How Did I Wind Up Here?

By Plane, Obviously

I need:
Gladware/food storage
A cutting board
A kitchen knife
Bread
Cheese
Rice
Dried meat
Milk
Maybe a potato or two?

But that's too much to carry in one trip to-and-from my hotel to the mall grocery store.  Plus, I need to stop to withdraw some rials.

What?  Oh, I didn't see you there, reading my blog . . . that I am presently writing.  How's that for starting in media res?

The Why(s) of Ty

No one actually calls me "Ty," except my brother.  But, I guess I need to launch into a couple explanations.

I am writing this blog because it was suggested to me that I should keep a blog and I am also looking to keep my spending down.  Blog-writing costs me naught, but my dignity.

The other "why" is "why I am in Qatar when all the things dear to me are in the U.S.?"  Well, the short answer is money and employment.  The longer answer is that I make bad decisions, have always wanted to travel, and somewhere out of the mess that I have made of my work life came an excellent opportunity with the steep caveat that I leave my beloved (I'm jealous of people who speak romance languages and get to call one another adorable things like "mi Amor" or "ma pêche," but I don't speak those languages and I don't think she's going to go for "mein Schatz."  Screw it, I'm rolling with it, hereinafter, she is "MEIN SCHATZ" because I know how much she loves German and I feel like all-caps and bolding really help the German-effect), my three cats, and the house we just bought last year behind, to stay in Doha for a minimum of six months.

I always thought it would be super-cool to travel for work when I was younger, more foolish, and possibly, dare I say it, more naive.  When I was 25, I didn't have a mortgage keeping me in one place or someone back home on whom I have been relying for daily emotional support for 10 years.  This may wind up being considerably more trying than I anticipated.

#FOMO

Like I said, I need to keep my expenses down, but it's pretty clear at this point that this escapade will be the exception, rather than the rule, of my career.  I'll probably never see Doha again after this job, so I don't want to miss out on it.  There's a lot that I want to see:  the Islamic Art Museum, an actual sand desert (not the fake, baked clay kind. Arizona, I'm looking at you), the pearl beaches, at least a little bit of the nightlife, although I am less interested in that.  But while the nightlife is close by, here in West Bay, anything else probably requires renting a taxi and going out into the dunes requires a whole trip.  I've been told to consider buying a bike, as it will save me money in just a couple of months, but there isn't really a biking culture here.  Traffic is fast and fairly dense (I'm told it will be very dense, but I haven't seen that outside of parking lots) and I don't exactly see a lot of bike racks.  I can get a folding bike that I can take up to my room and into work, but I sort of doubt they want me wandering around a museum with one.  And I have to buy one - where is Capital Bike Share when you need it?

First Impressions

Everything is expensive.  Actually, that's not true.  Living expenses doesn't seem to be too bad, lack of public transit notwithstanding, although I might feel differently if the company weren't providing the hotel (I'm living in a hotel for six months, I feel like a movie star.  Albeit one who went to buy pots and pans to cook their own food and has a less-than-full pantry because it's about a half hour walk back from grocery store, which is, as I said, in a mall, and it is not chilly outside so I can only carry so much).  But everything looks expensive.  I'm afraid to touch anything outside my room for fear of breaking it and having to wash all of the dishes, forever.  I was outside 10 minutes and saw three Ferraris and dozens of Land Rovers.
The traffic does move quickly, with little regard to traffic laws.  Although, I like the U-Turn lanes and signals, those are a nice touch.  Anna and her husband seem to navigate it just fine, even if the former did express some reservations.
Because so much of the city is "new," it is just gorgeous at night.  At least where I am; I'm sure there are less gorgeous parts, but driving in was amazing.  Of all the views possible from the hotel, my view is probably among the worst, but I can see the Gulf from here, so, yeah, it's lovely around these parts.

As expected, there are a lot of economic migrants here and English is extremely common. I feel bad traveling to a country where I don't speak a lick of the language, but then I did go to France, Italy, and Armenia, too.  And it's not like the Swiss can understand my German anyway.  The Qataris, I think, are very conscious off all the non-natives wandering about; I don't know how they feel about us, having little-to-no interaction with native Qataris so far, but anywhere I go, there are customer service people (economic migrants, as well) and they're not bored.  Well, they might be anyway, but they're busy because everyone stops to ask them questions.  In a U.S. mall, where there might be a map, instead there are a couple uniformed customer service people taking queries and giving directions.
The first night at one of the souks was cool.  I'm to understand that it has been rebuilt, but rebuilt to look like an old fashioned souk.  Architecturally, it probably does, but it really reminded me the shopping districts in Zurich, with the pedestrian roads, boutiquey shops on all sides punctuated by the more dimly lit restaurants with their patron-noise spilling out into the crowds.  Well, that and no one was in jeans and a t-shirt except me.  No, that's not true, but the people who were in jeans and a t-shirt were wearing $500 skinny jeans and $100 faux-faded Gucci t-shirts.
Speaking of, I don't have enough dress shirts.  If I go out, I really need to look better than I normally do and that means dress shirts right now.  I'm okay with wearing a suit jacket over a t-shirt later, but it is too warm for that right now.
But I digress, near the souk were some stables with the Qatari Royal Family's Arabian horses, which the public can just wander through.  I mean, I'm sure the prize winners and competitive ones are kept elsewhere, but even retired Arabians can't be cheap, can they?  So, that was actually really cool, if you like horses, which I don't, because they're mean and crazy.

Anyway, those are my first impressions, although do not get me started on the irony of not having Bein Sport in my Qatari hotel room, since I couldn't get the USA - Mexico game on the Fox Sports 2 Go app because the app realized I was outside of the country.  Oh well, they lost anyway.

Final Thoughts?

None really.  There's more to say; we'll see if I keep this up or not.

DOHA, OUT!

No?  That's not cool?  Okay, fine.  Later, then.

The Hunger Games: A Review

Fans... of Death

For the purpose of my analysis, I think it is important to note off of the bat that I read the books and that I did enjoy them. I liked the books mostly for the storytelling - the prose wasn't brilliant, the idea was not mind-searingly original, and its dystopia was a rather sophomoric interpretation of center-periphery economic exploitation (I'm a sucker for a compelling dystopia). These are books written for teens and they are not intended to become "classics." In my opinion, Suzanne Collins wrote some compelling characters and told their stories in an engaging and exciting fashion. So, I went into this movie as a fan who read the books and "knows" what happens in the end, and, as I will discuss later, important to books-adapted-into-films, I "know" what just happened.

Worst Book-to-Movie Adaptation EVER

Do people even still make that Simpsons reference? Either way, its not true, I am mocking that approach to reviewing. While I have read The Hunger Games and subsequent novels set in Panem, I have read them once and am not among the foremost authorities on the series. In addition, I do not believe that a movie must directly parallel its source material. Some changes are due to the mediums and their relative efficacy in storytelling. These changes are, at times, poorly executed, but they have to be attempted or the movie will be awkward and unable to convey depth similar to the story in the book. Some changes are just that a director has differing ideas about motivations or reactions of characters than the author - these are acceptable to me (in principle) as I believe the movie is an interpretation of the story. Some changes round off the rough edges of a story to make it appeal to a larger audience - I am generally unaccepting of such changes because I view it as "dumbing-down" the story for a suburban audience.

Han Shot First

Most of the changes in the The Hunger Games movie fall into the first category, in my opinion. The movie is quite faithful to the book in most ways (if you've read the books, don't expect big changes - this is not The Walking Dead), but in the books, Katniss has a great deal of internal monologue and the narrator is third-person omniscient. The movie, fortunately, does not fall into the trap of a softly-echoing internal monologue or omniscient voiceovers explaining mockingjays and tracker-jackers, but those explanations required new portions to be written. These changes were relatively safe - they were not great, but they also did not break the story.

There were, however, some small changes that I believe were made to increase the mass appeal of the stories and characters. I'm trying to avoid spoilers so I'm going to be vague - Haymitch is, at this point, not really portrayed as a tragic character - he drinks, but he isn't the same nearly-useless alcoholic. There is also a very slight change to Katniss' motivation the first time she kills someone. It's very slight, but it was one of my favorite parts of her character - one of her traits with which I could identify - and it was changed. Honestly, I am not certain how many people will even notice. There is no real reason to change these things except that it softens the characters and makes them more likable to the audience, especially for parents of the children going to see this movie. To me, it makes characters like Haymitch and Katniss less interesting.

Illiteratus Publicus

I know these stories and I know their ins-and-outs. Fortunately for the movie, a large segment of the public knows them as well. But not everyone. There are times that I think the movie may move too quickly, with too abbreviated an explanation or exposition on a major plot point. I fear that at certain times, during the changes to the rules of the Hunger Games themselves or to the concept of who Cato and the "careers" are, are explained once and quickly and the audience may not catch these things and become a bit confused as to exactly what is happening. I had similar worries about Watchmen - it is one thing to miss "Easter eggs" because you have not read the books, but sometimes, I worry that directors forget that they are telling their own story and some of their audience has not heard it before. I do not believe that there is anything to which there is no explanation and, as someone who has read the novels, I am unable to tell whether or not it is too confusing.

Via Triamphalis

I think the single greatest feat that this movie performs is that it is an anti-violence film that centers around children killing one another but that does not make violence its center piece. The movie is about the characters and their world, not about the special effects and action. There is plenty of the later, but this certainly is no Micheal Bay movie (I don't think there was a single shot down Jennifer Lawrence's cleavage). As it should be, it is Katniss' story of human survival that takes center-stage.

Momento Mori

The movie does fall flat in several places. I have already mentioned my distaste for some of the small, unnecessary, populist changes. However, this movie was clearly made with an eye to the sequels. Considering the time constraints under which a movie must run, there was an unnecessary fleshing out of the world and the villains who are not participants in the Hunger Games (e.g. President Snow). Unfortunately, this limits the amount of the Games that can actually be shown. I said earlier that I was pleased that movie had eschewed the graphic violence that, no doubt, could have brought it an audience. However, the Games in the novels are rife with tension, uncertainty, and horror and the movies never really come close to re-creating the Hobbesian nightmare that Collins described. While failing to create tension is a weakness in its own storytelling, Mary has pointed out to me that these Hunger Games did not seem to wreak the physical or mental destruction that become essential to the characters as the trilogy progresses. The last characters standing are, quite literally, standing - they are not the shattered individuals that require weeks of physical and mental reconstruction before they can be presented to the public. Anyone who has read the trilogy knows just how important that mental and physical toll upon the combatants is to the story and the movie never really creates the type of world that so thoroughly shreds the characters' humanity.

Katnissius Magnus

In the end, I have to give this film 4/5 on an almost purely emotional level. The movie has flaws, but many of them come from the "the book is better" school of analysis. These are "missed opportunities" rather than flaws. Jennifer Lawrence was dominant in her portrayal of Katniss; none of the other characters came close to stealing her show (with the possible exception of Buttercup in the beginning). Lenny Kravitz was compelling and believable as Cinna and Woody Harrelson brought out the likable qualities of Haymitch (although the chance to go darker with Harrelson is another missed opportunity). Elizabeth Banks cast her own interpretation on Effie Trinket and perhaps her star shown more brightly than her character was written. Stanley Tucci was perhaps disappointing, but only in the sense that he normally shines in such a role, but in this case was "merely" good. I did find both Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth a bit flat - not bad, but not compelling in the way that main love interests could have been.

In the end, I like this story and this was a good interpretation of the story. It was not great, it was not groundbreaking; it was simply a good story that was well told.

Changing Hues

Winter Is Coming

Mira! The leaves are changing color! It's so pretty!
Piss off; it's because they're dying.

Bringing a jacket to work?
Check.
School buses clogging the roads again?
Check.
Starting a passive-aggressive war with Ms. Mary over the thermostat?
Check.
Bethesda winds cutting right through my jacket making my nipples hard enough to cut diamonds?
Check.
Did I just hear Thriller for the third time this week?
Check.
D.C. United eliminated from the playoffs?
Check.

Yup, must be Autumn.

Rocktober

Yeah, there are a few good things about Autumn: spiced apple cider and the annual trip out to Baugher's and Westminster. There's candy and the one night when girls where as little as possible while trying to look like something out of a hot dream you dare not tell your psychiatrist about (Oh, you're a sexy lobster? You're a furry, but whatever, rock on, Rock Lobster). I suppose I like some of the foods, like acorn squash. Lower electric bills are nice (we have gas heat). There's. . . I don't know; dark beers are more satisfying for some reason and the Black Keys sound better in Autumn. Actually, I did have some fun activities that I'll try to post as soon as Ms. Mary gets me the pictures (because me in a kilt and a "Vagrant" sign really needs an accompanying image).

It's also encroaching cold weather with the associated itchy and static-y clothes. It's largely the end of outdoor athletics; should you try anyway, the cold air will burn your lungs. It's trying not to be a total little bitch when Mary drags me to scary movies or haunted houses (No, babe, I'm five-foot-six and have weighed a minimum of 30 pounds less than every other man you've ever known, so I would naturally develop a sense fearlessness and courage. No doubt, those are survival traits for my physical build, so let's go into that building where someone is going to try to make me shit my pants. You go first). Then there's the pounds that I'll pack on. Only, it's a damn shame that I didn't take off the ones from last Autumn and Winter.

An Autumn of War

My Fall is off to a blazing start. First, the heat broke. In fixing the heat, the apartment people busted the thermostat and we had to call Pepco to repair that. Dealing with Pepco was a damn blast. Then, the refrigerator broke. After that, because breaking household appliances are child's play, my bank card info was stolen - turns out, I didn't make charges in Maryland, Florida, and Iowa in a twelve hour period. While looking for fraudulent charges, I discovered that Bally's has been charging me for Anna's account, which I thought I canceled in, like, March or so. Here's how that phone call went:

Me: Hi, I have two accounts, but I wrote to you in the Spring to let you know that one account user had moved to Doha and I needed to cancel that account, but I'm still paying for it. (Seriously, why the hell did I have to write you a letter and mail it to California in this day and age? Before the internet, did you make people send it by Pony Express?)
Bally's Customer Service Rep: That's account blah-blah-blah?
Me: Yes, that's right.
Bally's Customer Frustration Rep: You didn't provide any evidence that the account holder had moved to a location without a Bally's within 25 miles. We need a utility bill or something like that.
Me: She's in (fucking) Doha; I don't have her utility bills. Do you know how far away that is?
Bally's Obstructionist: No, but she's certainly getting an electricity bill.
Me: Doha is a city in the Middle East; I don't know that she is. Look, I don't have a contract anyway, it expired, I'm month-to-month. Your website says I don't need to give a reason for that.
Bally's Hellspawn: That's correct.
Me: If I didn't need to give a reason, why was the account not canceled?
Bally's Advocate of General and Applied Evil: Because you didn't provide documentation of her change in location.
Me: BUT I DIDN'T NEED TO!
Bally's Zen Master of Circular Logic: You gave a reason, but didn't provide documentation.
Me: But I don't need to give a reason?
Bally's Mental S&M Rep: No.
Me: Fine, then can you cancel the account then please?
Queen of Helheim: No, you'll have to write to the following address and ask to have the account canceled. Do you have a pen ready?

I then beat my head against a wall for twenty minutes and that was actually a more pleasant experience. I know that I really should have noticed how much they were charging me long ago and that's why I didn't even pretend that I was going to get any of that money I paid refunded.

Bears, They're Smarter Than You Think

You know what is underrated? Hibernating. To hell with your pumpkin pies; I think I'm going to give that a whirl. Awaken me when D.C. United's season starts again.

Raison d'être

You Can't Get There From Here

I should probably add "directionless" to my under-achiever status. Every time I even plan a little bit, I come face-to-face with the fact that my life is largely directionless. Even this blog is. My posts are sometimes personal and sometimes analytical and really it goes nowhere.
My friend Tad's blog, The Leisurely Historian, makes me want to die. He has, you know, thoughtful opinions on interesting topics and gets involved in exciting projects. He recently had a Foreword to a book/project published. He has lots of things that I want. I wonder if I could possess those things if I killed him and devoured his heart. . . Sorry, just musing. . .
My sister-in-law's blog, now inaptly-named The Decayed Gentlewoman, is an interesting lifestyle blog. It's one of those yuppie/hipster blogs (Yes, Shelly, "hipster" - it was recently pointed out to me that when you moved to Portland, it was still "the Portland that you've probably never heard of") about her interests and passions, full of pictures of food, alternative lifestyles, her activities (pronounced: pɪˌkjuːlɪˈærɪtɪs), and, for some stupid reason, occasionally features pictures of a wannabe Redneck with too much domestic beer-related paraphernalia. I can't plan to kill her though, she and her husband are armed to the teeth. I wonder how long it would take me to get to Portland, ME, in the eventuality of the Zombie Apocalypse. . .
My blog bounces all over the place without the charm of the latter or the erudition of the former.

Vox Dei

I have to wonder if my inability to find my voice in this blog is because I don't really have concrete plans for myself. It is one thing to project something that isn't there, but goals provide focus. My life goals have been pretty general and I have or had no plans for the intermediate steps. Actually, who am I kidding? I didn't really have plans for the introductory steps to achieve any of my long-term goals. This, perhaps, for my total lack of intellectual focus and skill development. When I was younger, this was mistaken for attention-deficit disorder, but I, frankly, liked it. It is part of who I am. I pursued many a variety of academic interests in an effort to avoid myopic viewpoints and because I was relatively successful at blending disciplines into new and interesting thoughts. However, I never really developed passions or even what could be justifiably called interests. Kate and I listened to a bunch of idiots at a dinner table next to us fighting about the Civil War. They were clearly not academics, most of their arguments didn't stand up to a rigorous, or even sometimes simple logical, analysis. However, they had clearly read a great deal of material and knew a number of obscure facts that only academics and true devotees know. They were "enthusiasts" and I realized that I am an enthusiast of nothing. Thus, my blog has no structural purpose, no "topic" other than my musings on nothing concrete.

I Did Go by "Savonarola" Once

I'm like a poor man's Renaissance Man. A lazy Renaissance Man. The good folks ("good man" sounds wrong) over at XKCD put it best, except that I'm not a Malcom Gladwell fan. I've always rather gotten off on the fact that I can at least follow and participate in most discussions: history, sociology, literature, economcs, politics, pop culture, technology, sports (not including basketball). I can even follow many science discussions, even if I can't do the math. At least the interesting science discussions about exo-planets, general relativity, and lasers. But as my friends and colleagues have developed definite expertises, I have been less-and-less able to follow. In the meantime, I have developed no expertises of my own, lacking doctorate level studies or job experience that interests me. No one would ask me for an "expert" opinion or even seek to necessarily engage me in a discussion about a topic in which I consider myself interested, simply because I am unlikely to know the minutia that passionate people have acquired. It's not that I have "fallen behind" my friends. I still think I am smarter than everyone and I am still proud that I have the rhetorical capacity to argue most anyone into the ground (I try to do this less as I am told it is off-putting). I am different and my approach is different, but I am envious of their passions and disciplines and it is something that I hope to learn.

An Attempt to Create a Microcosm

The lack of focus for my blog needn't come from my life's propensity to meander. In this case, however, it does reflect it. I am starting to believe that because my interests have been so varied and that I have never really developed a real attachment to any topic or activity, I now need concrete plans for my activities. I think I do not naturally flow progressively deeper into my activities. In fact, this may be why I flounder when forced start something. While I am fine at creating end-points and measuring their relative justice or utility and even evaluating the inputs, but I just don't look toward how I would actually realize those means. Planning is now opening up whole new worlds to me. We'll see if I stick with it and actually achieve anything. Of course, I'll still consider myself an under-achiever; I'm far too egotistical to ever believe I am achieving my potential.

Ayn Rand: What a Misleading Tool

So what's wrong with my blog? Well, why would you read it? Unless you are interested in me, there is nothing here for you. There are few jokes and even fewer of them actually amusing. I've linked a couple good blogs to read. But this is a selfish post on a selfish blog. It is, at this point, written for me. I have no plan, after all, a plan would probably include a projected audience and then I would actually have to write something to interest that audience. Much like my life, I have focused on me and have little concrete to offer anyone else (particularly in a Capitalist sense, as my job search has made abundantly clear). Maybe my blog will take focus later, but I think I need to find a focus or two (foci?), other than myself, before my blog will.

Like Sand Through the Hourglass, So Are. . .

I'm starting to create better plans; the aspects of my life that they address are more varied and they have greater detail. I've found my general discipline has improved even in tasks not related to my newly-created plans. I don't have everything worked out. There's still a great to of haziness in my life that I prefer to call flexibility. After all, I'm still "working on working on it."

Re: 9/11 in Restrospect

10th Anniversary

I'm pointedly avoiding TV coverage of the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on 11 September 2001. So this post is not about that. Want to know where I was? I was at Eckerd College in a class called, The Constitution and Individual Rights. Good, glad we got that out of the way.

The rest of this is response to 9/11 in Retrospect by Melvryn P. Leffler in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs. I'm not linking to it because I assume it is behind a firewall. I pay for my subscription - if anyone feels inspired to go buy the issue after reading this, then great. Except, you should probably readjust your priorities. There are and will be better critiques than mine.

9/11 in Retrospect

The author appears to have several main points in his article - it is time to look long and hard at U.S. policy after September 11th without an eye to blame and that the Bush administration's policy choices were not so revolutionary as they were purported to be and all have a grounding in previous U.S. foreign policy. He uses the Bush administration's National Security Strategy of 2002 to examine the administration's response to terrorist attacks in 2001. He gives the priorities of that document as "preemption (really, prevention), unilateralism, military supremacy, democratization, free trade, economic growth, alliance cohesion, and great-power partnerships."
Leffler quite rightly points out that the GWOT and the related wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not the total of the Bush administration's policy. I rather agree with him that the Bush administration continued or marginally altered policies such as free trade (continued the Doha talks), prioritizing democratization, and that U.S. military expense and build-up had started under Clinton. Sure, Bush may have increased defense spending, increased rhetoric about democracy (and really, that's all he did), and was a champion of the free market in the face of increasing inequalities, but these were policy constants in Washington for years and were never really going to be challenged. Moreover, Bush managed to smooth relations with China after a rough start, realigned the U.S.'s relationship with India and dramatically increased aid to Africa. While there are complaints about the particulars of these policy moves, they largely were not controversial.
However, it is the GWOT and subsequent wars that are controversial and that have come to define the Bush presidency.

Preemption/Prevention

Leffler argues that the Bush administration's adoption of preventive war has historical precedents, specifically in the Western hemisphere associated with the Monroe doctrine, Roosevelt's policy regarding ships at sea and Germany, and Kennedy's imposition of a blockade of Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. He also notes that the Clinton administration, in response to terrorism, proclaimed its intention to "preempt. . . individuals who perpetrate or plan to perpetrate" terrorist attacks against the U.S.
To me, it is somewhat telling that the most recent incident cited had taken place some nearly 40 years earlier. I don't dispute any of the precedents cited, but would point out that the latter two were specific incidents and were not part of a global policy. The Monroe doctrine is certainly a precedent, since U.S. power was limited to the Western hemisphere at the time. Such U.S. policies had formally ended and had been acknowledged as inappropriate or at least "unneighborly." A declared willingness to engage in preventive warfare on a global scale was new, especially in a post-Cold War environment. The Clinton administration's pronouncement was very specifically about preemption rather than prevention (the difference in this case being plans and the attempts to acquire means, rather than to generally wish the U.S. harm). Moreover, the Clinton administration specifies "individuals," not states. Both in scale and scope the Bush administration's endorsement of global preemptive/preventive war was a deviation from existing policy.

Unilateralism

Leffler first cites the undercurrent of unilateralism in U.S. policy dating back to speeches by Presidents Jefferson and Washington. He notes that in the most modern times, even in the midst of Cold War alliances and the Clinton adminstration's use of NATO, the U.S. always publicly reserved the right to act unilaterally. The Obama administration's first National Security Strategy explicitly retained that right as well.
Color me unconvinced in this regard as well. In recent history, Cold War, Clinton, and Obama administrations have reserved the right to act unilaterally. . . as any state in a self-help system does. The difference is the propensity to do so and in fairness, the characterization of the Bush administration to act unilaterally is perhaps unfair. NATO was involved in the invasion of Afghanistan and, although just an alliance of convenience, the Bush administration did involve a number of other countries in the invasion of Iraq (some more useful than others). The real difference was the Bush administration very loudly proclaimed their willingness to act unilaterally. Previous administrations and the current administration have suggested that unilateral war would be an act of last resort and undesirable. The Bush administration and some of their louder-mouthed domestic allies suggested that it would better for the U.S. to act unilaterally and that they were unwilling to allow U.S. power to be constrained by international institutions. The only actual difference is that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not pre-approved by the United Nations.

The Invasion of Iraq

It is regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq that I most strongly disagree with Leffler. He argues that the common perception that a Democratic administration would not have invaded Iraq is unjustified. He cites belligerent statements from Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton regarding Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
While there were certainly plenty of aggressive statements from many Democrats and their liberal allies regarding Iraq, I would argue that some of these statements were political posturing in the run up to the war. But the crux of my argument lies in the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq. There are two generally accepted arguments that the Bush administration went to war in Iraq: Either the promotion of democracy in the Middle East by establishing a beachhead and thereby undermining the allure and arguments of militant Islamism or because of the nexus of between terrorist organizations and states that produce weapons of mass destruction (the so-called Axis of Evil), in this case, Hussein's dislike of the U.S. and supposed WMD programs. However, the neo-conservative movement played an essential role in both of those motivations. The democratic beachhead idea was first-and-foremost a neocon idea. In the case of the WMD program, the sources used to support the notion that Iraq had active weapons programs were from sources that had already been rejected by the previous administration. It was the neocons who revisited these sources and reintroduced them into the discussion.
I possess no super-human abilities to prove a counter-factual, but I see little reason to suspect that the invasion of Iraq would have been a preferred policy option in a Democratic administration.

So What?

Leffler concludes that it is time to stop assigning blame and it is certainly hard to disagree. The Bush administration has left office and the current administration has made plenty of its own mistakes. However, Leffler lists the damages done to U.S. goals as a result of these policies. Many of these I feel were unfair, but I argue that the Bush administration did in many cases switch policies dramatically and that the Iraq war was unique to the Bush administration. These, at least short-term, damages are the Bush administration's responsibility and those decisions should reflect upon those decisionmakers.

Reflections on a Misspent 20s (Edited by MKB)

Now that I'm 30, I . . .

. . . need to stop wearing T-shirts with clever slogans on them.
. . . think Objectivism is just brilliant.
. . . don't think that holding my car window up with packing tape is "hardcore."
. . . need to completely stop splitting infinitives (sorry, Benj; stole your joke).
. . . watch rioters with an angry jealousy, but don't participate.
. . . don't hate The Man. In fact, he's got some good ideas. We should probably do what he says.
. . . have strong opinions on the Capital Gains Tax. No, wait, I'm 30, not rich.
. . . feel the need to get a mortgage so that I can complain about it at every social gathering.
. . . suddenly want a fast, flashy car. Or suddenly want one more, at any rate.
. . . need to add Just for Men to my grocery budget.
. . . believe anything is possible. For my kids. My life has a set trajectory now.
. . . live vicariously through my kids.
. . . view my kids as a source of cheap landscaping labor.
. . . try to push my kids into high-paying careers because they're my retirement plan.
. . . need to have kids, apparently. Asian ones, with math-smarts. That's so racist, but I'm old now, so it's excused.
. . . find Sarah Palin attractive. Or at least Lisa Ann.
. . . should have actual experience on my resume now. Don't, though.
. . . am less inclined to punch trees when DC United lose. What? I said "less inclined."
. . . think about my 401(k) from time-to-time.
. . . wander around the gym locker room with no pants on, talking to random strangers.
. . . feel younger because I am sleeping with a hot 20-something.
. . . find Kevin Smith films totally immature.
. . . am now sort of pathetic for owning an XBox360 and a PS3.
. . . assume I've spilt something on myself if a woman on the street gives me a second-glance.
. . . have been smoking for half my life. That's revolting. (Editor's note: Yes).
. . . am starting to get pissed that I'll never see that Social Security money.
. . . no, really. Hot 20-something. I know, right?
. . . don't understand the point of Twitter.
. . . sometimes think, "No, I might get hurt if I do that."
. . . believe that Obama is destroying this country. Did I mention that I am also white?
. . . sleep only 6 hours a night, but can't stay up for more than 20 hours straight.
. . . must use complete words and proper grammar and punctuation in text messages.
. . . consider an hour of tennis to be exercise.
. . . am less concerned if they reinstate the draft.
. . . yup, hot 20-something. In my bed. Fantastic.
. . . still remember ABACABB, but know that most people playing video games do not.
. . . am absolutely terrified by my computer and can only use it for email.
. . . coulda been a contenda.
. . . think that paisley necktie is pretty spiffy.
. . . can no longer live in squalor and be considered "cool." (Editor's note: Squalor has been out since I moved in)
. . . find Jay Leno funny. No, that's a lie. I don't, at all.
. . . prefer soft and bitter foods.
. . . did I mention the hot 20-something? Yeah, perky breasts and everything.
. . . have more reason to drink to oblivion, but less passion to do so.
. . . need to shave more regularly.
. . . believe that it reflects poorly on me that I have more athletic shoes than dress shoes.
. . . find it hard to walk when I leave the doctor's office.
. . . can no longer wear hats ironically.
. . . don't worry about passing drug tests.
. . . think of those hard partying college guys downstairs as "kids."
. . . Hot. 20. Something. Yeah, I've got a picture.

No, piss-off; she's not "living in Canada right now."

and finally . . . "am too old for this shit."

It's a Long Boring Commute

Post-Independence (Day)

This post isn't about the 4th. I just thought that I would mention: The 1812 Overture. . . I know we all like cannon, but A) it's about Russia beating France (hence the refrains from La Marseillaise) and B) U.S. had its own goings on in 1812 and those ended poorly, New Orleans notwithstanding.
Also, I sort of resent the way that the military has hijacked Independence Day. I don't want to be stupid - I am well aware that American Independence Day has a very martial feel anyway. However, I don't want to be applauding service members every ten minutes. We Americans have plenty of heritage to be proud of; military service is not unique to our country. We also have other holidays dedicated specifically to the men and women in uniform - Armed Services Day, Memorial Day (for the fallen), Veterans Day (titular, that one), etc. Rather than jacking off soldiers for another day, maybe efforts would be better spent improving pay, medical benefits, and making certain that soldiers aren't left to rot if they come home physically or emotionally shattered. Perhaps higher standards for putting them in harm's way and a little healthy skepticism of the justifications. Just a thought.

Blood Is Thicker

I don't want to write too much about my views on the way this country handles our military. Not now, anyway. Instead, I was thinking about family. Specifically, my sister-in-law. I almost choked when I realized that I properly had a sister-in-law. Because, really, I don't. I have a brother's wife. Calling her my sister-in-law seems stupid. Mostly because it defines her through me, which seems acceptable insofar as it is her relationship to me. But I'm actually nothing to her.

You're So Vein (Get It? Blood? Vein? My Genius Is Wasted on You People)

This isn't about you, Shelly. Shelly is great; I really like her and so does Mary (which more or less sealed the deal on our end). It's also not about blood. Shelly is part of my family now, it is certainly true and I am glad that she is, but while my brother is part of her family, I am not. Shelly is part of Lowrys, with all the privileges and penalties there entitled, but I am not a Gallender. This isn't a weird clan thing where now all of her enemies are my enemies and vice-versa. "Sister?" Really? Look, I grew up with my brother - I have seen him evolve and change and know stupid little things about him that endear him to me. Shelly, I have met a couple times - you know, "she seems nice." Actually, too nice; if she really were my "sister" I'd tell her to smack my brother across the mouth a lot more because he often has it coming. Spousal abuse = unacceptable. Sibling abuse = totally acceptable. I digress. It is not that I don't wish Shelly all the best - I do; like I said, she's great. The relationship is different though, not really comparable. There are many things that I like about Shelly; I would list them but that would be annoying. Rather my point is that I imagine the things that I like about Shelly would be entirely different if she were actually my sister. It's not just that she has hidden facets, those would appear as I got to know her better. I believe that watching her develop as an individual would make me put value on different aspects of her personality and to weigh her positives differently. I've become aware of her life halfway through and that colors my relationship with her and my knowledge of her mostly comes from her blog and things that my family tells me. "Sister-in-law" seems an anachronism from a time when my immediate family would be closer to my brother's immediate family and it is a jarring anachronism to me.

Just Spitballing Here

I'm not entirely positive why I wrote this. I guess my point is that I should do something about it. That's it, I'm moving to Maine to be closer to my brother and his wife.* Coming, Kate?
Oh. I see. You feel that strongly about it?
Splendid, now I'm homeless and single. All the more reason to crash on my brother's (and sister-in-law's) couch.

*All ideas regarding moving are intended as jests and may not be used as justification to leave either me or my brother.

Too Big for Blame

Self-Loathing

I'm rather excited for HBO's Too Big to Fail on Monday. I read the book by the same name - I don't actually know if the movie is based off the book, but it covers the same material (except with a cast of the super-rich that we all know, rather than the CEOs that they are portraying). I feel like I should re-read it, but there is no way that I would finish it by tomorrow. Regardless, I probably should read it again to try to gain a better understanding a really pick out key points, having a better understanding of the conclusion. Mary has taken time off of read the Song of Fire and Ice series that we were reading to watch Game of Thrones on HBO and I am midway through book four, so I'm a few seasons ahead anyway. Still, I'm a little disappointed in my self that I would get exited about a dramatization, but here were are and as much as I can criticize myself for anticipating a television program, I am nevertheless and it is pointless to deny it.

Cousin's Friend's Brother's Stock Broker's Aunt's Hairdresser

On the bright side, I hope that my recognition of the actors will help me keep track of the players during the event. I am not plugged into the financial industry. My father may be able to recite the names of the CEO's of Goldman Sachs and AIG or the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury off the top of his head, but I cannot. Too Big to Fail the book, as much as it relayed the facts of the financial crisis and the efforts undertaken to preserve the companies, it is also a drama about the individuals involved. It is not a simple dry recitation of facts and events. Much to the dismay of the political science realist in me, the companies were not treated as black boxes or billiard balls. Lehman Brothers did not take x-action to preserve itself, but rather Dick Fuld chose x-action because he was a flawed human being and mistakenly believe y. That makes the book easier to read on the one-hand in that it is not a textbook, but, on the other, made it difficult to keep track of who was whom.

Alice's Restaurant

I told you that story to tell you this one and to bring us to the title of the blogpost. There is an awful lot of blame flying around. Perhaps it's human to do so, but I find such generalities to be sloppy. I think part of the problem is that it really validates so many conspiracy theories, at least in appearances. Quite literally, a bunch of rich men in suits got together in a room and made massive changes to the banking system during a time when a great deal of wealth disappeared and the economy plunged in magnitude comparable only to the Great Depression. Billions of tax payer dollars were suddenly plunged into the banking system through TARP, while many Americans faced lost jobs and pay freezes. To make matters worse, the banking system appears to have recovered with banks making money hand-over-fist again while the rest of the economy still struggles.

The last bit was intentional. Ben Bernake was a champion of the idea that the lack of credit, rather than the stock market crash, was what had truly caused the Great Depression. The idea was, and is, that the economy would not recover until the banks were healthy again. Lower and middle class Americans reeled at the notion that a collapse of Morgan Stanley or a similar financial company, with which they had no direct contact and no real knowledge, could mean that they would be unable to pick-up a paycheck on Friday, but that was the case. So many companies operated on short-term loans to meet the day-to-day operations of their businesses, including payroll, that if banks stopped "rolling paper" or processing these loans, that large and completely healthy business would be forced to close their doors and not pay their workers. The banks would not stop giving the loans because they themselves were unhealthy, but rather because the public would believe that they might be unhealthy. The run on the bank would not the traditional kind that we all saw in Mary Poppins, with account holders shouting at teller windows, instead it would be investors, hedge funds, and other banks that would fear for their money and withdraw it. The increased demand for cash on hand, coupled with the uncertainty of what their outstanding assets were really worth and short-selling depreciating what worth they thought they did have, would, and did, make banks incredibly tight-fisted (yes, I'm simplifying in the interest of time and space). The banks had to do well, to restore confidence and reduce the strain on their assets and make them more willing to lend. It worked, although there was nevertheless, considerably less credit available. But most of us don't see that on a daily basis. Sure, we're still getting a paycheck, at a reduced or static amount, whereas the bankers, who need a massive emergency loan, are now just fine and dandy, diving into their Scrooge McDuck-style money vaults.

But weren't these bankers to blame? Where's the accountability? Lehmann went under, to be sure, but most of the players in Too Big to Fail are still wealthy beyond our wildest dreams and making even more money, bonus caps be damned. Or could it be the short-sellers' fault. After all, when everything was collapsing and people were trying to desperately hold together these companies whose failing was a danger to the entire system, brokers were short-selling stocks, trying to get as much as they could while actively undermining the efforts to salvage the companies. It could be that large amounts of the problem lay with Llyod Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. Throughout the crisis, Goldman Sachs was dismissive of the danger to itself and played brinksmanship games to avoid contributing to the solution, all the while trying to wrangle an advantage for itself as it's competitors neared collapse. Such ruthlessness was not new to Goldman Sachs, they seized every advantage, quasi-legal or otherwise, during the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 2000. However, the entire systems appears to have been built on a foundation of sand, Alan Greenspan's reputation has been dragged through the mud. After all, he failed to control the housing bubble and allowed the incredibly loose credit to continue. His successor certainly failed to see it coming. Ben Bernake, after all, said a few years before that such a thing could never happen and may have been singularly unprepared for the crisis.

And Your Winner (Loser) Is. . .

Blame is great and sometimes people need to be held responsible. I for one, am offended that Donald Trump can even get a credit card, let alone a business loan since, although he makes a lot of money, it seems just a matter of time before he loses it all and pays pennies for the dollars he's taken. But this was a massive crisis involving a massive system. I do not believe that there was a single moment of decision that caused the crisis. There were lots of mistakes, some of them were sins of ignorance, some of arrogance, and some of greed. However, my understanding is that is was so big and took place through such a variety of facets in the financial industry and took place so quickly, that no one knew what they were in and how deep until it was over. During the crisis, I was working at Barnes and Noble. They sent out a message to the staff, telling us not to worry because the company had strong and secure lines of credit. I have no insider knowledge of B&N's finances, but color me skeptical that GE, McDonald's, and the companies of some of the richest men in country almost lost their credit, but B&N was going to be okay. It could have been something said to placate us, or it may have been entirely true, but I get the impression it was symptomatic of the perception at the time - no one knew quite how serious it was and that is was something that was happening to everyone else, but not to us.

The failing companies themselves probably were not in such dire straights. Rather it was that a perfect storm rolled very quickly out of total calm and they were unprepared to weather it. The fall of Lehmann Brothers never seemed inevitable, they were constantly on the cusp - if they could just survive another few days then things would calm down and the company could rebuild and reform. It was the speed of the crisis and the panic (and perhaps some ideological decisions by the government) that killed Lehmann.

Nor do I think it fair to blame the Fed chairmen. The entire system probably needs reform (and certainly has not been), but their was no architect of the current financial system. It has evolved on the basis of need and opportunity and it has massive expanded. Much like the defense acquisitions process, I am doubtful that any single individual can understand everything that is happening at a given moment.

This is roughly my conclusion. There were bad decisions and they should be studied and avoided in the future. There was poor judgement and I would hope that they are held responsible for that poor judgement as any worker would be. The system is capable of catastrophic failure and, as currently structured, may tend in that direct, in which case the system needs reform. But trying to pin it on an individual is not only a waste of time, but counter-productive to reforms that need to be made.

Post-Script

I've mentioned HBO a couple times. They're not paying me. Not that I would object, I need the money. But they're not. They just have a couple programs I want to see or watch.

A Few of My Favorite Things

Whiskers on Kitten-Terrorists

A Christmas gift from Germany arrived early for my co-blogger on the soccer blog in the form of an Inter Milan loss to Werder Bremen today. He will probably remember this season for a long time, as his club, Tottenham Hotspur, have had an eventful European campaign and have emerged as the unlikely winners of their UEFA Champions' League group over Inter, the current European champions. For me, well, I always like to see Italians lose, but I have had had too many memorable Christmases for that to make this a standout year (also, Tottenham aren't my club). And that's not why I am writing this post. Rather, I want to write about some of my holiday favorites that really make the season, "the season."

"Favorite Things" Isn't Really a Christmas Song

We're programmed to respond to sound with memories, so nostalgia is only natural with holiday classics. However, some of them are just fun. These are a few of my favorites:

• Linus & Lucy, Vince Guaraldi Trio - It's just delightful and, of course, reminds one of Snoopy and the Peanuts Christmas specials.
• 'Zat You Santa Claus?, Louis Armstrong - Louis Armstrong is a holiday must, but this one is just so lively and fun that I can't help dancing (or bobbing) along.
• Hanukkah Song Part II, Adam Sandler - "OJ Simpson, still not a Jew." Enough said.
• Marshmallow World, Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra - Christmas with the Rat Pack is an essential album for me, but I wasn't familiar with this one until Mary played it. Now, we dance to it compulsively every time it comes on. Also, both artists are completely smashed in the recording that I have and it's just entertaining to listen to them.
• Cool Yule, Bette Midler - Louis Armstrong has a good version too, but the free-hearted fun of Bette Midler (a Jew) really comes through on this one.
• How Do You Spell (C)hanukkah? The LeeVees - Not a classic, but this song is a blast and a good piece of Jewish self-depreciative humor. It sounds a lot like the Barenaked Ladies (also Jewish).
• Carol of the Bells, Mormon Tabernacle Choir - Mormons really know how to make this one impressive. Truth be told, I have four versions of this on my list, including Celtic Women which is also good.
• Nutcracker - Act II: Waltz of the Flowers, David Zinman & the New York City Ballet Orchestra - Okay, I love all of the Nutcracker and try to make a performance every holiday season, although this year, it is not to be. Nevertheless, I love this one and would make Mary dance with me to it, if, you know, I knew how to waltz.
• Baby, It's Cold Outside, Everyone and Their Brother - Everyone has done a rendition of this song. My current favorite is the latest I have downloaded, by the Glee Cast, but you can get a version by Zooey Deschanel, if you're into indie rock goddesses.
• Fairy Tale of New York, Amy MacDonald - Brendan tells me that this is a Pogues tune and the male part is certainly sung by the lead singer of the Pogues. It is a new addition to my list, but an instant favorite.
• Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Dean Martin - The classic is by Gene Autry, but Dino's rendition is great, with Dean Martin eventually growing familiar with the animal, calling him "Rudy, the Red-Beaked Reindeer."

This Is Becoming a Sentimental Post

There are also a variety of activities that really get me in the mood. These are fewer to be honest.

• Skiing/snowboarding - This is one I associate with New Years. There have been a number of times that I have arrived either on or after Christmas, so that I really more associate the physical exhaustion of snowboarding with trying to stay up for New Years.
• Decorating the Tree - Not mine. Having gone to Switzerland for so many years, I had gotten used to not having a tree. But decorating the tree with Kate's family is a trip. Mary lays out all the ornaments on the table, grouped by type, which is essential to her adorable brand of crazy. Her brother is antsy and wants to just hang the ornaments, but after putting 1 or two out, relaxes on the couches nearby. Kate's mother is generally a little drunk (so is everyone else) and not in the mood. Actually, that's a lie, she is in the mood, but is overwhelmed by the volume of decorating and is wonderfully cynical about the whole affair and rounds off the whole delightful experience.

• The Nutcracker - As I noted, I'm not going to a performance this year. It's not the first time I have gone a season without tickets, but fortunately, I have a Barishnikov performance on DVD. The Nutcracker doll is a little creepy-looking, as is the ballerina playing Clara, but the ballet is excellent.
• Other Christmas Specials - I always forget how short Christmas specials are without commercials. I have them on DVD as well and watch them at my leisure. Mary would watch Muppets Christmas Carol in August if I let her.

I Wish Christmas Lasted Forever, But Not This Post

This is a longer post than I intended and I haven't even added the pictures yet. But Mary is home from watching the Glee! Christmas episode with James, so I am going to spend the rest of the evening with her. I hope you have all your shopping done; holiday traffic and shopping crowds do not list among my favorite things.

You're Gonna Get Caught in the Ion Cloud

Deck the Halls or I'll Deck You

Mary and I went shopping for a Christmas tree today and then decorated both the tree and the apartment. The decorating is not completed, but we got a fair bit done, especially considering we both awoke quite late. I had an excuse; the English Premier League games were delayed due to the snow in England, so there were no early games. This set Mary back who doesn't get up on the weekends until I bring her breakfast. Don't think this is laziness, if she shows up before I am finished, I start hollering about how she needs to get back in bed so that I can bring her her breakfast and that the contents were supposed to be surprise ("Eggs and bacon, bet you didn't see that coming!"). Anyway, we didn't even get out of the apartment until nearly 3 p.m. After almost railroading Kate into decorating and getting a tree, she was the one who had to drag me out of my lethargy this afternoon. Tempers became flared when it came to rearranging the furniture, but on the whole we had a successful day.

My Tree Will Play Merry Hob with Your Radar

I've never really put the lights on a tree before. Last year was the first year one of my trees had lights on it and Katie put most of them on. After she had done so, she discovered that everywhere a needle had poked her, her allergies flared up. Thus, her hands and arms were covered with red dots for about a day-and-a-half and she decided that I had better put the lights on the tree henceforth. So I did. I learned something about myself today. I've discovered that I talk to the lights. I tell them where to go and complain at them when they don't go where I want them or when they become impeded by the tree or their light-brethren. Kate and I then set about decorating the tree. After the multi-hour process decorating the tree as a kid and decorating MK's parents' tree, this went by extremely quickly because, frankly, we have not had time to acquire the ridiculous number of ornaments.

No tinsel - that would be a damn disaster with the kitten-terrorists. Frankly, we couldn't trust even Henry with the undecorated tree:

See? Is there nothing he won't try to eat? He's more like a pudgy meerkat, or docile raccoon (waschbaer!), than a cat.

Go Flock Yourself

Apparently, when the holiday season comes around, I turn into Martha Stewart. That's right, I got a good line on some stocks. Also, I make these little vase displays. I think they're pretty simple, but Mary Katherine likes them. Probably the same way my parents liked the papier-mache cards I made them when I was five and mostly retarded. It's something to keep me busy while she makes proper holiday displays. Tomorrow I have to run the garlands along the patio railing and put the lights up too. But for right now, I'm just going to enjoy these:

Hope you're enjoying your holidays so far.

Holiday Season

Mary Christmas

I love the holiday season with Mary. Something about her and the holiday season is simply magnificent. I have a thing for girls bundled up, I love their faces framed with hats or fur-lined hoods, with red noses, flushed cheeks, and chapped lips (Don't worry this isn't a fetish post). That's not new, but once autumn hits, I cannot wait to dance with Mary to Christmas music or to decorate the apartment with her or to prepare winter foods for her. I keep trying to start the season earlier and earlier. Seriously, she has had to drag me away from the boxes of holiday decorations and banned holiday-themed music until after Thanksgiving.

Christmas Come Early

Fortunately for me, my Christmas (or New Years, since I am not actually a Christian) has come early. Earlier this week, my mother called me around midnight to let me know that they had a kidney donor and, by the next evening, I was speaking with her (albeit briefly) about the successful transplant. Of course, there can still be complications or her body could reject the transplant, but her body is at least already using the kidney and its functions are ahead of schedule. I was starting to get worried, honestly. Father once told me that Boltons (on my mother's side of the family) are like cockroaches and they are simply difficult, when not impossible, to kill. Doc has lived up to that notion, which stuck in my mind, recovering faster and more fully than the doctors expected from her to from her various infirmities. But I thought cruel Nature had decided to go slow and steady with the renal failure, having had so little success with dramatic events. This is a huge weight off my mind. And her's, I hope. There is still a long way to go, but I am simply delighted that it has finally started.

A Spanish Kid Told Me That It Starts with a Silent "J."

So that's my Hanukkah (Chanukkah?) present, I guess. Being an atheist, I get to take the best of the holidays and compile them into one big festival - you may find me using holidays interchangably. My darling brother's fiancee... My brother's darling fiancee... I can't do that as well as she. "Shelly," it is then. She, at any rate, has been writing amazing holiday posts with gifts, tips, and techniques; well, that's another thing that I cannot do as well as she. But I did want to mention some of the foods I like to get in the holiday mood:

Mulled Cider - I mull cider all autumn and into the winter. This year, the orchard in rural Maryland to which Kate and I make pilgrimage in the Fall had an E. Coli scare with their cider. MKB and I are fine though, don't worry. New to my repertoire is the mulled wine.

Weiss Gluhwein - I should note that I have made mulled red wine in the past, with mixed results. However, Mary, Shelly, Benj, and I get gluhwein at the Gondel Bar in Muerren that is white, so I went and looked up recipes for white mulled wine. Now, when I looked up gluhwein, it came up with a number of recipes for reds (as it should). So I typed in "weiss gluhwein" into google and was shocked when the hits were mostly in German. Because I am an asshole sometimes. Regardless, I found a recipe for Berner-Oberland weiss gluhwein and it looks and tastes like the stuff we get in Muerren (Success!). So much so that I found myself wishing that Shelly were accompanying my brother to DC next week so she, Kate, Benj, and I could sit on my patio in our jackets and drink gluhwein together.

Beef Stew (and Pot Roast) - Also new to my winter. This is because Kate likes associates it with winter and, given the vegetables involved, she is right to do so. Regardless, I now think of a nice thick stew with Kate is perfect on cold days.

Red and Green M&M's - I am a marketing professional's dream, but sorry, I associate a bowl full of holiday-colored M&M's with Christmas.

Breakfast Casserole - Similar to a cheese strata, but with loose sausage. My mother used to make this for extended family breakfasts and Mary's family likes it as well, so they let me make it every Thanksgiving.

Unfinished Meta-Posts

I have started a number of projects on this blog that I have not finished. If I am in the mood, I will write other posts about senses and activities that really "make" the holidays for me. I don't want this to become a chore, so I don't want to worry to much about the multi-part posts that I don't finish. I should write more often out of loyalty to my readers, but since there are about three of you, you all don't even make quorum to lodge a complaint.

Blogging Linked to Depression, Anorexia (probably)

How to Attract Friends and Influence People

I have been giving some thought about how to make my blog better. It seems to me there are three directions to go with a blog to obtain more readers.

The first is to have a gimmick - being famous for something, particularly writing, helps. However, if you can create something, art, food, humorous pictures with captions, that sort of thing. That will bring people in. Unfortunately, I realized as a teen while reading The Agony and the Ecstacy that I would never be famous for creating. I lack both the skill and uniqueness of perception to create beauty or the skill to render anything interesting.

The second is to have expertise - politics, fashion, food or art again, sports or even sports fandom. Basically, to attract people for your opinions. Well, I certainly think that my opinions are worth listening to, but we all think that our opinions are insightful. I write for a soccer blog, but for me that is a cheap out. I lack my co-author's passion and drive that has granted him the command of knowledge about the sport that he has. I rely on the fact that soccer is still a growing sport in this country and that I have access to Fox Soccer channel. I really have no experience to speak of - I have my education which may come into this blog a bit more (I have a half written post on genocide saved somewhere), but mostly I just wing it. Like the posts on teen books. It's an interesting idea, but my exploration of the idea is slapdash and doesn't hold up the rigors of an intellectual examination (I'll still finish it though).

The third is to be part of a group and write about things which people can identify. Mommy blogs, single guy blogs, travel blogs, etc. I am not part of a group. This is a somewhat depressing thought.

I've Got It! A Whiney White Guy Blog!

I belong to a soccer supporters group. You know how many of them even know I write this blog? Two and they're probably only members of the Screaming Eagles because I am. It's not like I talk to people. I wouldn't know what to say.

I am in a relationship with a girl who loves me. That's wonderful, but blogging about it would be nauseating for everyone else. It is a very private experience. Fatherhood? No intention of doing so.

I don't like my job, but let's face it - that's my own damn fault. I'm not some rebel screwed over by the establishment. I'm a kid who was presented with every opportunity to by excellent parents with an ideal older brother whose example I would have been quite well-served to follow. I just lacked the wisdom, discipline, and will-power to make good on what I was offered. I'm not under-appreciated at work - I don't know that I pass "adequate" on job performance; I am treated reasonably well and I can't expect to be treated better since I have made no effort to that effect.

I'm not even an angsty loner/shut-in. I have Mary, I have excellent, even amazing, friends who do incredible things that I love to see and hear about, they think well-crafted thoughts and express them well. They support me at the drop of a hat and are solicitous of me even when I don't need help. They are fascinating and each is idiosyncratic and quite a bit more than anyone should be able to ask for from friends.

I'm not angry at society, I don't feel aggrieved by the world, I've not struggled against the odds. I've just struggled with the fact that not everything has been handed to me. That's not a blog that anyone wants to read.

I suppose for now I'll continue cutting a different path without direction, resigned to the knowledge that my blog's readership will never exceed a close circle of family and friends. I really need to devise a plan to cut a path in life, but like everything else, I'll start tomorrow.

Impulses Related Genocide

I Should Really Listen to More Decemberists

I was sitting here, thinking about death. Because that's what I do on a lazy Saturday. So, I was thinking about death, specifically genocide, specifically the Holocaust, specifically the argument put forward that Germany was capable of carrying out the Holocaust because the Germans were all afflicted with the aptly-named "German sickness" and now that they are cured of it Germany need never worry about committing a genocide again. I don't hold to that idea; there have been too many genocides in history, modern history, to accept that the Germans entered into some sort of unique condition that made them susceptible to genocidal impulses.

Dan v. Chris

This debate actually stems back to my time in undergrad. Well, I actually do not know from whence the debate actually started, somewhere back in the mists of time. I was introduced to it, however, in an undergraduate course on modern German history. The focal points, at the time, were books by Daniel Goldhagen and Christopher Browning. If I said "Goldhagen v. Browning," my father would probably start pawing through his law books for that case he overlooked. There is no case; in fact, the books focus on a central point in the debate, never addressing the debate itself.

Basically, who were the mental and moral juggernauts who carried out the Holocaust? We know the Nazi leadership bravely ordered the slaughter of millions of unarmed civilians, but they were just too busy to actually go out and kill children themselves. You know, they had a country to run into the ground with a war against reality and also Europe. All those people didn't kill themselves, no matter how depressing Nazi rule and occupation may have been. We're not concerned with names - the Israelis seem to be pretty good about finding the names, but we're less interested in revenge or justice, but rather with history and perhaps prevention. It is the nature of these individuals that is of interest.

Goldhagen argues in Hitler's Willing Executioners that most of Germany and those involved were some sort of "Super anti-Semite." His argument is that Germany had a unique brand of anti-Semitism that was more medieval than much of the rest of Europe. That ridiculous accusations of blood libel and Jewish "witchcraft" persisted and were taken seriously well into Enlightenment and still appeared during the Weimar Republic suggests that the rationalism that had taken hold of Europe during the Renaissance had not been applied the average German's fear and hatred of Jews. This combined with the traditional European irrationality about Jewish conspiracies of money and bankers for a more thorough and base anti-Semitism. This anti-Semitism combined with German history and the various feelings upon which Hitler rose to power (I'll not chronicle them here, though some may be mentioned later) to create a "diseased" society that was more than prepared to commit genocide, but was actually disposed to do so.

Browning, in Ordinary Men, disagrees. His focus is actually on the genocide that took place outside of Germany, whether it be Greater or Lesser. While millions were killed in the gas chambers and camps in Poland and Germany, millions more were killed in a more traditional manner - they were rounded up and shot in massive numbers and buried in mass graves (graves which the victims were often forced to dig themselves) in various countries, particular the Baltic nations. These executions were carried out largely by "Special Police" battalions or by native irregular units. The first and most obvious point is that these "native irregulars" were not Germans and thus could not be affected by Goldhagen's "German disease" caused by German prejudices and history. However, it is upon his treatment of the men who made up the German "Special Police " battalions. They were not made up of Germans who were specially selected for their anti-Semitism or homocidal tendencies. Often they were men of roughly military age who had prohibited from service in the Wehrmacht due to physical disability or that they were slightly too old for combat. Records of these battalions reveal that, although some members were positively sadistic, many were constitutionally incapable of taking part in the slaughter. These members who would back out of killing operations were resigned to logistics. Some attempted to participate as part of their job but found their victims to be subjects of pity rather than hatred. Most importantly, many of them did their job, but did so out of fear of reprisal, a sense of duty, or simply to maintain employment. And many of them found they could only do they "job" while drunk. Morale suffered terribly and alcoholism among these troopers, even when not slaughtering innocent villagers, was rampant. It was for these reasons that the Germans turned to the local Lithuanians or what-have-you to commit their butchery.

You Are Not Immune

Such a distinction may seem minor. I'm certainly not going to pity those who were party to these mass-killings. The question is whether any society can become genocidal with the appropriate set of circumstances and leadership (or lack of leadership) or whether there are only rare and particular societies, societies that are "sick" to begin with, that will attempt to eliminate an entire of group of people. I believe the former and with that comes the belief that I am not "immune." Could the U.S. become genocidal (again) within my lifetime? I must concede that it is possible. This belief engenders a responsibility to avoid the circumstances and views which lead to genocide. While genocidal beliefs may make themselves apparent, I believe it is necessary to examine the circumstances under which modern genocide has taken place. In a series of (depressing) posts, I will examine the history and conditions that led to the Holocaust, "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans (particularly Bosnia-Herzegovina), the Armenian Genocide (or "deportations" if you're reading this in Turkey (you're not)), and the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus. I will follow with a post or posts about my conclusions (which at this point in my mind are "inconclusive." Go figure).

The Downfall of Western Civilization Part II (II of III)

I Never Know Where I Am

Where we were? Something curmudgeony, I believe. Was I talking about my snowbound walks to school? No, that wasn't it. It could have been about modern Hollywood starlets being tramps. But I don't think it was. Perhaps that modern music lacks the depth and beauty of Frank Sinatra? No, I don't usually blog about that. Oh yes, the teen book and cross-over phenomena.

I am comparing using Harry Potter, the Twilight series, and other teen novels with Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and a number of David Eddings books. I have established that my selections are biased, my methodology flawed, and my analysis self-serving.

Wait.

I don't think I said much about the methodology, only that I would be comparing them. I have a number of categories in which I will be comparing them. These categories are as arbitrary as anything else. The discussion is about whether teen and cross-over books are less effective in creating a literate and educated society and thus the criteria that I have chosen are part of what I consider to be intellectual development and a continuing education. I will compare the books in the maturity of content, vocabulary, the complexity of the plot structure, and the complexity of the narrative.

It's More than Sex and Death, But That's Good Too

Reading Twilight is an exercise in reading about teenagers not having sex and not dying. The maturity of the content in any of the Twilight books is not particularly significant. The laughable way that Stephanie Meyer handles teen marriage, sex, and pregnancy are reflective of the shallow, child-like approach to the content. Where she moves into a slightly more adult category is in the melodrama that surrounds adult romances. She creates a passion and attachment that is not found in children's books. Her stories draw their allure in no small part (in my opinion) from the experience of love that she imparts. Particularly to teenagers, with their under-developed and hormone-addled minds, Meyer's books are an accurate description of how love can seem to be. Her books center on love as an experience. However, the characters never really develop and they operate in an environment largely free of negative consequences. The same cannot be said for J.K. Rowling's creations.

The teen romance and melodrama in the Harry Potter series is not as in-depth as in the Twilight books nor are J.K. Rowling's forays into romance nearly as compelling. However, her characters evolve considerably, they are more deeply flawed and those flaws have consequences as the series progresses. Harry spends much of The Order of Phoenix moping about in his angst and self-pity. He might as well have started wearing flannel, dying his hair, and listening to Hawthorn Heights. But he grows out of it, like an actual human being. He is faced with serious loss, considerable terror, self-doubt and struggles his way through. The Harry Potter books may not have the titillation of Twilight, but they provide better insight into the world and into human experience in that world. The Harry Potter books also invoke spectres of terrorism and fascism, and forces the world Rowling created to cope with these developments.

The David Eddings books fall short of the reality presented in Harry Potter. Eddings' characters are certainly complex and fascinating, but rarely do they evolve, have hidden motives, or questionable dark sides. Though more complex than Meyer's characters and perhaps more complex than most of Rowling's as well, most of Eddings' characters do not adapt to adversity, but rather rely upon agile minds, existing skill sets, or newly invented prowess that hadn't existed until they were necessary. Many of Eddings' characters are older than either Edward and Bella or Ron and Hermione and they have more adult relationships; love is not felt as passionately as in Twilight, but is expressed with greater variety in tone and temperance. His romantic relationships are diverse and many are quite touching to the reader, but the passion that those characters feel for one another is not elucidated nearly as well as in Meyer's books. Eddings' exploration of non-romantic relationships surpasses all others in this category and is, perhaps, his greatest strength. Of course, the rest of the story is fairly straight-forward - dragons and swords and such. Occasionally, there are political maneuvers, but the content is little more than well-written fantasy.

On the surface, the maturity of content in Lord of the Rings is relatively low. There is death aplenty, to be sure. Romance largely takes a back seat when Aragorn isn't Viggo Mortensen, covered in mud and blood. Yes, Kate, I am aware that is the image you mentally super-impose on my body every time I take my shirt off. Epic struggles are not uncommon in fantasy literature. Saving the world from an evil sorcerer is par for the course. Moreover, character development is limited as well. Aragorn doesn't really grow into his kingliness; it is present from the start, even if his royal birth is a secret. The hobbits evolve as characters, from relative naivety to far more worldly characters, but few others grow as they do. Where Tolkien surpasses all his colleagues is in the allegorical nature of the story and the sheer diversity of his characters, both good and evil. Tolkien has denied that Lord of the Rings draws heavily from World War II, but most of us see it even if he doesn't. His commentary of socialists having seized the country during the war was a bit heavy-handed as well. Nevertheless, his story involves the corruption of good characters by worldly forces and he clearly intends to impart meanings about confronting evil and the character of heroism drawn from his experience of World War II. No other book compared here comes close in the thematic exposition that can be done on Tolkien's novels.

On the whole, Meyer's books are clearly the immature or the most "teen" of the literature here contrasted. They are a descriptive experience written for teenagers who are experiencing emotions that their brains aren't wired to handle yet. Their utopian ending may have attracted a broader audience, but I actually consider that to reflect negatively upon the maturity of the content. Harry Potter and David Eddings are fairly close, with Rowling probably edging it out. I should note that both of their writing matures - the first two or three Harry Potter novels are clearly children's books and do not possess much of the maturity found in the later books. Similarly, Eddings' first series, The Belgariad, is more teen-ish, as the main character is, in fact, a teen. A bit more of the mature relationship structure and nuanced characters can be found in his early books, but not nearly as in his later series. Eddings' characters slightly surpass Rowling's in complexity, but Rowling's world towers over Eddings' creations in terms of a grey-scale morality and the impact of negative consequences from actions taken by protagonists. Tolkien is, unsurprisingly, the most mature in content. I say unsurprising because Kate's friend, Amelia, now a lawyer in New York, wrote her undergraduate thesis on Tolkien. I simultaneously want to read her thesis and keep her far away from these sophomoric analyses. Anyone who writes a thesis on Stephanie Meyer could never make it through law school. Although, if he pulled it off, he'd probably make a very good lawyer. . . or used car salesman.

That's Not Irony, It's Poor Writing

Once again, my pedantic writing has limited how far I can get into my post. I'll probably have to expand this past the planned third post. I cannot continue into my vocabulary analysis because I have been far too wordy in this post. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?