Sunday, March 07, 2004
# Posted 11:36 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
One need look no further than the controversy over December 2003's IGC decree 137 which introduced sharia (Islamic religious law) in the place of secular family law to see how poorly democratic values are entrenched. Passed at a time when key secular members of the IGC were out of the country, and the chairman of the IGC was a Shia Islamist, decree 137 was denounced by the Kurds, women's groups, and some secular parties as undemocratic and discriminatory. Ambassador Bremer refused to sign decree 137, which meant that it could not be implemented.From a different perspective, this might just be a story of democracy at work. After all, there were no violent protests, no denunciations of the democratic system as anathema to Islam. Just hardball politics of the kind you see in any modern state. Of course, the Shi'ites can afford to be patient because they expect to dominate the new Iraq. But calculated or not, that kind of restraint on the part of a brutally repressed and suddenly liberated people suggests a certain faith in the democratic process. (Thanks to BM for the link.)
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:16 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Take it from somebody who grew up with the "military life," specifically the United States Army Medical Corps. You don't have a clue, son. There is not and has never been a more dedicated, disciplined, and dynamic enterprise on the face of the planet...Not that we don't enjoy the humor ourselves, but especially after years of TV saturation, the leftist portrayal of "military life" was and is now an extreme disservice to our country and our people.EJB's comments are pointed but fair. While I meant no offense, my review of M*A*S*H never challenged the film's portrayal of the Army Medical Corps. In retrospect, I should've made it clear that I was approaching M*A*S*H as a suggestive satire about military life, not an actual account of any specific soldiers or units. One reader who speaks to that point is naval officer CL, who writes:
Re: Your point about the US military juggernaut -I fully agree. Whether we're talking about the US military, the US government or major corporations such as Microsoft and Ford, there is something inexplicable about their ability to function. And yet they do.
Moving on to the cultural side of things, NC remarks that
I recently rewatched MASH myself. What I found interesting was the initial hostility of Hawkeye and Trapper John when they first meet Frank Burns. They come into the tent where Frank is teaching [Korean teenager O-Jon] English [by using] the Bible. This leads to much mockery and the gift of a girlie mag to the kid, continuing as Frank kneels to pray at the foot of his cot, and sometime later [more] mockery of his refusal of a martini. This is all before Frank shows himself as the classic military martinet, perhaps earning the abuse that he suffers. Maybe as I've aged I have become more conservative (yet still agnostic, long haired, etc...) , or just sensitive, but the prejudice against Frank was in a sense shocking.I fully agree. Most anti-authority films (think Animal House) protect the moral integrity of their protagonists by having the 'bad guys' break the rules first. But there's no mistaking what happens in M*A*S*H. Hawkeye is relentlessly cruel toward Frank Burns and Nurse O'Houlihan.
Perhaps the director wanted it to be that way, or perhaps the novel on which the film is based emphasizes that Hawkeye is anything but a Boy Scout. Either way, if the portrayal of Hawkeye's cruetly was intentional, I think it was a good decision from an artistic perspective. It shows that Hawkeye's behavior is a reflection of his character, not a sudden response to minor provocations by Burns or O'Houlihan.
It also adds sophistication, both moral and analytical, to the anti-authority message of the film. Hawkeye is rebelling against a system, not against one or two bad officers. Moreover, Hawkeye's cruetly suggests that the irrationality of the system may provoke the response it does because it is dealing with humans and not with angels. Of course, the irrationality of the system reflects the fact that it is composed of humans and not of angels.
Now, going back a bit further in time, there have also been some interesting comments made about Blackboard Jungle and To Sir, With Love. WS writes that
I had the pleasure of meeting Ron Clark, a real "To Sir With Love" teacher, last week at my corporate conference, where he was the featured speaker. His story is amazing and he is an terrific speaker. After falling in to teaching in his home town in rural North Carolina, Ron set out to teach in Harlem. He was the only white person in the school and he was given the very worst class. The transformation which took place, and he tells his story very well, was nothing short of fantastic. By the end of the school year he got nearly one-third of his class of 37 into the best junior high in the city. A school which only took 30 kids total by application and interview each year. His secret was teaching respect and civility as a foundation. Check out his website and his book. If you get a chance to hear him speak you won't be disappointed.No doubt about that. Even those teachers who succeed in more favorable circumstances need tremendous strength of character and often have astounding stories to tell. Nonetheless, I think it is often hard to express exactly how one goes about transforming sullen and dejected students into curious and thoughtful ones. As I mentioned before, both Blackboard and To Sir find it hard to express the cause of that transformation. If Clark can put it into words, he is most assuredly an impressive speaker. Finally, DS writes that
I attended Bronx public schools starting in 1948, so I can report on actual conditions then. Blackboard Jungle was a best selling book before it was a movie. The author Evan Hunter (Ed McBain) has written a gazillion books, mostly mysteries, and remains productive today.If only we knew how to fix them...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:37 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:54 AM by Patrick Belton
The Olympics are thought of as apolitical, really, and not something to get worked up about. Indeed a recent poll has show an alarming apathy towards them amongst the public. Also, I wouldn't say ND are 'edging ahead'. I have been here in Greece for a couple of years now. Last summer ND led PASOK by about 5 points. Since then, one of the two main issues has reared is ugly head: that was union power. I think it was September when the Govt capitulated to one of the major civil service unions, seemingly because it was scared of this 5% gap widening. This opened the floodgates, and it was 'beer and sandwiches' all round. Teachers, Lecturers, Doctor, Taxi drivers, and, yes, even prostitutes (here everything is unionised!) went on strike. I was worried that we were in for a winter of discontent, but somehow they managed to pay them off or stand them down. The damage was done, however, and a weakened government has just been limping along for a couple of months. The overall economy has moderate growth but is too resistent to structural change. Nothing for either party to really shout about. The other main factor is just the feeling that it is time for a change, that the present lot have become (too) corrupt and indifferent to their needs. Evidence for this is that when PASOK announced the PM would be retiring to let his foreign minister contest the election, their ratings jumped 5 points to make it 3 behind. The new guy, Papandreou, is no more popular a polician than the old one, Simitis, but just the change did them a lot good (but not good enough, unless the polls are wrong).
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:08 AM by Patrick Belton
The main choice is between two political dynasties that have dominated modern political life.Conservatives are edging ahead in what is anticipated to be a highly close result, and in which bloated bureaucracy and the country's embarrassing abysmally stalled preparations for August's Olympic games have become the most pivotal issues. Economist reviews the issues and political dynamics, while Guardian, scaremongering, fixates on a marginal far-right parliamentary candidate who has been expelled from the conservative coalition. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Saturday, March 06, 2004
# Posted 6:29 PM by Patrick Belton
Okay, maybe a picture of Ganesh. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:01 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:24 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 7:29 AM by Patrick Belton
Friday, March 05, 2004
# Posted 9:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 4:20 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 9:08 AM by Patrick Belton
In fact, you can hang out with all your favorite bloggers - our LA chapter is getting off the ground under the inspired leadership of Robert Tagorda, and our newest member Pejman nobly emits the admirable sentiment "I regret that I only have one blog to give for my country." So drop us a note, and come hang out with the cool kids! (Okay, maybe not all the cool kids yet - we're still working on CalPundit....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:01 AM by Patrick Belton
Okay, I wrote it, will you let me go now? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:57 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 1:59 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
I didn't watch the film with any particular expectations in mind, since the few episodes of M*A*S*H that I saw on television left no impression on me. However, I did expect the film to be somehow anti-army or anti-war. It's important to keep in mind that one can be critical of the army without being critical of the war, or vice versa. A book like Catch-22 can expose the insanity of military life without suggesting that the US shouldn't have been fighting in Europe. If anything, the unquestionable necessity of the Second World War adds an important dimension to the tragedy of Catch-22, since the confusion and injustice that Heller portrays are part and parcel of a just cause.
That said, M*A*S*H came across as apolitical. It doesn't dwell on the human cost of war. The main characters are surgeons in a military hospital, but they never philosophize about the terrible human cost of war. The patients themselves have nothing to say, literally. There are no scenes of convalescing soldiers, only bodies under white sheets on the operating table. Hawkeye and Trapper John have no qualms about going to play golf in Japan. For them, being a military surgeon is just a job they never asked for.
The target of the film's satire is the hypocrisy and bureaucracy of military life. The villians of the camp are the bible-reading major and the uptight head nurse. The great joy of the film is to show how those who have a healthy disrespect for the mindless regimentation of military life can use the army's own rules against it. In a sense, the fact that the film takes place in a military hospital in Korea is almost irrelevant. It is simply a film about defying authority, wherever it may be found.
Perhaps this is not how the film came across in 1970. In the midst of the Vietnam war, it may not have been necessary to show the bodies or talk about the war in order to make a political comment. Simply ridiculing the army may have been enough. In that context, the incompetence portrayed in the film may have suggested that the irrationality of military life was responsible for our failure in Vietnam.
But in 2004, that message doesn't come across. Today, the American military is a high-tech juggernaut. At least to those of us on the outside. I have a friend in the service whose view of military life roughly corresponds to the one in M*A*S*H. All I ever hear from the captain is how the radios never work and the clowns in charge have no idea what they're doing. And yet somehow, it all comes out fine in the end.
I think the lesson here is that M*A*S*H and Catch-22 and other works in that genre remind of the inevitable absurdity of military life. Even in the most efficient army on earth, there is no escape from bureaucracy and confusion. And humor. God only knows what it was like to serve on the Iraqi side. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:25 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Thursday, March 04, 2004
# Posted 3:42 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 3:01 AM by Patrick Belton
Want cream and sugar with that? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:43 AM by Patrick Belton
This company, whose implicit motto seems to be "you get what you pay for with our cheap service," just lost all of our foreignpolicysociety.org email that hadn't been downloaded, and had the cajones to send around this non-unduly-apologetic email:
What this means for you is that any email that was on the server prior to today at 1pm EST and has not been retrieved has been lost and is non-recoverable. Any emails that have been sent to an account after 1pm that we host will be either returned to the sender or the messages will go into the queue of the sending server and be set to retry to deliver the message for up to 5 days. Redelivery attempts are the most common response to this sort of problem. We regret that this has happened and that the redundancy of the mail system did not work as intended.There - now, as you've asked, I've told my friends and business associates about you. Anything else, while I'm at it? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:06 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don’t know if the latest reports – saying that he is surrounded – are true or not. We’ve heard this news before.What Kerry is saying is that whereas George Bush was afraid to sacrifice American lives in order to capture Osama bin Laden, John Kerry has the authority to order such a sacrifice because of his record as a war hero. Leaving aside the specifics of Tora Bora, this passage shows why Kerry's war record isn't just a biographical artifact. It is a personal trait that will change the way he makes critical decisions. After all, imagine Bill Clinton saying that he would send American soldiers' to their deaths in the same situation where George Bush wouldn't. No one would believe it. And when Clinton got into office, he had to tread lightly on the generals' turf. But Kerry would be in a much better position to handle them.
Next, Kerry observes that
This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.Identifying "jihadism" as our opponent is a significant step. It entails the affirmation that this is a war of ideas, because one can stop terror with airport security, but one can only stop suicide bombers by destroying the ideology that animates them. Of course, there is a trade off here. By adopting language similar to that of George Bush, Kerry admits that the President has been right about something very important. Kerry will have to decide for or against such trade-offs on a lot of security related issues. He will have to calculate how much he needs to concede in order to show that he is "serious" about security without giving away so much that he presents no alternative to Bush. Apparently, Kerry's strategy for transcending this dilemma is to try and attack Bush from the right. Hence his statement that
I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.I'm somewhat surprised that Kerry is using quagmire language, e.g. "bogged down" to describe the situation in Iraq. With both guerrilla attacks and American casualties falling significantly, it seems strange to say that victory is not in sight. To be sure, the insurgents' murder of scores of Iraqis is horrific. But it is American casualty figures that matter to the electorate. As for NED and Halliburton, the good news coming out of the oil fields suggests Kerry might want to be more careful here as well. Like them or not, Cheney's boys are doing their country a great service and an expensive one. Although highly speculative, my sense is that Kerry hasn't been watching Iraq carefully enough to sense that the media's pessimism may not be worth investing in. Turning from Iraq to Al Qaeda, Kerry argues that
Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake – not theirs. We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets.I don't get it. How can Kerry attack Bush for his failure to cooperate with foreign intelligence services while citing as evidence our successful capture of Shaikh Mohammed, Bin al Shibh and Hambali? Moreover, law enforcement cooperation with our European allies doesn't seem to have suffered despite the conflict at the United Nations. As such, Kerry returns to stronger ground with his accusation that our
Troops are going into harm’s way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely. National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire.Again, this is the kind of accusation that Kerry can only level because of his war record. While I vaguely recall hearing that the body armor situation had been dealt with, this sort of oversight on Bush's part is exactly what Kerry is in a position to take advantage of. Another oversight relates to non-proliferation. According to Kerry,
Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.I strongly support Nunn-Lugar, but if I were Kerry, I'd focus a lot more on Pakistan. After all, here is a supposed all in the war on terror who has been selling nuclear secrets to our most dangerous enemies. Bush said that other nations would have to be with us or against us. Yet Pakistan is allowed to play both sides. There are reasons for treating Pakistan differently, some of them good. But as far as campaign logic goes, the situation in Pakistan seems like a perfect demonstration of how Bush's short-sightedness is undermining American security. The final subject that Kerry tackles is homeland security. He wants more firefighters and police. He says that
We need to provide public health labs with the basic expertise they need but now lack to respond to chemical or biological attack. We need new safeguards for our chemical and nuclear facilities.I'm not in a good position to comment on these recommendations since I have given in to my preoccupation with "foreign" policy and decided not to focus on the painstaking details of securing the homefront. By the same token, the media also seems to have lost interest in the story. But my gut instinct is that we've gotten lucky since 9/11. Who would've guessed there wouldn't be even one more attack on America soil (assuming the anthax letters were homegrown)? Not I. So perhaps Kerry should play this one up a little more. It seems tailor made for Kerry's interest in showing that he is far more serious Bush about winning the war on terror.
All in all, I think that Kerry gave a strong speech albeit a mild one. I have seen him breathe a lot more fire, especially when Howard Dean is involved. But perhaps the time has not yet come for that. Right now, Kerry may want to build a foundation of trust before going on offense. After all, the world is an uncertain place and you never what opportunity fate might throw his way.
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
# Posted 11:44 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Now, Kevin hits the nail on the head when identifies Kerry's proposal to add 40,000 soldiers to the US military as the headline news in Kerry's speech. As Kevin points out, Bush can't match the proposal without vindicating those critics who insist that we simply don't have enough boots on the ground in Iraq. Thus, Kerry now has a major issue on which he can credibly present himself as more hawkish than Bush.
The subheadline of Kerry's speech is his insistence that the United States has a "solemn obligation" to finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq. As the Senator explains,
Whatever we thought of the Bush Administration's decisions and mistakes -- especially in Iraq -- we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday.Kerry's vague comments about the administration's "decision and mistakes" indicate that he isn't confident enough to directly attack the administration for its conduct of a war that Kerry himself voted to authorize. In fact, I was generally suprised by the restraint Kerry showed in criticizing the President's record on foreign policy. Perhaps it is not a matter of choice. On a lot of security issues, it is all but impossible for Kerry to attack the President without falling into the stereotype of a Massachusetts liberal. In contrast, Kerry had no qualms about using far more punishing language to attack Howard Dean's foreign policy in December than he is using to attack Bush's now. While Josh Marshall may love Kerry for being a fighter, it already seems that he is giving ground on the most important issue in the election.
The one point Kerry tries to hammer on relentlessly is Bush's disrespect for our allies. Yet when Kerry says that "As President, [he] will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake," he is again giving away the middle ground to Bush. Yes, one can argue that since there were no WMD in Iraq Bush was wrong to go to war without the Security Council. But Kerry can't say that without raising the question of why he voted for the war in the Senate.
Getting back to Kerry's talk of a "solemn obligation" in Iraq, I think it is important to point out that Kerry portrays the situation in Iraq as nothing more than a burden for the United States. As he strongly implies, the situation we now face in Iraq is a product of President Bush's "decisions and mistakes". In contrast, President Bush tends to portray the situation in Iraq as being a historic opportunity as well as a heavy responsibility. It marks the beginning of the democratic transformation of the Middle East. Such language, however, is entirely absent from Kerry's speech. To some degree, that is just partisan politics. Bush wants to spin the occupation as a historic event while Kerry wants to use it against the President. Now that Bush has unveiled his Greater Middle East Initiative, Kerry doesn't want to validate it by talking about the importance of democracy promotion. Yet if the promoting democracy weren't so important, why do we have a solemn obligation to ensure its success in Iraq? While this kind of subtle coloration of Kerry's words probably won't matter to much of the electorate, it does indicate to me that President Bush may have a better instinctive grasp than John Kerry does of what's at stake in Iraq.
On a similar note, I have to admit that I am disturbed by Kerry's statement that
It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops...Does Kerry really believe that any other nation will provide enough troops to take American soldiers out of the line of fire? The best we can hope for is a token force from France and Germany that will add some legitimacy to the occupation. Then again, no one in Iraq seems to be complaining that the occupation is too American. After all, the insurgents even kill UN employees. What I want to know is, when would Kerry offer the UN "the lead role" -- not a lead role, but the lead role -- in the definition of Iraq's political future? Before or after it puts enough blue helmets on the ground to give our troops a rest? While the American public respects the UN, I don't think that giving it a quid without getting a pro quo is likely to create the impression that Kerry is serious about national security.
There is no question that Kerry's speech was a good one. If you take a closer look, its strengths become more apparent. But there are still strong indications of how divided Kerry is about whether to attack Bush's foreign policy from the left or from the right. Perhaps the answer is both. Yet by trying to have it all, Kerry may only reinforce the notion that he doesn't have a real position on the issue.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:48 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 11:59 AM by Dan
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:05 AM by Patrick Belton
Compared to non-coffee drinkers, men who drank more than six eight-ounce cups of caffeinated coffee per day lowered their risk of type 2 diabetes by about half, and women reduced their risk by nearly 30 per cent, according to the study in Tuesday's issue of Annals of Internal Medicine. Nevertheless, experts said more research is needed to establish whether it really is the coffee or something else about coffee drinkers that protects them.So drink coffee, it's good for you! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:47 AM by Patrick Belton
A warm welcome to all of our new readers! We hope you enjoy what you find here, and come back to join us often! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:27 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:24 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:10 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 4:32 AM by Patrick Belton
Ninety percent of the most cheerful quarter of the nuns [as determined by psychologists coding diary-style essays the aforementioned nuns wrote in 1932] turned out to be alive at age 85 compared to only 34 percent of the least cheerful quarter.And if instead you want a different (and more Protestant) perspective, go to Kierkegaard: "Old age realizes the dreams of youth: look at Dean Swift; in his youth he built an asylum for the insane, in his old age he was himself an inmate." Either/Or, vol. 1, sct. 1 (1843, trans. 1987). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:30 AM by Patrick Belton
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
# Posted 3:21 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Recipe for civil war down the road, especially as crucial issues like the borders of the Kurdish region remain undefined. Unfortunately, we're seeing a confluence of interests between the Bush administration and various internal groups that would like to undermine either the integrity or the democratic character of a future Iraqi state. Both just need to keep a lid on the situation for a few months yet so America can claim victory and go home before the real fights begin.While it might be nice if the interim constitution represented a permanent consensus on religious tolerance and human rights, I don't see how Matt can expect a temporary document to accomplish the tasks of a democratically-elected constitutional convention. If the interim constitution sought to pre-empt those debates that will take place once the convention begins, it would be taking away the Iraqi people's right to control their own future.
Matt also quotes Juan Cole to the effect that no one in Iraq will have any incentive to compromise once the convention begins. But the interim constitution wouldn't then become a default point of compromise since it is supposedly just the product of a Bremer-Chalabi collaboration.
According to Matt, the time bomb within the time bomb is the preservation of the Kurdish militia known as the pesh merga. As &c. observes,
So much for the state's monopoly of force. If a future Iraq can survive as a unitary state with separate, ethnically based militaries, it will truly be something new under the sun.But Matt seems to forget the Kurds are the faction most dependent on American protection and therefore most amenable to American influence. American diplomats have made it clear that Kurdish secession is intolerable. Kurdish leaders know that America won't protect them from predatory neighbors if they choose to go it alone. So while there are always reasons to say that the glass is half empty, this time it is at least half full. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:50 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Despite the complexities of the unfolding situation in Haiti, two things can be said with certainty: Haiti is better for the fact that Jean-Bertrand Aristide is now in exile. And the world is better for the fact that we put him in power ten years ago.I agree. (Link via Matt Yglesias) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:30 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 6:32 AM by Patrick Belton
The Globe points to the irony that the Bush administration, so vitally against nation building in candidature, is now engaged wholeheartedly in the creation of democratic structures of governance in failed states, and winning support for this policy with a skeptical electorate. This is not, incidentally, the first time a president came into office to adopt policies he had campaigned against in his predecessor - for only one example, as a candidate Clinton attacked the first President Bush mercilessly for his Realist, great-powers-comity stance toward China which left no room for human rights considerations; then, after a year, he adopted precisely the same policy under the guise of engagement. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:50 AM by Patrick Belton
Along the way, he learned French, Latin, English, German, Spanish and Hebrew but is most eloquent in the native Creole that he used to exort Haitians to rise against the 29-year Duvalier family dictatorship.Go figure. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:14 AM by Patrick Belton
In other news, our Southern California chapter is now open for business - and headed up by no less a statesman of the blogosphere than Robert Tagorda! Thanks, Robert! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Monday, March 01, 2004
# Posted 11:48 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The side-by-side comparision of Blackboard and To Sir is also instructive because Poitier plays the rebellious student in the first film and the teacher in the second. Both performances are masterful. As student Gregory Miller, Poitier blends the sullen resentment and untapped potential of many an overlooked and underprivileged young man.
Poitier is even more impressive as Mark Thackeray, the out-of-work engineer who makes the decision to teach in London's East End. Thackeray is a fascinating combination of social awkwardness, intellectual ambition, human warmth and latent rage. Each one of his interactions with his students brings out an unexpected combination of these traits.
While Blackboard and To Sir were made only 12 years apart, they seem to be a full generation apart. The acting in Blackboard is of the stilted, artificial kind that seems so jarring to the modern viewer. (Poitier's performance is an exception and, as a result, seems far ahead of its time.) In To Sir, we come face to face with young men and women who would seem in place in any high-school classroom in America today, despite the fact that they are British and poor and living in 1967.
The difference in acting styles also accentuates the difference of the messages conveyed by the respective films. The message in Blackboard is explicity political and often makes the film seem more like a modern parody of 1950s culture than an actual product of the time. The strangeness begins with the film's trailer, which preceded the main feature on my copy of the cassette. In the manner of Reefer Madness, it promises to convey a shocking truth that naive and patriotic Americans have for too long ignored.
Given what inner-city schools are like today, one immediately begins to wonder whether any thing that happened in the 1950s could really have been all that bad. There are no guns in the film and drugs play a very minor role, so you figure that things can't really be all that bad. On the other hand, protagonist Glenn Ford (playing Rick Dadier) is beaten badly by his own students in a planned nighttime attack. The same students appear to be professional criminals who rob trucks after class. And at the climax of the film, one of them pulls a knife on Ford in class. Did things like that really happen in the 1950s? I don't know.
While this sort of scaremongering about inner-city youth might come off as racist today, its purpose in the film is to advance a liberal agenda. After all, the moral of the story is that if a teacher never gives up on underprivileged kids, they will shine through in the end. Thus, Blackboard manages in the space of a couple of hours to be both disturbingly alarmist and naively optimistic.
In contrast, To Sir has much less of a social agenda. While it does suggest that committed teachers can resolve a systemic crisis in education, the students come away mainly with a more mature approach to the constant challenges of life in the British working class. Moreover, they begin the film far more time than their Blackboard counterparts, who are miraculously transformed into patriotic Americans.
If I were to advance one main criticism of both films, it is that the moments of epiphany at which the students suddenly abandon the Dark Side of the Force seems improbable. To be fair, real-life student-teacher relations develop subtly over the course of months. To portray them in a matter of hours is all but impossible. Still, it seems like both sets of students are following a script when they undergo their conversions. It's never clear why they reject their goodhearted teachers at first but then come around when the time is right.
In the final analysis, To Sir, With Love is the superior film, one whose artistic merit should be evident to audiences today. However, Blackboard Jungle is still plenty worth watching, both for its historical value as well as the chance to observe a magnificent actor about to become a major star.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:07 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:01 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 6:00 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 5:41 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
I think it's worth taking a look at the NYT article in detail, since it contains so many surprises that run against the grain of conventional wisdom. Correspondent Neela Banerjee reports that
With additional production increases expected, oil exports this year could add $14 billion to Iraq's threadbare budget, compared with a little more than $5 billion last year, said a senior official with the Coalition Provisional Authority, the occupation government.I don't know that the total Iraqi budget is, but I have to imagine that $9 billion will make a big difference in the books. This suggests, moreover, that American support may be fall back to more moderate levels and/or focus on institution-building rather than basic services such as santiation. Next up, consider this:
The revival of the oil sector is a result of the $1 billion in repairs undertaken by the Americans and Iraqis as well as some dogged ingenuity by the Iraqis in keeping their badly damaged industry running.Usually, we hear that the American reconstruction effort is overwhelmed by chaos and getting little back in the way of results. On a related note,
The top American civil administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, appeared on Iraqi television on Friday to announce that electricity generation, a major source of discontent for this country of 25 million, had been restored to prewar levels and was expected to rise rapidly as summer approaches.Assuming that Bremer knows what he's talking about, that's pretty impressive, especially the part about a rapid rise this summer. Of course, even silver linings have clouds:
In the north, [oil] exports have been stymied by attacks on the pipeline leading to an export terminal in Turkey. But the Northern Oil Company recently tested the pipeline and shipped a few million barrels of oil to Turkey.Perhaps the reduction isn't all that surprising given that
The American military commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, said last week that attacks on coalition soldiers had been cut by half in the last three months, even as attacks on Iraqis had increased.Accordingly, the Coalition's casualty and fatality figures fell in February to a level considerably below even that of last summer. (NB: It's not just because February is a short month. The per-day figures fell dramatically as well.) Finally, if you look at the print version of this morning's NYT, you find an interesting sentence that has disappeared from the online version of its article:
American efforts to restore Iraqi oil have been led by the Army Corps of Engineers and its principal contractor, Halliburton.Halli-who? You mean those guys who overcharged the government for gas? Are we really supposed to believe that they do anything right or good? Well, if the NYT says so, who am I to disagree?
Anyhow, the good news isn't limited to the oil sector. The front page story about Iraq actually concerns its new interim constitution, which, if approved,
Would be the most progressive such document in the Arab world. Even before the hard bargaining began, there was wide agreement on many of its major features, including the freedom of speech, press and assembly and the free exercise of religion.As if that weren't enough, Sunni clerics are now calling on anti-American forces to put an end to their attacks against both Iraqi civilians and security officers. The clerics' fatwa begins as follows:
The document issued in Ramadi declares that killing fellow Iraqis not only runs counter to the idea of holy war, but also constitutes what is known in the Muslim world as haram, the unpardonable act of killing another Muslim.
# Posted 2:10 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 1:38 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 8:27 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:22 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 3:25 AM by Patrick Belton
Languages die the way many people do -- at home, in silence, attended by loved ones straining to make idle conversation.Even accounting for Hitt's occasional adolescent slips ("Does anything say Western dominance quite like the flush of a private john?"), the magazine should be congratulated for the highly unusual and innovative step of bringing good writing to the profit-making press. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Sunday, February 29, 2004
# Posted 9:39 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 9:23 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The future of Iran is in the hands of its own people. Our role is to encourage them by making it clear time and again that their ideals are ours as well. Encouragement is no guarantee of success, but we did learn after 1989 just how valuable moral support is for those who struggle against totalitarianism. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:39 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Finally, DK writes in with a response to my statement that "Having lived through September 11th, we have no need to watch the planes crash again and again. But are there Christians who might be inspired by this sort of film, which goes beyond the violence of gospel?" According to DK,
Yes, absolutely there are, and there has been a long tradition of this sort of thing throughout history:If you're still looking for more insightful comments about The Passion, Judith Weiss has a very comprehensive set of links up over at Kesher Talk. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:17 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Campaign Desk goes through all of this in order to demonstrate that a number of major media outlets have misrepresented Kerry's views on gay marriage. As far as I can tell, they have, albeit slightly. Even so, you have to have a lot of faith in Kerry in order to believe that his rhetorical acrobatics represent a sincere effort to explain his views rather than a calculated effort to explain them away. And even if the Senator's views are consistent, his decision to dodge Brownstein's final question is a pretty clear indication of the fact that Kerry does not want to let anyone know what his real views on gay marriage are.
But that's only the beginning. It also turns out that Kerry would support amendents to state consitutions that outlaw gay marriage provided that such amendents protect civil unions and the like. However, Kerry is against an amendent to the federal constitution which would do the same. These positions are consistent now that Kerry has revised his view of the constitutionality of DOMA. But what did he revise his view of DOMA? Has he changed his interpretation of the 14th Amendment, or did he misunderstand certain parts of DOMA?
Perhaps the more important question is whether it hurts Kerry more to reinforce his reputation for straddling the fence, or whether he should pay that price to avoid seeming too liberal (or too conservative?) on gay marriage. On the one hand, I sympathize with Kerry for having to make such a hard decision. On the other, I expect real answers from a candidate for President. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:56 AM by Patrick Belton
By shrewdly laying his Iraq quarrels with Chancellor Schröeder aside, President Bush has secured Germany's support for the intiative. In the opposing camp is Egypt's Mubarak, who has already been travelling the region to ask its autocratic rulers (beginning in Riyadh) for their opposition. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:14 AM by Patrick Belton
(Greatest hits: "The narrative necessarily implicates Jews and Romans, since there weren't many Norwegians around at the time." "In the back of the theater, two cops are present, perhaps to make sure the Jews and Christians don't turn into the Jets and Sharks, what with all the talk of anti-Semitic overtones, or perhaps just to guard against the phone bully. "Don't worry," offers Norm, in the event of a Jewish uprising. "You're with me. You'll be okay.") (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:52 AM by Patrick Belton
The Bush administration said it welcomed Aristide's departure and said it was in the best interests of Haiti. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Aristide left at about 6:45 a.m. EST, accompanied by members of his security detail.See also this piece from earlier this morning, on the administration's decision yesterday to increase its pressure on Aristide to leave, to leave open chances for a peaceful resolution in his absence:
Earlier in the day, senior administration officials said the United States did not want to seem to be pushing an elected leader out of office. But after a meeting of Mr. Bush's national security advisers on Saturday morning — run by teleconference from Camp David by Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser — the president concluded that Washington's strong hints to Mr. Aristide that he needed to resign must be stepped up to a strong shove.Rebel leader Guy Philippe, who had earlier boasted that he would be in Port-au-Prince today to mark his 36th birthday, had reportedly slowed his advance into the capital city in response to a request from Washington.
So who's left to pick up the pieces of power in Port-au-Prince? The Democratic Platform opposition coalition had been led by senior socialist member Micha Gaillard, Christian Democrat Marie-Denise Claude, and Paul Denis of the left-wing Organisation for the People's Struggle. Other key figures in the political opposition include Lionel Etienne, head of the Franco-Haitian Chamber of Commerce; and industrialist Edouard Peaultre. (See AFP). The Platform Democratique, in turn, includes the Convergence Democratique (a wide-ranging collection of political and civil society groups) and the Group of 184 (which represents Haiti’s business community; website). It's not yet clear whether a restoration in order in Haiti will now follow along the lines of the French peace plan, in which a multinational police force would deploy to Haiti along with relief aid, human rights observers, and a U.N. representative; a government of national unity would be formed among political parties; and new presidential elections would take place before the summer. (The alternative, CARICOM, plan had called for Aristide to remain in power heading a government of national unity.) And the State Department has already indicated that a multinational force will be sent to the Haiti soon. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:52 AM by Patrick Belton
Aiming to get more low-income students to enroll, Harvard will stop asking parents who earn less than $40,000 to make any contribution toward the cost of their children's education. Harvard will also reduce the amount it seeks from parents with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:45 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
The Administration's policy toward's Haiti is anything but coherent. Running the gamut from ignoring the coming crisis then rushing to negotiate a half baked "peace plan." Haiti under Aristide may be a lot things but a dictatorship is a bit much. Aristide has been a failure as a leader and needs to go but I remember Haiti under Duvalier and you can't begin to compare the two.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Saturday, February 28, 2004
# Posted 10:29 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:13 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
His message to the rebels, Mr. Kerry said, would be: "You're not going to take over. You're not kicking [Aristide] out. This democracy is going to be sustained."According to Freedom House, Haiti
has become a dictatorship in all but name, as power has been monopolized by President Aristide and his Lavalas Family (FL) party.Makes you wonder what kind of democracy Sen. Kerry would like to promote in Iraq. And if Bush called Haiti a democracy, you could bet that the next line in the NYT article would've read "According to Freedom House, Haiti is a violent dictatorship." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:39 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Bush is now stating pretty clearly that Aristide must go. Obviously, doing so raises the possibility that the rebels may take over. Yet having Aristide go now may result in there be a lot less violence than if the rebels had to invade Port Au Prince and haul him out. Morevoer, if Aristide resigns in response to American pressure, the rebels will be robbed of the legitimacy that comes from ousting a dictator (cf. "Sandinistas").
I don't how much chance there is that the democratic opposition to Arisitide can become an interim government in the event of the President's resignation. But if the US, UN and France all support a clear pro-democracy line, the worst may not come to pass.
Oh, and by the way, notice how neither the NYT nor the WaPo said anything bad about the rebels until the last couple of days. But that's the kind of oversight you should expect when big-name correspondents fly around the world from trouble spot to trouble spot rather than really learning about any of the nations they cover. For example, last week the WaPo identifed Louis-Jodel Chamblain as a "former army officer". The NYT described M. Chamblain as "leader of the rebel troops" and quoted him as saying that
"Cap Haitien is a symbol of Haiti's freedom. This fight is to liberate the Haitian people under the regime of Jean-Bertrand Aristide."Today, the NYT describes Chamblain and Jean-Pierre Baptiste as
Two leaders of Fraph, the Haitian Front for Advancement and Progress. Fraph was an instrument of terror wielded by the military junta that overthrew Haiti's embattled president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 1991. It killed thousands over the next three years.You know, you'd think that American journalists would be more skeptical when someone claims to be waging a war of liberation. After all, a few months ago, someone or other at the Pentagon said something about liberating some country in the Middle East and caught hell for it from the media. But some two-bit gang leader gets press coverage that makes him look like George Washington. Go figure. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:20 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
While the NYT cover story contains a lot of interesting information, its criticism of the UN's role in the affair is too light to even be described as a slap on the wrist. While Rossett's op-ed makes clear that widescale corruption was only possible because of ridiculously lax UN oversight, all the NYT gives us is a pathetic denial from the UN official in charge:
The director of the Office of Iraq Programs, Benon V. Sevan, declined to be interviewed about the oil-for-food program. In written responses to questions sent by e-mail, his office said he learned of the 10 percent kickback scheme from the occupation authority only after the end of major combat operations.Yeah, right. Just this week, Rosett published another column which provides considerable evidence that either that the UN is hiding a lot of information from the public or that its accountants don't understand basic arithmetic.
On a related note, one also has to ask to what degree the French and Russians were involved in Saddam's massive kickback scheme. To its credit, the NYT raises the issue briefly at the end of its lengthy report. Hopefully, it will follow up on the issue, because even the little bit it has found is quite incriminating. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Friday, February 27, 2004
# Posted 6:12 AM by Patrick Belton
UPDATE: Matt Yglesias doesn't buy that Kyrgyzstan is trending toward democratization (and correctly points out that a good deal of quite execrable oppression is taking place in that country), while Brian Ulrich argues in Matt's comments that the Kyrgyz Republic is at any rate the most free of any Central Asian nation, and whether it is trending toward more or less democracy is open to dispute. Incidentally, Freedom House has two reports on Kyrgyzstan, here and here: their consensus is that corruption is rife, and initial hopes for a thriving Kryyz democracy have been dashed by growing presidential authoritarianism.
I'm not convinced yet, though, by Matt's criticism that the State Department country reports alter their analyses or pull their punches to cohere with broader government foreign policy goals. In fact, it's my fairly strong impression that the bureaucratic processes leading to the production of the human rights reports are staffed by people drawn in from the human rights community (like human rights lawyer Harold Koh from YLS, or civil rights lawyer John Shattuck), who remain in very close contact with the principal human rights organizations from whom they draw most of their reporting. The human rights groups, in turn, are generally laudatory of the human rights reports, while using them as an opportunity to criticise broader US policy - see Tom Malinowski from 2002 here, or Amnesty from this year here. This seems to me like a far more benevolent form of the common political phenomenon of bureaucratic capture - where a government agency is staffed principally by members of an industry, who continue to represent its aims and view of the world while working in the executive. And this seems to me, first of all, a good thing where the industry in question is the human rights community, and second of all, to be precisely in line with the legislative intent of Congress when late in the Nixon administration it created the Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs in Section 301 of the International Security and Arms Export Control Act of 1976. The idea then was to create an entrenched bureaucratic interest which, even in the cynical course of promoting its own bureaucratic stature within the State Department, would also tend over time to promote the cause of human rights within US foreign policy. That said, I'm personally very fascinated by the Bureau, and would be very interested to hear whether any of our friends have more to say on the point. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:31 AM by Patrick Belton
New York was the home base of choice for the super-rich, with 31 of them living there. Moscow came in second with 23, followed by Hong Kong with 16 and Paris with 10.Almost as many billionaires live in Moscow as in New York! That there would be comparable numbers of billionaires living in the financial capital of a nation with a PPP GDP of $1.409 trillion and that of one of $10.45 trillion is a stunning indication of the oligarchic character of a country where like medieval Western Europe there are only two true powers, declining oligarchs and a rising dirigiste state. The professional and commercial middle classes, so important for democratization, are in mother Russia dearly missed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion