as a writer
and director, he deserves his due. Let’s discuss his absurd talents.
His cinematic scope remains unparallelled in Hollywood. His thematic
ambition knows only the boundaries of his talent, not his will, and he
knows the emotions of storytelling with the wisdom of a genius. The images of
beauty that he creates, designs, places him on the top tier of directors. He
understands, perfectly, how to manipulate our expectations, our
emotions, but with subtlety. His cinematographic arsenal comes almost
fully equipped: thriller, suspense, romance, action etc. he can do all
of it. The fact that he can do all of this on the largest scale makes
him all the more thrilling to watch. (I cannot think of a more
engrossing action scene than the bank heist from TDK.) To that extent,
his new movie, TDKR works perfectly as an ending, a coda to his great
magnum opus. It satisfies everything we could have wanted from this
trilogy, ties thing into a neat bow, revisits and closes themes from the
first movie, and even leaves room for a future. But it leaves me
intellectually bored, cold, and plain old unsatisfied. The only thing I am left to think about is why I have nothing to think about at all. The only Nolan
moving that left me reeling was TDK, but that mostly stemmed from the
otherworldly performance of Ledger. </span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Inception,
through all the smoke and mirrors and heavy handed ambiguity, lacks
intelligence, especially given the materials to work with. (A dream
world, the equivalent of a blank page and somehow most of the dreams look like James Bond videogame
levels. Nolan should have listened to Hardy’s advice from Inception,
“You mustn't be afraid to dream larger.”) After all the
pseudo-intellectual mazes, after all the layers the movie sounds and
look intelligent, but lacks anything to chew on. I believe we can say
the same about pretty much every Nolan movie. All of his movies have
that same tone of freshman dorm room, late at night, a few beers and you
begin to discuss “weighty” issues. Ever notice how so much of the
intellectual heft of Nolan’s films work off aphorisms. Sentences that
sound brilliant, but when inspected, when pushed sound empty, bordering
on the simplistic cliche - “It’s not who you are inside that counts,
it’s what you do.” “Not the hero the city deserves but the hero it
needs.” “You either live to see yourself become a villain or die
trying.” “What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An
intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea
has taken hold of the brain it's almost impossible to eradicate.” </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Sometimes I go back and try to parse through all the Hallmark cards from
these movies to see if they even make sense. You can only conquer your
fear by embodying that fear for others...is that true, does that even make
sense? Often, I get the feeling that Nolan sees life on the grand scale
that negates intimacy. He rarely seems to care about the small details of
life, whether inter or intrapersonally. He thinks on the scale of
mythology and thereby creates stilted husks of phrases that sound
bombastic, laden with meaning, but ultimately devoid of true content. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> So much of his dialogue flags itself as </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">the</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
inspirational quote, one for the movie poster, or one for teachers to
use in their lessons about morality - the scene on the boat from the
second movie plays over and over again in NCSY/Jewish Youth conventions
around the world. For all the darkness that Nolan supposedly captures,
for all his ability to capture the paranoid apathy of our time, he sure does
lay it on thick with the cheap platitudes about believing in yourself,
about justice, about facing your fear. Nolan relies much more on
spectacle or gimmicks than on content. Look at Memento, a movie that
clearly challenges the viewer stylistically,
but looking back, what stays with you is the style, the ingenuity and
the grand stage he can execute upon. I’ve never left a Nolan film
feeling the need to think something through, but I generally leave a
Coen bros. film with just that experience. (Oy vey, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The Prestige.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
I felt embarrassed by the end of that movie. It serves as the example
that proves Nolan’s true gifts: a master of expectations, but a novice
in thought, in the punch at the end. Also, when Batman tells the Joker
that the people of Gotham showed him their true colors, I wanted to
vomit, just a bit. Way to go humanity!) </span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Sometimes,
ambitious artists buckle under their vision. They take too much on and
create an onslaught of themes: fear, justice, trust, but density has
never been his problem. Rather, behind all the stunts, the convoluted
plots on plots, the different threads, they all lead to nowhere, to
meager thoughts. Not that this disqualifies a movie in any sense, but
Nolan sets himself up as the reigning king of intelligent Hollywood
films when instead he panders to our simplistic moral sensibilities. (There must be more to Catwoman...). Deep down, when it counts, people will not disappoint you. Life Lesson Learned! You
can make the claim that movies, or stories in general should not be
judged by their moral complexity. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Regardless
of the truth of this statement, Nolan always asks us to expect more. He
never speaks of his movies as about Batman fighting Bane in a bad-ass
manner, rather he speaks of his movies as an exploration of themes. Yet
he explores themes the way a dilettante explores the academic world of
The Revolutionary War: fumbling through weighty and heavy themes with
fat fingers. Without any spoilers, Nolan in this movie attempts to
tackle the topical issues of Occupy Wall Street, of economic inequality,
the stagnancy of politics, the desire for revolution. He also attempts
to flesh out more universal themes of civic responsibility, of
individual sacrifice, and as always, of redemption. Yet, his large,
expensive set pieces add nothing to our cultural conversations about any
of these topics. He still lives in a comic book world in which simple
ideas, and symbols hold real weight. To his credit, he takes a comic
book story and makes it believable, but it still remains a comic book
story full of moral clarity, not ambiguity. I never fully understand the
struggle of the protagonists. Bruce always does the right thing, even
with Alfred the preacher telling him otherwise. Most of Alfred's speeches are not only paternalistic, but misguided. The enemies are never
relatable human beings, which works well for the Joker but makes everyone else annoying. The
League of Shadows, which plays the evil roles in two of the movies, is a ridiculous conceit only because who would ever thinks like that.
It sounds like the Protocols of the elders of Zion, or some conspiracy
theory about rich republican billionaires from the Simpsons putting Aids
in the chicken nuggets. (That speech when Liam Neeson talks about how
the League of Shadows sacked Rome and London... Yikes.)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Even the most fascist propaganda attempts to hide behind a clever
conceit. It wins the hearts of its people both through fear and scapegoats, but also through a heavenly utopian vision to rise out of all
this despair. Bane somehow convinces a city to believe in him, I think,
when it's clear that he is no more than a powerful thug. Nolan always
feels so close to intelligence. He hangs around genius to the extent
that he can mimic its structure, but not its essentials. Bane’s
storyline, especially given the cultural wars we find ourselves in could
really have been scenes for the ages. But Nolan never fleshes out what
this new revolution looks like for a normal family. Do they loot as
well? He focuses so much on moving his plot forward that he forgets to
give meat to his ideas, to relationships. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Logistics
in these convoluted movies never bother me (Oh, but how did Batman get
stabbed if he wears a kevlar suit that Lucius Fox said specifically
stops knives!) Sometimes, you need to accept the rules of the created
world, but gee whiz, when will Nolan stop thinking that effects, style,
and that cool wow factor can take the place of actual thought. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Even his earlier films, take </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Insomnia</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
for example, works much more off effects and acting than dialogue or
plot. It creates a perfect mood of a sleep deprived cop who slowly loses
his mind in the haze of the forest, but their ends its merits. Its
plot, prosaic, mimics other movies. Pacino redeems the movie in a
similar manner that Ledger redeems so much of the platitudinal nature of
the Dark Knight. Given his genius, I would love to see Nolan take on a
movie that works more on dialogue than twists and turns. Theatricality
and misdirection are indeed powerful tools to the uninitiated, but are
the initiated. Deception and illusions are indeed powerful tools, but
for a magician, or maybe for a crime fighter, but less and less so for
one of our most talented directors. Maybe I expect too much from the
person who changed the face of movies, but why should we set our
standards low for genius? </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-18355900553706449152012-07-09T12:59:00.001-07:002012-07-09T12:59:39.607-07:00On Being Sick - The Limits of Human Limitations<div dir="ltr" id="internal-source-marker_0.4684745767949128" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">For
the most part, getting sick as an adult retains none of the adventurous
advantages of being sick as a child. As a child a small-time illness, a
cold, a virus, the flu, strep throat offered a free vacation day from
school, the high of which negated any of the pain from the actual
illness. Not only did a sick day provide an unplanned day off, but a day
off without any sort of parental supervision. I could walk around in my
underwear, eat everything I wanted, use the stove without causing my
mother to worry intensely, and blast a movie to eardrum shattering
levels (sometimes a rated R movie, shhhh, don't tell,) and the best,
watch someone come to the door and just not answer it. For the most
part, as children, we associate sickness with freedom so we feign
sickness, or celebrate when the thermometer (ok, just noticed that word
has mom in it...) or our mother’s hand, which seems
preternaturally capable of telling real fever from our whining,
announces real fever. We feel accomplished, oddly so, in our illness as
if we helped contract whatever we contracted.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Kids are either ridiculously smart or absurdly stupid.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Then we, without our permission, turn into adults and sickness equals
not freedom but a sort of slavery. Adulthood for the most part and
rightfully so, entails the freedom of responsibility: to our partners,
to our children, our friends, our work, our own ambition, the standards
we set for ourselves. Consequently, sickness, even the small cold is
less a gift from the gods and more a punishment, a hindrance, an
annoyance of a forced day off from our important lives as we rush
ourselves through the pain - piling on medicine after medicine or
prophylactic upon prophylactic. We try to work from bed, we answer
emails, keep our smartphones on and just simply try to continue as if
our bodies aren’t signalling to us to stop. None of the allure of
sickness during childhood remains simply because it provides none of the
ostensible freedoms. We don’t, for the most part, live under the
tyrannical reign of our parents who force us to go to bed at a normal
hour, we don’t live in fear or dread of school, in fact, we hate to miss
school because it just creates more obligations on the backend, and we
generally can enjoy ourselves much more when it doesn’t hurt to swallow.
So, instead, we lose days of our schedule, we wait till these
annoyances end so we can return to functioning.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
In a sense, the disparity obviously stems from the different life
situations. We cannot wish for a return to a more naive, free situation
of our childhood any more than we can wish away the common cold or
debilitating flu as adults. Yet, perhaps nostalgia distorts my memory,
but somehow, regardless of the illness, I cared less about pain as a
child than I do as an adult. Our reaction to pain, so preconditioned by
the purpose of pain and the societal associations, lies fully in our
minds, in our thoughts. Past that first almost blinding sensation of
pain, so much of its power lies in it ability to affect our thoughts
about pain. Mainly, we associate pain with debilitation, with
incapacitation, with death, with demise, so much of the pain of pain
comes from worrying about the effects of pain on our larger lives. Ok,
fair, I regurgitated the mindfulness approach to pain, but to what end?
To me, sitting here on my couch, congested, sinuses flaring up, both
ravenously hungry but nauseous, sweaty but cold, and obsessing over the
fact that I cannot, for this day, live up to my potential, I ultimately
find myself laughing at this conceit. Life's pain often boils down to a
widening and sickening gap between what we want/what we think we deserve
and what life, fate, destiny or god actually provides. Sometimes, I
think, if we embraced our mediocrity more than our somewhat illusory
belief in our singularity I think we all might live better lives. </span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">However,
can you imagine a parent telling their child some wisdom from positive
psychology? “Look, son, I know we often tell you how smart and talented
you are, but now that you are about to begin high school, well, it's
time you realize that the odds you achieve what you actually think you
can achieve are slim to none. In fact, you might actually be happier at a
lower tier school in which you will definitely succeed then in a higher
tier school in which you might just be another number…it's just the
numbers. Think about it. You're pretty good at math. Imagine how many
other people are as smart and talented as you, if not more, now realize
that the work force depends on so many factors outside of your control,
some fair, some not, that the odds of you, personally, becoming an
astronaut or a huge writer, or a politician, well, son, it doesn't look
pretty. You need to realize that success rarely equals happiness and
that most people, statistically, find happiness in their relationships,
regardless of their job. So aim with more realistic accuracy."</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Yikes. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Still, something about sickness as adults clarifies. In the more serious,
threatening situations, illness allows us to clarify our priorities in
life. We think of our personal goals, we rank them, and we realize that
intimacy, family, friends tops of charts, while personal ambition
withers away. The specter of death rarely pushes us towards personal
accomplishment, but guides us back home. Yet, the smaller illnesses of
everyday life, not necessarily, but can clarify to some extent. As
enforced vacations, they promise us a day of nothing but survival, of
living. We take an hour to drink tea, to eat toast, to get out of bed.
It reminds us either that sometimes we need to live just as flesh, as
physicality, as a pure piece of meat that needs some tender care. While
other times we realize the complete ethereal nature of pain. It gains
more strength the more we focus on it, the more we acknowledge it, like a
child and their temper-tantrums. Regardless, what emerges is that every
situation, when seen from a stoic more detached sensibility provides an
opportunity for exploration of any kind.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
All of these straddles the line between rationalization of my laziness
as I sit in bed and stew in my own germs, medicating myself, trying to
feel useful while at the same time I am trying to accept my limitations.
Sickness, of any sort, provides an hyper-realized situation we face
everyday of our lives: living comfortably within our boundaries at the
same time that we discover the true borders of our limitations. Life,
defined as such, is a constant battle between true self-awareness and
the gumption to constantly push our abilities past our known boundaries.
Knowing when to pull back, when to draw in, to hide within ourselves
and knowing when to push forward, to argue, to engage in conflict, to
not accept easy limitations, mediocrity, feels oddly so, like the real nagging question of life. When our true
limitations present themselves, will we summon enough courage and
bravery to limit ourselves, and when we cage ourselves out of fear, fear
of success, of failure, will we be able to challenge our beliefs about
our limitations?</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Who knows? </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Right now, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">G.I. Joe</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
is on, and right now the clouds in my head allow me to not think about
this question and just enjoy the insouciant charm of one Channing Tatum.
</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-37131916905221443602012-06-28T13:52:00.000-07:002012-06-28T13:52:34.582-07:00History in the Making - A Summary of Today's SCOTUS Decision.<span id="internal-source-marker_0.03485077682190829" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">For the first time in a long time, I think many of us feel pride in our country. </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Not
for our arts, or for our sports prowess, but for our government. Which,
given the last decade, I can think of perhaps a few events that would
elicit this kind of reaction. Even conservatives, I think, or perhaps
hope can choose to see this as an important, historical, and a positive
moment in American History. True, they might disagree with the soundness
of the arguments, or the efficacy of Obamacare, but surely we must
applaud a government that many wrote off as corrupted by money and
political hardliners now fulfilling its true duty. Recently, both congress
and the SCOTUS (one of the best acronyms ever) reached all time lows in
terms of popularity, many citing the common thought that instead of
striving for justice, liberty, equality and all that good stuff, these
branches of government work for the highest bidder. For a while, it felt
hard to argue with this collective voice. The case of Citizens United turned many
of us into a cynics for the first time, but today feels redemptive,
restorative of our faith in the ability of our country to work according
to principles and not biases or prejudice. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Let’s
first discuss the decision before we celebrate it. I don’t pretend to
have any expertise about the soundness or constitutionality of the bill.
I will attempt to summarize how I understand all of this. The supreme court largely validated Obamacare as consitutional in most of its components. Shockingly, the swing vote was Chief Justice Roberts, of whom most people think of as a staunch conservative.The decision
entailed two aspects of the large Obamacare law (Over 900 pages with
footnotes, though not as long as </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Infinite Jest</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">.)
First, The extension of medicaid, which most people don’t discuss very much,
and the creation of the individual mandate. Quickly, after reading too
many articles, here is a purposefully simplistic rundown of the
decision. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
individual mandate states that if a person does not buy themselves
health insurance by the year 2014 then they will be taxed/penalized
(this ambiguity is greatly important to all the arguments) according to
their livelihood, but no more than insurance would cost. In essence,
this can be seen as a tax on an inactivity i.e. not opting into the
health care system. This law raises two exigent questions, one practical
and conceptual/law based. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">First,
why would we require that everyone buy health insurance? Second, how
can a law mandate that people go out of their way to buy something, does
that not trample on our civil liberties, and second, how can we be
penalized for an inactivity? Let’s deal with the practical first. If you
are a young person, let’s say younger than 35, you get the creeping
sense that your health insurance in no way is commensurate to how much
you actually health care you actually receive, and you aren’t wrong.
Healthy people, incommensurately to their usage of the system, pay for
healthcare more than the sick or the poor. This happens, because so many
people use the Health care system without paying for it. Poor people
use the healthcare system because as a society, we are not willing to
let someone die because they lack the money, but the burden of payment
needs to move somewhere, and it moves to higher premiums on the insured. Similarly, those who opt out of insurance, the young for example, place a greater burden on the rest of the system, despite the fact they still receive costly emergency care This creates a vicious cycle in that the more people without health
insurance creates a higher premium for those with health insurance,
which dissuades more people from buying health insurance, which
cyclically leads to higher costs for those who do have. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Consequently,
a way to lower the premiums on all insurance is for everyone to opt
into a pool. If everyone pays for health insurance, then the insurance
companies need not force others to pay incommensurately to their usage
of the system. Now, conservative thinkers and some economists disagree
with this economic assertion, which of course, is part of the
conversation, but the bigger problem lies in the constitutionality of
the law. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Basically,
the court decided if this individual mandate, if penalizing/taxing for
an inactivity felt within the purview of the constitution. Now how do
Justices decide what falls within the purview of the constitution? Like
all important texts of law, the constitution is full of ambiguity.
Famously, for example, many point to a mundane law of "no vehicles
allowed in the park." Sounds simple, right? But how do we define a
vehicle in this context? Is a bike allowed, or how about a memorial that
uses a car? Now we get into messier abstract arguments about how to
read the constitution and different theories of justice, but basically,
our intuition runs something like this, “Well, when the person who wrote
the law wrote vehicle, what was the common usage of the word vehicle at
the time?” Or, to think about it differently, we can think about it
from the question of purpose. Is the law intended to keep the park safe,
or perhaps to keep the park beautiful. Depending on this answer, maybe
bicycles are fine as opposed to cars etc. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In
that vein, what the Justices focused upon were two powers delineated in
the constitution. The power to regulate commerce, nationwide, and the
power to levy taxes. As you can tell from the phrasing, both regulating
commerce and levying taxes leaves ample room for interpretation as to the scope of these powers. The argument that the individual
mandate falls under regulating commerce goes something likes this: The
government is attempting to lighten the burden of health care cost, to
do that, it needs everybody to opt whether through actually buying
health insurance, or just paying their share. Consequently, in order to
regulate the commerce of the health care system, they must be allowed to
force people to pay, one way or the other, or else this commerce system
fails. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Justice
Roberts denies this extension of the power to regulate commerce,
because for him, regulating commerce entails creating laws for a system
of commerce that already exists for people. Here, you create the system
you wish to regulate. You force people to opt in to a system of
commerce they don’t want too, and that extends this constitutional power
pasts its limits. Other Justices disagree(in eloquent and convincing
fashion,) which will be important for future cases and precedence. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Roberts though, validates the law through the other constitutional right
of levying taxes. Now, in a elegant maneuver, Roberts needs to make a
step before he can even get to the argument if this is a tax, and if it
is a constitutional tax. Democrats, including the president, went out of
their way to not refer to this individual mandate as a tax, most likely
because Americans hate that word. Consequently, how can Roberts view
the bill as a tax when the bill itself goes out of its way to not refer
to itself as one? Pretty fair question. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Roberts
explains, that though the other parts of the government can create
laws, how they name them or categorize them doesn’t necessarily carry
weight in the court. The court holds the power to view the law in its
proper manner. Essentially, as Roberts proves, the court has often
disagreed with congress as to the proper categorization of the law.
Consequently, even if Congress still doesn’t see this as a tax, the
court isn’t beholden to the semantics, but to the details of the law. As
Roberts goes on to prove, even if it isn't called a tax, it sure looks
like one. Most strikingly, the bill states that the individual mandate
will be collected by the IRS according to tax protocols. Now that
Roberts shows he can re-imagine a law to save the law, he proves not
only that this is a tax, but a tax with precedence. That this is truly a
tax doesn’t really strike new ground. Experts, since the inception of
the law have pointed out that this is truly a tax, what breaks new
ground is calling a tax on an inactivity constitutional. Now, at this
point, matters get abstract and almost arbitrary very fast. Which makes
more sense, that the court can tax a person on something they want to
buy, like cigarettes, so as to dissuade them from harming themselves, or
taxing them on something they don’t want to buy. Is this tax/penalty a
way to incentivize health care, or a way to penalize those who opt out?
Also, many point out that, in the end, looking at effects, activity and
inactivity engender the same results. Even if we could draw a conceptual
distinction between an activity and inactivity, it’s not clear that
this would preclude the law from falling within the purview of the power
to tax. To be honest, I can see arguments both ways, and I don’t think
either argument would be compelling.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Regardless of the specific content of the arguments, we can notice that these are not explicitly moral arguments, or prejudiced political arguments. These arguments, textual, erudite, and logical don't leave us with that bitter taste in our mouth when we think that the SCOTUS simply follows political sides. To that extent, I think everyone on the political spectrum should count
today as a victory. With the election looming on our horizon, with two
big movements staking at the more radical parts of our society, we feel
the fracturing of our society more and more acutely. But today, if only
in a small way, we all came together to discuss, mostly intelligently,
the implications of this historic case. Even Romney, in his terse
remarks came off as intelligent, as part of the conversation instead of
shouting above it. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“Let’s
make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. What
the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the
Constitution. What they did not do is say that Obamacare is good law, or
good policy. Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today.
Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Romney
clearly understands the implications of the decision. As Roberts
himself points out, the decision doesn’t reflect on the policy as sound
or not, but on its constitutionality, which can sound like an argument
of semantics, but that assertion is far from the truth. Romney can
disagree with the law, he can decide to overturn it if he wins the
presidency, and he can feel let down by the court, but even Romney knows
a fair decision when he sees one. The court, at least in the Roberts
decision, upheld the holy separation of powers in numerous ways. First
off, in a fascinating manner, Roberts justifies his decision partially
based out of the necessary respect for a statute. Though he disagrees
with the somewhat bumbling phraseology, Roberts goes out of his way to
find support for the law because his respect for the law, and the
limited power of the court. In this sense, as Noah Feldman points out,
what many interpret as his siding with the liberals truly stems from the
conservative strain in Roberts in regards to judicial restraint. Call
it ironic, or not, but in limiting his own power to what he thinks is
proper, he essentially gave more power to congress and the president.
Sometimes, conservative principles lead to liberal results. In this
sense, hopefully, we can see that the conservative/liberal divide is a
bit false, distracting, and often unhelpful. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">As
others note, besides for validating the actual law, and redeeming the
courts reputation, the court ruled in line with what the large majority
of law experts deemed as the proper course. Overturning the law would
entail disregarding decades of precedent, which on if itself, regardless
of the context, would create bad precedence. In terms of the response,
even that elicits pride. True, some outlets misrepresented the decision
in their haste to be the first to report it, but keep in mind the
complexity of the decision. Discounting that snafu, for the most part, I
have read, on both sides intelligent conversations, even dialogue that
transcends the normal dogmatic boundaries we come to expect from
political conversation. The opinions themselves read like great
intellectual fodder on the nature of the different branches of the
government and the relationship between the branches. Reading the
opinions, which requires effort more than anything else, is in of itself
fascinating and heartwarming. They are full of wisdom, insight, history,
and the mechanics of government/law so that you can see the gears of
the government working. (I know a 200 page of legal opinions can sound
daunting, but everyone writes with impressive clarity. I highly
recommend reading this now historical document. If not, I included some
choice quotes below.) That in of itself feels beautifully American. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
Here's the actual text of all the opinions, and its a compelling fascinating read. Below that are important quotes from Roberts opinion. <br />
<h3 class="r">
<a class="l" href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CF0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F11pdf%2F11-393c3a2.pdf&ei=pL_sT6uwEsbn0QGsr-G-BQ&usg=AFQjCNEbnk45Ud-Rl4lBKT4wsz0RRAn_CQ&sig2=a_AcOXWp_7JKKRv03H5xVA">11-393 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius <b>...</b></a></h3>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">QUOTES SECTION: - they follow the order of the Roberts opinion. </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">A.On the nature of the branches...</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
"Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a
general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected
leaders. “Proper respect for a coordinate branch of the government”
requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of
constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly
demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Members
of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we
possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy
judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected
leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with
them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of
their political choices</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">" </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">- (what a clear and thought provoking line.)</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">B. On the dangers in overextending the power to regulate Commerce</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“Allowing
Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of
inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could
potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the
Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him”</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">- “Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Accepting
the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to
regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between
the citizen and the Federal Government.”</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">- “</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">People,
for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good
for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar
failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use
its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would
have them act.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
James Madison explained that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which
few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The
Federalist No. 45, at 293. While Congress’s authority under the Commerce
Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy,
our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce,
though broad indeed, has limits.” Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196
(1968). The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting
Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its author- ity,
“everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power
into its impetuous vortex.”</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">c.
Fascinating through from Roberts - on the nature of the founding
fathers, sound very reminiscent of the Conservative thinker, Edmund
Burke</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“To
an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and
inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">But
the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not
have been lost on the Framers, who were “practical statesmen,” not
metaphysical philosophers.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Industrial Union Dept., AFL–CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.
S. 607, 673 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). As we have
explained, “the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries,
toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with
the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form
the government they were creating, and prescribing in language clear and
intelligible the powers that government was to take.” South Carolina v.
United States, 199 U. S. 437, 449 (1905). </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,
and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have
reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that
understanding now.”</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">D. Final thought on the scope of the Commerce clause</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">-
“The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual
from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in
particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as
such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.”</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">E. The Turn from penalty to Tax - and the relationship of the court to new laws. </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“Under
the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the
only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS
when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the
Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a
condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required
payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal
command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just
another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning
income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain
taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s
constitutional power to tax.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the
mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v.
Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable
construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from
unconstitutionality.”</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">F. The Essential argument for the individual mandate as a tax </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
- The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility
payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a
penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than
the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">It
may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather
than purchase insurance, unlike the “prohibitory” financial punishment
in Drexel Furniture. 259 U. S., at 37.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Second,
the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement. Third, the
payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of
taxation—except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most
suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See
§5000A(g)(2). The reasons the Court in Drexel Furniture held that what
was called a “tax” there was a penalty support the conclusion that what
is called a “penalty” here may be viewed as a tax.</span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">None
of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual
conduct. Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is
plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage. But taxes that
seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal
taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in
order to foster the growth of domestic industry.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">G. Is a tax on inactivity unconstitutional? </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
“There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those
who lack health insurance. Even if only a tax, the payment under
§5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an
omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce
Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from
commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to
impose a tax for not doing something.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Three
considerations allay this concern. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution
does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through
inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay
simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the
Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us
from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain
from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has
made no such promise with respect to taxes. See Letter from Benjamin
Franklin to M. Le Roy (Nov. 13, 1789) (“Our new Constitution is now
established . . . but in this world nothing can be said to be certain,
except death and taxes”).</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Whether
the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause is a question about
the scope of federal authority. Its answer depends on whether Congress
can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing
individuals to purchase insurance. Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause
to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives
already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa-
tions. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax
depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power
to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding
the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize
any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing
one.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Second,
Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not
without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively,
invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior
otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. See, e.g.,
United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936); Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S.
20. More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine
the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures. See
Kahriger, 345 U. S., at 27–31 (collecting cases). We have nonetheless
maintained that “‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing
features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and
becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and
punishment.’ ” </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">We
have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s
practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest
interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at
hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the
precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing
power does not authorize it. It remains true, however, that the “‘power
to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’” Oklahoma Tax
Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 364 (1949) (quoting Panhandle Oil
Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J.,
dissenting)).</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Third,
although the breadth of Congress’s power to tax is greater than its
power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the
same degree of control over individual behavior. Once we recognize that
Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce
Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear.
Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An
individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those
sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of
otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote
in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and
severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or
immigration disputes.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">By
contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to
requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more.
If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or
punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the se-vere
burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory
purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an
individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long
as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a
financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be
characterized as a tax. Be- cause the Constitution permits such a tax,
it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">H. Summary. </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in
part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of
Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes
Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to
engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what
Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount
of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation
is within Congress’s power to tax.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">As
for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act
violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding.
Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to
its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the
States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a
genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no
such choice in this case:</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">They
must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk
losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional
violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a
sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of
the Affordable Care Act.</span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to
this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today.
But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the
Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved
to the people.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-53527957387623537982012-06-12T15:26:00.000-07:002012-06-12T15:26:25.179-07:00Radiohead as Perfomance Art<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDS_YEZrnepiq8E5I9jbwvUwYyJenZDcHxbZDZe9uVzm0hkCLbW76Qj72QVTh5VUtsan8t8uqFzOHeINHwTHfPf2W0t-soWPCk5Ea17JsFoNOOrmBsbiSrBsxlXKetUc74_GeXxOZsb6U/s1600/radiohead-2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDS_YEZrnepiq8E5I9jbwvUwYyJenZDcHxbZDZe9uVzm0hkCLbW76Qj72QVTh5VUtsan8t8uqFzOHeINHwTHfPf2W0t-soWPCk5Ea17JsFoNOOrmBsbiSrBsxlXKetUc74_GeXxOZsb6U/s320/radiohead-2012.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="internal-source-marker_0.4029994224502611" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="internal-source-marker_0.4029994224502611" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Recently, I attended my second Radiohead concert. Perhaps my experience </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">echoes what everyone feels at a Radiohead show, but for me it felt singular, revelatory. In fact, up</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> until
this concert I assumed that Radiohead concerts were only at best
tantamount to listening to their records. I never felt any tension in
choosing between a live performance or a studio recording. I always
opted for the meticulously crafted, sonically perfect versions of their</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> compositions over the slightly more feral live versions. The only aspect of the live show which</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> pulled me in was watching Thom Yorke dance like some </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3P87Il6qeU"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">demented marionette</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Then
I saw them from about 50 feet away, in a stadium, and everything
changed. I now understand why people swear by their live shows, but more
importantly, I gained a </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">new appreciation for them as performance artists. We often say that despite an imperfect, or</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> boring
record, a band can resuscitate the songs live. I never fully understood
that concept. In my naivete, I thought that if the songs are good
enough to translate into great live material, then they should sound
good on record. I attributed the gap between the recorded and live sound
to laziness. I didn't comprehend the qualitative difference between a
live version and a recorded version. I simply assumed that a concert
allowed for more spontaneity, more variation, perhaps more energy, but
never the actualization of the true potential of the song, which
connects back to the revelation of Radiohead as performance art.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I don’t intend to convey that they wrote unfinished songs simply to allow for </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">polishing during touring. Rather, the songs in the first place were originally crafted
as pieces of performance art. Without the live spectacle the songs do
indeed sound ambient, ethereal,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> murky, ungrounded, almost unimportant because a simple listen through doesn’t allow for the</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> full blooming of their potential. This concert redeemed </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">King of Limbs</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
for me not because they now sound more ferocious (they do), but because
the songs only make full sense in context of the live spectacle, of the
performative aspect of their show.</span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I
think we might tend to shy away from this description of performance
art because it carries with it some considerably dorky baggage.
Performance artists either remind us of Marina Abramovic, the eccentric
artist, who last year sat herself down in the Moma to sit and just stare
at you, for whatever length you choose. In the same exhibition you
could choose to walk in between two stark naked people as you, clothed,
rub up against their genitals.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTht1TLmFxq0Xif-QuqG9OsrGUh0BHE2egXBwGcgwPl2gGKo7QoZc2aF1aZ6lUV_Bp8Ttp0CVtBVFZqK2ISKzyDQg9xpBaIcFEs8JeAgCx2R53Q7WrKZYL5RLSoBjWGRCscOn2K8Ur8Zk/s1600/MoMA+Celebrates+Marina+Abramovic+Artist+Present+LA35ZvWEDm6l.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTht1TLmFxq0Xif-QuqG9OsrGUh0BHE2egXBwGcgwPl2gGKo7QoZc2aF1aZ6lUV_Bp8Ttp0CVtBVFZqK2ISKzyDQg9xpBaIcFEs8JeAgCx2R53Q7WrKZYL5RLSoBjWGRCscOn2K8Ur8Zk/s320/MoMA+Celebrates+Marina+Abramovic+Artist+Present+LA35ZvWEDm6l.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Performance art!</span><br /><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">On the other hand, when we think of performance art in terms of music, we think </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">of gaudy show tunes, melodramatic operas, or the awkward mixture of rock operas
or rock infused Broadway shows. In contrast, Radiohead creates a piece
of haunting, sensual, enveloping performance art that deserves attention
as such. First some contextualization.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Performance art, like all art, defies easy categorization. It abounds in arguments in</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> regards to definition that only academics or performance artists tend to care about. As a</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> fluid working definition, we will not try to define it, but speak to some common elements that</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> tend to get spoken about. Critics usually refer to performance art as that which contains an</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> interdisciplinary performance, or at least a multi-sensory performance of a live experience that</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> eludes reproduction. Each performance presents a unique performance. The idea developed</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> in contrast to theater - it signified a more fleeting, spontaneous singular experience between</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> audience
and artist often involving visual art. With time it came to include the
idea of conceptual art, a non-linear narrative, or a performance that
evokes emotions, ideas, and thoughts through non-conventional means. It
shirks the regular form of a linearity or fully developed characters and instead attempts to create its experience through tones, images,
challenges and even riddles. It is a type of investigative art in the
sense that it usually involves some subversive exploration of what art
actually means.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Given this hasty list of components, I don’t see how we cannot view Radiohead’s live</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> show
as anything but performance art. Remember in School of Rock when Jack
Black explains to his students that an epic rock show needs an excellent
light show? I laughed when he said that because I thought he referred
solely to some over the top Journey concert. The only real show that
felt affected by lights was a Phish show, and the lights simply created a
psychedelic, playful effect, but the lights felt like an add on to the
songs. Radiohead’s light show, more an artistic display of video,
scenery, and lighting, integrated fully to create a multi-sensory performance complete with artistic camera views, a film reel on top,
gesticulative dancing, top hats, performative voices, and visual drumming through
pulsating alternating lights that often looked like Tetris patterns.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Radiohead’s new light show looks likes a traveling Modern Art installment. The light</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> show, besides using lights, obviously, makes use of about 12 large TV screens attached</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> to cables that allow for manifold configurations. For instance, an easy one, they displayed</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> the screens in a staircase during the song </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggMmlpygPxo"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">“Staircase,”</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> which despite the obviousness felt</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> entrancing. More impressively, during “</span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggMmlpygPxo"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">You and Whose Army,”</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> a plangent and haunting song</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> that crescendos into a crash of sound, the band used the screens to break up Yorke’s face in</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> a Cubist representation. We saw different angles of Yorke’s face in scraggly black and white</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> images
that defy the boundaries of our human vision. It not only accentuates
the intimacy of just Yorke on the piano, but creates a different type of
intimacy, of relationship between artist and audience. Yorke feels
exposed in an uncharacteristic way that evokes haunting tenderness, if
not shades of sensuality. Not only were the screen configured in ways
that overwhelmed our senses, presenting new ways of thinking about the
song, art, and music, but the images on the screens never simply
projected standard visuals from a concert. We usually expect either
facial or instrumental closeups in concert video. Instead, the
cinematographer created either static images of the side of a drum, the back of a head. Or the cinematographer opted for flitting digitized
images, images that one coked up person in the audience correctly
referred to as the Matrix, and other images</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> that look like the artistry of a Richard Linklater movie.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Often we credit Radiohead with popularizing less conventional styles of songs: songs</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> less
focused on verse/chorus and more focused on buildup, or creating a
symphony of different parts, almost a story in the form of a song,
something we might associate with classical music.Basically, movement in
the song and not in a simple crescendo, but given this context of
performative art, they do not simply shirk verse/chorus to create new
songs, a soundtrack to a more complex spontaneous performance that
engenders a transcendent meditative state of non-thought.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Besides
the obvious artistry of the lighting/video show, it creates a
multi-sensory overload that essentially attacks the listener. Sonic
violence takes over your body;you move without thinking. The mediums
create a circle of sound that envelops every part of your being.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> The
lighting choreographer literally changes the tone and tenor of the
song, it creates a different level of experience, just pure
intensity.How many experiences take up or instigate most of your senses. Anything else besides sex, perhaps? What emerges from this piece of
performance art contains all the elements of a drug experience: Altered
consciousness, sensory enhancement, a full body experience, the feeling
of flow, a complete letting go of inhibition, almost like a club scene
which provides a sensory onslaught, but without all of the shadiness. (</span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW17gzWwVQU"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">This video</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> captures at least shades of the spectacle, but obviously you need to experience this in person.)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">All of the credit goes to Andi Watson, the stage designer since Radiohead’s club days.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Last
year, Chronicle Books published a book from the Director of the
University State Museum at California State University, Christopher
Scoates, entitled <i>Bullet Proof...I Wish I Was: The Lighting and Stage
Design of Andi Watson</i> that displays and analyzes the inventive style of
Watson in the context of Art history. We barely know anything about this
unsung hero of modern music and art, but as Scoates aptly explains,
“Watson’s synesthetic work completely alters the way we feel music.”
Watson’s latest installments in conjunction with Radiohead’s propulsive
latest album only builds on their masterful partnership in create
unparallelled pieces of performance art.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-40579430058290803362012-05-24T15:10:00.001-07:002012-05-24T17:17:12.670-07:00The Sensuality of Silence - Revisiting the Film Drive<br />
<div>
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.9916274379938841"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ-q21pbiEgEUNYrYLi6X2oSyfzah3MIaUoaQ4MAVNC-sVT-iRqMieqOijjzaK6FAT-2natQaxD0m9uSXYXyqrBznVlYRZZngpts2dBWMjkirgQo9TTkd3z9NYba2D1CI6tWuV592qjyM/s1600/drive-2011-movie-1024x768-wallpaper-6756.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ-q21pbiEgEUNYrYLi6X2oSyfzah3MIaUoaQ4MAVNC-sVT-iRqMieqOijjzaK6FAT-2natQaxD0m9uSXYXyqrBznVlYRZZngpts2dBWMjkirgQo9TTkd3z9NYba2D1CI6tWuV592qjyM/s320/drive-2011-movie-1024x768-wallpaper-6756.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><br />
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.9916274379938841"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The first time I saw Drive, like many others, I could not pin down its tone. Meditative, mythic, elegiac, violent, imagistic, silent, subtle, sensual, allusive, perhaps existential and even playful. Any sense of classification eluded me. Drive challenged my expectations in most if not all scenes. (I don’t imagine my cousin enjoyed my little asides, “Yes, but why does he know how to drive so well, or I don’t think you realize how few words he has said so far! What is this movie?”) I imagine if I knew more about the history of movies I could easily place Drive in some sort of tradition. In fact, just on a hunch, I imagine many would categorize Drive as a sloppy pastiche of styles, an homage to varying style with a story added as an appendage arm. I find it hard to pay attention to such a critique because just experiencing that movie, without any attempt to place it in context, engendered the same set of reactions just as an encounter with real evocative art. </span></span></div>
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.9916274379938841">
</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.9916274379938841"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">I tend to assume that of all the mediums, as a culture, we view movies through the least artistic</span> <span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">lens - critics, academics, and obsessives excluded. Many factors contribute to this anecdotal hunch, but the simple transience of the movie experience as the next frame comes along against your will, guides our experience of this work as fleeting, as something we consume then leave. With a book we can earmark the page, or underline a paragraph, or re-read a sentence again and again to ourselves or to a friend. We can cut from it and paste, facilitating analysis. We can do this with movies as well, but they require more activity from the viewer to dissect a scene. In the case of something like </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Drive,</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> you can love the movie, but not take it seriously as art, as something to contend with, to dissect and reassemble, to explain, which testifies to its intelligence, as all intelligent good art should not so easily call attention to itself as such. It turns into the job of the viewer to call attention to the artistic elements and effects. </span></span></div>
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.9916274379938841">
</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.9916274379938841"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">With </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Drive, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">finding a starting point presents a challenge because of its density. Like many other intelligent movies it rarely panders to our desire for neatness, for a clear dividing line between the light of the good and the darkness of the bad. We expect to feel disgust for the father, Standard, but instead he elicits a complex range of emotions. Most of the characters, superbly acted all around, in my opinion, receive a full enough treatment to give them flesh. (I didn’t think Mulligan received enough attention for her devastatingly tender portrayal of a maelstrom inner world covered over by a longing smile. True, her character tends to the stereotypes of women, but she sees right through them at every turn.) But assuming these more foundational elements of art, the movie contains ambitious efforts, efforts to use tone, silence, color, imagery, in a sense, style as a storytelling method as much as dialogue or action, to embrace the ambiguity of life through the intense ambiguity of the characters. </span></span></div>
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.9916274379938841">
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Silence permeates throughout the movie in manifold forms. We know nothing about the Driver; not even his name. Refn drops hints of a background, at best. Instead, almost like a biblical character, the Driver receives his definition from his ambiguity. Not attaching a backstory allows us to focus on his moments, movements, raw emotions, and facial expressions, without a context. His violence doesn’t need to symbolize a regression to a violent past etc, but simply portrays unleashed violence. It takes the character into the realm of archetypes, while staying firmly grounded in a compelling story. Renf creates a character so elusive as to be universal, existential, and mythic. Think of Gosling’s apparent emptiness but as apparent endless depth. Refn’s story at once feels so allusive and and yet so complete and self contained. The protective lover, the harsh, violent exterior covering up a loving, sensitive soul, a troubled background, eruptive violence, but none of these stories can actually cage the slippery Gosling. Time and time again artists remind us that the most lasting characters are those that whose motivations we barely understand. </span></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<div style="font-weight: bold;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The setting, in a similar manner, mystifies its sense of time. The roving and plentiful shots of the city at night looks sharp, neat, futuristic. The aesthetic and music is pure 80s, but the situation, the tonal imagery and lighting touches of the 40/50s. The aesthetic, melds the loneliness and color of an Edward Hopper </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">painting to the meticulous coloring of a Wes Anderson movie.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-weight: bold;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDjpf-CmRj2-f70stQ7vkQ2LYW-mf-XV_b9BifaW3wRUCfrCqepdL1gEXy8HO2Avv7WxEki0gs_66n4QOU39ymm7wKPsZ67MC_7BA9Pi-Wi9ajDmDBzsdWD8QxzRm0bo97aJeIEXw90HA/s1600/Nighthawks.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="174" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDjpf-CmRj2-f70stQ7vkQ2LYW-mf-XV_b9BifaW3wRUCfrCqepdL1gEXy8HO2Avv7WxEki0gs_66n4QOU39ymm7wKPsZ67MC_7BA9Pi-Wi9ajDmDBzsdWD8QxzRm0bo97aJeIEXw90HA/s320/Nighthawks.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="font-weight: bold;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: bold;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: bold;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-indent: 36pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">However,<i> Drive </i>adds ominous tones and shocking violence, in the true sense of the word. I don’t think people realize the talent required to create violence in a way that doesn't either evoke camp, torture porn, sentimentality, or cartoonish style, but in a way that feels eerily real - sudden, random, haunting, gratuitous, but still mundane. </span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The whole movie is lovingly tended to, each detail thought of and through, color coordinated, each light perfected. For example, His room: bare, ascetic in the manner of nomads and saints, contains few objects, but we do see a numerous shots of a book, two in fact, next to his bed. (This <span style="background-color: white;">creates a playful dramatic irony for the end of the movie. When Bernie tells the Driver he must give up, “</span></span><span style="background-color: white; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Any dreams you have, or plans, or hopes for your future... I think you're going to have to put that on hold. For the rest of your life you're going to be looking over your shoulder.” we laugh a little because he already lives this lifestyle.) </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>To answer the main criticism of the movie i.e. its mimicry of old styles we can explain that the use of some cliched, perhaps, classic techniques represent less a tribute or homage than a perfection of the craft, or at least a new realization of its potential. Think of the first five minutes of </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">UP</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, which is essentially a montage, but here with a considerably darker content. A montage is a silent short film: shots with only music, exaggerated evocative action, with an emphasis on setting, scenery, sound, and facial expressions. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The elevator scene encapsulates the brilliance of this movie. </span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/uLet3osnUVU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This youtube clip doesn’t do the cinematography justice, so try Netflix at 1:11, but you can still see all the important dynamic components in this clip. Gosling, pleads with Irene to protect her in a voice that evokes a child's neediness for a parent, and a more archetypal sense of a man protecting his woman. (Though the one claim undercuts the other. The Driver needs to protect Irene more than she needs his protection. In that vein, the Driver’s love for Irene rarely feels simply sensual, sexual, or even intimate in an adult sense, but always contains something very familial, elemental about it, almost parental.) Here, Refn, as he does throughout the movie, plays with and off our expectations. We expect immediate violence. We see the door close, slowly, ominously with an extended shot of the elevator doors, ominous music begins to play, but instead of the gruesome violence that will inevitably come, Refn transcends the scene into an existential universal realm of a platonic Tenderness. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Time slows down. The lights preternaturally change. Gosling, again in this ambiguity of love/need to protect pushes his arms against Mulligan, as the lights dim. He turns around, gently touches her stomach and they kiss, for the first time on screen in what feels like infinity as the camera slows down, in contrast to sped up 80s music. Because of the altered lighting, the positions of their body, you barely see their actual lips embrace, as silence and intimacy pervades the moment too much to warrant shameless voyeurism. We see their lips when they part, but as they kiss the light in the elevator draws our attention away from the intimacy. The lights return to normal, the driver moves in for what appears as a second kiss, but in a split second, with a clench of a jaw, times returns, and violence shatters the sensuality of silence. Gosling literally stamps out a person's head as Mulligan watches. The scene ends as they stare at each other, dumbstruck, not saying a word since the kiss, but speaking volumes. Gosling, as with much of the violence bears a look of resignation. A distate of the results of his power and violence more than the violence within him. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> So much for the singular focus on </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Drive, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">because I believe its heavy reliance on the sensuality, intimacy, and ambiguity of silence plays a prominent part in numerous other important movies. But let’s save that for the next post. </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-76540708257867153382012-05-18T14:04:00.000-07:002012-05-18T14:07:29.781-07:00Analyzing Obama's Commencement Speech - The Ambivalence of Eloquence<div dir="ltr" id="internal-source-marker_0.17541178365258436" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">It
almost seems unfair to compare and contrast Romney’s speech with
Obama’s. In some ways, it feels like looking at the writings of a
teenager against an adult, but in some important ways they overlap. With
regards to Obama’s speech, I think we can easily assert a number of
points. First, he speaks and writes with more eloquence and tact than
Romney. We already know of Obama’s charismatic oratory abilities, his
humor, his aplomb, his comfort with shifts in tones, his poetic and
aphoristic abilities(</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table)</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,
and Obama uses them all in full force in this speech. Not that this
carries any political weight per se, although an eloquent speaker can
move masses. (Conversely, the horrors of the world are painted in the
words of some of the greatest speakers and demagogues.) However in terms
of their character or political capability their rhetorical abilities
doesn’t indicate much. In fact, we know Obama can speak, well, very
well. We know he speaks with a confident poise that at the same time
evinces a calm, a comfort, and a reassuring quality. But we’ve also
learned to grow wary of eloquence. A way with words has a way of hiding
meaning behind beauty. Obama’s made many phenomenal turn of phrases in
the forms of promises he didn’t or couldn’t deliver upon. Pascal reminds
us that, “True eloquence makes light of eloquence.”</span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
In a more substantive manner, in contrast to Romney, Obama makes the
speech considerably more about the actual graduates than himself. He
never mentions anything in the way of elections, he never even
implicitly mentions Romney, and thankfully, he presents a much truer
account of the reality facing America today. He describes an ambiguous
future full of unknowns and challenges that will take courage to
surmount. He mentions the economic crisis, income inequality, a stagnant
congress, a fettered political machine. (However, in one instance,
Obama presents a rosier picture of the nature of history than warranted
based on actual history. See below.)</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">None
of this takes away from the politicized nature of the speech. Both
Romney and Obama took this opportunity to express the interests of
important populations of voters, but Obama accomplished this task with
much greater maturity and diplomacy. The names he invokes as models
represent significantly less ambiguous moral characters than those of
Romney, but both do so in an attempt to situate themselves in a certain
tradition whether that be the tradition of the Christian right or the
Liberal left. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
I find it interesting to note though, despite some clear differences,
that we can point to numerous striking similarities in both the flow,
structure, and content of the speeches. They both speak/preach,
ultimately, of a message of American pride in our resilience and strong
work ethic, of the need for a more engaged youth, and personal
responsibility. Hope underlies the basic notions of both of the
speeches, and they both end on a story of personal adversity, or a time
when they beat the odds and persevered. They also present a picture of a
rosier picture than most would assume that borders on naivete “</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">See,
the question is not whether things will get better -- they always do.
The question is not whether we’ve got the solutions to our challenges --
we’ve had them within our grasp for quite some time...” </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I
find it hard to swallow this particular promise of things always
getting better, it seem as though Obama has access to a different
history than we do. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
In fact, parts of Obama’s speech strikes me as slightly offensive, and
in an vehemently feminist egalitarian speech, as backwards, pandering,
and belittling to both sexes. There’s a position many men take in
regards to feminism, a sort overcompensation that amounts to a
degradation of men, that undermines the egalitarian spirit. When Obama
discusses both inherent bias of the constitution a document not signed
by any women, but one malleable enough to accommodate all civil rights
he explains, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“No
woman’s signature graced the original document — although we can assume
that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the ears
of the founding fathers. (Applause.) I mean, that’s almost certain.” </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">And in almost the exactly similar vein in discussing the lack of women in Congress Obama explains, “</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Now,
I’m not saying that the only way to achieve success is by climbing to
the top of the corporate ladder or running for office — although, let’s
face it, Congress would get a lot more done if you did. (Laughter and
applause.) That I think we’re sure about.” </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Sound innocuous at worst, and praiseworthy at best, but let’s think
about what he is saying. First off, I seriously doubt that the founding
mothers were actually whispering smarter things in the ears of the
founding fathers, as a historical fact. Conceptually, this type of
assertion not only whitewashes history, but creates a strange hierarchy
in which women curb the appetites of the more powerful unwieldy men of
the world. It pegs women as the better half, which in essence limits
women to another role of sorts. In Judaism, this is the sort of argument
we refer to as the Binah Yeseirah arguments. Furthermore, it belittles
men, painting congress as stagnant because of how much it resembles a
piggish, stubborn men's club, as if women in politics do not engage in
petty quarrels or make decisions or non-decisions based on money, as if
they live on a different moral plane than men. Looked at even more,
Obama can make these statements only because of the powerful position of
men in the world. His statement testifies and reinforces the inequality
that he references. Women don’t need anybody to tell them how powerful
they are or can be, especially not the most powerful man in the world.
Of course, I don’t assume Obama intends any of these implicit ideas,
rather it signifies a mainstream way to speak about inequality. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
With that being said, Obama’s speech offends less, and not only for
rhetorical reasons. Much of his speech involves the obvious cliches and
inspiring stories, but one sentence stands out that creates an important
contrast between Romney and Obama (Besides of course for certain
positions on issues such as gay and women’s rights...) In the end of his
speech, in the moment of vision for the future, of summation of
America’s goals right now, Obama states, “</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">f
you are ready to fight for that brilliant, radically simple idea of
America that no matter who you are or what you look like, no matter who
you love or what God you worship, you can still pursue your own
happiness, I will join you every step of the way.”</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
First, let’s notice Obama’s rhetorical ingenuity. He deploys a clever
rhetorical maneuver of inclusiveness that conveys a sense of
collaboration instead of more traditional hierarchical leadership (</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I will join you...I will be right there with you...</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">).
In general Obama succeeds in this speech in speaking as one of the
people, not the leader of the people. He doesn’t sympathize from a
perch, but empathizes from amongst the crowd. Throughout his speech, he
balances stories that reinforce the classic American dream of going
from rags to riches, with the converse American value of the inherent
worth of the unsung life, of the mundane:</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Those
quiet heroes all across this country — some of your parents and
grandparents who are sitting here — no fanfare, no articles written
about them, they just persevere. They just do their jobs. They meet
their responsibilities. They don’t quit. I’m only here because of them.
They may not have set out to change the world, but in small, important
ways, they did. They certainly changed mine</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Additionally, Obama casually references both the preamble to the constitution (</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">how we made this union more perfect</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">) and the Declaration of Independence (</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">still pursue your own happiness</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">), but adapts the phrases to his purposes, implying a more egalitarian happiness and a union already made more perfect.This creates a nice connection to the foundational roots of the revolutionaries while making room for change. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Obama’s vision stands in stark contrast to the Christ heavy vision of
Romney. Romney’s vision excludes while Obama seeks to include, to make
room for more people. Romney, in his speech, hopes to enlighten the
world with his moral certainty while Obama seeks to make room for a
multiplicity of visions. Perhaps this defines an essential difference
between the two candidates, one that holds more substance than
Republican and Democrat. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.17541178365258436" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">OK,
but now what? Does this type of analysis actually add to the conversation or simply further
the constant back and forth between accusations of fundamentalist Christians imposing their backward faith on the rest of us vs. moral
decadent liberals corroding the fiber of our society? Will something
like this actually sway anybody? I don’t know, one hopes, but probably
not. I do take comfort in the fact that part of the job of citizens
is to make explicit what politicians hide in their rhetoric. To at least
make clear for all the stakes of the game here. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-46215958656578397232012-05-17T11:57:00.001-07:002012-05-17T12:18:27.054-07:00Analyzing the Rhetoric of Mitt Romney - A Commencement Speech for the Ages<span id="internal-source-marker_0.34580072037922105" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I
tend to shy away from politics, until recently. I felt that politics
entailed too much ambiguity and ambivalence to talk coherently about any
aspect of it, without expertise, but I don’t feel that I need any sort
of expertise to read, carefully and analytically, Mitt Romney’s
graduation speech at Liberty University. Romney’s speech demands a
response, not silence, or even cynical resignation. Some context will
help. Liberty University, to quote Wikipedia, “is a private</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Education"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Christian university</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> located in</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchburg,_Virginia"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Lynchburg, Virginia</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">.
Liberty's annual enrollment is 12,000 residential students and 60,000+
studying through Liberty University Online. LU is currently the largest</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Evangelical Christian</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> university in the world.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
university, founded by Jerry Falwell Sr., and currently run by his son,
is a bastion of extreme conservative thought. It’s hard to know what to
list as </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University#Controversy"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">shocking about the University</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,
whether the homophobic, racist, chauvinist statements of both Falwell’s
or some of the fundamentalist policies of the University which fly in
the face of any sense of academic freedom (espousal of creationism in
classes, a museum with a fossil labeled as 3,000 years old.), but as you
can imagine, reading about the University might provide some shock as
to their tactics and positions. (We will look at this in a bit...) But
you cannot fully blame a political candidate for talking to a strong
base of people key to his victory, but you can judge his words. I think
you could break down any one of his sentences and find not only a hidden
context and prejudice, but some flat out lies, self-promotion,
simplistic thinking, elitist moralism, and mere pettiness. Here we Go!</span></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">1. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">For the graduates, this moment marks a clear ending and a clear beginning. - </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Yes,
this, like most of graduation speech will be full of unhelpful cliches,
but what’s more interesting about Romney’s cliches is how wrong they
are. The end of college no longer signifies either a clear end or a
clear beginning. Rather it signifies for many a scary and ambiguous time
in which they must confront broken dreams, an economy in crisis, a job
market in shambles, and the psychological challenges of emerging
adulthood in a world in which we can not expect the luxuries of our
parents despite how hard we work. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">2. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Some
of you may have taken a little longer than four years to complete your
studies. One graduate has said that he completed his degree in only two
terms: Clinton’s and Bush’s. - </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">So
first he launches straight into poorly veiled politicized
self-promotion. After a few meager words about the graduates he draws
attention to himself, his importance, albeit implicitly here. Second, he
tells a story that clearly excludes president Obama, as if he doesn’t
or didn't exist, as if his presidency equalled nothing. (Perhaps I
misunderstand the story he quotes, but he calls the person a graduate,
implying from the class 2012, because otherwise why refer to him with
the ambiguous terms graduate in the context of a graduation speech.)</span></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">3. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In some ways, it is fitting that I share this distinction with Truett Cathy. </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In
general, quoting other people and name dropping is a staple of
graduation speeches, but who you quote often says about what you respect
and value. Romney, consequently, name checks a lot of interesting
people - here, first, Truett Cathy, who, “In 2007,</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Forbes</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
magazine ranked Cathy as the 380th richest man in America and the 799th
richest man in the world, with an estimated net worth of $1.2 billion.”
</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Hello donations from the 1%. </span></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">4. ...</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">And
with credit to Congressman Dick Armey: The American Dream is not owning
your own home, it is getting your kids out of the home you own. </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Hmmmm,
Dick Armey, where do I know that name from? Oh right, he’s homophobic,
moralistic, and wants to limit artistic freedom. See his statement on
Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky - </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In 1998, during the</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky_scandal"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Monica Lewinsky scandal</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, a reporter asked him what he would do if he were in President</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Bill Clinton</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">'s
position. He replied "If I were in the President's place I would not
have gotten a chance to resign. I would be lying in a pool of my own
blood, hearing Mrs. Armey standing over me saying, 'How do I reload this
damn thing?'"</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Read more here - </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Armey#Controversies"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Armey#Controversies</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">5. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Lately,
I’ve found myself thinking about life in four-year stretches. And let’s
just say that not everybody has achieved as much in these last four
years as you have.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">That’s a theme for another day. But two observations.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Just
some real casual and totally inconspicuous self-promotional Obama
bashing in a graduation speech, way to stay classy. Also, comparing the
accomplishments of thousands of young graduates to the burdens of the
President of the United States. Good argument. </span></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">6. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In
his 73 years of life, Dr. Falwell left a big mark. The calling Jerry
answered was not an easy one. Today we remember him as a courageous and
big-hearted minister of the Gospel who never feared an argument, and
never hated an adversary. Jerry deserves the tribute he would have
treasured most, as a cheerful, confident champion for Christ. </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Not
exactly how I would qualify another moralistic, homophobic,
chauvinistic, fundamentalist person, a person who had this to say about
9/11- </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"I really believe that the</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">pagans</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,
and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians
who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">ACLU</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">People For the American Way</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell,_Sr#cite_note-falwell_9.2F11-41"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">[42]</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Falwell further stated that the attacks were "probably deserved," a statement which</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Christopher Hitchens</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> called treasonous.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Also, Falwell found himself in the position, somehow, of “‘calling the homosexual-friendly</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Metropolitan Community Churches</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> "brute beasts" and "a vile and</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Satanic</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> system" that will "one day be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven’” </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Read more about the cheerful, non-hateful words Falwell </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell,_Sr#September_11th_attacks%20-"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">here</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. </span></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">7. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">America
needs your skill and talent. If we take the right course, we will see a
resurgence in the American economy that will surprise the world, and
that will open new doors of opportunity for those who are prepared as
you are. </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Not
only is this simply naive, ambiguous and nonsensical, or directional at
all (what’s the right course, because as far as I’ve seen no one really
knows) but wrong. Many experts assert that part of problem lies in
education, or in the type of education, and that given student debt
college might actually not be worth it at this moment, especially given
both the economic crisis and the astronomically rising prices in
colleges, I don’t see how this canard helps the graduates, though it
does help romney put forth good religious conservative beliefs. America
does not need your skill and talent, it needs cheap labor, our ph.ds our
on an all time high level of </span><a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/05/15/152751116/why-so-many-ph-d-s-are-on-food-stamps"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">food stamps</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. The collegiate dream, as it stands, is dying. (Read </span><a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/24/can-colleges-be-saved/?pagination=false"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">here</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03careerism-t.html?pagewanted=al"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">here</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, </span><a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/nov/03/the-truth-about-the-colleges/?pagination=false"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">her</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">e.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Even
if you disagree with the author, the sheer volume of books being
written about the worthlessness of a college degree, begs for some more
complexity than reinforcing an outdated version of the american
collegiate dream. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">8. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Of
course, what the next four years might hold for me is yet to be
determined. But I will say that things are looking up, and I take your
kind hospitality today as a sign of good things to come.I consider it a
great life honor to address you today. Your generosity of spirit humbles
me. The welcoming spirit of Liberty is a tribute to the gracious
Christian example of your founder.</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Wait
did I hint yet that I am running for president? Oh I did? Well, a third
time can’t hurt you. Also, welcoming spirit? To whom, not to
homosexuals, or people who disagree with their moral certainty, of
course. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">9. T</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">oday,
thanks to what you have gained here, you leave Liberty with conviction
and confidence as your armor. You know what you believe. You know who
you are. And you know Whom you will serve. Not all colleges instill that
kind of confidence, but it will be among the most prized qualities from
your education here. Moral certainty, clear standards, and a commitment
to spiritual ideals will set you apart in a world that searches for
meaning.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Note the battle metaphors...Also, this really sounds like a fundamental
difference in a lifeview i.e. the purpose of education: to teach a
single correct path or to teach how to choose a path for oneself.
Freedom to choose or Freedom to live the correct life, to live out our
so called purpose. So much of this statement instills fear in me. This
sounds like a ultra-orthodox right wing Jewish statement to make. Moral
certainty, clear standards, spiritual ideals, sounds very much like the
making of a rigid ideology that a person shoves onto the world, whether
it fits other peoples desires or not. Also note the denigration of
colleges that focus more on academic and religious freedom. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">10. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">That
said, your values will not always be the object of public admiration.
In fact, the more you live by your beliefs, the more you will endure the
censure of the world. Christianity is not the faith of the complacent,
the comfortable or of the timid. It demands and creates heroic souls
like Wesley, Wilberforce, Bonhoeffer, John Paul the Second, and Billy
Graham. Each showed, in their own way, the relentless and powerful
influence of the message of Jesus Christ. May that be your guide.</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Ok,
this is a packed sentence. Let’s take it apart. On the whole, America
being the most religious country in the world, I’m not sure how to take
Romney’s warning that these fundamentalist values will not be the object
of public admiration. Also, this creates a an Us vs. Them mentality
that goes in line with his metaphor of armour, as if he is sending
troops into a war. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Fair
point about Christian faith, but Billy Graham along with true christian
heroes like Bonhoeffer who fought against the tyranny of the Nazis? The
same Billy Graham who on tape made </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham#Controversy"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">vile anti-semitic statements</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, statements he doesn’t recall making. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">11. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">You
enter a world with civilizations and economies that are far from equal.
Harvard historian David Landes devoted his lifelong study to
understanding why some civilizations rise, and why others falter. His
conclusion: Culture makes all the difference. Not natural resources, not
geography, but what people believe and value. Central to America’s rise
to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision
of the goodness and possibilities of every life.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Breathe, deep. OK, first of all, hey world, case closed on our
problems! Romney quoting one academic in a simplified manner has found
the solution and cause of all our problems: Culture. Phew, I was real
worried there for a second that perhaps the problems stemmed from
something considerably more complicated, but it’s good to know that
Culture makes all the difference. And what culture is that? Perhaps an
amalgam of numerous cultures, nope. The Judeo-Christian Culture, which
of course can be spoken as a singular type of culture, not a
pluralistic, dynamic culture. Judeo-Christian culture does no wrong, it
seems. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">12. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work,
the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose
greater than self, and, at the foundation, the pre-eminence of the
family. The power of these values is evidenced by a Brookings
Institution study that Senator Rick Santorum brought to my attention.
For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry
before they have their first child, the probability that they will be
poor is 2%. But, if those things are absent, 76% will be poor. Culture
matters.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">As
fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of
democratic debate. So it is today with the enduring institution of
marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Hey, this sounds kind of nice, I like personal responsibility, all for
the dignity of work. Wait a minute, how did family get in there? And
what is the definition of a family? Oh, wait for it, that’s the
definition of a family, one based on a marriage between a man and a
woman. Also, cool study, and way to name drop Rick Santorum, because
Rick Santorum really represents some cogent, logical, intelligent points
of view. Also, I am not a statistician here, and besides the elitist
implications of the studies, since when does correlation equal
causality?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Also let’s see who funds the Brookings Institute - “At the end of 2004
the Brookings Institution had assets of $258 million and spent $39.7
million, while its budget has grown to more than $80 million in 2009.
Its largest contributors include the Ford Foundation, the Gates
Foundation, Sen.</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Dianne Feinstein</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> and her husband</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Blum"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Richard C. Blum</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Bank of America</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> ExxonMobil</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Charitable_Trusts"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Pew Charitable Trusts</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, the</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Foundation"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> MacArthur Foundation</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, the</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Corporation"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Carnegie Corporation</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">; and the governments of the</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> United States</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Japan</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Qatar</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">,</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Taipei</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, the</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> District of Columbia</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, and the</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> United Kingdom</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">.”</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Hey, in case you were wondering, Romney doesn’t believe that
homosexuals have the right to get married, but that can’t be news. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">13. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The
protection of religious freedom has also become a matter of debate. It
strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes
treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of
blessed with. Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those
who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">But
from the beginning, this nation trusted in God, not man. Religious
liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution. And whether the cause
is justice for the persecuted, compassion for the needy and the sick, or
mercy for the child waiting to be born, there is no greater force for
good in the nation than Christian conscience in action.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Ok, Romney raises a good point. The nature of religious freedom
deserves our attention as a complex question. Does religious freedom
entail freedom from religion, or freedom to practice, or both, and if
they clash, then how do we resolve that class, but his conclusion of
perhaps religious conscience upsets...is a complete non-sequitur, as if
somehow not agreeing with a religious conscience automatically leads to a
belief in a sort church of government. Q.E.D. folks.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
No greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in
action. If that does not count as religious elitism, I don’t know what
does. Is this a sermon, are all graduation speeches sermon, in some way
or another? This though, we can just qualify as religious. The line
between praising a religion for its achievement and elitism gets
mightily blurry, mightily fast. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
Ok, I’ve already written enough for one day, and I hope to flesh out
the implications of these criticisms in the next post, but here, I just
wanted to open this up to discussion, and to notification of who our
candidates truly are, or how they truly represent themselves. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The full speech can be found <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/romneys-liberty-u-commencement-speech--text/2012/05/14/gIQAaKcPPU_blog.html">here</a>.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-29361688494771080782012-04-18T11:38:00.000-07:002012-04-18T11:38:11.365-07:00The Stupidity of A No Vote - Way To Go Pulitzer!<div dir="ltr" id="internal-source-marker_0.47988446211020697" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The word Pulitzer carries along with it a sense of true prestige, and yet, after this year, I can’t help but feel that now it wears the weighty baggage of being stuffy, priggish, rigid, and downright lame. In this post, I first thought to attempt investigate journalism: to explore previous years in which a fiction award was not bestowed (10 times), or examine the criteria, or what exactly a no vote means in the language of the award, but I felt that this type of effort would pander to precisely the type of inane chatter that awards bring up. I don’t want to play this game of who was better, or who deserved the award, because I am not a panelist, and so many people did deserve the award. </span></div><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> I just want to discuss the obvious missed opportunity of a no vote represents. Not only were there many deserving awards, but if you attempt to look at previous winners compared to our year, you will feel baffled in the comparison. A vote of no vote either means no real winner could emerge from a batch of amazing books, or nothing, even if we could create a hierarchy deserved the award, but both of these ideas, even if true, are stupid, and kind of a bit pretentious. It’s ridiculous to think that judges couldnt choose a best book from such an impressive batch, and it’s even sadder to think that they couldnt choose a best book for this year. No one asked them to choose the best book ever, but as Ann Patchett points out, we missed an opportunity here to celebrate something important. The whole idea of a non-vote is ridiculous. Can you actually fathom a year in a which a book isn't good enough for the standards of the all-mighty Pulitzer? I can’t, because many of this year’s nominee should win in a previous year, so it must come down to the fact it was too hard to choose, which is also a ridiculously pretentious option because it ends up putting more focus on the award than on the books themselves. </span></div><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Let’s think of one possible alternative to a no vote. Though I am biased towards the work of David Foster Wallace, even so, I find his book a perfect example of what we could have accomplished with the Pulitzer. I admit that though some of the Pale King might display DFW’s best work to date, as an unfinished novel, I cannot think it was better than all of the books of the year, and certainly not DFW’s best book ever. But let’s ask a simple question, couldn’t the judges have risen past their limited criteria and chosen a book that represents the lifetime work of one of our best authors of this century? Don’t we give oscars to people who might not deserve them for this specific movie, but deserve recognition for a lifetime of work (Denzel Washington for Training Day, Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart)? I know lifetime achievement awards exist, but they don’t in the world of the Pulitzer and bestowing a Pulitzer on the Pale King would not only have introduced a whole new and diverse population to this book, but the pained story and astounding works of DFW.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Think about it, even with the death of DFW, as his readership grew, it seemed to grow in a linear manner in that younger people who fit the mold of DFW readers (perhaps lonely, young, highly educated etc) started to read DFW. But imagine that with the stamp of the Pulitzer DFW works were opened to a real diverse range of people who could now feel incentive to challenge themselves. </span></div><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Many say that to bestow a Pulitzer on a posthumous wouldn’t be fair, but not be fair to whom? I don’t know many authors who would feel offended by this type of an award, or the benefits the literary world would reap, and if it is about betraying some ancient standards of awards, then who really cares? Furthermore, let’s say it started a conversation about literature, about posthumous literature, and about the nature of awards, wouldn’t that serve as a much better conversation for the literary world than the unflattering conversation we need to engage in now about the meaning of a no vote? </span></div><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">To me, what this boils down to is either a cowardice - an inability to choose - or a pretentiousness, a rigidity to rules that no one cares about besides the institution itself. Both options seem sad, and lame, and generally pathetic. Instead of a positive conversation that would provide an always welcome jolt to the world of literature, we look like idiots, like dorks in fact. In fact, for those of you once upon a time camp-goers, imagine the judges told you that after three days of intense, albeit stupid color war battles, no one wins, because it’s just too hard to tell, or no one won because we all suck, equally, or the most pandering, you are all winners! I hope that as a camp we would revolt, and though I can’t hope for anything similar in the calm world of literature were we argue, kindly, with our words, I do hope that someone from the Pulitzer world answers for this stupidity, though I highly doubt it. Both the readers and the writers deserve a real explanation on that doesn’t not insult us or rely on some stupid obsession with rules or precedence.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">For a calmer argument, read the always amazing Ann Patchett - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/and-the-winner-of-the-pulitzer-isnt.html?_r=1</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Thanks for reading, </span></div><div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">JoeTalk </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-8674122153954633132012-03-08T07:16:00.000-08:002012-03-08T07:16:14.051-08:00Megillah TweetsHi all. Tweeted the megillah. It was fun. <br />
<br />
<div class="stream js-stream-manager-container"><div class="js-stream-manager" id="profile-stream-manager"><div class="stream-container"><div class="stream" data-component-term="stream"><div class="js-stream-items stream-items" id="stream-items-id"><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177770443766370306" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"><div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177770443766370306" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177770443766370306" data-user-id="113136747"><div class="content"><div class="js-tweet-text"><a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="arijay918" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/arijay918" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>arijay918</b></a> The megillah read's like an old man's inglorious basterds - A Jewish wet dream of vengeance.</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177769571372113921" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177769571372113921" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177769571372113921" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177769571372113921" title="9:55 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331218543000">7m</span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">Anyone else a bit skeptical of the Jew's ability to decimate their enemies, is that an inappropriate question?</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177769147424448512" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177769147424448512" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177769147424448512" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177769147424448512" title="9:54 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331218442000"></span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">Today is international women's day. Which is cool because the megillah really represents women well <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23sarcasm" title="#sarcasm"><s>#</s><b>sarcasm</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177761134122762241" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet retweeted colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177761134122762241" data-my-retweet-id="177768808814084097" data-retweet-id="177768808814084097" data-screen-name="arijay918" data-tweet-id="177761134122762241" data-user-id="239145121"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/arijay918/status/177761134122762241" title="9:22 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216531000"></span></a></small><a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link" data-user-id="239145121" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/arijay918"><span class="username js-action-profile-name"><b><br />
</b></span> </a> </div><div class="js-tweet-text">Movie idea: Esther played by <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23EmmaStone" title="#EmmaStone"><s>#</s><b>EmmaStone</b></a> as awkward but snarky. Or <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23ZooeyDeschanel" title="#ZooeyDeschanel"><s>#</s><b>ZooeyDeschanel</b></a> as quirky, lovable. <s> </s></div><div class="js-tweet-text"><a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler" rel="nofollow"><s><br />
</s></a></div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177767225707606018" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"><div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177767225707606018" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177767225707606018" data-user-id="113136747"><div class="content"> Another basic creative writing lesson - one ending per story. Megillah has like five <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23learnhowtowritebetter" title="#learnhowtowritebetter"><s>#</s><b>learnhowtowritebetter</b></a> <div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177766961093148672" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177766961093148672" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177766961093148672" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177766961093148672" title="9:45 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331217920000"></span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">After this whole episode, who would stay in any of these countries. King A. throws around genocides like nobody's business - <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23getoutofpersia" title="#getoutofpersia"><s>#</s><b>getoutofpersia</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177766474474192897" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177766474474192897" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177766474474192897" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177766474474192897" title="9:43 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331217804000"></span></a></small><a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link" data-user-id="113136747" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler"><span class="username js-action-profile-name"><b><br />
</b></span> </a> </div><div class="js-tweet-text">Anyone else think it's funny how quickly everyone in the story just solves problem through hangings? <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23reignofterror" title="#reignofterror"><s>#</s><b>reignofterror</b></a> <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23megillah" title="#megillah"><s>#</s><b>megillah</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177765801594597377" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177765801594597377" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177765801594597377" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> </div><div class="content"> <div class="js-tweet-text">When Haman finds out that King A. plans on celebrating Mordechai and not him = true sad face emoticon #feelings#megillah</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177765384781443072" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177765384781443072" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177765384781443072" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177765384781443072" title="9:39 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331217545000"></span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">With all due respect to King A. - A horse ride? How about money, power, one of your 127 nations, some women, anything but a horse ride...</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177765068262473728" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177765068262473728" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177765068262473728" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177765068262473728" title="9:37 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331217469000"></span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">Man, how whiny does Haman sound when he brags to his wife that only got invited to the party - he also needs more hugz <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23megillah" title="#megillah"><s>#</s><b>megillah</b></a></div><div class="js-tweet-text"><a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link" data-user-id="113136747" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name"></strong><span class="username js-action-profile-name"></span> </a></div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177764772425629696" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"><div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177764772425629696" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177764772425629696" data-user-id="113136747"><div class="content"><div class="stream-item-header"> </div><div class="js-tweet-text"><br />
</div><div class="js-tweet-text">If I was reading the Megillah for the first time, I would probably guess that Haman was gonna lose pretty soon into the story <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23sixthsense" title="#sixthsense"><s>#</s><b>sixthsense</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177764478602059777" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177764478602059777" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177764478602059777" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177764478602059777" title="9:35 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331217329000"><br />
</span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">King A. = ridikulous. I will give you half the kingdom? What! Esther could not have been that pretty. dude needed more hugs as a child.</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177763908705198081" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177763908705198081" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177763908705198081" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177763908705198081" title="9:33 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331217193000"><br />
</span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">It seems that Mordechai and Esther never talk to each other directly. <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23BadCommunicationSkillz" title="#BadCommunicationSkillz"><s>#</s><b>BadCommunicationSkillz</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177763458887069697" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177763458887069697" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177763458887069697" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177763458887069697" title="9:31 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331217085000"><br />
</span></a></small> </div><div class="js-tweet-text">Mordechai knows everything, so connected. His seems like Carcetti on Game of Thrones, except he doesnt own a brothel, I dont think...</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177762809222938624" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177762809222938624" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177762809222938624" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177762809222938624" title="9:28 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216931000">34</span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">Basic tenet of creative writing = show not tell. Megillah is all tell. Sometimes sounds like a kid wrote it - then this happened... <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23Megilla" title="#Megilla"><s>#</s><b>Megilla</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177762193763348480" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177762193763348480" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177762193763348480" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177762193763348480" title="9:26 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216784000">37m</span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text"><br />
</div><div class="js-tweet-text">See previous tweet, but that's basically the story of this bachelor, except he gives a ring instead of a crown...<a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23megillah" title="#megillah"><s>#</s><b>megillah</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177762048153882624" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177762048153882624" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177762048153882624" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177762048153882624" title="9:25 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216749000"></span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">The king loved Esther above all the women... so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti - verse 17</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177761453992980480" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177761453992980480" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177761453992980480" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177761453992980480" title="9:23 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216607000"><br />
</span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">King A's way of choosing way women seems oddly similar to the oddly popular show the Bachelor...just sayin' <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23megillah" title="#megillah"><s>#</s><b>megillah</b></a> tweets</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177761064220504064" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177761064220504064" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177761064220504064" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> </div><div class="content"> <div class="js-tweet-text">Why is it that no one actually does any work in the megillah. Everyone is always just lounging around, or partying, it's like Gossip girl</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177760567744921601" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177760567744921601" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177760567744921601" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177760567744921601" title="9:19 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216396000">43m</span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">One of the crazier parts of the megillah - six months of oil baths and six months of makeup - can you imagine that kind of pampering?</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177759842621071360" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177759842621071360" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177759842621071360" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177759842621071360" title="9:17 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216223000"></span></a></small><a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link" data-user-id="113136747" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler"><span class="username js-action-profile-name"><b><br />
</b></span> </a> </div><div class="js-tweet-text">I think Vashti is totally underrated. What a baller. Who says no to the king? She does. She might the biggest baller in the story? <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23megillah" title="#megillah"><s>#</s><b>megillah</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177759185113587713" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
my-tweet
colored-links colored-actions hover" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177759185113587713" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177759185113587713" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177759185113587713" title="9:14 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216066000"></span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">King A. reminds me of how I imagine Rick Ross lives - 100+ days of partying, flowing wine, showing off women, an entourage giving bad advice</div><div class="js-tweet-text"><br />
</div><div class="js-tweet-text">Ari Schwab's Tweets</div><s> </s></div><div class="content"><a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>JosephWinkler</b></a> I like how we're remindEd at the end that Haman was the villain...in case we forgot. totally diff story if he was hero. <div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177767705636651008" data-item-type="tweet" media="true" style="margin-top: 0px;"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177767705636651008" data-screen-name="arijay918" data-tweet-id="177767705636651008" data-user-id="239145121"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/arijay918/status/177767705636651008" title="9:48 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331218098000"></span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text"><a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>JosephWinkler</b></a> wouldn't be a happy ending if Mordy didn't get decked out in full swag....phew, that happens.</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177765960198008832" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177765960198008832" data-screen-name="arijay918" data-tweet-id="177765960198008832" data-user-id="239145121"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/arijay918/status/177765960198008832" title="9:41 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331217682000"></span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text"><a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>JosephWinkler</b></a> <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23Wire" title="#Wire"><s>#</s><b>Wire</b></a> wisdom from megillah: the king stay the king. No matter how smart those pawns be.</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177764612081586177" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177764612081586177" data-screen-name="arijay918" data-tweet-id="177764612081586177" data-user-id="239145121"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> </div><div class="js-tweet-text">only thing keeping Haman from being a comic book villain is he forgets to monologue his plan and cackle. <a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>JosephWinkler</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177762135915507712" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177762135915507712" data-screen-name="arijay918" data-tweet-id="177762135915507712" data-user-id="239145121"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/arijay918/status/177762135915507712" title="9:26 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216770000"><br />
</span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">A FIFTY FT tree?! Subtle. <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23ifHamanWasABetterVillain" title="#ifHamanWasABetterVillain"><s>#</s><b>ifHamanWasABetterVillain</b></a> <a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>JosephWinkler</b></a> <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23megillahtweets" title="#megillahtweets"><s>#</s><b>megillahtweets</b></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177761453992980480" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet my-tweet colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177761453992980480" data-retweet-id="177761718733254656" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" data-tweet-id="177761453992980480" data-user-id="113136747"> <div class="content"> <div class="content"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler/status/177761453992980480" title="9:23 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331216607000">4</span></a></small><a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link" data-user-id="113136747" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler"></a><div class="js-tweet-text">Movie idea: Esther played by <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23EmmaStone" title="#EmmaStone"><s>#</s><b>EmmaStone</b></a> as awkward but snarky. Or <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23ZooeyDeschanel" title="#ZooeyDeschanel"><s>#</s><b>ZooeyDeschanel</b></a> as quirky, lovable. <a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="JosephWinkler" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JosephWinkler" rel="nofollow"><s></s></a></div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177761134122762241" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet colored-links colored-actions retweeted" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177761134122762241" data-my-retweet-id="177768808814084097" data-screen-name="arijay918" data-tweet-id="177761134122762241" data-user-id="239145121"> </div></div><div class="js-stream-item stream-item stream-item expanding-stream-item" data-item-id="177754778149990401" data-item-type="tweet" media="true"> <div class="tweet original-tweet js-stream-tweet js-actionable-tweet js-hover js-profile-popup-actionable js-original-tweet
colored-links colored-actions" data-is-reply-to="" data-item-id="177754778149990401" data-screen-name="arijay918" data-tweet-id="177754778149990401" data-user-id="239145121"> <div class="content"> <div class="stream-item-header"> <small class="time"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/arijay918/status/177754778149990401" title="8:56 AM - 8 Mar 12"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1331215016000"></span></a></small></div><div class="js-tweet-text">Megillah thoughts: Haman, Achash, even Mordy&Esther were all the 1%. <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" data-query-source="hashtag_click" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23WeAreThe99" title="#WeAreThe99"><s>#</s><b>WeAreThe99</b></a>% <a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link" data-user-id="239145121" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/arijay918"></a><a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link" data-user-id="239145121" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/arijay918"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name"></strong></a></div></div></div></div><div class="js-tweet-text"><br />
</div><div class="stream-item-footer"> <div class="context"> </div><a class="details with-icn js-details" href="https://twitter.com/#"> <span class="js-icon-container"> </span> <b> <span class="view-open js-view-details"> </span> </b> </a> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-68786213611536667722012-03-07T14:34:00.001-08:002012-03-08T05:55:03.165-08:00Cynicism, Genuine Expression and Salvaging PurimI remember fondly my Purim celebrations in Yeshiva. Sadly, towards many of my previous religious experiences, or stages, I feel heavily ambivalent. However, despite all the estrangement and resentment I feel from religion or towards religion, I rarely look back on my memories of Purim in Yeshiva as wasted, or perhaps backwards. For me, Purim represented a strange magical time, in which I could feel true joy, a dropping of all pretense, and a genuine connection of love to everyone and everything around me. For the skeptics out there, I also got drunk for the first time in my life on Purim, and on that day, a good friend of mine pushed me around the adjacent town in a shopping cart, but the frivolity need not negate the sincerity. I, for a day, maybe even for the whole month, forgot any sense of frustration, or distaste, or even resentment towards anybody in my life despite living in that stage of life when I resented everything and everyone. Purim felt like a sanctioned day off from all my worries, neuroses, and harsh self-lacerations against myself. I felt an odd almost Zen sense of purity, or connection, a day of real spiritual freedom and cleanliness. A day full of that sentiment that everything fits, that you can see your life clearly, your path, your purpose. To some extent, this idea keeps me attached to the feelings Purim used to elicit.<br />
<br />
However, each successive Purim since my first drunken one in Yeshiva becomes less and less inspiring, moving, or even exciting. Part of it stems from the history of the day, and the uniqueness of our cultural situation. Regardless of the historical accuracy of the Purim story, as many scholars point out, most religions embrace a day of frivolity or revelry, a day, where the normal rules of propriety do not apply, as if these days serve as a release of a pressure valve that builds up throughout the year. Think of the carnivals of old, of the Festival of Fools, or of the initial foundations of Mardi Gras. Purim, they opine, plays this same role. However, two historical developments make this purpose of the day obsolete. First, most Jews do not live regimented religious lives in need of a release, and two, most people I know drink, or smoke pretty regularly that the idea of a designated day of revelry feels like overkill.<br />
<br />
If the festival of Purim, both from a legal standpoint, but also from a historical standpoint serves a similar purpose to the Christian festival of fools, or carnivals of old, then our more materialistic, experiential lifestyle full of joints, cigarettes, hukkah, large meals, alcohol, sex, the best food whenever you want it, in a time when we embrace physical indulgence on every level unless it hurts someone else, then a simple day of indulgence serves as no release, as no big deal at all. So we get to drink! Don’t we drink all the time? Don’t we go to parties all the time?<br />
<br />
For some, in attempts to salvage the singularity of the holiday, they turn the day into a representation of a cause, here, usually feminism, in the vein of Esther’s independence and assertiveness. Though this attempt disregards the historical patriarchal society of the supposed tale, the image awakens us to an issue we easily forget (recent events in American politics remind of the exigency of this issue.) However, social justice can only sustain a holiday until the fight continues, and even then, a fight rarely infuses a holiday with a sense of connection to something greater. Instead, it uses a traditional story to serve contemporary needs, which in of itself presents no problem, but misrepresents the significance of the day. Yoram Hazony’s book on Esther, a politicization of the story, while intelligent, works mostly off conjecture, and emerges as a propaganda infused reading of a text.) Yet, even if we find a tangential meaning to attach to the holiday, we cannot overcome certain problems with the story itself as it promulgates a provincial, myopic outlook, a culture preening of its own merits. I doubt many people go through the holiday and take much inspiration from the story of a genocide averted through fierce retaliation, in the way people do from the Passover and Hanukkah story.<br />
<div dir="ltr"><br />
</div><div dir="ltr">Yet, as usual, the celebration itself transcends the actual act we commemorate. Here, for most, or if not many the day, if you choose to drink, is a long drunken stupor in which you flirt, hug, dress up, and act stupid, because why not. It’s a day of partying, not unlike a vacation day, but here with the outlines of religious observance. For many it’s nothing more than a party theme, which isn’t a judgment, but an observation, one that fits in with the religious development of a large part of Judaism away from traditional bonds and connections. No secret here.</div><div dir="ltr"><br />
</div><div dir="ltr">So where does that leave us? We can take away easy messages of being yourself, or of creating an autonomous personality, or of fighting for religious tolerance, but these easy Lifetime/Hallmark channel truisms leave little impressions on our personality. Or, we can explain that we revel often, but how often do we engage in a mass cultural revelry, one in which our whole community celebrates, drunkenly? None of this convinces me, because when it comes down to it, Purim parties that start the week beforehand, again, feel like a hilariously misguided excuse to celebrate as opposed to a reason for celebration. Additionally, we cannot outrun the obvious point that inevitably, with an attenuation of religious devotion and observance, most if not all holidays will turn into emptier experiences, though perhaps culturally viable, and even valuable. Consequently, the question that remains is what can we add, or make of the holidays on a level that fits our desires, needs, and personality, to engage? How can I use these ritualistic times of the year, traditionally given to thoughts of spirituality as a contemporary person who lacks certainty, and often doubts the existence of something more than the material world?</div><div dir="ltr"><br />
</div><div dir="ltr">Interestingly, I find myself chewing on an answer from the spiritual realm. One strong vein in the mystical realm explains that Purim represents a day to transcend our mere physicality not through the weaker asceticism of the Day of Atonement, but transcendence through the embrace of the earthly. More importantly, for our purposes, it represents a day in which no one hides, but here on Purim, as much as we, similar to the Day of Atonement, cannot hide from the Eternal Judge, here we cannot hide from the disparate parts of ourselves, or other people. Here’s a day in which we accept people for as they are, what they want to be, poor or rich, cool or lame, awkward or charismatic, part of the brotherhood of men, bro, or not; whether the rabbis intended for this, this aspect has become part of the day.</div><br />
It’s not hard to see that this insight transcends any religious goals or motivations. It simply states what we know as true, but forget most of the time: that real, and true communication matters to us; that we know it gives value, purpose, and meaning to our lives, but we shy away from it, for whatever reason. We know deep down that in order to love, to survive, we need to speak and act genuinely, risking vulnerability with other people. Sometimes we need to drop the cynicism, the narcissism, the desire to look cool, to be seen as smart or pretty, to think more about what you can give than what you can take to feel normal, balanced, healthy even. I imagine most unmarried people on this day will seek out someone to love them, someone to flirt with, or someone to make them feel pretty, but perhaps, instead of seeking out a way to make ourselves feel better, however fleeting, we should look to provide that to someone else.<br />
<div dir="ltr"><br />
</div><div dir="ltr">The message ends up non-ideological, but cliched nonetheless. However, we underestimate the value of cliches. If we think about it, so much of how we navigate our day depends on cliches: to comfort ourselves in times of need, to easily categorize information, to help us keep together the social glue, to flirt. All of these arenas rely on cliches or conventional wisdom that slips out of our consciousness, daily. Sometimes we mislabel certain wisdom or rules about our non-physical selves as cliches because it lacks complexity or the concreteness and certitude of biology (Imagine someone expressing snarkiness at the “cliche” of vegetables offering more healthy ingredients than greasy fried chicken), but we can agree on same basic human requirements: to feel loved, unconditionally, to feel understood, challenged, accepted by others and by ourselves flaws, insecurities and all, and to feel respected. This basic existential needs engenders happiness, and makes us more caring people. In this sense, Purim affords a free pass to care deeply about our family, our friends, and our selves, without the normal social repercussions, to give gifts for no particular reasons to the ones you love, to hug freely, to give without hesitation to the poor. Purim is a day in which we can remember the needs we learned as we grew up but forget when we grew smart, all of which does sound like a Hallmark card, but maybe that’s the point.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312538642475486004.post-59246783083910746552012-02-10T12:02:00.000-08:002012-02-10T12:04:01.862-08:00Yellow Ostrich, Leonard Cohen, and The Timeless Search For Meaning<div dir="ltr" id="internal-source-marker_0.4443651001406703" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">A part of me knows the foolishness of categorization, the superficiality of it all. We impose categories to create order, or for the sake of comparison, but we all know, that when we say x artist is similar to y artist we do both a disservice on some deep level. (The comparison of the Tallest Man on Earth to Dylan is both truly fitting, but plainly silly for too many reasons to enumerate here.) We fail as writers when we fall back on the need to contextualize, because contextualization, though true, always saps an artist of their singularity. But we cannot help ourselves. Our minds naturally create connections, or build compare contrast charts in our heads.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Not that any of this matters, per se, but I find it interesting because so many of our cultural critics rely on this tool, contextualization, or comparison when evaluating anything. Rarely do we use our language to try to overcome the boundaries of language, and who can blame them? Regardless all of this abstract wanderings, these ideas serve as an unnecessarily elaborate way of saying that in no way do I actually think that Alex Schaaf of Yellow Ostrich and Leonard Cohen belong in any of the same categories. However, I do find it interesting to think about these two talents, both hitting separate peaks at the opposite ends of their career at similar times. Leonard Cohen, rightfully so, needs less of an introduction, so allow me to introduce to you the prolific and talented Alex Schaaf. Native of Wisconsin, Schaaf started his musical career in the band Chairs and in his room with a bunch of machines, it seems. Though many lament the Internet for its proliferation of information, almost creating a storm of information that we need to sift through day in and day out, where websites solely work through winnowing information for other people, this overflow also allows us to track each miniscule step of an artist, which in the case of Schaaf is a fascinating endeavor to experience. Though clearly far from achieving anything in the way of his full potential, Schaaf has grown and evolved from a precociously talented teenager, capable of crafting gorgeous layers of song with just his voice, a guitar, and some sound machines, into a poetic writer of fully realized studio songs, still with his signature vocal loops, but now with a band to collaborate with. His first single off his upcoming album Strange Land, Marathon Runner serves as a great evidence of his place as an artist, as does Cohen’s first song of his new album, Old Ideas, Going home. Here are the lyrics and music to both. First, Marathon Runner, then Going Home.</span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">listen here:</span><br />
<a href="http://soundcloud.com/yellow-ostrich/marathon-runner" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">http://soundcloud.com/yellow-ostrich/marathon-runner</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/01/leonard-cohens-going-home-new-song.html" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/01/leonard-cohens-going-home-new-song.html</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Marathon Runner</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">When I was a boy of seventeen, I know it's mean, but I I told my friend to give up on her dreams, she hated me, but I I knew that dreams were for the best of us, not for the rest of us, and I I didn't want to share with anyone</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I need a way to sing the greatest dance, and make them laugh,</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I could win the wars, or lose the battles too, whichever's true</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I can live in other people's lives -</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I CAN'T STOP PUTTING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S CLOTHES</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I love them 'til I leave</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I am a marathon runner and my legs are sore and I'm anxious to see what I'm running for I am a hot air balloon on a sailboat I would make this my home if I'd learned to float</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">So take my treasures, take my earthly life, I'll try to cry,</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I will live without the things I love the best</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">So hold them to your chest</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I will lose my faces, lose my stolen wigs, the heads of kings</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I will run until I know what to believe</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Going Home</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I love to speak with Leonard</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">He’s a sportsman and a shepherd</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">He’s a lazy bastard</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Living in a suit</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">But he does say what I tell him</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Even though it isn’t welcome</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">He will never have the freedom</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">To refuse</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">He will speak these words of wisdom</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Like a sage, a man of vision</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Though he knows he’s really nothing</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">But the brief elaboration of a tube</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Going home</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Without my sorrow</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Going home</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Sometime tomorrow</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">To where it’s better</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Than before</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Going home</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Without my burden</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Going home</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Behind the curtain</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Going home</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Without the costume</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">That I wore</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">He wants to write a love song</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">An anthem of forgiving</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">A manual for living with defeat</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">A cry above the suffering</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">A sacrifice recovering</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">But that isn’t what I want him to complete</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I want to make him certain</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">That he doesn’t have a burden</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">That he doesn’t need a vision</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">That he only has permission</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">To do my instant bidding</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">That is to SAY what I have told him</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">To repeat</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In a sense, I find it fascinating, that though at the opposite spectrum of their careers, both speak about movement, about home, about finding a place, but as expected, one speaks in a playful style of irony, riddles, mysteries, and a resigned sense of accomplishment that only the wisdom of years can bestow, (True, even the Cohen of 17 wrote gnomic poetry, but sometimes it still feels precocious or unearned, incommensurate to his life experience, ) while the younger artist: hungry, a bit desperate, restless, writes and sings without glibness, with a genuine desire to find his place, to run, despite the aches and pains, to finally find something to actually run for. In both we find hope, but in the Marathon Runner, we find the hope of youth, seeing a world exploding with the potential of choice while in Going home, we find the hope of concrete expectations, and the wisdom of acceptance. Stylistically, they are both poems to the self, meditations on persona that double as conversations.</span></div><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The music reinforces the different stages of the artists self exploration: whereas Marathon runner builds in speed, running itself into meaning, Going home walks slowly, carefully observing each step, each sound, even the silence permeating between the sounds. The pacing of each cannot partake of more diametrically opposed choices. Schaaf’s song runs through the words, through its measures, while Cohen speaks sparsely, slowly, with time to waste, to burn.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In this vein, both songs strike a deeply religious note, though the religiosity of post-modernism in which the search takes the place of the destination. Cohen, a continual, itinerant explorer, rehashes the experiences of a lifetime, but still seeks to create, “a love song, an anthem of forgiving, a manual for living with defeat, a cry above the suffering, a sacrifice recovering.” Notice how Cohen, carefully undermines our expectation with each turn of phrase. For Cohen, the bard of the complexities of love to desire to write a love song, well I can’t help but chuckle. Furthermore, in the context of the other phrases, “a love song” take on a different meaning. Each phrase strikes a note of mystery, of reaching beyond what we think normal or natural. We rarely associate anthems with forgiveness, or cries above suffering, or a manual of living that focuses on defeat, but with the hindsight of wisdom they earn their coherence. These goals are the goals of experience, not of youth. Schaaf, considerably less subtle in his poetry, specifically in his imagery (Marathon runner, though an appropriate metaphor is not what one would call a fertile metaphor, or even a very new one, but it strikes the exact tone of running for no real purpose, but with an ostensible end in sight,) loses none of his power in his explicitness. In fact, in his genuineness, lies his power, because in a world of either easy cynicism (sorry, MGMT) or maudlin sentimentality (duh Coldplay and Mumford and Sons…) creating a genuine statement presents an almost harder challenge than a cryptic one. What then, could strike us as more genuine than the simple truth of, “I will run until I know what to believe.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Schaaf describes a struggle with perhaps one of the foundational issues of our generation: the tension between a deep-seated desire for personal achievement with the loftier, but more elusive desire to be a good person, or the thin line between meaning and the absurd. The relationship between self and other plays a central role in both of these songs as they explore the complex aspects of an artist's role and life in society. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Yet, despite all this heaviness, they both display a healthy sense of sense-awareness and playfulness. Cohen undermines his persona of a visionary guide or prophet through his playful dialogue with his lazy bastard self, while Schaaf undercuts his desire for purpose and meaning in his realization of the selfishness of such a pursuit.</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In the end, after we clear away this attempt at analysis, when it comes down to it I find it comforting for the new guard picking up the torch of these universal issues with a contemporary tinge, and even more comforting, both of these artists display no desire to stop finding out what they are running for, and for that, I feel gratitude.</span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797941665951804338noreply@blogger.com0