http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:13:45 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/24/001345.php Glenn M. FrazierThere's been a proliferation of monkeys in both blogspace and meatspace, recently.And with that, Solonor begins his blog full of monkeys, in which he provides monkey links, monkey musings, monkey conversations and monkey anecdotes.Monkey monkey monkey.Don't you love that word?I had a friend who agreed with me (I cannot recall if it were her or my own original assertion) that "Everything is funnier with monkeys." One of my earliest memories was the moment I suddenly declared, for reasons that were then obscure to me, "Monkeys are my favorite animal." On and off through my childhood, I had a friend who drifted in and out of town that for years was known by the name "Monkey". And who can forget, "Hey, hey we're the Monkees..."?Solonor most understandably misses some fine monkey opportunities—so many fine monkeys abound! For instance, there are two of my favorite blogs: Government Monkey and Banana Counting Monkey. Of course, Jonah Goldberg would strip me of my Warblogger badge (hey, maybe we chickenbloggers should wear badges, eh?) if I failed to at least mention the infamous Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys. Plus, in the spirit of Solonor's "Best Monkey Movies Ever" I submit that the best monkey reference in literature is to be found within Douglas Adams' The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy:"Ford!" he said, "there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out!"Finally, no monkey compendium is "compleat" without reference to this nasty-yet-hillarious tale, forwarded across the Internet for what now must be ages:I like monkeys. I like monkeys. The pet store was selling them for five cents a piece. I thought that odd since they were normally a couple thousand. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I bought 200. I like monkeys.I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one drive. His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching themselves in their genitals. I laughed. Then they punched my genitals. I stopped laughing.I herded them into my room. They didn't adapt very well to their new environment. They would screech, hurl themselves off of the couch at high speeds and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour.Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so inexpensive: they all died. No apparent reason. They all just sorta' dropped dead. Kinda' like when you buy a goldfish and it dies five hours later. Damn cheap monkeys.I didn't know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all over my room, on the bed, in the dresser, hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs.I tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn't work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and 199 dead, dry monkeys.I tried pretending that they were just stuffed animals. That worked for a while, that is until they began to decompose. It started to smell real bad.I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in the toilet and I didn't want to call the plumber. I was embarrassed.I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them. Unfortunately, there was only enough room for two monkeys at a time so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat all the food in the freezer so it didn't all go bad.I tried burning them. Little did I know my bed was flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen monkeys in my freezer, and 197 dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed. The odor wasn't improving.I became agitated at my inability to dispose of my monkeys and to use the bathroom. I severely beat one of my monkeys. I felt better.I tried throwing them away but the garbage man said that the city was not allowed to dispose of charred primates. I told him that I had a wet one. He couldn't take that one either. I didn't bother asking about the frozen ones.I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas gifts. My friends didn't know quite what to say. They pretended that they like them, but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates. So I punched them in the genitals.I like monkeys.Do you like monkeys? Then definitely peruse all the links in Solonor's post. I could go on for some time longer about monkeys, myself, including references to Curious George, David Brin's Uplift series (the only author to successfully pull off an all-chimpanzee beer and banana bar fight within a serious context), The Pixies...Okay, I'll stop. Rather than blather on, I'll ask instead: what are your favorite monkeys and monkey references?(Many thanks to Bigwig and his littlewig helper, Laurence Simon, for pulling together this week's Carnival of the Vanities from whence I discovered Solonor's inspiring post. Like I said: this one is a particularly good batch.)[This post originally appeared on GlennFrazier.com, a site not normally devoted to monkeys.] Culture1485@blogcritics.org Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:13:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/07/222313.php Glenn M. FrazierBy now, you may have noticed a new Archive Menu on the sidebar over there on the left: "By Critic..."You may also notice that the list of critics in that menu is significantly shorter than the full list of critics at the bottom of said sidebar.Relax.Right now, only the most frequent posters to Blogcritics are listed in the new Archive menu, but soon enough everyone else will be there too. There's just no good way of automating the process of archiving by critic, so I'm hand-loading everything in batches.Check back later, and your name (if it's not already there) should appear in the menu. Promise! Culture1144@blogcritics.org Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:23:13 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/25/123214.php Glenn M. Frazier[The following originally appeared on GlennFrazier.com last February.With the new season of Smallville kicking off yesterday on The WB, I thought it'd be fun to go back and see what I'd said earlier. If you watched last night's premier, then you'll recognize that many of the themes I discussed in February have certainly been developed further and in interesting ways.I'm also excited to see that a DVD of the first season is now listed on Amazon. What was for me a growing interest last winter has now become a downright obsession. My dedicated TV lineup this Fall: Angel, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Smallville, Enterprise, The West Wing, Firefly.]Smallville is turning out to be a surprisingly good show.[Note to those who haven't seen much of the first season but plan on doing so anyway:This is quite long (and spoilerful) for a review. If you don't have time, then just watch the show for three episodes, and pay close attention to Clark, Lex, and Mr. and Mrs. Kent. Don't worry too much about the plots of specific episodes; the series is about the development and interrelations of the characters that happens parallel with the superhero vs. supervillain and high school silliness plots and subplots. Trust me, this is one of the top five shows to air on TV in a decade or two.]Generally, I have been a Marvel Universe kind of guy, and I have no personal loyalties to any particular interpretation of the Superman cannon. Perhaps DC-heads out there may be bothered by some of the (heavy) rewriting of history that is happening in this show, but for the average viewer, that should not be a problem.The main plots, for the most part, are set-piece comic book scenarios, with fairly predictable outcomes.The main characters that are supposed to be in high school just don't look like high-schoolers. Of course, that's pretty typical for TV and film.All that said, though, I highly recommend you see this show.It's all about the characters, man.I could go on about some of the clever tensions created among all the different characters, particular that between Clark Kent and Lana(sp?). But for me, it all comes down to two particular relationships.The first one is that between the boy of steel and his parents. The writers are quite clearly doing something deliberate and intentional with Mr. and Mrs. Kent. Last night's episode was a great illustration of this:Plot: Clark unsurprisingly saves a fellow student from a fall off a dam, and is not unexpectedly (for the genre) struck by lightning while the rescuee is holding an obligatory piece of kryptonite. (They were on a school geology field trip.) Result: Clark's powers transfer to the new guy. Eventually, new guy is irresponsible with powers, scares and hurts people, and has a showdown with Clark in which Clark uses kryptonite to weaken him. During fight, also, there is some high-power electricity, and powers transfer back. End of plot.Not terribly interesting? Well, what is extremely interesting and entertaining is what the writers decide to do with this from a character standpoint.First, there's the reactions of not only Clark, but of each of his parents. Clark has an identity crisis (not overblown), dad tries to reassure with "Your powers were part of you, but they didn't define you," while privately he is relieved. As the plot unfurls elsewhere, Clark comes to appreciate his "normalness"; he plays a two-on-two game of basketball, loses handily, and is grinning the entire time. When the new super boy on the block gets in the local paper after chucking a would-be-mugger across a street, Clark is a little unhappy; not only are his friends ooh-ing and ahh-ing over something that he himself had (secretly) done countless times, but the open and public nature of it all grates against his years of built up belief that such things should be kept secret.You see, Clark is the ultimate "good son". He is an honest, caring, loving, faithful, thoughtful, humble boy. He clearly got that way in part due to his parents both valuing and living these virtues themselves in an overt and deliberate way for their adopted son. In part. He also got that way because he, of his own free will, has chosen repeatedly to be that sort of person. The writing for the show supports this, amazingly enough. Anyway, mom and dad have the following primary motivations: to raise Clark to be a good man, to keep Clark healthy/happy/safe, and to keep the family farm in business and out of the hands of debt-collectors. Given this, they naturally foresaw that a child with wondrous powers would be targeted, misunderstood, envied, studied, etc., and thus raised him to not only use his powers responsibly, but also secretly, for his own sake. They clearly are in regular fear for their son's well-being. (Yes, he is Superman, and they fear for him.)So at first, Clark (who is the good son, but also a teenager and occasionally guilty of slips into selfishness, irrationality and foolishness in a quite normal manner) is miffed. Not only is it against his instincts, but it also hints at the idea that maybe he had foolishly cheated himself by hiding his powers the entire time he had had them. But he gets over this. He no longer has the weight of the world on his shoulders. His powers were a responsibility that he is coming to enjoy not having anymore.Meanwhile, the new superkid has a pretty rough home life. His mother clearly loves him, but his father is a hard man who seems to never accept his son as something other than a screw-up and a reprobate (neither of which, objectively, is really at all fair). Plus, the kid has had a crush on a jock's girlfriend; said jock at the beginning of the episode made typical gorilla grunting and thumping noises at the kid, warning him off the idea of talking to the girl under pain of a high-school bully style thrashing.Now with these pains of teenagerdom, combined with not only newfound power, but also newfound respect and fame (thanks to the newspaper article), the kid-turned-superboy starts to make poor decisions. At first it appears that maybe he'll handle the powers responsibly. When he boldly walks up to the girl, while she's talking to the jock, and flat-out asks if she'd like to go out some time, you wanna cheer for him. But then the scene turns very ugly. He doesn't just scare the jock, but chases him around the school parking lot, throwing cars. Clark tries to intervene in typical fashion, and is himself hurled across the lot and hurt pretty badly. The kid then rushes home in a panic, looking for support, guidance and protection from his parents, only to discover that his dad's called the police and his mom is afraid of him.Meanwhile, after he's patched up by the local doc, Clark decides to grab some kryptonite (the writers have cleverly made kryptonite ubiquitous in the town's environs due to the meteor shower that brought Clark to his adopted parents) and confront the superkid-gone-bad. As he says to his parents, "Even though they're not my powers anymore, I somehow still feel responsible for them." You know the rest.All this begs the obvious question, "Why did this kid react so differently than Clark?" Well, the answer's twofold. According to Clark's dad, it's because Clark is a good person. External evidence from seeing the interactions between the other kid and that kid's parents, though, shows us that Mr. Kent is himself being humble, as it is also largely due to the very fine parenting Clark has received all these years.Responsibility. Humility. Family. Courage. These are the themes of this show, cleverly folded into the mix with the teen-angst high school backdrop and with the genretypical plot structures that repeat over and over again. These, and a few more:Friendship. Honesty. Trust.Here's where we get to what makes this show outstanding: Lex Luthor.Lex is a young adult, VP or something in charge of the local Luthorcorp chemicals plant. Lex is not yet a supervillain, but he shows definite signs of heading that way. At the same time, though, he has many redeeming qualities, and so far is not even a "villain" at all. He's very complex. To say whether he is a good person or a bad person is impossible. Most accurately, he is a man teetering on the edge. It breaks your heart, really, to see him like this. His good qualities can clearly redeem him, but anyone who knows anything about the Superman myth knows what choice Lex will make in the end. But within Smallville, Lex himself does not know, and in fact he has not yet reached a true crisis point (though after last night, it has clearly been set up).Lex is not only brilliantly designed and written, but he is also brilliantly played. I don't know, off-hand, the actor's name or I'd give him more personalized kudos right here. (Just because I'm too lazy and in too much of a hurry, doesn't mean you can't look it up yourself in the Internet Movie Database: www.imdb.com.)So what are Lex's motivations? Well, at the top of the list is his complex relationship with his father, the Chairman and CEO of Luthorcorp. His father is a fully despicable man, ruthless to an extreme, callous, selfish, etc. Whatever basic paternal love he may have for Lex is rarely if ever visible. Lex hates this man, to the extent a son can hate a father. He craves his father's respect and his father's love, but has long known that he can never have the latter, and the former is always tainted. So he strives to constantly obey and satisfy his father in ways that will also confound and infuriate him. He will trump his father's craftiness with craftiness of his own, trying to show that he can be more successful at underhandedness than his father, and thus, ironically, be worthy of respect. And he hates it as he does it, because he is a basically decent person at times, especially when it comes to the Clark family.Lex has never had a friend. He and Clark refer to one another as friends, but at one point last night Lex described the relationship thusly: "Clark, you're the closest thing to a friend I've ever had." Very telling.You see, Lex's second motivation is to be loved in general, and specifically to be Clark's friend. He is constantly helping or offering to help Clark. He uses his corporate power and Machiavellian Sun Tzu craftiness to protect Clark and the Kents from various mundane threats. He schemes and influences in attempts to help Clark out with his hopeless quest for Lanaís love and attention. And he confides in Clark more than in anyone else, albeit that's not much. In return, he wants Clark to accept his help, to trust him, to be honest with him, to like him. He also wants Mr. Kent to not hate him, despite the deep animosity between Mr. Kent and Lex's father.Running neck-in-neck with the desire for a friend is his burning need to poke at, understand, control, manipulate and take advantage of everything that comes across his way. Lex, like his father, strives to be the master of his own fate, and understands that total self-mastery requires dominion over his external circumstances as well. To control his destiny he must control his environment. To control his environment, he must understand it and all it contains. He needs to know everything. Anomalies pick away at him like an unreachable itch.Lex is in many ways the anti-Clark. He is crafty where Clark is simple, cunning where Clark is kind, bald where Clark is shaggy (though he seems to have recently gotten a haircut), haughty and confident (understandably, mind you) where Clark is humble and unsure. Lex is a young adult full of cynicism; Clark is a high-schooler with a basic belief in the good intentions of all persons. Both, however, are extremely good at what they do. And both are destined for greatness of one sort or another.Lex firmly believes in his destiny, too. He just believes that it is a destiny he will create himself. A defining exchange:In a complex chess game of counter-machinations, he has destroyed a Luthorcorp competitor by allowing the competitor's CEO's daughter to "steal" a false report that lead to the making of a financially suicidal investment. The daughter was also sleeping with Lex, claiming to want to work with Lex to thwart both of their fathers. Also, the investment was intended (by the daughter and her father) to be the move that would lay Luthorcorp prostrate and ready for a takeover. Anyway, upon discovering the counter-betrayal, the daughter said:"Lex, we could have been great together."Lex's response: "I plan on being great all by myself."It was a defining moment. Not only does Lex declare his life-view, but he also manages to: a.) win his father's tainted respect, b.) increase his power in the corporate world, c.) avoid a trap set for him by a competitor, and d.) punish a person who had dishonestly masqueraded as a friend.That is Lex in isolation. Put him together with Clark and things get wonderfully interesting.Way back at the beginning of the series, Lex was in a car accident and drove off a bridge. Clark, who was nearby, dove in, pulled Lex from the car, and saved Lex's life. Or so Clark claims. Maddeningly for Lex, there are incongruencies in this story. Things don't add up. The roof of the car is torn open, supposedly from the impact with the water. He has the car pulled from the water and examined by a cadre of highly-paid-to-keep-quiet experts. Complex computer models are drawn up. Private investigators are hired. He buys off (and employs for himself) a man who claims to have a growing case to demonstrate that Clark is not all he seems. (This last is important, because the "buying off" satisfies all of Lex's conflicting needs: it protects Clark from the unscrupulous guy, it provides Lex with another avenue of information gathering, and it puts Lex in the command chair of this person's life.) Lex also personally - but very carefully - tries to use his encounters with Clark to ferret out the truth.The truth, of course, is that Clark tore the roof open with his bare hands in order to save Lex. In fact, in last night's episode, computer simulations suggested that the only possible sequence of events included Lex's car slamming into Clark at over 60mph before crashing through the guardrails and into the water.With this bit of seemingly conclusive evidence (the most solid Lex has garnered so far), Lex decides to confront Clark. He doesn't tip his hand and reveal why he knows, but he tells Clark that he knows the story about his rescue is not quite true. Ironically, this is while Clark is powerless, and in fact is openly exhausted from trying to fix a fence like a mortal.Lex doesn't even appear to have a plan as to what to do with his knowledge once he confirms it. He is, for now, just digging at the truth out of long-developed instinct. For now, he just wants confirmation of what he suspects, plus further explanation. Above all, perhaps, he wants to clear the barriers that have existed between him and Clark due to Clark's apparent secrets.Of course, Clark, being Superman, not only keeps people at a distance out of a need for secrecy, but also tends to keep all his friends at a bit of a distance because, frankly, he rarely needs the help of others. For most of Clark's friends, this is not apparent; they see him as a fairly self-reliant, nice guy who is fun to have around. For Lex, though, who is always trying to help Clark, the frequency with which Clark says "No thanks" is a constant source of subtle pain. (Of course, Clark's physical near-invincibility does not translate to imperviousness to more mundane - e.g., legal, financial, social, etc. - difficulties, but it has conditioned Clark to generally seek his own solutions to things rather than accept the help of others.)And here's where the tragic seed is planted firmly. Clark, due to his upbringing and his nature - both of which have mostly netted positive things for him and all around him - will not concede that anything unusual happened. Watching Lex's face (this actor has it down perfectly, not to overt, but still clear to be read), you see that a line is being crossed, a door is closing. The usually friendly Clark and the usually self-composed Lex raise their voices. They argue. Lex wants Clark - the closest he has to a friend - to be honest with him. He needs to know, and Clark is thwarting him. Meanwhile, it goes against the soul of his being to reveal to anyone - even his "best friend" - the truth about his powers.Clark, perhaps, should have fessed up. We know that Lex is not a trustworthy person, but Clark honestly believes that he is. One could debate this. Also, having recently reconciled himself with the loss of his powers, Clark is somewhat childishly trying to lock up his former responsibilities to the world behind him. Meanwhile, Lex, inexperienced with real friendship or love (again largely due to his upbringing), has an unrealistic definition of what it is to be a friend. He wants total and unquestioning honesty and openness. He is not by nature honest or open about anything, and has a hard time seeing the gradations that exist in normal human relations.Later, when Clark is laid low by the rampaging superkid, Lex visits him. Clark is initially combative, picking up the argument where it left off, but Lex, seeing Clark bandaged and bruised, is satisfied that Clark has been totally honest with him. Ironically, Lex decides to place complete trust in his friend and tells his paid experts that they must have got it wrong, despite their assurances of certainty.This is the setup for a huge fall. Eventually, some episode, Lex will learn the truth about Clark. And the fact that he had decided to completely and unreservedly trust Clark will hurt and enrage him when he discovers that his best and only friend had betrayed that trust. This will be on top of what already would have been a major crisis point in Lex's life even without the heightened sense of betrayal.You see, at some point, it has always been inevitable that Lex would eventually have to face a character/life-defining choice: upon eventually discovering Clark's secret, what would Lex do with it?This would (and will) bring Lex's motivations into direct conflict with one another (the basic formula for good character development and story-telling). So long as Lex doesn't know the whole truth, he can continue to try to balance his various needs: to pick at the truth and to be Clark's friend. Once he actually achieves the knowledge he's seeking, though, his need to know will graduate to a need to take advantage. Will he try to incorporate Clark and his powers into his worldview of enemies and properties, or will he continue to exclude Clark from the target list and just be his friend?Well, now, on top of that crisis, perhaps tipping the balance, will be this terrible (for Lex) betrayal.Like I said, it breaks your heart to see where this is all heading in Greek tragic inevitability. And yet...Who knows. They've so completely screwed around with the Superman myth up to this point, perhaps Lex will find redemption in Smallville's reconstructing of the legend.I know I'll be watching to find out. Video: SF850@blogcritics.org Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:32:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/25/120500.php Glenn M. Frazier[The following review originally appeared on GlennFrazier.com.]In another time, David Ignatius's Agents of Innocence would be great escapist literature. In today's world, however, it is a gripping—and all-too haunting—tale of extreme relevance.Most of my reading since the September Atrocity has been non-fiction. Whether related to my (now former) industry, academic studies, religious texts, or explanations of terror-war-related subjects, most of what I've been stuffing in my head has come in the form of cold information. For pure artistic retreat from events of the day, I've spent some time with old favorites like Patrick O'Brian and J. R. R. Tolkien. Standing alone in all this, though, is the 1987 spy novel, Agents of Innocence, by David Ignatius.The tale is set primarily in the labyrinthine world of Lebanon in the 1970's and 1980's, and follows the career of the fictional CIA case officer, Tom Rogers. When Rogers arrives in Beirut, it is September 1969, the eve of the tragic implosion of cosmopolitan Lebanon. By the conclusion of the story, terrorists have brought the nation to its knees. Throughout it all, Rogers desperately tries to keep from being overcome by events as he develops "assets"—and relationships—in an attempt to keep tabs on the growing threat of militant radicalism. If you know your history, then I don't have to tell you that this is a tragic tale.The author draws heavily from his experience covering the growth of terrorism in Lebanon for the Washington Post. To an extent, the book is a fictionalization of the life of real-world CIA man, Robert Ames. Purportedly, this novel is on the reading list at "The Farm" (the CIA's training ground at Camp Peary near Williamsburg, VA), and CIA Director George Tenet himself recommended this book in an interview on NPR several years ago. On top of that, it also does an admirable job of making sense (as far as possible) of the wild and varied religious, cultural and political forces operating in the region today.That being said, this is fiction, not journalism; while the history it covers is essentially true, it would be a good idea to do some non-fiction reading as well if you want to more fully understand the Middle East picture. Still, the glimpse it gives of life in the field is fascinating, and as entertainment it is an excellent read. The prose is straightforward, the plot is gripping, and the characters are believable and engaging.In summary, I give this book four out of five stars. It is not wonderful literature, nor is it deeply researched history, but it doesn't attempt to be. It is immensely entertaining and at the same time lightly informative. So far, it is the only novel on my Warblogger's Bookshelf. James Bond fans should look elsewhere, mind you, but if you love Le Carre, you'll love this.You can buy Agents of Innocence at Amazon today. Books: Mystery845@blogcritics.org Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:05:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/25/112904.php Glenn M. Frazier[The following originally appeared on GlennFrazier.com earlier this week.]The International Herald Tribune has a good wrap-up of the German elections. Among other things, it notes:The victorious mood was dampened by fresh criticism from Washington, which has been unhappy over Schroeder's strong opposition to a possible U.S. war on Iraq.The U.S. defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, reiterated the American position that Schroeder's campaign "has had the effect of poisoning the relationship" between the United States and Germany.Schroeder's refusal to support a war in Iraq helped him come back to win after he had trailed for months in a stagnant economy hobbled by high unemployment.Seeking to start putting things right with Washington, the chancellor announced that the justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, was leaving his government. She had been reported to have likened Bush's efforts to distract the public from domestic problems to those of Hitler.But Schroeder showed little deviation from his Iraq position in the campaign."We have nothing to change from what we said before the election and we will not change anything," Schroeder said at a press briefing. It goes on to say:In foreign policy, the top priority was relations with Washington. Rumsfeld, speaking during a visit to Poland, became the second senior Bush administration official to speak of a "poisoned" diplomatic environment after Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, used the term to condemn Daeubler-Gmelin's comments."I have no comment on the German election outcome, but I would have to say that the way it was conducted was notably unhelpful," Rumsfeld said.While both Schroeder and Fischer both appeared with wide grins and clear good humor on Monday, both were visibly wearied by the repeated questions about U.S.-German ties. Schroeder cut off one question on U.S. Iraqi policy during his press briefing and refused to give an answer."It also must be possible as part of a friendship to have factually different views," Schroeder said. "These differing views, I think, will remain."Every third job in Germany relies on exports, and business leaders urged Schroeder to waste no time in repairing ties to the United States. "Maybe Schroeder and Fischer should just get right into the airplane," and fly to Washington, said Gerhard Handke of the Association of German Wholesalers. I'm willing to bet that German analysts, politicians and diplomats are a bit flummoxed over the American reaction. Americans tend to have unique ideas regarding how allied nations behave toward one another. In most of the world, two nations that are "friendly" are not assumed to necessarily act as two individual human friends would. Allies are meant to understand that each side has its own national interests and that the alliance really only exists in those areas in which the two nations' interests coincide."It's just politics," one might say. But to many Americans, "friendship among nations" is more than just converging national interests. As inconceivable as it is to most foreign diplomats, many Americans have much higher expectations, including the expectation that one nation will occassionally subordinate its less-critical interests to an ally's more-critical interests, just as real friends will make sacrifices and concessions for one another purely in the name of "friendship".Personally, I do not fall in with the more common American view of international relations. Wilsonianism fails precisely because of its insistence on treating nations as if they were individual people. Morality does have a role in the foreign policies of states, but it is a different morality than that among individuals.It's this same root failure of Wilsonianism that leads to repeated and unavoidable failures in the realms of "collective security" and "international law".Ironically, American culture throughout the last century has had such an impact on Europe that the common citizens of many European nations are themselves Wilsonian in their beliefs and attitudes, while at the same time, Americans—especially post-September 11—have become less Wilsonian (in some respects) than the U. S. State Department. This is not to say that Americans have lost their idealism or their belief that international relations should be dictated in part by moral principles—hardly. No, what seems to have happened over the years and what was accellerrated by the September Atrocity is that the majority of Americans no longer have any remaining faith in international institutions, international law or collective security.I considered adding "world opinion" to the above list, but then realized that Americans' attitudes toward the opinions of their neighbors has deeper roots and a longer, more consistent history. Americans want to be loved, if possible; Americans are big believers in everyone having a right to an opinion; but Americans are also big believers that, in the end, following one's own opinion is more noble than finding consensus among a group.For more on European politics, the German elections, the U.N., and U.S.-Euro relations, see these recent posts from the last few weeks: Friends vs. Allies - September 24German Elections, the Euro POV - September 24Schroeder Wins? - September 23German Politics - September 21The Emerging World Order - September 19Send In the Inspectors - September 17Bush, Serpant AND Dove - September 14UN at a Crisis Point - September 12Anglophones Against Transnationalism - August 28Pax Sine Imperio? - August 28Reflections on Cheney's Speech - August 28Wistful Thinking - August 27Europe's Place in the New Order? - August 26More on the Civilization Rift - August 25Post-Democratic?? - August 16 Culture844@blogcritics.org Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:29:04 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/23/225352.php Glenn M. FrazierLove Blogcritics.org? Well, now you can show your love by displaying this button on your webpage.Here's how to do it:The CODE for Linking from Your WebsiteHere are the two styles. They both feature a banner that is 115x39 pixels.Style 1 is good for any part of your site and all the sections are going to be displayed side by side as they fit.***STYLE 1***| music | books | video | culture | politics | sports | gaming | bargains |Style 2 is good for sidebars. All the links are going to go vertically below the Blogcritics banner.*** Style 2 ***» music» books» video» culture» politics» sports» gaming» bargains OR Download this graphic: (PC Users: right-click on the image and choose "Save Picture/Image As"; Mac Users: click and hold down over the image and choose "Save This Image As".) Upload that image to your Internet service provider so that it will appear on your website. (Instructions for this vary for each internet provider.) Copy this HTML: <a href="http://blogcritics.org/"><img src="http://blogcritics.org/blogcrit-button.gif" width="115" height="39" border="0" alt="Blogcritics: news and reviews" /></a> Depending on where you upload the graphic on your website, the 'img src' may be different. This example assumes that you upload the image to your website's home directory. Paste the HTML into the appropriate place on your web page. Alternately, for a text link:Paste the following HTML into your page:<a href="http://blogcritics.org/">Blogcritics.org</a> THANKS!If you are interested in joining Blogcritics, please see here. Culture767@blogcritics.org Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:53:52 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/20/031005.php Glenn M. FrazierThe Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, written in 1999 by Victor Davis Hanson, is a must read for anyone wanting to evaluate America's chances in the current conflict. Democracies, I think—if the cause, if the commanding general, if the conditions of time and space take on their proper meaning—for a season can produce the most murderous armies from the most unlikely of men, and do so in the pursuit of something spiritual rather than the mere material. - from Part I of the Prologue This book is about a special intersection of ideology and warfare. Hanson proposes that democratic "armies of a season", led by philosopher-generals, in pursuit of a just cause, can be phenomenally devastating beyond what any material measures would predict, when taken on an anabasis (march upcountry) into the heart of an oppressive, militaristic society. To illustrate this thesis, Hanson captivatingly narrates the details of the marches and men lead by three generals: Epaminondas, William Sherman, and George Patton. The first lead the yeomen of Thebes to crush the supposedly unstoppable Spartans in their homeland. The second lead his famous—and often misunderstood—"March to the Sea" that eviscerated the Confederacy and ended their will to fight. The third, despite constant interference from above, lead the brand-new Third Army in a mad dash into the heart of Nazi Europe. All three were vilified by members of their own side, worshipped by the men they commanded, and unexpectedly victorious over and devastating to the slave-owning regimes they went up against. The first thing that grabs me, reading this book, is how compelling Hanson's narratives are. Some of the minutiae he examines would, in the hands of another author, make for somewhat dry reading. Hanson, though, has the refined gift of not only loving his subject matter to death, but also of being able to convey that love to a fairly broad audience. Hanson is a professor of Greek at California State University in Fresno, as well as a frequent contributor of opinion articles to outlets like National Review. However, he is also a fifth generation farmer and a great believer in the "yeoman-citizen" who puts down his work to go and fight evil for a season, much as his father did in World War Two. This perspective comes out strongly in his sympathies for the Theban hoplites, the midwestern soldiers of Sherman's Army of the West, and the unassuming Americans of Patton's Third Army. The book is enjoyable, but is Hanson's thesis true? It's certainly compelling as he argues it. Much of what he says flies in the face of the accepted wisdom regarding why soldiers fight. Citing letters and diaries of soldiers, though, he does show that ideology and idealism were significant motivating factors for these people—these folks fought to do more than merely "protect their buddies". He also takes on the accepted wisdom regarding the generals that have partially overshadowed Sherman and Patton (Grant and Eisenhower, respectively). Comparing Sherman to Grant (who were friends), he notes that Grant's efforts were focused on the "terrible arithmetic" of grinding down the lives of the Army of N. Virginia, while Sherman fought a largely battle-free campaign to destroy the Confederacy's will to fight. Eisenhower was a logistical genius and part of the new breed of "corporate generals", a mastermind of management and organization; Patton, on the other hand, was the general who saw that the conservative approach directed by Eisenhower was unnecessarily long and—while "safer" from the strategic perspective—ultimately far more costly to the individual lives, not only of allied soldiers, but also to enemy soldiers and civilians held in helotage or worse. Let me back up a moment. Before opening this book, I would always have characterized myself as a fan of Alexander the Great, Robert E. Lee, and Douglas McArthur. Sherman has never interested me, Patton always bored me, and of Epaminondas I knew nothing. Hanson has fully converted me in all regards, now. This is a good book, but there are many good books. It makes it onto my Warblogger's Bookshelf because it is also of real relevance to today's conflict. The most disturbing aspect of this book is the trend over history that the three generals exhibit: as command and control has become more all-encompassing and farther reaching, as armies have continued to reward good "peacetime generals" and politicians have gained greater influence over the day-to-day decisions of the military, the potential effectiveness of these rare and critical philosopher-generals has steadily decreased over time. The kind of person you want leading your democratic army when confronting real evil is generally someone that will be rejected by polite society; they are at their best when they may act on their own. Had Bush and Powell, the first time around, not halted Schwarzkopf's Iraqi anabasis before it was completed, we would be looking at a very different Middle East, right now. At the same time, as Hanson himself has said in many places, a democratic society's auditing of the military that serves it is an important foundation of the free society we enjoy and defend. Hanson's thesis is multipart and, in the end, complex; sometimes it feels like he is trying to cover too much at one go, dashing about to keep all of his plates spinning. This is a small criticism, though, as he does manage to pull it all off in what amounts to a wonderfully written book filled with compelling stories, all supporting an important statement on the nature of war. If you haven't already, I strongly recommend you get hold of this book. You can buy Soul of Battle now at Amazon. [This review originally appeared on GlennFrazier.com.] Books: History697@blogcritics.org Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:10:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/10/020658.php Glenn M. Frazier[The following review originally appeared on GlennFrazier.com.] Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War, by Mark Bowden, is an in-the-streets account of the now infamous seventh mission of Task Force Ranger and Delta Force in Mogadishu, Somalia. Militarily, the mission was a success; politically, it was a disaster. Black Hawk Down was recently released as a major motion picture. I haven't (yet) seen the film, but even to those who have I strongly suggest reading this book. In addition to being made as a movie, an even earlier version of this book appeared as a series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Additionally, there is a "companion documentary" (Somalia: Good Intentions, Deadly Results), a shorter version of which has appeared on CNN. Of course, the most famous media related to this story is the news footage of the dead American soldiers being dragged through the streets by angry mobs; second to that would be the image of Black Hawk pilot Mike Durant's smashed face in the video made of him by his captors. Both of these are around; if you really need a reminder, try Google. In the 1990's, the United States found itself in three separate conflicts in (at least partially) Muslim lands. The Gulf War was a conventional military venture, the UN missions in the former Yugoslavia represented a basic—albeit convoluted—peace-keeping venture. The nation-building force in Somalia after the initial famine-busting mission heavily involved special operations. The first sent ripples among the military theorists of nations across the world; the second involved the civilizationally odd American preference to support the Muslim community over that of Orthodox and Western forces; the third was seen as a victory of sorts by Third Worlders and Islamists who drew from it the lesson that America could be shocked into backing out of a conflict. Understanding each of these conflicts—militarily, politically, and culturally—is important to understanding this greater conflict we are now in. Black Hawk Down does much to shed light on the personal and tactical elements in the Somlian campaign's bloodiest battle. While Mark Bowden is a journalist and is quite clear about saying he has no background or experience in combat tactics, covert operations, military strategy, etc., this book is very illuminating. Since the book's publication, Bowden has been invited to address the Military Operations Research Society, the U.S. Military Academy (West Point) the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (Ft. Leavenworth), and the Central Intelligence Agency. The book been personally recommended by the U.S. Marine Corps commandant and is part of the mandatory reading curriculum at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. So how did this journalist write something that garnered so much respect among military professionals? Quite simply, he tells the soldiers' tales and he tells them straight. The political backdrop, the larger strategic military picture, the command decisions made outside of Mog—these he treats lightly and only as much as needed to provide context for the first-hand accounts of the Americans and Somalis that were actually there. This is a street-level, blow-by-blow narrative of some of the most intense combat American forces have faced since the Vietnam War, and nearly every word of it is drawn either from interviews with combatants, from transcripts of radio traffic, or from video footage shot by U.S. military personnel. I read this book over Memorial Day weekend this year. It was extremely appropriate. Overall I really enjoyed this book and feel I've learned quite a bit from the experience. I had already read a shorter account of overlapping events—from the CIA perspective—written by Vernon Loeb for the Washington Post, titled "After Action Report", but this book fills in details that the other perspective lacked. (At the same time, I strongly recommend you read "After Action Report" as well.) I've heard criticisms of the film that said it was often hard to tell one character from another; I could say the same for the book. At the same time, the sense of confusion that sometimes creeps into the narrative is, in fact, a natural consequence of the fact that this is combat, as experienced by modern soldiers. By the time you complete the book, you'll have enough information to get a remarkably complete picture of the "Battle of the Black Sea"; while in the midst of it, though, you may well find yourself flipping back through the book to remind yourself which unit and which part of the city you are currently reading about. All in all, this is a book well worth reading, and have added it to my Warblogger's Bookshelf. It is an insight into the terrible human experience of modern warfare, set within a significant series of events whose importance were not fully understood in their own time. If it were fiction, I'd say it was a brilliant, thrilling "page turner"; it, however, is not. It is the story of a handful of American soldiers who really lived and (some of them) died, often in stunningly heroic ways. To understand a part of what emboldened enemies such as Al Qaeda, to learn what modern unconventional combat can be like, to renew your faith in the courage and skill of the folks in America's armed forces, read this book. You can buy it now at Amazon.com. Books: History500@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 Sep 2002 02:06:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/10/015158.php Glenn M. Frazier[The following originally appeared on GlennFrazier.com.] My wife and I watched The Phantom Menace this evening on VHS—the first time since seeing Attack of the Clones. Each time I watch one of these films, I am struck by something different. This time around, I was particularly aware of the fact that in the five Star Wars films made so far, we are seeing essentially the same images, over and over again. Each time through, they are placed in different contexts, used in different sequences, but basically Lucas is telling stories from a very basic visual vocabulary. Lucas more than many creators, I believe, truly gets that film is storytelling with moving pictures. What else would it be, you ask? At the dawn of cinema, a basic view could descirbe film as stage plays on film. Much as early television was radio you could see, early filmmaking was just an old form placed in a new medium. Even today, many films are either novels or plays, merely acted out in front of cameras. True, there is some "art" here and there, sometimes within some rather bizzarre forms. Very rarely, though, does a creator make a film whose story is built specifically for the screen without losing the interest of the average audience member. Flights through trenches, severed hands, faces screaming as they watch the death of a father figure, faceless minions marching in uniform lines clad with sterile armor, almost snarky glances exchanged in the midst of pompous ceremonies—over and over, film after film, we see the same basic image sequences. Each time through, though, a different story is being told, and the images take on different meanings, on one level. Of course, on another level, these "scene phonemes" have very basic, almost visceral meaning to all of us. Lucas draws upon a motion picture syllabary a typical movie-goer walks into the theater already possessing before seeing the first Star Wars film. These films, dialogue-wise, are often thin. Cinematographically, I'd be hard-pressed to say they are shot "artistically". Some filmmakers can frame a scene that in angle, shadow, composition, suddenly draw out and hold your breath captive until they have passed. (The end of Ran immediately comes to mind for me, here.) The Star Wars films don't really do that. But these are films that we can all get, immediately, without explanation. We bring our own subtext with us and are ready to receive from the opening scene. When Darth Vader first strode onto the screen, black cape flowing, we saw evil. His choking of minions, over and over and over again, sometimes directly, sometimes across a room with a gesture, sometimes across space with hardly an effort, is repeated because it says what it says with no need of explanation. The victim, hands clasped to their own throat in that universally recognized gesture of panic and pain—it's a powerful image and it works. The zooming of vehicles through narrow obstacle courses, whether pod racers through canyons, x-wings across the face of the Death Star, The Millenium Falcon among spinning asteroids, or speeder bikes among the trees of the moon of Endor, have a universal effect on the audience, establish a mood, speak of the pilots skills, powerfully connect the scenes that flow before and after; they thrill us and we love them. You could criticize Lucas for pandering to our common base, for feeding us mere imagery because it's what we want. Personally, I'm more inclined to praise him for it. Video: SF499@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:51:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/08/27/162633.php Glenn M. FrazierSeveral reviewers have asked about linking to multiple items in their reviews. Well, it is now possible!To have images, publication information and sales information for multiple books or CDs show up at the bottom of your review, just include multiple ASINs in the "Additional Entry Text" field, seperated by commas.While on the topic of improvements, stay tuned for further changes. At the top of the list is making the category selection MUCH easier. Other changes to look forward to include adding Film/Television/Video reviews, improved search functions, author-based archiving, and more.Stay tuned. Culture257@blogcritics.org Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:26:33 EDT