So, a quick scorecard for the last couple posts:
Post (largely) on a book about the Iraq War - 1 comment (unrelated to Iraq)
Post on retirement - 1 comment
Post on Michael Jackson - 21 comments
Seems about right. I'll have to remind myself of this the next time I find myself complaining that Hollywood makes too many mainstream popcorn movies. Does my writing completely suck or do you guys really not have any opinions on these things? Or has Weir become my sole readership? That's a distinct possibility. Weir, maybe I should just start e-mailing you directly. Although, ironically, your commenting frequency is better than your e-mail response rate.
Moving on . . .
I got the quarterly results of my 401(k) in the mail the other day and was astonished to see that it actually made money! Wow, who knew that they could do that?
Moving on . . .
So tomorrow is Christy's shower at our place and I will be . . . elsewhere. I had orginally planned to go out of town somewhere but seeing as we have traveled 3 of the last 4 weekends that doesn't seem too appealing to me any more. So instead I'm going to be hibernating at the movie theatre in downtown Evanston. As of right now I'm planning to see 3 movies: The Hurt Locker, Harry Potter, and Transformers 2. I look at that list and immediately think about the law of diminishing returns.
Moving on . . .
We finally got a Wii and I've been doing the Wii Fit for about a week now. Overall I like it but it is definitely a blow to the ego the first time you step on and a high-pitched, chirpy little voice cheerfully informs you "that's overweight" as your on-screen representation balloons in the mid-section. I really like the Yoga stuff even though it massively exposes how horribly inflexible I am. But I was never gonna go to a class on my own so I suppose this is the only way it was ever going to happen. I also just got Punch-Out last night and it is everything I thought it could be and more. Call me crazy but I've always thought that Punch-Out would make a great movie. Certainly it would have to be campy and cartoony (I'm thinking something in the vein of Hellboy 2) but can you tell me that Soda Popinski, Bald Bull, and Super Macho Man wouldn't make great characters? 10 years ago Matt LeBlanc would have been a good Mac; not sure who would play him now. Forrest Whitaker would definitely have to play Doc.
As we head into the weekend, I think we've gone 10 days now without a celebrity death. Let's hope that streak is still alive come Monday. Also, I'm thinking of doing another roundtable, so either comment or send me an e-mail if you'd like to be a part of it. Better yet, regardless of whether or not you'd like to participate in it I'd love to get some ideas for questions so that I don't have to come up with them all myself and force people to write about things that no one cares about. I'll still be the one selecting the question (this is still a blogtatorship) but I think it'll be more interesting that way.
Have a good weekend everyone!
Cause the world needed one more blog and someone had to do it.
About Me
Better Than Life
Recent Movies Seen (1-5 Stars)
- Nebraska (4 Stars)
- The Lego Movie (4 Stars)
- Yojimbo (4 Stars)
- The Other Guys (3.5 Stars)
- The Messenger (4 Stars)
Recent Books Read (1-5 Stars)
- Obama's Wars by Bob Woodward (3 Stars)
- This Time is Different by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart (4.5 Stars)
- The Big Short by Michael Lewis (4.5 Stars)
- The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson (4 Stars)
- Runaway by Alice Munro (4.5 Stars)
11 comments:
1. Blogtatorship. Golden.
2. I was just thinking on the bus today how I had all these thought provoking questions that I should blog about. But then I remembered that I'm not so good at answering the questions--more just asking them. So! I would be glad to provide questions. I can't promise they'll be interesting to other people though. Here's the one I thought of this morning. [edit: not so much a question as a jumble of thoughts.... in several parts.]
The other night I saw a documentary about the International Criminal Court and how they keep trying to bring people to justice for the war crimes committed in Sudan's Darfur, yet the (mostly Western) ICC members keep getting blocked by various African leaders. To the point where the President of South Africa gave a statement at some important meeting (see, this is why I'm no good at *answering* the questions... I must have been doing something else while half watching the documentary).... well, anyways, it was like a UN council meeting or some such, the guy declared that the ICC should drop changes against the Sudanese president. African leaders clearly are closing ranks around this guy Bashir. Why? One might think it’s because they’re scared of his military retaliation (possible, I suppose, but South Africa? Really? Scared of Sudan?) or trade restrictions. Maybe. But….
(Also, if we lived in a media- and information-soaked society back in the 1800s, what reaction would Europe have given to the U.S. Presidents’ tacit approval and even outright endorsement of the extinguishing of the Native American population? I bet they’re grateful they were never forced to stand up to us about that.)
….Sorry, tangent.
Okay, also related, in a way I can’t really articulate….
I was reading an article about Afghanistan the other day, and saw a map of the foreign military bases there. All of them (well, at least in the region shown in the map) were American, British, or Dutch. I was like, Dutch? What the heck are they doing? Who even hears about them these days. But then I thought about how they used to be (and may still be) a big colonial power… which come to think of it, so is/are the U.S. and Britain. So, was it indicative of something that these were the three countries occupying the region? Why them?
I’m not saying the U.S. (or Britian or Holland) gets involved in wars out of some sneaky desire to acquire for themselves the country in conflict. I am wondering, though, if there is a line of thinking or emotional tendency shared by colonial powers that predisposes them to meddle in other people’s affairs as if they know how to fix everything. It’s a little condescending, when you think about it.
To go on a bit of a tangent (oh, I thought that’s what we were already on…), I find it interesting that the colonial power with historically the largest reach—Spain—is largely absent. Not only from this conflict, but come to think of it, from all current conflicts. (Probably there’s some big Spanish historical event that happened in the 1960s or 70s that’s the reason for this and I’m just not informed… again, I’m too lazy to look these things up.) My point, anyway, is that it’s interesting that they’ve seemed to lose all their colonial aspirations while the other leading powers apparently haven't. Somebody (ahem) should look into what happened there.
Actually, which reminds me about how there’s the French diaspora in western Africa, and French leaders lately have been kinda like, eh, let’s not hang out with those guys anymore; they’re just one big headache. Maybe that’s what happens. You overexpand, end up taking on dependents that drag you down, and you realize the downside of having so many and so give up the game. In that case, maybe America’s, Britain’s, and others’ cure is simply to take on too much, get sick of it, and drop out.
Umm………. WOW, I love to talk.
To attempt to bring this to a… (conclusion? Mericful ending?)… I’ll call back one of your quotes, John, that you pulled from the book about Iraq in your last blog. The quote said that if Iraqi leaders are honest they will tell you that the idea of democracy is a ludicrous idea for their country. Perhaps it really is folly, then, to believe that democracy, Western-style justice, and "clean" non-corrupted politics is the ideal and works for everyone. It’s clear, definitely, that there is something we’re not understanding. About a whole lot of people. Are the other countries attempting to tell us and we just won’t listen? Or are we incapable of understanding?
..And for the record, I really did like your post on the Iraq book. I just didn't comment on it. I will be sure to give you some acknowledgement next time.
First of all, thanks a lot Cronkite. Reset the celebrity Death-O-Meter to 2 days please.
Second, Becky I have some answers to your questions. First, on the Sudan issue you are exposing that you have not been keeping up on your Economist subscription. There have been probably 10 articles this year on that very question. The reason the other African leaders resist the ICC has nothing to do with Sudan; it has to do with the ICC. They (the leaders) don't like the idea of some extraneous body having the ability to remove them from power and/or punish them in any other way. For one they see the ICC as a largely Western construct and are distrustful of it and for another a lot of these other leaders are up to some pretty shady things themselves. They're worried they'll be next.
Spain - 60s or 70s? Try the 80s. The 1580s. That was when the Spanish Armada was defeated and began Spain's gradual decline as a colonial power. As is often the case, too many wars for too long a time put them under a huge financial strain and their economy collapsed. They were still important players in Europe for the next couple hundred years until being invaded and temporarily conquered by Napoleon in the early 19th century. They never really recovered (as a global power) after that. There's a number of civil wars over the next 150 years or so and Spain was neutral for both World Wars, which led them to fare better than most of Europe during the wars but also increasingly left them on the sidelines in international diplomacy.
Hey, at least he had the stones to live to 92... That's pretty tough for a guy to do.
Fine, yes, I have slipped behind in my Economist. It's hard, man!! I'm averaging about one all-nighter a week with how busy work has gotten. There is no time for Economist-reading.
I still have at least 2 questions unanswered. Are you gonna blog 'em?
1. Are some of our Western ideals inappropriate for application in non-Western societies? Which ones, and what makes them inappropriate? Have non-Western peoples expressed which ideals aren't good for them, and is that message heard by the West? Where's the faulty link in the chain of communication?
2. Why is it that colonial countries are the most involved in international diplomacy?
1. It isn't about West vs. non-West, it just comes down to different cultures valuing different things and, even if they value the same things, placing different weights among the things they value. As such, it's very difficult to make blanket statements about certain values applying or being incompatible with whole areas of the world. You just end up way over-simplifying things and coming to bogus conclusions. To complicate it even further, even the values themselves mean different things to different people. To us freedom of religion means the freedom to practice any religion we want, whereas in some Middle East countries it may mean freedom to worship any sect of Islam you want. In India, ingrained in freedom to marry is still an implicit assumption that it will be within your own caste, whereas in most of the U.S. freedom to marry still means hetero only. So what I'm trying to say is yes there are certainly Western values that are not compatible with the non-Western world but there are also lots of Western values that aren't compatible with other parts of the Western world and non-Western values incompatible with other non-Westermers.
2. Allow me to rephrase your question. Why is it that countries who have a long history of being actively involved on a global scale still actively involved on a global scale? I would think the answer would be self-evident. It's kind of like asking why someone who goes to college and gets a business degree is still working in business 30 years later.
Wow, I just got completely shut out then. Denied!
Hi John, I've been in China for 2 weeks, where Blogger is blocked (more on that later). Otherwise I would have commented. Really.
And I'm quite impressed with Becky for commenting SEVEN times on one post. Bravo, bravo. You've certainly got a lot to say. =)
And I think if they make a Punch Out movie, Matthew Broderick DEFINITELY has to play Mac. I've pictured him as Mac ever since I first played it.
Ok and one more comment about things being blocked in China. I watched a movie on TV called Freedom Writers (typical campy movie about the inner-city teacher who makes a difference.) I wanted to find out if it was a true story, so I searched on Google for it. And nothing came up. It was like the site was down, but then when I searched for something else, it worked. Then I tried IMDB. Nothing. And then it dawned on me. It's because I was searching for the word "freedom" in China. Insane... I keep forgetting that it's a repressive country and then that fact keeps slapping me in the face. "Remember, stupid sheltered American? You're in a communist country!"
So Blogger and Facebook are also blocked. You know, I wonder if restrictions like that actually encourage innovation and exploration. I mean, if you've gotten used to using Facebook to communicate, and then they shut it down, you'd have to find another website. Or start one. Maybe China's censorship will actually prompt homegrown social networking sites... Discuss.
Ooh, interesting. Does oppression foster innovation? That is just another way of saying "Necessity is the mother of invention," after all. I'll tell you one thing. The Chinese version(s) (there's several, actually) of YouTube are pretty awesome. Which, actually, funny how the communists don't seem to care so much about copyright laws. But that may just be a poverty thing. I mean, lots of countries sell knock-off CDs and handbags at their street fairs, not just China or communist countries.
Post a Comment