Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts

Friday, December 9, 2016

Two RIP's

I've got two wonderful innovators to add to the GNABB cemetery.

RIP John Glenn, 1921-2016


I know it’s a cliché, but do they make men like this anymore? I mean seriously. John Glenn was such of a different era, a different America. An America that was full of hope, that looked to the future, that was rising so fast that it broke the bonds of gravity and the earth. True, America wasn’t so rosy for many people during the Cold War era. Segregation still existed. I’m not downplaying that at all. But John Glenn and his fellow astronauts represented the best of what we were then. Duty, brains, work ethic, dreamer but with the technical know-how to actually reach those impossible dreams as the rest of the world watched slack-jawed. (I know the Soviets kept up and actually led for a little while, but that didn't last).

There was something extra special about the Mercury astronauts to me. Even more than the Apollo missions, as great as they were, these seven astronauts (and Glenn was the last of them, so they are all a memory now) were true pioneers. Talk about calm under pressure, John Glenn was the most celebrated of them all. It takes a special kind of man to sit on top of a missile that has a decent chance of blowing up at ignition. The re-entry drama and Glenn’s cool response during his history making first American to orbit the earth mission is the stuff of legend. He showed that no matter how technically advanced we think we are, sometimes it still takes the human instincts and decision-making of a pilot to get the ship down.

I know a big part of my romanticizing the Mercury program comes from one of my favorite movies of all time, The Right Stuff. Glenn was played pitch perfectly by the great Ed Harris. Maybe I need to pop that in tonight, and bask in a bygone age when the sky wasn’t the limit. John Glenn and the other six Mercury astronauts showed us that we could dare to go beyond the sky. Our moon landing, our eventual trip to Mars, even our eventual eventual colonizing and moving off the earth once we have destroyed it beyond repair…the foundation of all of that was John Glenn…and Alan Sheppard, Gus Grissom, Gordon Cooper, Wally Shirra, Deke Slayton and Scott Carpenter.

So not only RIP John Glenn. I can now say RIP The Mercury Seven. And thank you all for showing us what we can be and accomplish.

And...

RIP Greg Lake, 1947-2016


Man, 2016 has been a deadly year for music. As well-known and respected as Greg Lake was, I always felt that he could have done more. He sang and played bass on the groundbreaking King Crimson debut In the Court of the Crimson King (and sang on the follow-up), but then left the band to form Emerson, Lake and Palmer. As a massive Crimson fan, I have always felt that was a lost opportunity. It would have been fantastic to get two or three more records with Lake and Robert Fripp working together under the Crimson banner before moving on.

I could never get into ELP very much. I do love me some prog rock, but ELP has aged terribly. My favorite ELP tunes are the more down to earth folky Greg Lake numbers like “Lucky Man” and “Still You Turn Me On.”

Regardless of his career choices, the man was hugely talented. Great and expressive singer, virtuoso on the electric bass, and a good guitarist too. RIP Greg Lake.

Friday, November 18, 2016

What Happened And Why (Maybe)

There was a great op-ed by Fareed Zakaria with his autopsy of the election here.  In it, he echoes the collective mea culpa coming from many journalists and pollsters who got their predictions so spectacularly wrong (many of the same journalists who enabled Trump).  He admits that the great sin of the Left has been elitism.  He cites an op-ed from the satirical website Cracked by David Wong, who grew up in rural Illinois.  I know it is partly satire, but Zakaria was right to quote it at length in his own op-ed, because it is key to understanding Trump’s surprising victory.  Wong writes: “The whole g***amned world revolves around [America’s cities].”  Zakaria writes “The vast majority of the country’s pop culture is all about city dwellers. Most new movies, shows, songs and games are about New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or some fantasy version of them. Nearly every trend comes from a metropolis. All the hot new industries are in hip cities.”  Back to Wong: “If you live in [rural America], that f*cking sucks…To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. ‘Are you a**holes listening now?’”

That last line is key.  “Are you a**holes listening now?”  To me, that explains Trump’s election more than any data could show.  I continue to think that most (many?) of the people who voted for Trump did so in spite of his rhetoric regarding women, immigrants and various minorities, not because of it.  Or maybe because of it, but not for the reason you might think.

Look at the electoral map.  The Democrat blue is on each of the coasts (and in some urban centers all over the country), and in between is a vast ocean of red.  “Flyover country” as the traditional media often unwittingly dismisses most of the rest of the country (traditional media being centered in New York and Los Angeles).  Well, there are a lot of people who live in that vast region between the coasts.  A lot of people who have seen wages stagnate or their jobs go to other countries.  A lot of people who have been pushed to the background amidst admirable but news-dominating struggles for minority rights and issues.

People from all walks of life have gotten angrier and more disgusted with disconnected and dysfunctional politics.  People are equally angry at both major parties.  Bernie Sanders’ success was the populist Left flipside of the Trump coin.  Same root anger.  As another op-ed I read put it, lots of voters wanted to throw a Molotov cocktail at Washington.  No matter that the Molotov cocktail says mean things about women or minorities.  He is a blunt weapon whose purpose is to bust things up.  Which is also a variation on the primal, resentful, desperate plea of “Are you a**holes listening now?”  As Zakaria admitted, “yes, I am listening now.”

Yes, Trump got the Klan vote.  There are plenty of people who are old fashioned racists and nativists who voted for Trump.  But I don’t think that is why most people voted for him.  Many others are the forgotten voters in Kansas who barely make ends meet yet who are still patriotic Americans (or who may even be veterans or have a close friend or loved one who is a veteran) and are tired of turning on Sunday night football and watching a whiny back-up quarterback who makes a million dollars a year refuse to stand for the national anthem.  That explains the Trump vote too.  Believe me. It is more complicated than simple racism. An aggressive and at times haughty, elitist Left creating "safe places" at universities. A protest movement that at times cares less about the actual facts of certain cases than the color of the skin of those involved in an altercation and that demonizes the country's police officers wholesale. A welfare system that had admirably been reformed in the 1990's (under a Democratic president and Republican Congress) that has slipped back to making it more profitable to collect government payments than to work in many cases. All of these things have contributed to the backlash that manifested itself in a Trump win.

How did the pollsters get it so wrong? As the elitist mainstream media often does, they probably concentrated too much on the urban vote. Where all the action is. Also, as a friend of mine who voted for Trump told me the other day:
"if a pollster had called me and asked me who I was going to vote for, I probably would not have told them. I would have confirmed that I'm a registered Republican, but I probably would have said 'undecided.' Same goes for some of my family members. To avoid the arguments and agitation, I wouldn't have, and haven't, told certain family members that I was going to vote for Trump. He wasn't my first choice, I don't like him. He's crude and rude and an egomaniac. But given the choices, I had to vote for him. Plus, I was pissed at the direction this country was going."
I think that summarizes it for many. Also, do not overlook just how flawed and weak Trump's opponent was. I think this country would be ready to elect a woman. Just not Hillary Clinton (yes, I know she won the popular vote. I reluctantly voted for her myself).

On to what we have to look forward to for at least the next four years (barring impeachment).  I don’t think Trump is as radical or reactionary as he campaigned.  If you look at many of his positions prior to the campaign, he was very moderate, and had as many left positions as right.  You also hear many testimonials that in person, behind closed doors when it is time to get down to business, he is a very different man.  A more sober and reflective man.  I have also heard that Trump actually does take counsel and listen to advice.  Not that they have much in common, but like George Washington, I can see Trump leaving the details to key underlings and he makes the final decisions after being briefed.

Herein lies another problem.  Who will be advising and briefing him?  George Washington had the dueling visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton advising him and giving him options from which to choose.  "Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon and a vindictive young son in law" doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.  I was heartened to see Trump choose Priebus for Chief of Staff, about as establishment as you can get.  But then Bannon.  There’s your Molotov cocktail, the Alt-Right now in the Oval Office with the president’s ear.  It is like Trump is trying to please establishment, mainstream Republicans (by choosing Priebus) and also the radical Right Wing (Bannon) by pitting these two figures against each other in his administration.  There is something to be said for establishing competing centers of power within an administration from which to take advice (again, see Jefferson and Hamilton for Washington; or Lincoln’s cabinet).  But then it requires a wise arbiter as “the Decider” (in George W.’s words).

I didn’t vote for him.  But I am willing to give him a chance.  He is, after all, my next president.  And yours too, like it or not.  I understand the fear and disbelief, especially if you are amongst the many groups whom Trump insulted and marginalized and dehumanized during the campaign (yes, I know it is easier for me as a white male to sit back and say ‘give the guy a chance’).  But I also think we all need to at least wait for him to mess up before we get too angry with him.  What choice do we have, really?  These marchers in the streets eventually need to get back to their jobs, if they have any. Or maybe Trump will create real jobs for them, as he promised. Who knows.

One of my main concerns is his lack of preparedness and how influenced he can be by those around him.  Contrary to him not listening to people, he actually listens too much at times.  Since he is not actually prepared to be president and because he shows no real desire or ability to dive deep into policy, he depends on others to give him all of the information and perspective.  His partial reversal on Obamacare this last week is a case in point.  During the campaign he blustered that he would repeal Obamacare wholesale “the first day in office” and replace it with “something better.”  But after meeting with Obama for an hour and a half and actually reading a bit about Obamacare (apparently for the first time), he now thinks we should keep part of it and change other parts.  (Or has he reverted back to getting rid of it wholesale?  Hard to keep track.)  Put Trump in a room with Vladimir Putin for a couple of hours and who knows?  Maybe he will emerge supporting a new Iron Curtain.  That is the problem with being willfully out of your depth on almost every issue.  Others will pick and choose how to explain things to him, and he will not know enough about it to call BS when warrented, but be more influenced by whoever flattered him the most, or who had the most charismatic personality, or maybe even whoever talked to him most recently. That is my fear.

Friday, February 19, 2016

RIP Scalia, 1936-2016


Couldn't you have hung on until next January? That would have been much better. None of us get to choose the time of our departure, I guess. My wife and I were at a yoga class (the second one I have ever attended - the things we do to please our spouse for Valentine's Day), and just before we started I glanced at my phone and saw that Antonin Scalia had died. I have to admit I was rocked pretty hard by this one.

For one, Scalia made law school bearable. Whether you agreed with him or not (and I often did), his decisions were a joy to read. You don't hear that much when referring to the writing in Supreme Court decisions. But Scalia possessed both a razor mind and a razor pen. And he was by far the most powerful Justice on the Supreme Court for decades, because Scalia got two votes whereas the other Justices just got one vote. (I am, of course, referring to Clarence Thomas, who almost always voted with Scalia and would often just sign on to Scalia's decisions vs. writing his own).

ABOVE: What is Clarence "yeah, what he said" Thomas going to do now that Scalia is gone? Think for himself?

On a more serious note, I'm not sure what to think of the Republican Senate standoff with Obama on appointing Scalia's replacement. This rhetoric of "let the people decide" (as in, wait until after the election so the people can weigh in on the direction of the replacement) is crap. That is not in the Constitution, as Scalia himself would probably point out. And the people did weigh in. Obama was re-elected.

I think what should happen is that Obama fulfills his Constitutional duty and nominates someone, and the Republicans in the Senate give him or her their due hearing and then most likely vote them down. Drag it out until the election, and then let the next president pick someone. That seems better than refusing to even hold a hearing without even having a nominee yet. At least go through the motions. This holdout could be worse for the Republicans in an election year than just having some contentious hearings and then voting "no."

Do I think the Democrats would do the same thing if it were reversed? Of course. In fact, both Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have statements exactly to that effect from back in the waning days of George W. Bush's presidency. I wouldn't agree with them doing it either (and you know if this were the democrats doing this, talk radio-world would be raising a sh*tstorm about the dems circumventing the Constitution, etc.)

Our Founders certainly intended for the president to nominate someone and then for the Senate to advise the president on that nominee and then consent or not. I don't think they meant "advise and consent" to mean "No. It doesn't matter who you nominate. We'll just leave the seat vacant for a year."

Anyway, Scalia was quite simply one of the greatest minds we have ever had on the Court. A giant. I leave you with the ever quotable Antonin Scalia...

“Never compromise your principles, unless of course your principles are Adolf Hitler’s, in which case you would be well advised to compromise them as much as you can.”

“More important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly.”

“A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.”

“This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

“A man who has made no enemies is probably not a very good man.”

"A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless."

"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things."

"You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil! Most of mankind has believed in the devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil."

"To pursue the concept of racial entitlement–even for the most admirable and benign of purposes–is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

"Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character."

"God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools…and He has not been disappointed. Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society. We are fools for Christ’s sake. We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Thoughts On Trump (and the other candidates)

One of my last lectures/class discussions in my AP US History class last year was looking ahead to the 2016 election. I tried to fit pictures of all of the declared and likely Republican candidates on one PowerPoint slide, kind of pyramid style, with the "important" ones on top with bigger pictures and the less important ones at the bottom. As an afterthought I put a silly little picture of Donald Trump at the very bottom. My students and I had a quick laugh and we moved on to a more serious discussion. No Republican is laughing now. (By the way, I also had to explain who the hell Bernie Sanders was and the students had a laugh at his disheveled photo and then we discussed Hillary's democratic coronation. That conversation would go differently now as well).

For months now media types from all parts of the spectrum (MSNBC to right wing talk radio) have been predicting Trump's demise. This is a joke, right? People are supporting him because he's entertaining, but they wouldn't really vote for him, right? According to the media experts, every misstep is the end of Trump. Out of the gate with his illegal immigrants are rapists ("somebody's doing the raping, Don!") talk. John McCain isn't a hero because he got captured. Stupid statements like these should sink most candidates. Only his poll numbers actually go up after each of these supposed screw ups.

I believe a poll earlier in the week had Trump at 25% in a field of now 17 Republicans, the closest to him was Jeb, behind him by double digits.

Trump is not going away, and I'll tell you why. First, he has a limitless bankroll, and doesn't need to depend on begging for donations to keep his campaign afloat. It can all be self-financed, a la Ross Perot in '92. (In fact, I would not be surprised if Trump starts buying 30 minutes slots in prime time to present his case. Just wait. That is coming.) Secondly, he is a celebrity who knows media. He is the most media savvy candidate on either side. Third, he doesn't have to fight for headlines. He steps on the street and it is a CNN lead. The media is Trump-crazy (not fawning over him like they did Obama, but they can't get enough of him, and that is all he needs). And he is in command when dealing with the press. Did you see the interview he did with Anderson Cooper recently? He mandhandled Cooper. Totally controlled the interview, to the point to where Cooper was trying to point out to Trump where he (Cooper) had in fact been complimentary of Trump in the past. A leading newpaper in Iowa recently editorialized that he should drop from the race, he simply banished any journalist from the paper from any of his events. He doesn't need them like the other candidates do. It matters less that much of what Trump says makes no sense (a wall will be built on the border and Mexico will pay for it!) What matters is when he appears on television he is in command. He has sucked the air out of the Republican race. Rand Paul was reduced to taking a chainsaw to the tax code and Lindsey Graham had to make an SNL-like short getting rid of his cell phone just to get TV time.

Something a little less obvious. Even though I agree more with establishment Republicans, I know how the right wing thinks because I listen to a lot of talk radio. They despise the Boehner/McCain Republicans. They feel like the mainstream media is a Left Wing conspiracy. So the more the establishment Republican Party and the mainstream media tries to dismiss Trump or take him down, the more support he will garner from the right. His "straight talk" style is an aphrodisiac to the angry, politician hating Tea Party/right wing types. And they are loudest in the primaries. Something Trump and Sanders have in common, by the way, is that they have tapped into a Populist anger out there combined with a straight shooter persona when skepticism about politicians is high. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but the populist roots are close to the same. Trump has also mined that old nativist tradition in American politics that has popped up periodically, from the early 1800's, the 1920's, and other periods. The fear that new immigrants ain't like the older immigrants, they will ruin our great nation with their crime, strange beliefs and dangerous political ideologies.

But would Trump get support in the general election? He obviously would have trouble with the Hispanic vote. That is a real issue because it is a crucual demographic for the Republicans in the future. And as I have commented in the past, there are many segments of the Hispanic community that lines up very nicely with Republican values, both social and economic. It is an issue of messaging. Trump has done real damage in that crucual effort. But if Trump were to force his nomination on a cowering Republican establishment, what's their alternative? Vote for Hillary? The hatred for Hillary is so strong that it will bring out much of the Republican base, Tea Party and establishment. (Much like Reagan's 1980 victory was as much an anti-Carter vote as it was for Reagan). The real question is whether Trump could get independent votes, the ones that now determine general elections. His favorables are not strong with independents, but he has time and has exceeded expectations thus far.

This is a fascinating race even without Trump. There are 17 Republican candidates because Hillary is so beatable. I predict that in the end, Biden will jump in and give Hillary a real race on the Democratic side. People don't like Hillary. Polls indicate that over 50% of the American public sees her as untrustworthy. Benghazi and the email scandal are not going away and they shouldn't. She is a terrible campaigner. Her speeches are shrill and dripping with insincerity and poll tested lines. Are you willing to listen to four to eight years of that? Even most Democrats are just lukewarm on her. The alternative to Hillary, until Biden gets in? Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What about the other 16 Republicans? That is sort of the shame here. There are some very good candidates on the Republican side. There is a website with a questionnaire on issues, go here, and there are others out there as well. It matches you up by percentage with all of the candidates based on how your responses match up with their positions. Probably not an exact science, since candidates positions can slip all over the place, but it is fun. I had my students all do it. If you do it, make sure to adjust the priority meter, it makes a difference in the results. Anyway, my results were what I thought they would be. John Kasich was my highest match, followed by Chris Christie. Jeb was fairly high. Hillary was in the middle, by the way, and Ted Cruz was dead last. When I did it in the spring, Trump wasn't an option.

I don't see Kasich or Christie winning the nomination, though. Nor do I see Trump winning it, but the fact that he is in the serious conversation would have been laughable six months ago. Odds on favorites are still Jeb or Scott Walker in the end, and either one should pick Marco Rubio for VP candidate.

However things eventually turn out, the first Republican debate next week is now must see TV, with The Donald front and center.

And one other thing Trump has. He has the nuclear option of running as an independent if the Republican Party "doesn't treat him right". Like Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992, that guarantees a Democrat president for the next four years. And the Republicans know it.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Dez Reviews the Book ‘Goldeneye, Where Bond Was Born: Ian Fleming’s Jamaica,’ by Matthew Parker, 2015


Even the casual James Bond fan knows at least some things about Bond’s creator, author Ian Fleming. They at least know that some of Bond’s exotic and thrilling exploits have roots in Fleming’s own experiences. Goldeneye was Fleming’s home and property in Jamaica, where after he purchased the land and had his vacation home built in 1946, he religiously spent two months of the year (from about mid-January to mid-March) in Jamaica. Bond fans also know that every Fleming Bond story was written in Jamaica during those two months each year between 1952 (when ‘Casino Royale’ was written) until Fleming’s death in 1964.

So in a way this book makes a lot of sense. Jamaica and Goldeneye clearly are a big part of James Bond. It is safe to say that had Fleming not found Jamaica, James Bond would never have been. What Matthew Parker has accomplished here is impressive. Instead of a straightforward Fleming biography, his book is a biography of only two months a year of Fleming’s life in Jamaica. But it is much more. It is part biography. part Jamaican history, part travelogue, part rumination on the twilight of the British Empire, part salacious gossip, and part analysis of the creation and writing of the James Bond novels (although we don’t even get to the first Bond novel until about 125 pages in, that is fine because the other topics of this book are so well done).

None of this would work, of course, unless Ian Fleming himself weren’t so damn interesting. And fortunately, he was a pretty fascinating, if not likeable, character. He comes across here, and I have read this elsewhere as well, as an endlessly interesting friend and partner in having good times, but a horrible person to try to be closer to (say as a wife, son, etc.) He simply would not let people get too close, almost pathological about his solitude and need for freedom and space. He was also the perfect figure to use to look at the uncomfortable ending of an Empire, both as a figure clawing and scratching while being dragged into the sunset but also one who sees the reality of what is happening with a somewhat sardonic British humor. And that insecurity, of the once top dog on the block having to step aside for the Americans and Russians, permeates the Bond novels as well.

“All history is sex and violence.” – Ian Fleming

That is one reason the Bond novels resonated so much in Britain. In the wake of humiliations like the Suez Crisis, Bond was an escape for Brits to see themselves as still powerful. When in reality, they no longer were. More than anything else, the Bond novels are strong colonial/Imperial nostalgia, as well as a way to vent at the loss of strength and vitality (or Empire). Parker says “Even the thickest-skinned nostalgist could no longer deny [Britain’s] second-class status. But this would make the escapism of Fleming’s stories, in which, behind the scenes, Britain in the figure of super-agent 007 still bestrides the globe, more popular than ever. The world of Bond was rapidly becoming a place where the nation could congregate around a vision that denied Britain’s disappointing new reality.” And “ “Bond expresses [Britain’s] complicated relationship with [its] past, and [its] empire – at once a little bit proud, a little bit ashamed, and forever aware that [its] ‘greatest days’ are behind [it].”

Take the following remarkable passage from the Bond novel ‘You Only Live Twice,’ where in this dressing down of Bond by Japanese agent Tiger Tanaka, Fleming takes the opportunity to go through a cathartic dose of reality worthy of any monk’s self-flagellation:

Tanaka: “You have not only lost a great Empire, you have seemed almost anxious to throw it away with both hands…when you apparently sought to arrest this slide into impotence at Suez, you succeeded only in stage-managing one of the most pitiful bungles in the history of the world, if not the worst. Further, your governments have shown themselves successively incapable of ruling and have handed over effective control of the country to trade unions, who appear to be dedicated to the principle of doing less and less work for more and more money. The feather-bedding, this shirking of an honest day’s work, is sapping at ever-increasing speed the moral fiber of the British, a quality the world once so admired. In its place we now see a vacuous, aimless horde…whining at the weather and the declining fortunes of the country, and wallowing nostalgically in gossip about the doings of the Royal Family.”

Wow. Through Tanaka, Fleming is clearly venting and editorializing on the current state of Britain. He does that often through his books.

And who has taken Britain’s place? Fleming grudgingly admits it is the United States. While acknowledging the deep friendship between the U.S. and UK, there is still a startling anti-Americanism that shines through in the Bond books. It is interesting to look at Bond’s relationship with his CIA counterpart, Felix Leiter. Leiter is rather hilariously played by an array of actors throughout the Bond films (he was even black, along with most everyone else, in 'Live and Let Die'). “[Leiter’s] close and friendly relationship with Bond represents an optimistic, or even fantastic, model for Britain’s relationship with the United States. Leiter’s role is to supply Bond with technical support, hardware and muscle, as well as money. Bond – and by implication Britain – provides the leadership, intelligence and daring,” states Parker.

But Fleming is also often spiteful and jealous of America. In a private letter he discussed America’s “total unpreparedness to rule the world that is now theirs.” Other than Leiter, almost all of the Americans that Bond encounters in the novels are “surly, uncooperative and jealous of [Bond’s] success and panache.” In a travelogue book he wrote, ‘Thrilling Cities,’ Fleming describes beating the “syndicates” of Las Vegas, and having to “wash the filth of the United States currency off my hands.” Vegas is “ghastly,” New York is obsessed with the “hysterical pursuit of money,” and Chicago is “grim.”

ABOVE: Fleming's paradise, Goldeneye, where all of the Bond stories were written. Interesting fact: after Fleming's death Bob Marley seriously considered purchasing Goldeneye, but deciding that it was too "posh" and wouldn't jibe with his revolution image, he passed.

One of the more interesting aspects of Fleming that Parker discusses is his views on race, ethnicity and nationality. First of all, it is important to remember both the times in which he lived and the fact that he was a Brit from the upper middle crust living in a colonial possession. Or, context. But anyone who has read his Bond novel ‘Live and Let Die’ cannot escape the racist tone throughout. Through Bond’s eyes, Fleming describes blacks as “easy prey to sickness and fear” due to “weak nerves.” Their “organs of sight and hearing are keener than ours,” feeding into the racist clichés of making blacks closer to the animal kingdom than whites. The black henchmen of Mr. Big are “clumsy black apes.” While in Harlem, Bond reflects that the smell of “negro bodies” is “feral.” Harlem is a “jungle.” And so on.

But Parker makes an interesting point. “It is also important to note that Fleming – and Bond – looked down on pretty much everyone who was not British and perceived people of all colours in terms of negative stereotypes of race and nationality.” Parker quotes from several Bond books: in ‘Moonraker,’ Germans have “the usual German chip on the shoulder.” The Japanese in ‘You Only Live Twice’ have “an unquenchable thirst for the bizarre, the cruel and the terrible.” The Italians in ‘Diamonds Are Forever’: “bums with monogrammed shirts who spend the day eating spaghetti and meatballs and squirting scent over themselves.” The Afrikaners in DAF: “a bastard race, sly, stupid and ill-bred.” The Chinese in ‘Dr. No’ are “hysterical.” As Parker says, “No villain in the Bond novels is ever British. Even when they are British citizens…they turn out to be of foreign racial origin.” In a letter to his wife discussing America, Fleming once simply said “all foreigners are pestilential.”

That being said, for his time and station, Fleming did have a better view and relationship with the local Jamaicans than many of his compatriots. Like the Bond of the novels, Fleming “loves the spontaneity, the physicality and…sexy exoticism of it all. His affection is genuine, then, but based on what we would now see as racist clichés.” All of Fleming’s relationships with native Jamaicans were with tradespeople and servants of some sort, but the evidence shows that they genuinely liked Fleming, at least when compared to the other Brits on the island. Fleming’s relationship with most of the native Jamaicans he knew were of the “captain/first mate” sort. Where there is respect and even room for debate, but in the end the captain is in charge. Jamaicans who worked for Fleming called him “Commander” (from his rank in the navy), and he apparently relished the title.

A perfect model is the character of Quarrel, the Jamaican sidekick Bond has in several of the novels. “So here we have Fleming’s ideal colonial relationship. There is no challenge to Bond’s superiority – rank, as on a ship, is taken as read; Quarrel is unmistakably ‘staff.’ But with mutual respect established and power relations solidified by history and custom, there is no need for coercion. Quarrel will ‘follow Bond unquestioningly.’” Quarrel will even instruct Bond in certain skills, like spearfishing. But in the end, Bond sets the agenda and Quarrel will make every effort to help Bond succeed.

One question many people have with any sort of interest in Fleming or Bond, is how much of Bond is really also Fleming? Fleming did have some dashing adventures during World War II. One of the keys, argues Parker, lies in Bond’s birth at Goldeneye in Jamaica. Fleming was more at home in the tropics than back in England. He came alive there. The book wonderfully captures the decadent last days of partying by the British elites as the sun sets on the British Empire. There is a shocking lack of morality amongst these people. Marriage vows are not to be taken seriously. Fleming, like Bond, was a serial womanizer. When he got married, that changed very little. Fleming wrote of Bond in ‘Casino Royale’: “the lengthy approaches to a seduction bored him almost as much as the subsequent mess of disentanglement.” The same could have been said of Fleming.

ABOVE: Ian Fleming and Sean Connery in Jamaica during the filming of the first Bond film, 'Dr. No' (1962). Fleming was not impressed with Connery originally, thinking him too brutish. Fleming changed his mind after having dinner one evening with Connery and watching the female patrons watch Connery. Connery later said of Fleming: “I know he was not that happy with me as [Bond]. He called me, or told somebody, that I was an over-developed stuntman…But when I did eventually meet him he was very interesting, erudite and a snob – a real snob. But his company was very good for a limited time.”

ABOVE: Fleming has a drink with Ursula Andress, the gorgeous actress who portrayed Honeychile Ryder in 'Dr. No.' Not surprisingly, Fleming was reported to have been smitten.

In case you don't understand why Fleming was smitten, try this one:

Fleming was not your typical English stuffed shirt. He came alive in Jamaica, and loved physical danger. He was an obsessive snorkler off his private beach at Goldeneye, and thrilled in swimming with sharks and barracuda. He explored every inch of the island, the seedy parts as well as high society. He despised social gatherings of the British elite, preferring the saucier company of his good friend, playwright Noel Coward. As Parker says, “Jamaica seemed to Fleming the perfect mix of British old-fashioned imperial influence and law and the dangerous and sensual, of reassuring conservatism and the exciting exotic: in effect, the same curious combination that would make the Bond novels so appealing and successful.” When asked about his formula, Fleming once stated “What I endeavor to aim at is a certain disciplined exoticism.”

Writing of Bond, Fleming could also be talking about himself. Bond is often described as cold, cynical and ruthless, but also always trying to control emotions and passions boiling just under the surface. “Like all harsh men, cold men, he was easily tipped over into sentiment.” Bond is a hero for the new, “increasingly classless, jet-set age.”

Parker addresses Fleming’s uncomfortable self-awareness that he was producing what we would today call pop culture for the masses, as opposed to great literature. Fleming often gives a knowing wink within the novels themselves. There is a fascinating and often told anecdote of Fleming coming home one evening to one of his wife’s many high society dinner parties of English artistes, and as he was sneaking through the back so as not to have to socialize, he overhears the guests mockingly reading passages from one of his Bond novels. His wife often dismissed the books as “Ian’s pornography.” These books never were high art. Then again, today we probably don’t know the names of most of those dinner guests, do we?

Like his character Bond, Fleming lived fast and had sort of a death wish. He smoked heavily, drank even more heavily, and ignored years of doctor advice to slow down. Parker points out that in the last several Bond novels, Fleming has Bond suffer this deterioration as well. In the last few books, Bond struggles more physically to accomplish his daring feats. Bond is often winded and reflects that he didn’t used to feel this way. Bond also smokes all the time and drinks recklessly. In ‘Thunderball,’ Bond is even ordered by M to go detox at a clinic. (Although this is more a spa where he beds the attractive nurse). In fact, in the Bond universe, “abstinence is the sure sign of villainy.” When Bond is thought dead in ‘You Only Live Twice,’ his secretary suggests the epitaph “He didn’t waste his days trying to prolong them.” Appropriate for Ian Fleming as well, dead at the age of 56.

If you have an interest in Bond, British Imperialist twilight, Jamaica, or any combination thereof, then **** out of *****.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Because It's Not Too Early...

First of all, I know things have slowed down considerably here at GNABB. No excuse really.

But here are some thoughts on how the next presidential election is shaping up. So far we have four officially announced candidates: Hillary on the Democrat side and Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio on the Republican. I don’t see any serious Democratic challenger coming in to give Hillary much of a fight, but there will be a few sacrificial lambs so they can at least pretend to go through the primary process vs. the coronation that it actually is. On the Republican side, though, you’ve still got some major candidates likely to enter who just have not officially announced yet. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Chris Christie are the three most important, I think.

My main observation thus far is that each of these candidates’ (other than Walker so far, which is why I think he is the most dangerous to Hillary) main challenge is themselves. And that goes for Hillary, too. Especially for Hillary.

Ted Cruz I just don’t get. Because he knows better. Opponents of Cruz dismiss him as a Tea Party idiot. But he’s not an idiot. Far from it, he is an accomplished politician who won a Texas race against the Republican establishment that nobody gave him a chance of winning. He has a compelling life story, and he is a shrewd lawyer who has appeared and won cases in front of the Supreme Court. You do not do that unless you are smarter than the vast majority of your fellow man. Yet, he allies himself with people who show up to rallies dressed as Paul Revere. These people cannot be taken seriously. He led a destructive government shutdown with zero chance of actually accomplishing what he claimed he wanted to do (defund Obamacare), and did nothing other than play into the media narrative of extreme Republican obstructionism. Cruz is a smart man with a wonderful pedigree who has no chance in hell of winning. And I’m glad. He is dangerous based on who he caters to.

Rand Paul is a smart guy also who has some real pluses, but he is haunted by his own more extreme Libertarian past and he has been a disaster at handling the media thus far. On the positive, he can bring in a much needed youth excitement to the Republican side, he is willing and able to reach out more effectively to minority voters than any other major Republican. He sees more than any other candidate the need for the Republican Party to expand its base if it is to survive in the years to come. But Rand, you had to know that the media would ask you about your past positions and whether they jibe with your current stance. And they don’t sometimes. He has reacted like a petulant child, lecturing on proper interview techniques and whining about media bias against conservatives (which is true, but still sounds shrill when voiced). It’s early, so Rand can definitely become more adept at dealing with journalists, but he needs to improve pretty quickly to remain a serious option.

I like Marco Rubio, but he’s young. (Although, I would have dismissed Obama in the same way early in 2008). From reports, he is the one that Hillaryworld fears the most, though, so there is something. He is and will be a force to be reckoned with for some time. He seems to be a moderate on many things and wants to take the Jeb Bush spot as the party uniter between the more conservative and establishment wings. His leadership in the immigration reform fight soured many conservatives on him, though. If he can survive the more partisan primary season, he will be a formidable candidate in the general election, and I can just see the dread from the Hillary camp. Another young, exciting, minority opponent to dampen the “first woman president” vibe she wants to maintain. But I just have the feeling it is not his time, yet. Vice-presidential candidate maybe?

For the unannounced, Jeb is a favorite of the establishment. I like Jeb a lot, but I need to hear more. A downside is, of course, Bush Fatigue. But that is negated somewhat, of course, by Clinton Fatigue. It would be an advantage for the Republicans to put up a fresh face and then the Democrats would be the party of yesterday. There has been a slight rehab of W., but not that much, so the political sins of the brother still might affect Jeb unfairly. Jeb is more of a thinker. I was and still am a big Christie fan, but his name has fallen way down the list. No momentum, no buzz anymore. And you know he will get into some trouble on the trail at some point with his mouth and temper, so he would need some built-up capital to withstand that, and he just doesn’t have it anymore. As for Walker, he is a contender. Favorite of the primary voter for standing up to the unions in Wisconsin, smart and savvy. A survivor (of two recall attempts). A fighter. Obama thinks enough of him to try and take his phantom on in interviews. A Walker/Rubio ticket would be real strong. I need to look at his actual positions more closely, though, to decide whether I would support him.

As for Hillary. She is just not likeable. At all. That is what it comes down to in many ways. A problem that many people have with her (beyond the partisan Clinton haters on the right) is her lack of sincerity. I know it is a problem for most politicians, but the cynical Clinton Entitlement Machine (as in, we as Clintons are entitled to the presidency) is particularly abrasive. I love that much of the commentary on Hillary’s announcement centered on her branding, how she would brand herself this time around to better connect with the voters. Oh, she’s gonna be a populist concerned about middle class prosperity and use her status as grandmother to connect. This was released material from the Clinton campaign. How ridiculous does that sound? To actually release to the public: here’s our strategy and why you should like her now! If you have solid values and principles, the “branding” occurs automatically when you talk about your issues. But Hillary has no real issues she feels strongly about and has no real core values either. Her main policy idea is this one: she should be president. That is what her campaign was about in 2008, and that is at heart what it will be this time around. She just has to tone down the entitlement vibe, but it is still in her DNA.

Also, her record is easy to attack. Both for a lack of ANY accomplishments as Secretary of State (how is that “reset button with Russia” going?) and screw ups. I have to admit that I thought Benghazi would be a dead issue by now, but it is not going away, and although the Republicans have been their usual inartful selves in keeping the Benghazi fires burning, there are real questions that remain to be answered. Under Obama, our leadership role in the world has been diminished. As Secretary of State, she has to take responsibility for that decline in influence, in part. Richard Nixon once said: "If, when the chips are down, the world's most powerful nation, the United States, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world." (1970). The Obama administration's inconsistent, weak, talk but no action responses (remember Obama's red line in the sand to Assad?) to recent world events make Nixon's warnings very relevant today.

Also this e-mail thing is, in some ways, even more serious for Hillary. She can't hide behind the "well, it was Obama's show" card on this one. It plays perfectly into the narrative that the Clintons view themselves above the rules that everyone else must play by. You want to know how serious it is? It isn’t just the Right Wing talk radio section of the country talking about this. Mainstream journalists are taking her to task. There was a recent Time Magazine cover story very critical of the Clinton Machine (entitled “The Clinton Way”). Even mainstream media pundits see something seriously wrong with a Secretary of State making herself the sole arbiter of what documents need to be preserved and what documents can be tossed. I mean, this is historical record stuff...and the ultimate Clinton fantasy. She has decided that she alone knows which documents will be part of the record and which documents “are not relevant.” Just “trust her.” My God.

Hillary is very vulnerable. But the Republicans can easily hand it to her. I don't know who's it is to win at this point, but it is everyone’s election to lose.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Dez Reviews the Books 'Laika' (2007) by Nick Abadzis and 'Soviet Space Dogs' (2014) by Olesya Turkina

Longtime readers of GNABB or associates of mine know that since history is my profession, I have gotten obsessed over the years with various random historical topics. The mutiny on the 'Bounty,' Jonestown, and of course, the animal space programs. In my class, I have a day that I set aside for the early (through Apollo 11) space race. It is a fun day, and I've got a little segment where I discuss the Soviet space dogs and American space chimps. Invariably, it is one of the favorite presentations of the year for my students. I don't know exactly why, other than to say that I understand it because I find it fascinating too. (By the way, Deborah Cadbury's 'Space Race' remains my favorite U.S.-Soviet comparative study on the early space race).

I think I get more emotion out of my students when I reveal the fate of Laika the space dog than when discussing the carnage of the Civil War or other such tragedies. Laika, as many of you know, was the first earthling to go into space. Hers, however, was a one way ticket and the Soviet scientists knew that from the outset. The Soviets had just scored a dramatic victory with the launch of Sputnik (the first human-made satellite) in October of 1957. Premier Nikita Khrushchev was eager to follow it up with something just as spectacular, and he demanded that it fall during the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in November. It was suggested that another satellite be sent up and for it to transmit the Soviet anthem around the world, but Khrushchev scoffed that he did not want to send up an orbiting "pipe organ." Then genius Chief Designer Korolev suggested sending up one of the dogs that they had been training for just such missions. It was a go.

ABOVE: Laika, the first earthling to travel to space

Due to Khrushchev's imposed and impossible time table, the Soviet scientists did not have time to perfect a recovery system for the passenger, so from the outset it was going to be a one way ticket to oblivion. Before you immediately assume that these are typical cold hearted commies, all accounts I have read detail the close and personal relationship that they developed with the space dogs. They did everything they could to treat them as humanely as possible given the circumstances and required training, and bonds were formed. The lucky dogs that did make it back and then were retired often found homes with the families of the very scientists who had trained them. I say found homes because all of the space dogs were mongrel strays picked up off the streets of Moscow. This not only fit the Soviet proletariat ideology (vs. using more bourgeois purebreds), they figured that mutts were genetically fitter and their life on the streets had already made them tough and more adaptable to extreme conditions. On Laika, Oleg Gazenko, who had been in charge of the Soviet space dog training, said in 1998: "Work with animals is a source of suffering to all of us. We treat them like babies who cannot speak. The more time passes, the more I'm sorry about it. We did not learn enough from the mission to justify the death of the dog."

Laika was launched on November 3, 1957. ("Muttnik" as the American press sarcastically, yet still affectionately, referred to her). For decades the Soviet propaganda machine insisted that she had survived seven days in orbit (reporting on her status over those seven days to the rest of the world) and then was painlessly euthanized through poisoned food pellets. It was only in 2002, when the files were finally declassified by the Russians, that the truth was known. In reality, she perished several hours after launch due to a miscalculation in thermal conductivity, making the onboard fans to keep her cool useless. She painfully burned to death. (Although I am sure that Yuri Gagarin was happy they figured this mistake out on Laika instead of on him). After Laika's trip, the Soviets eventually figured out how to bring the passengers back, turning the adorable Belka and Strelka into the first Soviet pop stars who could actually enjoy, as much as dogs can, their fame.

BELOW: Laika paraphernalia


The sacrifice that these dogs (and the American chimps) made for the space programs cannot be underestimated. Scientists were not sure that earthlings could survive space travel at all. These animals showed us that they can.

ABOVE: Strelka and Belka. They made it back.

Olesya Turkina's 'Soviet Space Dogs' is actually nicer to look at than to read. It is a good read and gives some fantastic information on the space dog program, but I think that it could have been written a bit better. I just think that in the end there is still a lot about the training and details of the missions that we still do not know. She does discuss Laika, Belka and Strelka and others's fame, symbolism and pop culture status beautifully. Speaking of beauty, this book is gorgeous. It has excellent pictures and she has undertaken the monumental task of collecting and photographing as much iconography and pop culture-related items as possible. Toys, calendars, stamps, matchbox covers, postcards, statues...not just in Russia but worldwide, related to the space dogs. The propaganda coup becomes obvious through these pictures. Funny thing is that the Soviet authorities were not prepared at all for the worldwide concern and eventual backlash regarding Laika's fate. They had to scramble to create stories of how painlessly she met her fate after the world demanded more details as to poor Laika’s demise. Turkina details that wonderfully as well.

Nick Abadzis's graphic novel 'Laika' is wonderful. I am no expert on graphic novels, I've only read a handful ('Maus,' some of the important Batman ones, oh, and ‘Planet Hulk’). Abadzis’s work of historical fiction attempts to remain as true to the historic details as possible while filling in the personal moments and backstory with imaginative fiction. Chief Designer Korolev, Gazenko, Khrushchev, and some of the other scientists are presented true to form. The heart of the story is in the touching relationship that forms between Laika and her primary caregiver, Yelena Dubrovsky. It is a touching tale that brings real emotion to Laika’s story, and does her memory justice. The primary themes are destiny (in fact, the opening scene has Korolev wandering in the Siberian snow repeating the mantra “I am a man of destiny…I will not die”) and trust.

It is about Korolev’s manic drive for the destiny of the Soviet space program (and his own redemption after having been a political prisoner, arrested in one of Stalin’s purges), but even more Laika’s destiny to go from anonymous stray on the streets of Moscow to worldwide icon, but having to sacrifice her life in the process. And the trust these dogs have in their trainers, and the ultimate trust broken by knowingly preparing her for her one way journey for the glory of the Soviet State. The book is a triumphant accomplishment, but sad. I daresay you will shed a tear or two as Laika rockets to the stars (the visuals in that part of the book are stunningly effective too, with the closing mantra “you can trust me” being repeated in Laika’s mind). So it is bookended nicely by the two themes, opening hopefully with destiny and closing with trust (broken).

Laika’ **** out of *****
‘Soviet Space Dogs’ *** out of *****
Also, reference ‘Space Race’ by Deborah Cadbury ****1/2 out of *****

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Should Scotland Vote For Independence?

Should they break up the UK? Bowie says no. Sean Connery says yes. What do you think?

Monday, August 4, 2014

The Indianapolis Speech: Anatomy of a Scene

First a quick history lesson. In July of 1945 the U.S.S. Indianapolis delivered uranium and other parts to the island of Tinian in the Pacific for the atomic bomb that would eventually be dropped on Hiroshima. The ship successfully delivered its cargo, made a quick stop at Guam, and then headed towards Leyte in the Philippines. The Indianapolis never reached its destination, sinking quickly after being torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. About 300 men went down with the ship, while 880 went into the water. They were not rescued for three and a half days, with most of the men swimming with or without life jackets (very few lifeboats), holding on to any debris they could. Out of the 880 who went into the water, only about 320 ultimately survived. The incident is famous in part because it featured the most shark attacks on humans in recorded history for a single event. Most of the men actually died from exposure, drinking salt water and drowning, with many of the bodies being dragged off by sharks. But quite a few of the living were also attacked.

The reason it took three and a half days to find the survivors is because the Indianapolis was never reported missing. This was primarily due to a series of gross acts of negligence on the part of various naval personnel. The person in charge of making sure she arrived at Leyte did not make any report that she did not actually arrive. The Indianapolis sent distress signals, but one was ignored by a drunk captain, one was never reported up the chain of command and one was thought to be a Japanese trap. They were only found by a random American patrol plane, whose pilot, with great risk to himself and his plane, rescued about 50 men himself (strapping some men to the wings) and then radioed for help.

ABOVE: The U.S.S. Indianapolis

Anyway, the sinking of the Indianapolis is central to a key scene in the film Jaws. In what for many is the most memorable scene in the entire film, a scene that features no action, Robert Shaw's Quint relates the mesmerizing tale of his survival on the Indianapolis to Roy Scheider's Brody and Richard Dreyfuss' Hooper. Here is the scene. Even if you've seen the film, it is worth watching the clip. Shaw gives an acting clinic on subtlety and storytelling.



Now, there are a few historical details that he gets wrong. Like the date. Notice he says "June the 29th," when the ship sank on July 30. Also, there were, in fact, distress signals sent. But the makers of Jaws can be forgiven for that oversight. Jaws was made in 1974 (released in '75), and the Indianapolis distress signals became known later after military files were declassified. Before that, the story was that no signals had been sent due to the top secret nature of the mission.

There is quite a bit of dispute over who wrote this crucial speech. It is crucial in that it explains Quint's obsession with killing sharks, it gives the Quint character much needed depth (before this, he is mostly a salty bully), and provides the calm before the final climactic battle.

One of the reason there is dispute is due to the way Jaws was made. This was only Steven Spielberg's second feature film. He wasn't yet STEVEN SPIELBERG, he was just a 27 year old, still largely untested director. Jaws was made collaboratively and filmed largely on location in Martha's Vineyard. Spielberg rented a house and it was almost like a frat house. He lived there along with various production members and actors coming and going. Shaw would often show up full of booze. Spielberg would host dinners with many of the production and actors, always tossing around ideas.

Peter Benchley, author of the book, wrote the first draft of the script. Screenwriter Howard Sackler wrote a draft. Then Carl Gottlieb came in and rewrote a lot of it. (By the way, Gottlieb's The Jaws Log is a must read for anyone interested in filmmaking, whether you are a fan of this particular film or not. It is generally regarded as the best "making of" book ever written.)

But many things in Jaws came from suggestions or improvisations. Roy Scheider's famous "we're gonna need a bigger boat" line, for instance, was improvised on the spot by Scheider himself. The very funny scene where Quint and Hooper try and one up each other by crushing the beer can and coffee cup was the joint idea of Spielberg, Gottlieb and Dreyfuss over drinks.

Gottlieb swears that the Indianapolis speech was written by Robert Shaw himself. Shaw was also a noted playwright and writer, so he certainly was capable of good writing (his assessment of the Jaws novel, by the way: "a piece of sh*t"). The scene is not in the novel at all, and Gottlieb states that writer Sackler first introduced the scene into the Jaws script. But then Gottlieb and Spielberg himself worked extensively on it, and still were not satisfied. Spielberg called in his friend, writer and directer John Milius (writer of Apocalypse Now) to help with some ideas. (Gottlieb admits that the scene where Quint and Hooper compare scars - that was Milius). But after all of these versions were tossed around, it was Shaw who took them all and then wrote the actual speech that was shot. Apparently when they rehearsed it, he was drunk and couldn't really get through it and went into some embarassing admissions about his personal life. But once the camera was rolling he nailed it, and that is what you see onscreen. Gottlieb says of Shaw: "Shaw's genius as an actor of the old school is evident; he could work drunk or sober, and still be brilliant."

John Milius has a different recollection about who wrote the crucial scene. Milius:
"I wrote that thing and they gave it to [Shaw] when he was drunk. Could barely walk, he was really drunk...I was writing that [scene] until nine in the morning, I called in, that was their time and I was writing it over the phone. They went out that afternoon and shot it...Robert Shaw had just been caught f*cking the nanny, and he's sitting there, he's really drunk. They're trying to get him on the boat. He falls half off, and they're really 'how are we going to do this?' He's sleeping, reading the script and sleeping. They finally got him to start rehearsing it, and he hated Richard Dreyfuss. He sort of takes a swat at him, and he starts saying 'you ever see a shark's eye? It rolls up, it's a dead eye. Like your wife, when she tells you about the nanny.' And he's talking like, 'what happens when you get put in the water all alone, after f*cking the nanny?'...He gets [Spielberg and crew] so strung out on his personal life...then, when they turned on the cameras, he was perfect."

Gottlieb, while not denying Shaw's personal troubles, still vehemently denies that Milius wrote the meat of the speech. Gottlieb: "Who do you believe - the guy who was there and tells you someone else wrote the speech, or a guy who wasn't there and claims he did?" The only thing they do seem to agree on was that Robert Shaw was drunk.

My guess is that it was a collaborative effort, but with Shaw indeed pulling it all together and putting it in his/Quint's vernacular. While it does have a Milius-like clipped quality and focuses on military history, a Milius specialty, it just seems so personal to Shaw. Gottlieb claims that the night before filming Shaw came to Spielberg's rented place and read it to Spielberg, Gottlieb, Dreyfuss and producer Richard Zanuck almost word for word what ended up onscreen.

Interesting tidbit. Spielberg turned down Universal's offer to direct the sequel, and said he would only do it if the sequel were a prequel, about Quint's time on the Indianapolis. Universal said no. Now that would have been interesting.

Finally, the speech is such a brilliant piece of film writing, it is worth reading on the printed page. Or the glowing computer screen.

"Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. We were comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte...just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in twelve minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about half an hour. Tiger. 13 footer. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by looking from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn't know, was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin', so we formed ourselves into tight groups.

You know, it was kinda like old squares in the battle like you see in the calendar named 'The Battle of Waterloo' and the idea was: shark comes to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and screamin' and sometimes the shark go away...sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And you know, the thing about a shark...he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'...until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then...ah then, you hear that terrible high pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red, and despite all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they...rip you to pieces.

You know by the end of that first dawn, lost a hundred men. I don't know how many sharks, maybe a thousand. I don't know how many men, they averaged six an hour. On Thursday morning, Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland. Baseball player. Boatswain's mate. I thought he was asleep. I reached over to wake him up. Bobbed up and down in the water just like a kinda top. Upended. Well, he'd been bitten in half below the waist.

Noon, the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us. He swung in low and he saw us...He was a young pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper here. Anyway, he saw us and he come in low and three hours later a big fat PBY cruiser comes down and starts to pick us up. You know that was the time I was most frightened...waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a life jacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water; 316 men come out and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb."

Thanks to Carl Gottlieb's The Jaws Log and Patrick Jankiewicz's A Jaws Companion for the quotes and much of the info.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Youth Politics

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25 you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." Attributed to Winston Churchill, but he probably never said it. Sounds good anyway. As a teacher of AP students in U.S. History, I naturally get into politically charged issues all of the time. If you teach history, you've got to get into the muck. One of the things that I do in the first week of class is give them an issues self-diagnostic survey that when scored they can place themselves along the right-left political continuum. I find that even at the end of the year, they still remember the activity and where they ended up.

Throughout the year, they often ask me what I think of various hot button political issues, or even generally where I fall along the spectrum. I pride myself in remaining as neutral as possible, giving fair treatment of all sides of the issues and allowing them to decide for themselves. I tell them I don't really care which side they pick on almost anything, as long as they can back it up with argument. I think I do a good job, because throughout the year they think they have me pegged, and they are all over the map: "you're a Republican," "you're a Democrat," "you're a commie," "you're a fascist." I usually get that last one after giving them a particularly difficult exam.

I do feel like I owe them an honest answer, since they are so open in class about their own beliefs throughout the year. So each year I always make them a deal. On the last day of class, I will answer almost any question they have about my own political ideology, such as it is. (I refuse to answer the abortion or gay marriage question, but I'm pretty open to discussing most anything else). I'm quite touched that that by the end of the year my political beliefs have become a parlor game of sorts for them. Touched because they actually are interested. This year I started the discussion by giving them my voting history in every presidential election since 1992. They can generally figure it out from that.

One of my favorite students is starting a Young Republicans group on campus and he asked me to be the faculty sponsor. I turned him down in order to maintain my veil of neutrality, but I did tell him I could be an unofficial, shadow advisor. I gave him a reading list of Charles Krauthammer, William F. Buckley Jr. (suggesting he make all members sign the Sharon Statement), Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, etc. That should give them a solid foundation.

One of the questions I give them on their final exam is for them to tell me which political party that we studied this year most aligns with their own personal beliefs, and why. As in, they have to recall and explain that political party's ideology accurately in order to get the question completely right. Polling about 130 AP students, here were the results:

Democrat: 42%
Republican: 28%
Libertarian: 2%
Communist: 1%
Socialist: 1%
Green: 1%
Independent: 6%
Undecided: 17%

There were some interesting choices from the past:

Whig: 2%
Democratic-Republican: 1%
Populist: 4%
Nazi: 1%

NOTE: The Nazi student explained that he liked the party, minus Hitler, genocide and the racism. Kind of hard to separate, but he explained that he admired the strong nationalism and top down government control of every aspect of life. I guess more accurately he should have said "fascist," as it could be a less racist version, a la Italian fascism or Spanish fascism.

I know that doesn't add up to exactly 100%, but I rounded the numbers.

If you throw the Libertarians in with the Republicans, you get a surprisingly strong 30% conservative. I find that interesting as it bucks some stereotypes and assumptions, since this is a group of teenagers (generally considered to be heavily liberal) and my students are overwhelmingly minority, mainly Hispanic. Hispanics are also assumed to lean overwhelmingly liberal (unless you are Cuban, but I only had one Cuban student).

Monday, May 19, 2014

Dez Reviews the Book 'How Could This Happen: Explaining the Holocaust' by Dan McMillan, 2014

Author Dan McMillan claims that his book 'How Could This Happen: Explaining the Holocaust' is the first to directly and solely focus on why the Holocaust occurred. I find that hard to believe, but I do not have direct evidence to the contrary. So much has been written on the Holocaust, much of it factual accountings of the horrors. I have often wondered myself exactly why this happened, the most infamous genocide in history perpetrated by one of the world's most cultured and advanced people, the Germans.

McMillan does about as good of a job as probably possible trying to explain the why. I say as good of a job, because some things do defy explanation. McMillan denies that, but even after reading this generally very good attempt, at the end, I still did ask the fundamental question of "why" and it was not completely answered.

What McMillan does exceptionally well is give a detailed political, cultural, social and economic picture of Germany from the 1880s through 1945. To understand the Holocaust, Hitler and the Nazis, you do indeed have to start in the 1880s.

McMillan tries, somewhat unsuccessfully I'm afraid, to explain "why Germany" vs. other advanced nations of the time, even though many of the same conditions were present in France, Britain, even the U.S. He goes to pains to reach the conclusion that it was a long series of unfortunate circumstances, bad luck and historical developments vs. something to do with the German character itself that would have allowed this to happen, contrary to Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi when he states "they construct shelters and trenches, they repair the damage, they build, they fight, they command, they organize and they kill. What else could they do? They are Germans."

The author correctly points out that Germans are far from alone as perpetrators of genocide throughout history. But the holocaust is a unique genocide. The only one whose sole purpose was to kill every single member of the targeted group. To make them extinct. It was not out of desperation to maintain power and get an opponent out of a region (Rwanda, Turks against Armenians, Bosnia), misguided policies in pursuit of flawed ideologies that supposedly mean well in the end (Cambodia, USSR under Stalin) or largely inadvertent (Spanish conquest of Latin America and smallpox). The Holocaust was perpetrated from a position of strength on a people who posed no actual threat to the ones in power, with the goal of simply making those people nonexistent.

He analyzes in convincing fashion a series of events and conditions that led Germany down this ultimately horrific path. His primary argument relates to democracy's miserable failure in Germany. Germany did not get democracy until 1918, at the end of World War I. Many leaders of the democratic movement in Germany were socialists, and socialism (and worst, communism) were real threats in Germany, especially to the elites and well-educated. The bolshevik revolution in Russia only solidifed those fears that "it could happen here." And it could. For decades in Germany there had been bitter and extreme divisions and rivalries amongst political parties, factions and classes. The socialist and communist movements in Germany were, somewhat wrongly, linked to Jews by most Germans. The Nazi treatment of Jews and slavic peoples in the East is inextricably linked.

In order to overcome these bitter divisions in German society and politics to reach the goal of a stronger Germany, many leaders hoped to unite Germany by creating a strong sense of nationalism. Linked to that was the rabid anti-Semitism all over Europe (and the U.S.) at the time. You create nationalism in part by identifying enemies at home and abroad. Finding enemies abroad was linked to Germany's very aggressive imperialist policies leading into World War I. Germany was late to actually become a nation and late to the Imperialist game. By the time they got in the sweepstakes, most of the good territory had already been grabbed by their rivals. So for Germany, the only way to gain valuable territory and become a world power to was to take territory already possessed by rivals like Britain, France and the U.S. All of this aggression is a big part of the cause of World War I. (The enemy at home were Jews, who were the ultimate outsiders in most European countries at the time). Hitler and the Nazis were simply the most extreme nationalists and anti-Semites among many.

Unique to Germany was this hope for a Great Man. Since Otto von Bismarck, one of the greatest political leaders of the 1800s, Germans had been looking for another Great Man to be their savior. After World War I, Germany was economically in chaos and humiliated by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. It is more than unfortunate that democracy got its chance in Germany under these impossible circumstances. Hitler comes to power largely through democratic means. As I tell my students, Hitler wins elections by promising the German people that there will be no more elections. Hitler fits this Great Man mold. As McMillan states, they were looking for him before Hitler ever arrived. And so key to Hitler's rise was that he had a string of stunning domestic and military successes early on that made him appear to be a deity to the desperate German people. It really was lots of luck and bold gambler's moves by Hitler in the face of an isolationist U.S. and war weary European powers. The Holocaust would not have happened without the unique man that was Adolf Hitler. Unique in the sense of his hatred, rage, unparalleled cruelty and sadism, paranoia, self-delusion combined with a charisma and stunningly good luck from 1933-1941 that brought him to power in Germany.

The brutal experiences of World War I cheapened life to a degree that was unprecedented in human history. Trench warfare with all of its deadly technology became mechanized killing. The most enthusiastic German soldiers during the Great War (such as Hitler) became Nazi killers. Add prevailing racist "scientific" theories like Social Darwinism, eugenics, etc. that were prevalent worldwide at the time, which allowed dehumanizing entire peoples and explaining that genetics made them dangerous, were also crucial to the Holocaust. As Heinrich Himmler coldly put it, "[with the Jews] it is exactly as with delousing...It is a manner of cleanliness...We will soon be completely free of lice." McMillan also makes great use of general psychological theories and studies (Milgram, Zimbardo) to show group think, deference to authority, adaptation and diffusion of responsibility that are common to all humanity. He also points out that in every country in which the Nazis killed Jews they found willing accomplices in those countries.

In the end, McMillan does a fantastic job explaining all that unfolded in Germany for the Holocaust to occur. All of these factors tragically came together. But in the end, I was still left asking why.

***1/2 out of *****

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Dez Reviews 'Johnny Carson' by Henry Bushkin, 2013


The title of Henry Bushkin's "biography" of television giant Johnny Carson is a bit of a misnomer. A more appropriate title would have been 'My Adventures With Johnny' or 'Two Decades of Hanging Out With Carson.' Not that it was a bad read. In fact, in general, it was quite good. But in many respects it is just as much about the author (Carson's lawyer, pseudo-manager, tennis partner, entourage and fixer all wrapped into one from about 1970 through the late 80's) as it is about Carson himself. But that is appropriate, because as most people know already from his reputation, Carson was one of the most unknowable and cagey personalities in the history of show business. A straight biography would never really work beyond just surface facts because Carson was impossible to know. The only real way to approach a book about the man would be like this one, describing someone else's interractions with him.

That is, of course, a supreme irony because his persona and easy manner hosting The Tonight Show from 1962 to 1992 made him a warm and witty late night companion for millions. I remember watching Carson a lot near the end of his reign on television, and no matter the stresses of the day, it was great to sit down with Johnny and unwind. But as Bushkin (and many others have as well) points out, Carson was completely at home chatting it up with celebrities separated by his desk barrier and 20 million viewers on TV, but he was ill at ease at a small dinner party.

In person, Carson was a difficult man, to say the least. Bushkin started his association with him in the early 70's, when Carson rashly decided to get rid of his representation and start over with a young, unknown, inexperienced lawyer to help him out with one of his many divorces. One of Bushkin's first encounters with Carson entailed helping to break in to Carson's second wife's apartment to gather evidence of infidelity (it turns out she was sleeping with Frank Gifford). One of the more interesting aspects of this whole book was how working for Carson, especially in the capacity that Bushkin did, was a full time committment. Bushkin blames Carson's demands that "he be top priority" for the dissolution of his own marriage. But it also brought him wealth and the usual amenities associated with hanging out with one of the most powerful men in showbiz.

Again to the unknowable Carson. Part of it was perhaps his stoic Nebraska upbringing. Some of it, according to Bushkin, was his emotionally abusive mother. But Carson was not really open to anyone. Not his four wives, not his own children, not the A-List celebrities that he seemed to be so comfortable with on his show. Bushkin describes an at times generous man, but strictly on his terms. And he hated to be "pressured," as in asked for emotional support when he just was not capable of giving it. Two stories told in the book exhibit this dichotomy. His own son descended into suicidal mental illness and was hospitalized. He asked for his dad, but Carson refused to visit him. Instead, he sent Bushkin (his lawyer) daily to visit his son and make sure he was alright (Carson weakly rationalized this by saying if he showed up, it would create a media circus). On the other side of the coin, when Carson heard that the owner of one of his favorite steakhouses was having serious tax problems with the IRS, he sent the guy a $100,000 check.

Bushkin is a bit vague on their falling out. Carson abruptly fired him over some business dealing related to Carson's production company. But perhaps that was the way it was with everyone in Carson's orbit. Easy come, easy go, and the person left behind is a bit dumbfounded. The book is good, with plenty of entertaining anecdotes (such as when Carson drunkenly lunged across the table at Tom Snyder for little other reason than Carson hated his show, or when president Reagan had to call Carson personally and apologize after Carson felt slighted for being given the standard tour of the White House vs. a private one after Carson had hosted an innaugural ball) and with some very interesting insight into the business dealings with the networks. Afterall, it was Bushkin negotiating on Carson's behalf, so he has some considerable knowledge.

Regardless of the complicated and often petulant man that Carson was, his talent remains singular. I'll leave you with an extended quote that captures how special Carson was. Bushkin is describing a dinner party at the house of Henry Mancini. Carson is supposed to be there, but he is uncharacteristically late. Bushkin is amazed at these A-list Hollywood players nervously awaiting the arrival of the King of Late Night:

"And thus I was surprised that so many of these people made it a point, when getting a drink or another canape, to detour to my side of the room and quietly ask...'so where's Johnny?'...what was fascinating was the eagerness with which they asked...none of them knew Johnny well. It struck me that most of them genuinely wanted him to come...hoping to get to know him better. You could see how Johnny's general aloofness from the Hollywood scene actually drew people to him, how his relative unavailability on the social circuit restored the mystique that his nightly presence on the tube corroded...

And that's when most of these people had met Carson, on the set of the Tonight Show, where they developed an incredible respect for what he did. Despite their enormous talents, none of these actors could do what Carson did...they played characters, inhabited invented identities, brought to life a carefully constructed script. But Johnny took the stage just as himself, reliant mostly on his own native gifts. Night after night, he performed live to tape in a medium that permitted no rewrites if a line didn't work or no do-overs if someone messed up...When guests like Stewart or Kelly or Lemmon came on the Tonight Show, they were naked - no lines, no characters, no costumes, no director - just themselves. Carson helped them by drawing out the qualities that made them seem interesting, glamourous, witty and fun...he played the straight man to their jokester, the pupil to their master, the fan to their stardom...Carson's nightly exhibitions of wit, intelligence, grace and sheer showmanship set [the] standard for entertainment.

And on that night at the Mancinis, after hearing the eagerness and even tension in the voices of Hollywood's greatest luminaries as they asked for Carson, I saw the singular respect he'd earned among his peers. He was indeed a star among stars."

ABOVE: Nobody was better

*** out of *****