Too Much Information

New Blog

2011-05-08T20:42:00.000-04:00

Hi there!

You've probably noticed how I haven't posted anything here in ages.

Well I've officially abandoned this blog, but I've started a new one.

Here's the link: http://superfluae.blogspot.com/

If you enjoyed "Too Much Information" you might enjoy some of the things I write on my new blog.

Thanks for reading my stuff and hope to see you on my new corner of the internet

-- Meeg

Gulf Oil Spill

2010-06-07T00:50:00.003-04:00

Congratulations President Obama, the United States’ Gulf Coast is getting destroyed on your watch.

The Gulf oil spill began on April 20^th when the Deepwater Horizon moveable oil rig caught fire killing 11 roughnecks. Since then 5,000 barrels of oil a day have been gushing into the gulf. Grand Isle, Louisiana, the barrier island with a population of less than 2,000 which is always the first place to be evacuated any time there’s a hurricane, has been hard hit by the oil slick as have coastal wetlands in places such as Pass a Loutre. Tar balls have washed ashore on Petit Bois Island, Mississippi; Gulf Shores, Alabama and even as far as Pensacola, Florida. This is fast becoming the worst oil spill in our country’s history, and even if the leak were stopped today the environmental and economic impact will likely be affecting the region for decades to come. When will we feel safe to eat Louisiana oysters again? Will we feel safe to swim in places like Pass Christian, MS or to dive in places like Key Largo?

Containing oil on a scale like this and attempting to plug a leak 5,000 feet below the surface is unprecedented, and experts have come up with a list of innovative strategies which are being tried one-by-one in an attempt to stop the leak. Meanwhile BP is drilling relief wells but they aren’t scheduled to be completed until August! It’s a very slow process.

It’s hard not to shake the feeling that this is all proceeding with a lot more deliberation than urgency. While the Obama administration may have been active behind the scenes from the get go, many feel as though the president underestimated the disaster and didn’t make it a priority until recently. Democratic strategist James Carville, who is a native Louisianian, has been especially vocal in criticizing Obama’s seemingly hands-off attitude and his entrusting the cleanup, containment and plugging efforts in large part to BP. Obama is famous for his ability to keep calm under pressure and it is perhaps one of his greatest assets, but sometimes a situation calls for urgency and even rage. It’s easy to draw parallels to Bush’s mishandling of Hurricane Katrina.

It’s also hard to shake the impression that it is BP and not the government that is running the show down there. BP is the company responsible for this disaster, why are they being given such wide berth in deciding how its dealt with? I kind of think this is because no one really knows what to do and the government would rather point fingers at BP down the road than shoulder responsibility itself. To me this seems even worse than the financial crisis, where the government turned to the “experts” responsible for the meltdown to determine how to dig ourselves out of it.

And to think, before this happened Obama was in favor of expanding drilling off America’s coasts! This to me is despicable. Everyone knows that you can open up all the new wells you want and it won’t end our reliance on oil imported from overseas. Even the effect on domestic gas prices is debatable and at any rate it wouldn’t be felt for years. But still, Obama was willing to sign off on this in order to throw a bone to the “drill, baby, drill” crowd and so he could talk big about “ending our addiction to foreign oil.” The true result would be more profits for the oil companies and more states relying on the oil industry for jobs and revenue. Is this worth the environmental impact?

I think we can thank George W Bush, Dick Cheney and all the legislators (Republicans and Democrats) who are in the oil companies’ pockets for this catastrophe. Their “we trust you” approach to regulation and “we’ll look the other way” attitude towards oversight helped make this clusterfuck possible. One of the most egregious episodes is when oil companies were excused from paying royalties because of losses sustained after Hurricane Katrina. As if the oil sector were ever really in danger of becoming unprofitable.

BP is going to end up paying billions of dollars for this, but by then the damage will be done. Money can only do so much to clean contaminated wetlands or poisoned oyster beds, or to heal the region’s fishing and tourism industry. Still, I’m counting on a slow boil of public outrage which won’t peak until after the leak has stopped and the investigations into the oil spill’s causes and BP’s negligence begin in earnest. I’m hoping for hefty penalties, tougher regulation, and most of all I’m hoping that this will put to rest the debate on whether we should expand drilling.

Oh and a special “WTF?!” to Sarah Palin who actually suggested environmentalists were responsible for the oil leak because if it wasn’t for them we’d be drilling in Alaskan wildlife reserves INSTEAD OF in the Gulf of Mexico.

Images: May 17th satellite image of oil spill (NASA Goddard/Rob Gutro); AP photo taken at Passe a Lotre, Louisiana on May 22 found at Tampa Bay Online.

Looking back at 40 years of Python

2009-11-05T17:31:00.001-05:00

2009 marks the 40th anniversary of Monty Python's Flying Circus (the sketch comedy series that ran from 1969 to 1974). In honor of this milestone, IFC has been running a 6-hour documentary entitled Monty Python: Almost the Truth (The Lawyers Cut). I totally have not been watching that, but I am somewhat curious. It's supposedly chock full of all sorts of things you didn't know about the show and the Python crew. Maybe I'll have to netflix it, but -- then again -- do I really want to spend 6 hours of my life learning about Monty Python (6 hours that I could spend watching reality television)?

I have, however, listened to an episode of the Slate culture podcast (episode #57 dated Oct 21, 2009) in which they discuss the Python anniversary. I thought this raised an interesting question. Looking back on Monty Python's Flying Circus, 40 years later, how do we feel about the series? Is it still funny? Still relevant? Dated? Silly? Gendered? I really wanted to weigh in with my opinions, and I'm anxious to hear what everyone else thinks.

The Basics

For anyone who doesn't know, Monty Python is a 6-man comedy troupe comprised of Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Michael Palin, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Terry Gilliam. With the exception of Gilliam -- who is American (did you know that?) and went to Occidental College in California --, all the Python boys are Oxbridge educated Brits who got involved in the performing arts at university. Together they created, wrote and starred in the Flying Circus as well as the later Python movies (the big three are the Holy Grail, the Life of Brian and the Meaning of Life).

It's also interesting to see what the Python crew has been up to since the Meaning of Life came out in 1983. Graham Chapman died of cancer in 1989. John Cleese went on to write and star in Fawlty Towers together with Connie Booth ("Polly," whom he was married to); he was also in A Fish Called Wanda (along with Michael Palin), and some more recent stuff like those Pierce Brosnan Bond films where he played Q. Michael Palin's become well known for his globe-trotting television programs. Eric Idle (and his voice) has also popped up in some movies, and he co-produced the musical Spamalot. Meanwhile, Terry Gilliam has gone on to have a noteworthy career as a film director, and Terry Jones helped write the screenplay for Jim Henson's Labyrinth.

Getting back to the Flying Circus, today it's fondly remembered and lauded as influential. But back in the day the show had a hard time finding a wide audience, and its future often seemed uncertain. In the documentary, Michael Palin recalls how the group was often on the verge of splitting up, and yet Monty Python seems to have shaped all their future careers and there's still Python-related projects and collaborations going on today.

The Pros

Subversive

In Almost the Truth, Eric Idle talks about "Beyond the Fringe," a comedy stage revue which included Peter Cook and Dudley Moore and which inspired Monty Python. Idle says, "they attacked everything that I'd just spent 19 years being oppressed by: royalty, police, authorities, teachers -- every single authority figure was pilloried and destroyed, and my life just changed." We can of course say the same thing about the Flying Circus: among their favorite targets for lampooning are authority figures like policemen and the army as well as the bourgeoisie and the BBC establishment. In addition to being "angry young men" attacking authority figures, Monty Python can also be seen as representing the youth culture of the sixties rebelling against the staid, class-based society of post war years.

Intelligent

The fact that the Python crew are all university educated certainly comes through on the show: they reference the work of Marcel Proust, Latin conjugation, and philosophers like Descartes and Wittgenstein. One retrospective analysis I read (from the Independent) asked what show on TV today would dare to assume so much knowledge on the part of their audience; the critic also said that nowadays Python's name dropping would probably be descried as elitist. Nevertheless, I think all these schoolboy allusions are part of the reason that Monty Python still has a strong, cult following among nerdy high schoolers.

Innovative

Like the best sketch comedy shows, the Flying Circus usually connects its skits in some way. Sometimes there's a stream of consciousness flow where something mentioned at the end of one skit is picked up on in the next; other times the show keeps on coming back to a sketch that acts almost like a framing device. In still other episodes there may be a central theme or story that runs through the different segments. I suspect the Flying Circus may have been the first show to do this, and it influenced future programs like the Kids in the Hall, the State, Mr. Show and the Upright Citizens Brigade TV show.

Another innovative element is how the Flying Circus would play with the conventions of television. For example, sometimes the opening title sequence won't come on until well into the show and/or the closing credits would roll before the show was actually over. They'd also mimic the BBC interstitials with the spinning globe graphic and the announcer saying "Coming up next on BBC 2...."

Funny

Looking back, every bit of every episode of the Flying Circus may not be gold, but you're bound to find some skits that you still find hilarious. For my money, I've always enjoyed the longer skits like "The Funniest Joke in the World" from episode 1, Scott of the Antarctic, Dennis Moore (the story of a highwayman who steals from the rich and gives to the poor), Michael Ellis (the episode that revolves around a trip to the department store), the Golden Age of Ballooning, the Science Fiction episode where alien blancmanges attack. Another favorite of mine is "Happy Valley," which is a sort of fractured fairy tale. I was bummed to find out that that was not included on the ridiculous complete Flying Circus box set I bought on a whim in law school because it comes from a special made for German television.

The Cons

Silly

The absurdist nature of the Flying Circus might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't mind it. But, as that army general would say, some of the skits really are just silly. Occassionally Monty Python veers into slapstick or caterwalling in funny voices. Sometimes jokes are drawn out for so long that they try one's patience (I get restless just thinking about the interview of Johann Gambolputty...). And then there's those trippy cartoons which I more often than not find to be a snoozefest.

Sexist

Aah, now we're getting into the real sour note that you notice in retrospect. The Monty Python crew is obviously a boys club, and -- leaving aside how that might have affected the show's humor -- let's talk about the depiction of women on the Flying Circus. There are basically two types of female roles: attractive young women who at least half the time come off as ditzy. Even more often, these women are reduced to sex objects: they're frequently seen appearing in their underwear or making out with the (pasty, unattractive) Python boys.

The other type of female portrayed on the Flying Circus is the middle-aged, bourgeoise housewife played by one of the Python boys in drag -- employing that one-of-a-kind falsetto, familiar to anyone who's ever watched the show. More often than not, these ladies are shrewish and/or narrow-minded prudes, and they're usually the subject of ridicule.

Whether it keeps you from enjoying the show or not, I do think that it's hard to deny that by today's standards Monty Python's Flying Circus is pretty sexist. The only counterargument that I think one can make is that most of the male characters portrayed on the show are also ridiculed for being either stupid or pompous stuffed shirts (or both). I also think that the portrayal of women may have improved a bit in the Monty Python movies which came out in the '80s (cf. the female characters in the Life of Brian).

Homophobic

This goes along with the sexism charge. The Flying Circus sometimes depicts stereotypically effeminate, flamboyant homosexuals and cross-dressers for comedic effect. It's true that sometimes the true butt of the joke is actually the pompous, stuffed shirt homophobe (like the army general), but the campy homosexual is himself often held up for ridicule. After seeing the show again, probably for the first time since high school, I was really taken aback by this. Even the lumberjack song where it's revealed that the burly woodsman likes to "put on woman's clothing and hang around in bars" might be mildly off putting when viewed from this perspective.

Conclusion

Monty Python's Flying Circus was undeniably a ground breaking comedy show. Looking back, you'll find some skits that are still hilarious 40 years later, but there is also some filler and dull spots. Also, you'll definitely pick up on the fact that the Flying Circus is a product of the sixties and seventies and that our society's sensibilities about the depiction of women and gay people has changed a lot since then.

Bonus Question: If the Flying Circus is sexist than how racist is the character of Manuel from Fawlty Towers?!

Images: title image from Monty Python's flying circus; photo of Monty Python boys by AP found on the guardian website; photo of John Cleese and Graham Chapman and Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion from ew.com.

What can we (over)read into yesterday's election results?

2009-11-04T18:46:00.000-05:00

So yesterday was election day in America. Here in Virginia, voters chose Republican Bob McDonell, who is apparently crazy socially conservative, as our next governor over blue dog Democrat Creigh Deeds by around 59% to 41% (boo!). In the Great State of New Jersey, unpopular Democratic incumbent John Corzine lost his job as governor to moderate Republican (and fat man) Chris Christie circa 49% to 45%.

On the other hand, in New York's 23rd Congressional District (the northeast corner of the state up by the Adirondacks and Lake Champlain which includes the towns of Oswego and Plattsburg), Bill Owens became the first Democrat to hold this seat since the 1870s. He was up against a Conservative third-party candidate whom Sarah Palin campaigned for after the moderate Republican chosen in the primary bowed out of the race.

New York City Mayor Bloomberg was elected to a third term, winning around 51% of votes. This is a slim margin given that he spent over $30 million dollars campaigning, and he wasn't facing a strong opponent. And then in Maine (where my friend Leigh-Anne almost got her first speeding ticket on Saturday), 53% of voters cast their ballot in favor of repealing the state law authorizing gay marriage. (My source for all these numbers is cnn.com).

The Spin

So the one positive note for liberals, in yesterday's only contest for national office, is that the Democrats picked up another seat in the House (in an historically Republican district to boot). One might also say that the fact that there was a centrist Republican candidate and a conservative third-party candidate at one point in that race is possibly indicative of a division in the wider Republican party.

Meanwhile, right-wingers are celebrating the election of two new Republican governors and saying that -- together with the vote to repeal gay marriage in Maine -- this suggests that perhaps the pendulum is swinging back to the right and some independents and moderates who voted for Obama last November may be losing faith in Democratic leadership. But is this maybe reading too much into things? In reponse to AP articles entitled "GOP Sweep," Newsweek's Seth Colter Wallace wrote (in the Awl):

Wait: Virginia elected a conservative? And a moderate in New Jersey was able to unseat an unpopular incumbent? And a gay marriage thing that's never happened before also didn't happen last night? Well, it's a good thing you have me—Mr. or Ms. Political Analyst!—around to detail all the many troubling implications these developments carry for the guy on the national stage who received 69 million votes last year!

So what do I think? Well, first off, the idea that some of the multitude of swing voters who cast their ballot for Obama and the Democrats last year may be having doubts sounds plausible. To some folks who voted for Obama it may seem like nothing is getting done (did you see that SNL sketch?) or that things aren't getting done fast enough. Others may now have reservations about the Democratic agenda (especially healthcare reform) after hearing a lot of vocal criticism from the right.

But do yesterday's results really support this theory? It's hard to read too much into the New Jersey governor race for various reason (both candidates were moderates, Corzine was unpopular and plagued by corruption scandals, etc.); Virginia, however, seems more promising for those wishing to prognosticate about future elections. Before last year, Virginia had been a solid red state (the last time they voted for a Democratic presidential candidate was in 1964). But last November Virginia went to Obama, due in part to a fierce campaign offensive in the state, and perhaps also to demographic shifts. But now Virginia just elected a conservative, Republican governor (the Republicans actually won all the state offices up for grabs in VA): does this mean some of those Obama voters have abandoned the Democratic party?

Possibly. It's also possible that many Virginians based their decision on local issues. Likewise, I'd argue that Creigh Deeds -- a conservative, blue dog Democrat -- probably didn't energize the party's liberal base and that probably affected things somewhat. The Wall Street Journal tells us that many independents voted for the Republican ticket this time, but also that the young people and Blacks who elected Obama were not enamored with Deeds. So I don't know!

The Exit Polls

Last night I inadvertently caught a few irritating minutes of ABC Nightline where George Stephanopolous parsed the exit polls looking for clues. Ugh, exit polls! These are always used in order to make upsetting generalizations such as "people in red states [such as Louisiana where I lived at the time] are more likely to go to church and cast their vote based on 'values' rather than issues such as the economy, foreign wars, etc."

Incidentally, I was totally asked to participate in one of these yesterday morning as I was leaving the polling place, but I declined since I was in a hurry to get to work and I didn't really know/care all that much about the candidates in this election (That's right, AND I STILL VOTED! Want to make something of it?!). But now I half wish I did stop and put in my two cents.

So anyway, what did Nightline tell us. Question #1 was whether voters approved of President Obama: in NJ 57% answered "yes" and in VA 49% said they support the pres. Eh, not TOO troubling for Obama: that's a good approval rating among NJ voters and just shy of fifty percent in the Old Dominion (he might want to keep his eye on that one).

Question #2 was whether their opinion of the Pres affected their vote, and a majority in both states (60% in NJ and 56% in VA said "no"). Yeah, that right there tells you why the media shouldn't interpret every state election as a vote of confidence for the party in power in Washington.

"BUT WAIT," says Nightline, "let's look at Question #3 -- that's the big one! 89% of NJ voters and 85% of VA voters polled say they are worried about the economy. It's the economy stupid!" That last sentence was actually a direct quote spoken by dumbass Terry Moran. To this I say: NO SHIT! We're in a fucking recession; if they asked me if I was worried about the economy I would have answered "yes" too, and I still support Obama and the Democrats. What I'm saying is that the fact that someone is worried about the economy doesn't necessarily tell you how they're going to vote in the midterm elections next year. It's party neutral. An article I read in the times online uses these numbers to support their article entitled "New Jersey and Virginia tells Obama -- we blame you for the economy" but that is quite a leap.

Stephanopolous' suggestion that yesterday's results might give some Democrats pause and might even lead to less votes by squeamish Congressmen in favor of healthcare reform is somewhat more sound. But still, we're talking about two governor races! People shouldn't read too much into this.

Patchwork Nation

You know what else I hate? Have you ever checked out that Patchwork Nation shit? This is a project sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor which divides the nation's counties into 12 different types of communities with names like "campus and careers" (lots of college students and young workers), "minority central," "boom town," "industrial metropolis" and "evangelical epicenter."

It is kind of interesting, but then I feel like they make broad statements about what's going on in "teenytowns" or whatever across the country and about how people there tend to vote. I think that this is just another way (albeit a somewhat more precise way) of making generalizations. For example: Arlington County, VA where I live and Westchester County, NY where my mom lives are both "Monied Burbs," but I think there are way more young professionals who are either single or just starting a family in Arlington and more older people in Westchester, and I doubt that we vote the same way on different issues. Likewise, New Orleans, LA (Orleans Parish) and neighboring Jefferson Parish are both labelled as "Minority Central," but there is a big difference in those two populations. John Kerry won over 75% of the votes in Orleans Parish and just 38% in the JP.

Conclusions

We shouldn't read too much into last night's results. When the smoke cleared there are two more Republican governors out there, gays can't get married in Maine anymore, and the Democrats picked up a seat in the House. VA and NJ might suggest support for the Democrats is waning among swing voters, but the numbers seem to discourage any big statements. Likewise, the race in NY-23 suggests that there may be a struggle for power between the conservative and centrist wings of the Republican party.

One thing we can all agree on, however, is that the media should stop trying to make every local election into a referendum on the party in power in Washington, and they should stop making gross generalizations about what Americans think based on exit polls.

Image: photo of Bob McDonnell celebrating his victory by Mark Wilson/Getty Images found on timesonline.

Good Old-Fashioned Cooking

2009-10-28T18:28:00.013-04:00

That post on umami, for some reason, got me thinking about Ancient Roman cuisine. Did you ever wonder what they ate in Ancient Rome? Let's discuss.

What they didn't eat

First off, when you think about food in Ancient Rome (or Medieval Europe for that matter), it's important to keep in mind the many products we take for granted today that would have been unknown to them. Not only things like coffee, chocolate, bananas and corn but also tomatoes, potatoes, chilis and cane sugar -- all of these are indigenous to the Americas and would not be introduced to the Old World for centuries.

Carbs

The staple of the Roman diet was wheat (remember that in the first century BC they started doling out free grain to the poor masses in the city of Rome). In the early days of the Republic, the Romans subsisted on barley and emmer grown on Italian soil. Emmer is one of the most ancient forms of cultivated wheat: compared to modern wheats it's low yield, it's a pain in the neck to remove the grain from it's hull, and it's less suitable for making leavened bread. On the other hand, emmer is flavorful, relatively high in protein and it grows well in poor soil. Today, emmer is only cultivated in a few parts of the world, but it's popularity is on the rise due to interest in different types of whole grains. In Italy, emmer is called farro and it is often encountered in Tuscan cuisine. Early Romans probably made a porridge out of emmer (maybe mixed with other grains like barley or with legumes like lentils or chickpeas) which could be eaten alone or with whatever other food was available.

By the Imperial age, Romans were importing most of their wheat from overseas provinces such as Egypt. Most of this was durum wheat (hard wheat), which is what most pasta is made out of today. This wheat was used to make bread (which could be dipped in olive oil, honey, wine, whatever...), pancakes which could be eaten with honey and dates (doesn't sound too bad), and other pastries. Poor citizens who lived in tenements might have baked their bread in communal ovens, and by the Late Republic there were also commercial bakeries that sold pre-made baked goods. One simple Roman pastry dish was globuli which were balls of cheese curd and semolina (durum flour) fried in olive oil and probably seasoned with honey. The Romans also made a type of proto-lasagna called laganum (one of the main things that distinguishes this from modern pasta is that it is fried rather than boiled). There is a restaurant in the modern city of Pompei (not far from the ruins) called Il Principe where they actually serve laganum and other Ancient Roman dishes.

Proteins

Eating meat was something of a luxury in Ancient Rome: poorer Romans probably ate very little meat whereas during the decadent late Republic/High Roman Empire the wealthy might impress their guests by serving exotic animals such as peacocks, flamingos, giraffe, lions and who-knows-what-else at their feasts. Beef was rarely eaten since cattle were important work animals, and the majority of beef available for consumption probably came from animals sacrificed in religious ceremonies (the same may apply to lamb). Chickens were also important for production, and thus you were more likely to find other poultry like ducks and geese (raised for their meat) and game birds at the table. The Romans even knew how to make fois gras. Pork, on the other hand, was probably the most common type of meat found in Ancient Rome: the Romans raised pigs and hunted wild boar.

Fish, oysters and other seafood were well liked, but they were probably hard to come by at any distance from the seaside due to issues preserving food. Fish were likely transported live to large cities like Rome where they were sold out of tanks in the marketplace (no doubt at a high price). The Romans also experimented with farming their own fish in private and commercial fisheries (including "goatfish" or red mullets which were held in especially high regard).

The Romans also bred snails (escargot) and rabbits for food, but by far the weirdest animal which they ate regularly and raised for its meat was the edible dormouse (which has a bushy tail and looks more like a squirrel than a mouse). Romans loved their dormice, and one of the most frequently cited recipes in the Apicius cookbook (available from Amazon) is for dormouse stuffed with ground pork and dormouse meat, chopped nuts and breadcrumbs and spiced with salt, pepper, silphium (see spice section below) and broth. Interestingly enough, wild dormice are still hunted in southern Slovenia where they are a seasonal delicacy.

Spices

The Romans loved to flavor their food with different spices and seasonings. We all know that salt was a minor luxury in Ancient Rome: the Romans harvested sea salt and had rock salt mines where slaves and convicted criminals toiled. Rome also imported spices from distant lands to feed her people's frenzy for flavah. A surprisingly large number of the spices we are familiar with today could be found in a well-stocked Roman kitchen (although perhaps in a slightly different form): they had black pepper, garlic, parsley, mint, dill, sage, oregano, thyme, bay leaves, saffron, basil, clove, cardamon, cumin, cinnamon, coriander, ginger, fennel, celery seed, anis, caraway, sesame seed, poppy.

Even more interesting are the herbs and spices listed in Apicius' recipes that are not widley used today. Here's a list of some of these:

Silphium: one of the Roman's favorite herbs, silphium grew wild in Northern Libya around the city of Cyrene (founded as a Greek colony in the 7th century BC). Silphium was such an important local export that it was featured on the city's coins. Unfortunately, by the late Roman Empire the herb had gone extinct, presumably due to overharvesting and/or overgrazing (it couldn't be domesticated, apparently). Most people's best guess is that silphium was related to the giant fennel plant. The Greeks and Romans liked to use a resin obtained from the plant in their cooking, and after silphium went the way that the dodo later would, they substituted the Indian asafoetida (see below) although everyone agreed it wasn't as good. This is maybe our only clue as to what sillphium tasted like. The ancients also believed the herb had contraceptive properties (all the more reason to eat up!).

Asafoetida (aka Devil's Dung): the gross-out English name comes from the strong, noxious odor given off by the fresh plant which is remotely similar to overripe garlic. Used in cooking, however, asafoetida must be much more appetising. It was popular not only in the Roman world but also in Medieval Europe and, althought it's since fallen by the wayside in Western cooking, it is still widely used today in India and Central Asia. Asafoetida is an alternative to garlic or onion: its resin (used by the Romans in place of silphium) is stronger and more pungent than the powdered form.

Long Pepper: often used by the Romans in place of black pepper, long pepper is a close relative with a similar flavor only with a bit of a spicy kick. Long Pepper remained popular in Europe until the arrival of chili peppers.

Rue: an intensely bitter herb whose use in cooking has mostly fallen out of favor. Rue was common in Roman cuisine, used for example in the rustic dish moretum which was a spread made out of fresh garlic, aged cheese (probably "pecorino" made from sheep's milk) and different herbs. Today rue is most widely used in Ethiopia.

Spikenard/Fleabane: an herb with a pleasant fragrance and an aromatic, bitter, astringent taste which is related to valerian (an herbal sedative). In later days it seems to have been more commonly used for perfumes and incense and as a herbal remedy.

Savory: an herb still used in European cuisine today, especially to flavor bean dishes. Savory is similar to thyme and to the Indian spice ajwain. It is often included in herbes de provence.

Lovage: an herb still found in Southern and Central European cooking. It is aromatic and works well for pickling (like dill) and in beef stock and potato dishes.

Fenugreek: largely abandoned in Western cooking, where some characterize its flavor as bitter and "goaty," fenugreek is still used in countries like Iran and India.

Pennyroyal: a bitter, pungent and less agreeable member of the mint family, pennyroyal is also somewhat toxic and has been used as an abortifacient.

Sauces

The Romans had some weird ideas about how to flavor their food. A lot of dishes were served in a syrupy sweet-and-sour sauce. The sweet element could be comprised of honey, fig syrup, or a grape juice/sweet wine reduction, and the sour component was probably vinegar. Add to that some garum (see below, some people believe that brine also featured heavily in Roman cooking) and some of those bitter herbs and funky spices and you have a dish that modern gourmets would likely find inedible.

A good example of this is the sauce for boiled or roasted game found in Apicius which calls for "8 scruples of pepper, rue, lovage, celery seed, juniper, thyme, dry mint; 6 scruples of fleabane; pulverize, put together in a vessel with sufficient honey and use with vinegar and garum." There is a lot going on in that sauce. Two possible explanations for why the Romans cooked like this are that (a) it was considered a mark of refinement among the upper classes to serve dishes that were so heavily seasoned as to disguise the natural flavor of the meat and (b) heavy sauces and spices could cover up the fact that meat was beginning to turn.

Garum was one of the Romans' favorite condiments, and it is by far the most misunderstood mainstay of the Roman pantry. It is made from fermented fish (usually anchovies or mackerel). When I first heard about garum in high school or college I remember being like "eww, gross." But when I looked it up more recently -- curious about whether anyone's ever tried to recreate it and maybe wanting to try it out myself -- I discovered that garum is basically the same thing as Southeast Asian fish sauce (something I have in my pantry anyway). Much like soy sauce, fish sauce is splashed into food in order to add salt and umami to a dish (now we see the connection to the umami post!), but I'd say it has a much richer flavor profile. On its own it does have a slightly funky odor, but this quickly disappears onces its stirred into a pot of curry or a bowl of soup. Meanwhile Worcestshire sauce, which also contains anchovies, is often pointed to as garum's successor in Anglo-American cuisine.

Wine

The Romans drank a lot of wine, but they were also wusses about it: they normally diluted their wine with water or flavored it with honey (muslum, traditionally served as an aperitif and extremely popular) or a mixture of honey and spices (conditum). Poor Romans could have gotten drunk on a mixture of water and crappy wine that was basically a step away from vinegar: I guess this was the ancient equivalent of Mad Dog or Thunderbird.

They had both red and white wine in Rome; normally the wine came out cloudy and would be strained. Many advances in the art of viticulture were made during this time: wine was transported and preserved in clay jugs where pitch, resin, saltwater and olive oil were among the substances employed to prolong freshness (flavoring could also be added to mask the fact that wine had past its prime). Fine wines were aged in large jugs sealed with cork and cement. The Romans also planted vineyards throughout their empire introducing varieties of grapes to Spain, Southern France and even Britain.

Aged wines tended to fetch a higher price, and the most highly-prized variety was the full-bodied Falerno which was grown in the mountains between Rome and Naples (where wine is still produced today). Wine was the strongest drink around in Roman times as the process for distilling liquors would not be discovered in Europe until the 1200s.

Images: fresco of "still life with eggs and thrushes" taken from Villa Giulia Felice in Pompeii and Pompeian fresco depicting the goddess Flora are both on display in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples, Italy; photo of Slovenian dormouse dish by Borut Peterlin found on gourmet.com; photo of silver didrachym from Cyrene c.300 BC located at Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, University of Glasgow Scotland found at scran website; image of garum mosaic from the house of A. Umricius Scaurus in Pompeii found on times online; wine servers mosaic from Roman Tunisia found on tunisia online.

Umami: In Search of the Fifth Flavor

2009-10-22T18:57:00.003-04:00

I think I can remember in grade school learning how there are four tastes: sweet, sour, bitter and salty. (Incidentally, there was a girl I went to college with whom I called "Salty" -- that might sound obscene, but it's not. Someone gave her that nickname for "throwing salt in people's game." Now I guess it just sounds stupid. Anyway...) I even remember seeing a little diagram that showed where the tastebuds that detected these different flavors were located on your tongue. It turns out that like so much we learned in school (glass is a liquid, really?!) that diagram was bullshit. There are taste receptors all over your tongue that can detect any of the tastes; just try putting some salt on the tip of your tongue where the sweet tastebuds are supposed to congregate.

Also, everybody now agrees that there is a fifth taste called "umami." Umami's been around for awhile: I think I first read about it around 5 years ago. I started thinking about umami again earlier this month after I mentioned it to Amanda and realized that I still wasn't really sure what this taste sensation is like. So I decided to write a blog post and to try and get a better idea what umami is all about. I also wanted to find some examples of foods which illustrate this elusive fifth element of taste.

The Four Classic Tastes

Before we start on our quest to uncover the secret of umami, maybe we'd better make sure we have a good grasp on the four classic tastes. Sweet and salty are no-brainers -- sugar makes food sweet and salt makes foods salty --, but how clear are we on the difference between sour and bitter?

Sour is the flavor that characterizes those ingredients which chefs say add acid to a dish such as lemon and vinegar. The sour tang is what makes greek yogurt (and skyr) taste different from regular ole Dannon/Danone yogurt; it is also what distinguishes buffalo mozzarella from cow-milk mozzarella. The sour taste sensation is basically your tongue detecting something acidic (i.e. something with a PH level below 7.0) in the food you're eating such as citric acid, a chemical compound present in citrus fruit. Citric acid levels are much higher in lemons and limes than they are in oranges, tangerines and grapefruit which explain why they are more sour. Meanwhile, the acid in vinegar is called acetic acid (acetum is the Latin word for vinegar. In Italian the word is aceto.).

The bitter taste, on the other hand, is your tongue detecting some other kind of chemical in the food you're eating. Bitter foods include a lot of greens which are used in Italian cuisine such as dandelion greens, escarole, broccoli rabe (one of my mom's favorite foods) and what we in the States call arugula (the Brits call it "rocket" and in Italian it's usually called "rucola"). Also olives and brussel sprouts. Bitter drinks include coffee and tonic water (it's the quinine that makes tonic water so bitter). Scientists say that our tongues' bitter taste receptors are the most sensitive. The evolutionary reason for this, and for why most people find overly bitter foods unpleasant, is because many toxic substances trigger this taste sensation. Another interesting fact is that there are a couple of chemicals which trigger a bitter taste sensation for some people and not others. These people are sometimes called "supertasters."

The Discovery of Umami

The story of umami begins in 1908 at Tokyo Imperial University. There a chemist named Kikunae Ikeda was studying dashi, the kelp broth which is a basic ingredient in Japanese cooking, and he managed to isolate glutamate (i.e. glumatic acid) as the chemical which gave it its characteristic flavor which he dubbed "umami" (旨味) after "umai" (うまい) which means something like "delicious" or "savory" in Japanese. Ikeda went on to find that glutamate was also present in other savory foods, and in 1912 he presented his findings to the International Conference of Applied Chemistry in Washington, DC stating that “those who pay careful attention to their tastebuds will discover in the complex flavor of asparagus, tomatoes, cheese and meat, a common and yet absolutely singular taste which cannot be called sweet, or sour, or salty, or bitter…."

After this it was discovered that other chemicals such as guanylate which is found in shitake mushrooms and inosinate found in bonito (dried fish) flakes were also associated with the umami taste. More recently, in the '70s and '80s, studies by scientists in other countries have confirmed that umami triggers a distinct neurological response from the other tastes (like saltiness) and that the human tongue has seperate umami taste receptors. Since then, awareness of "umami" as the fifth taste has spread in the culinary world. It was even featured in one of the challenges on this season's Top Chef where one of the cheftestants helpfully defined it as "you know... it's umami... it's the fifth flavor." Thanks for clearing that up!

The Taste of Umami

So that's all great but what does umami actually taste like? Some attempts to translate the term into English have yielded results such as savoriness, meatiness, heartiness and brothiness. As these words suggest, umami is actually much subtler and harder to pin down that sweet, salty, sour and bitter. Further complicating the picture is the fact that umami foods are often salty as well, so you need to try to put the saltiness aside and focus on what else is there. That said, in order to really understand the umami taste sensation I think we need to discuss (and eat) some different foods which are rich in umami.

Foods Rich in Umami

Broths usually have an umami taste whether we're talking about beef broth or vegetable broth. In addition to Japanese style soups made with kombu kelp, shitake mushrooms or bonito flakes, french onion soup is also very umami.

A lot of dried and fermented foods also tend to have a strong umami taste. Marmite/vegemite, the yeast extract spread "enjoyed" by Britons and Australians, is very umami (in addition to being very salty) as is Worcestershire sauce, fish sauce (made from fermented anchovies), soy sauce and oyster sauce. Fresh oysters and shitake and enoki mushrooms contain umami flavors which are intensified when they're fermented or dried. Other umami foods include nori seaweed (encountered in sushi rolls and seaweed salads), caviar and salmon roe, parmesan cheese, and tomatoes (that's why they call them "beefy").

The food additive MSG (monosodium glutamate) is the most common spice used to enhance foods' umami taste. MSG gets a bad rap for being artificial and for its unappetizing, chemical name, but its actually produced by fermenting carbohydrates. A lot of people also claim they have a vague allergic reaction to MSG, e.g. that it gives them a headache, that it makes their fingers feel puffy or numb, or that it causes asthma-like symptoms. I'm not 100% anti-MSG, but one time when I was at the supermarket with Nicole I found one of those giant spice containers (like you might get garlic powder or red pepper flakes in) filled with MSG and we were both like "Gross! Who would buy that?"

Primal Strips Meatless Jerky

Speaking of umami... I noticed last week that at the healthy food/juice place where I like to get lunch (the Juice Joint Cafe of Vermont Avenue) they started selling these vegan jerky strips. I was kind of intrigued by these and the flavors that stood out were Thai Peanut with Seitan and Hot & Spicy Shitake Mushroom. So yesterday I decided I was going to go for it and try one. I was actually leaning towards the Thai Peanut but Nicole (perhaps the only other person I know who would be intrigued by the prospect of vegan jerky strips) convinced me to go for the Hot & Spicy Shitake Mushroom ("I do love hot & spicy," I remember typing). So anyway I bought some with lunch and ripped into it later that afternoon.

The taste was... interesting. I remember thinking "wow that's umami!" Shitake mushrooms and soy sauce are ingredients #1 and 3, respectively. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure if I liked it: the flavor is complex, and I can't say whether I might grow to enjoy it (this happens to me all the time. I have ambiguous feelings about some new food, but then later I start to think about it, and then to sort of crave it, and then I try it again and pronounce that I love it. I'm weird, I know.) or maybe I'll end up deciding that it's just nasty. Next time I'm going to try the thai peanut; I bet that will be less complicated.

Conclusions

So I feel like I have a bit of a better idea what umami is all about now. I still don't really know how to describe it -- calling it meaty or brothy is really just saying that meats and broths have this taste, I guess savory is slightly more evocative. I do feel, however, even though my concept of umami is fuzzy that I enjoy and actively seek out foods which have this taste. If you want to go on your own quest to figure out the essence of umami I'd recommend you try something like vegemite, an authentic Japanese soup (like miso soup) with a dashi base and/or with shitake or enoki mushrooms, or maybe a good French onion soup. If you can find it and you're adventurous you can even try that "interesting" Primal Strips Hot & Spicy Shitake Mushroom jerky and let me know what you think.

For additional information, I direct you to the Umami Information Center.

Images: Umami map taken from umami information center; dashi photograph found on humble bean blog; marmite photo; marmite photograph taken from ryansgoblog; hot & spicy jerky photo taken from primalspiritfoods.com .

Scientists weigh in on inbred Spanish royals

2009-10-19T21:28:00.004-04:00

Remember my series of posts on inbreeding earlier this year? What's that? You didn't read those? Well, anyway a study was published this spring which adds scientific support to the theory that the decline and fall of Spain's Habsburg dynasty was due to excessive inbreeding. This hypothesis, along with the suggestion that King Carlos II's varied health problems were due to inbreeding depression, has long been espoused by historians, but this is the first time that the claims have been analyzed based on genetic data.

In April, the online scientific/medical journal PLoS One published a paper submitted by three biologists from La Coruña, Spain (in Galicia) entitled "The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty." Scientists first reconstructed a genealogy of the Spanish Habsburgs, including 3,000 individuals across 16 generations, in order to determine the inbreeding coefficient for each of the Habsburg Kings of Spain. Next, they looked at the incidence of late-term miscarriage, stillbirth and infant/childhood mortality (defined here as death before the age of 10) in the family between 1527 and 1661. Finally, the biologists catalogue Carlos II's physical and mental shortcomings and hypothesize that these might have been due to his affliction with two rare genetic diseases.

How inbred were they?

9 out of the 11 marriages entered into by the Habsburg kings were marriages between close relatives (third cousins or closer): these include two uncle-niece marriages, one double first cousin marriage, and one first cousin marriage. How inbred an individual is can be measured by calculating his "inbreeding coefficient," which is defined as the probability of a zygote obtaining identical copies of the same gene because its parents are related. The inbreeding coefficient of the kings studied ranges from .025 for Philip I (Felipe el hermoso, 1478-1506), the dynasty's founder, to .254 for Carlos II (1661-1700), the last Habsburg King of Spain.

This means that Carlos II's inbreeding coefficient is actually HIGHER than that for the offspring of a parent-child or brother-sister union (.25), and it would mean that there was at least a 25.4% chance of Carlos II having received identical copies of any given gene from each parent. Several other members of the family also had inbreeding coefficients over .20 including King Philip III (1578-1621) and Don Carlos, Prince of Asturias (1545-1568), the child of Philip II and his first wife Maria Manuela of Portugal. Don Carlos had his own physical and psychological complaints which might be attributable to inbreeding.

The kings' average inbreeding coefficient was .129 (higher than the coefficient for the offspring of uncle-niece or half-brother/half-sister unions). How is this possible? The paper explains that these high coefficients were as much due to ancestral inbreeding among multiple remote ancestors as they were to unions between close relatives among an individual's parents and grandparents. Thus, one has to go back 10 or more generations in order to get a complete picture of how inbred these people were.

Infant mortality rate

Between 1527 (the year of Philip II's birth) and 1661 (the year of Carlos II's birth) the Habsburg kings and queens produced 34 children, of whom 10 died before completing their 1st year and 17 (50%) died before their tenth birthday. This is significantly higher than the 20% infant mortality rate observed in Spanish villages around this time. The latter statistic, moreover, includes poorer families whose children were adversely affected by malnutrition or limited access to medical treatment, whereas these factors would not have been an issue for the royal family.

The scientists also examined a separate set of data: looking at the pregnancies recorded by historical sources in 8 marriages (the marriages of the Spanish kings from Ferdinand and Isabella up to the two marriages of Carlos II's father Philip IV, excluding the first two marriages of Philip II that produced only one child between them). Out of 51 reported pregnancies, 5 ended in late-term miscarriage or stillbirth, 6 produced babies who died within a month, 14 more produced children who died before age 10, and 26 children who survived infancy. When statistically analyzing this data together with inbreeding coefficients, the study found a significant correlation between the inbreeding coefficient and deaths before the age of 10. This would suggest that excessive inbreeding may have had a negative effect on infant mortality in the families of the Habsburg Kings of Spain. Further bolstering this theory are other studies which show a correlation between infant mortality and unions between closely related individuals (e.g. first cousins).

This makes me think of what I found out about Carlos II's sister Margarita Teresa (1651-1673) when researching the first post. The infanta, who married her uncle Leopold I and who died at the age of 21, had four children: three who died before the age of 2 and one daughter Maria Antonia (1669-1692) who lived to be 23. None of Maria Antonia's three children with her husband Maximillian Emanuel of Bavaria survived to adulthood.

What was wrong with Carlos II?

The paper did a good job of cataloging Carlos' symptoms based on historical sources. We're told Carlos II was a "weak breast-fed baby" and that he had a disproportionately large head. He didn't manage to speak until age 4 or to walk until age 8, and he grew up to be short, weak and thin. The biologists characterize his personality as "abulic" (apparently meaning that he was uninterested in his environment and apathetic). As for reproductive problems, we all know Carlos II had no offspring: his first wife complained of premature ejaculation and his second said he was impotent. Carlos also suffered from occasional hematuria (blood in urine) and gastro-intestinal problems (diarrhea, vomiting). At 30, we're told he looked prematurely old and that parts of his lower body and face were swollen from edema. In later life, Carlos could barely stand on his own and he was afflicted with hallucinations and convulsions. He died at the age of 39 after an illness characterized by fever, abdominal pain, breathing difficulty and coma.

The possible explanation for Carlos' problems offered in the paper is that he may have suffered from two rare conditions: combined pituitary hormone deficiency (CPHD) and distal renal tubular acidosis (dRTA). CPHD refers to impaired production of growth hormone and other hormones produced by the anterior pituitary gland. It is associated with short stature, hypotonia (low muscle tone), apathetic personality, gastrointestinal problems, and infertility/impotence. The condition is also exacerbated by physical stress which can result in abdominal pain and fever. dRTA, on the other hand, is the condition which results when the kidneys are not removing acid from the blood normally. Symptoms include muscular weakness, rickets, hematuria and a disproportionately large head.

It is only a hypothesis that Carlos II suffered from these two conditions, and the paper's authors are careful to point out that both disorders can be caused by environmental factors as well as genetics. Moreover, in a comment on the paper, a group of doctors dispute the claim that Carlos II suffered from dRTA as unlikely. Nevertheless, Carlos' high inbreeding coefficient makes it much more likely that he may have inherited a recessive genetic disorder, rarely occurring in the population as a whole. In order to inherit a recessive genetic disorder one must receive "bad copies" of the same gene from both parents, and as we said above Carlos' inbreeding coefficient tell us that he had a 25.4% chance of receiving identical copies from both parents for any given gene. What's more, another study shows that genetic homozygosity (i.e. possessing two identical forms of the same gene) for related individuals is often even greater than their pedigree suggests (probably because unrelated or distantly related individuals in the gene pool also have identical copies of the same gene sometimes). This would make the chances even greater.

Conclusion

So, to sum up: the Habsburg Kings of Spain became much more inbred than the population as a whole, and their families were affected by an unusually high infant mortality rate (50% of their children died before age 10). A statistical analysis in this and other studies shows a significant correlation between inbreeding and infant mortality. Thus, one could theorize that the high incidence of inbreeding adversely impacted the Habsburg children's chances of surviving to adulthood.

Spain's last Habsburg king, Carlos II, was even more inbred than the child of a brother-sister union, and thus his chances of having inherited a recessive genetic disorder were greatly increased. He was also mentally and physically handicapped, and he died childless at age 39. Based on his symptoms as recorded by historians, scientists hypothesize that he may have suffered from something like combined pituitary hormone deficiency and/or distal renal tubular acidosis -- two rare conditions sometimes caused by inherited genetic defects.
Now I would really like to see scientists study this man's DNA to better determine how homozygous his genes were and what genetic conditions he may have suffered from.

Images: Portrait of Don Carlos by Alonso Sánchez Coello and portrait of Margarita Teresa by Jan Thomas van Ieperen both on display at Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum and both found on wikipedia.

Alexander McQueen

2009-10-17T16:31:00.058-04:00

I've already sent this link to a few people so I figured that's reason enough to share it on the ole blog. Anyway on this site Jezebel, which is kind of like Gawker but geared towards young women with a post-feminist sensibility, they posted a bunch of photographs from Alexander McQueen's fashion show in Paris earlier this month. The show had a sort of futuristic/space theme, and everything looks really artistic and innovative. At the same time, some of the dresses and stuff are borderline someone-could-actually-get-away-with-wearing- them. It's all women's fashion so obviously I'd have no reason to be buying any of this stuff (even in my rich fantasy life where money is no object), but sometimes I enjoy just looking at fashion shows and photography like this and being like "ooh pretty." This is probably an outlying symptom of being a culture junkie. If you're interested in seeing more there's a video and stuff on Alexander McQueen's website.

Coincidentally, I did buy this awesome paisley dress shirt not too long ago from that online discount clothing site Gilt.com (want to join?), which -- it turns out -- is also by Alexander McQueen. Here's a photo that was taken when some of the H-town girls were visiting DC. (See that? I knew I could find a way to make this post all about me). I'm not super pleased with my squinty, pudgy face in the photo but anyways you can kind of see the shirt... and also the new pair of glasses I bought in July.

SONG I'M LISTENING TO RIGHT NOW: Harrison Schaaf - Karate (I Make It Rain) ft. Lil Wayne.

Images: photo from Alexander McQueen's spring 2010 fashion show taken on October 3, 2009 in Paris by FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP/Getty Images and found on Jezebel.

Tim Burton and Alice in Wonderland

2009-10-16T17:28:00.006-04:00

Last week I expressed reservations about Terry Gilliam's new movie The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. But there is another film, coming out next year, whose trailer has me even more troubled -- Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.

My initial reaction was that this version of Alice is unrecognizable. Judging by the trailer, the movie's atmosphere is going to be very dark and there will be little to none of the air of the sunny English garden which we usually associate with Alice. These visual clues are reinforced by the voiceover's assertion that this Wonderland is "a land full of wonder, mystery and danger." I am all for bringing a new twist to an old classic, but the trailer also makes the movie look like the million other children's fantasy movies that have come out in the last 5 years (Harry Potter, the Golden Compass, the Chronicles of Narnia...). Plus they seem to have gone heavy on the CGI, and the movie is going to be released in 3-D. Oh dear, oh dear, so much to discuss...

Tim Burton

I'm a fan of what Tim Burton does, but most of his recent films didn't really do it for me. His trademark gothic style worked great in movies like Beetlejuice (my absolute favorite movie when I was 13yo), Edward Scissorhands and Batman, but I think it's starting to get stale. And if we look at his attempts at adapting and reimagining familiar stories the track record isn't good. Sleepy Hollow was almost wholly without merit -- as you would expect when people take a short story and stretch it out into a cookie cutter feature-length film. Planet of the Apes I didn't see, but it looks bizarre and totally different from the original (like aren't there apemen in battle armor?). Charlie and the Chocolate Factory just begged for comparison with the beloved musical version of Willy Wonka from the '70s, and it was clearly the inferior of the two. I also haven't seen Sweeney Todd yet, but it looked like it was really dark and gloomy. Nicole summed up my feelings pretty well a while back in her open letter to Tim Burton: branch out, stop doing the same tired ole thing, and why you gotta put Johnny and Hel-Hel in all your films? It's no coincidence that my favorite later Tim Burton film -- possibly my favorite of all his films -- was the marvellous Big Fish which was in many ways a departure. Big Fish had some gothic and fantasy elements but this was counter-balanced by sunshine and a strong basis (physical and emotional) in reality.

Tim Burton speaks about Alice

Burton first discussed the Alice project in depth in an interview a year ago. This is what he had to say:

It's a funny project. The story is obviously a classic with iconic images and ideas and thoughts. But with all the movie versions, well, I've just never seen one that really had any impact to me. It's always just a series of weird events. Every character is strange and she's just kind of wandering through all of the encounters as just a sort of observer. The goal is to try to make it an engaging movie where you get some of the psychology and kind of bring a freshness but also keep the classic nature of 'Alice.'

Tim specifically refers to the 1951 Disney cartoon which a lot of us are familiar with. Most people would agree that this wasn't the greatest: the movie was kind of Fantasia lite -- a series of diverting images and scenes lacking the artistry and beauty of the 1940 film, and the Alice story is rendered in a bland way -- half-Americanized and wiping away any Victorian elements which modern children wouldn't understand.

The Alice books

The two Alice books (Alice in Wonderland and ~~Alice through the Looking Glass~~Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There) are an odd pair of classics. Both really do lack an overarching plot beyond some vague references to Alice trying to get home or maybe trying to reach the eighth square on the chessboard where pawns become queens. Alice really does just wander around having a series of adventures and meeting a line-up of muppety oddballs who converse and interact with her before they part ways. There's not much in the way of conflict or danger (even the Queen of Hearts, who hastily ordered executions for the slightest offenses with an "off with his head!", is quickly revealed to be all bark and no bite), and one can definitely detect a faint whiff of the stuffy Victorian nursery. The books' endings are particularly anti-climactic as Alice just suddenly awakens to discover that it had all been a dream.

So then why are these books still read and loved by so many people? Well, despite their shortcomings as novels (if one would even call them novels), Alice's adventures are very entertaining. Lewis Carroll's Wonderland characters are all animated with his special brand of nonsense which involves word play, the misapplication of rules of logic, and the perversion of the day's manners and etiquette. There are plenty of scenes, as well as dialogue ("Why is a raven like a writing desk?") and poems (often parodies of sappy children's rhymes that are now long forgotten) which stick in your mind. Many of the characters come off as pompous adults attempting to teach the little girl lessons, but rather than giving sound moral instruction it's usually confusing, dubious and comical.

The Alice books were clearly written to entertain children (there's a tameness and primness to the work which distinguishes it from the more grizzly and disturbing tales told to children in previous centuries), but they don't really talk down to children. They're fast-paced, and re-reading them is always enjoyable and rewarding as you're bound to pick up on some references you missed when you were younger. For instance, when Alice meets the mouse in the pool of tears towards the beginning of Wonderland, she addresses him as "O Mouse" using the vocative case as glimpsed in her brother's Latin Grammar. When the mouse doesn't seem to understand her, she toys with the idea that he must be a French mouse that came over with William the Conqueror because although she knows her history lessons her concept of time and how long ago things took place is fuzzy.

These examples also show us another of books' high points -- Lewis Carroll's rendering of Alice from a child development perspective. Alice is intelligent and well-educated but she is also only 7 1/2, so it makes sense that she would misapply things half-remembered from her lessons and that there would be gaps in her knowledge when it came to concepts that can only be mastered through experience (understanding how long ago historical events took place relatively speaking is a particularly hard idea for children to grasp).

Outlook on Tim Burton's Alice

Having said all this, I understand what Tim Burton was saying about the difficulty of turning the Alice books into an engaging movie. I do believe that, often, in order to make a good adaptation, a director has to have the courage to depart from the source material and to make his own decisions (Stanley Kubrick's movies The Shining, Lolita and A Clockwork Orange are good examples of this). I'm just afraid that, here, Tim Burton might have abandoned a lot of the charm and intelligent humor of the books and replaced it with something less interesting and original. The trailer makes me worry that rather than giving us a twisted version of the Alice story, Burton has just stolen familiar characters and scenes from the books and inserted them into a wholly different (and probably inferior) storyline.

One thing that is clear from the trailer is that the filmmakers used a lot of CGI in order to combine live action and animation. Just look at Helena Bonham Carter as the Queen of Hearts who is given surreal proportions (now that I think of it, the image is vaguely reminiscent of Bette Davis in The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex). CGI has its place, but I think that too much of it can ruin a movie. All of the visuals on screen have to mesh well together, and one has to make sure computer animation doesn't distance the audience from the film's characters and story. Plus, this can be a bad sign because an abundance of CGI is often used to try and cover up a weak storyline.

As for the 3-D IMAX release (another warning sign that a movie might be all flashy visuals and no substance), I have actually never seen a movie like this before (other than, like, the movie in the Newseum). I think the technology doesn't work well for people like me who wear glasses. But, beyond that, is this new 3-D just a gimmick? Does it detract from the movie as art?

My favorite Alice adaption

I have fond memories of watching (and re-watching over and over again) the Alice in Wonderland TV-movie that came out in 1985. This was a musical which featured original songs and a cast filled with celebrities: Sherman Helmsley as the Mouse; Sammy Davis, Jr. as the Caterpillar; Telly Sevalas as the Cheshire Cat; Carol Channing as the White Queen; Shelley Winters as the Dodo....

This is probably the most faithful screen adaptation of the Alice books, and since -- as we said above -- a lot of the action consists of Alice meeting an assortment of off-kilter characters it made sense for them to turn it into a big production allowing a huge cast of entertainers to make an appearance and do their thing. From what I remember, the songs were pretty catchy, and they often came from the poems recited in the book such as "You are old, Father William" and "The Walrus and the Carpenter." This was an excellent way of including these in a movie without putting everyone to sleep. There's even some underlying themes about growing up and facing your fears which they threw in so as to give Alice a story arc.

Recommendations

The 1985 Alice movie is available on DVD. And if you're looking for a copy of the Alice books I would suggest either the Annotated Alice (which includes footnotes explaining all of Lewis Carroll's various allusions, neologisms, etc.) or perhaps a set featuring the illustrations of Mervyn Peake which are far more interesting than the Tenniel illustrations from the first edition which were all more familiar with (damn those are out of print now? I remember giving one as a Christmas gift when I was in Nola).

Another Alice related posts: Marilyn Manson Goes Down the Rabbit Hole

Images: Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen taken from wired.com; Mervyn Peake illustration of Alice found on Tea, Sympathy and Perfume, Alice with Red Queen found on fpba.com.

Let's talk Halloween costumes

2009-10-13T18:51:00.008-04:00

October is almost half over so the time to start getting your Halloween costume together has come. Last week I read this great post on the Awl with some good costume suggestions. My favorite of these has to be the "Obama Rally 'Tree of Life' Asshole." The writer also reminds us that when you wait until the last minute you usually end up with a subpar costume, and he says that one of the marks of a good Halloween costume is that people won't mistake you for something else.

This got me thinking about some of my previous Halloween costumes. Allow me to share...

Last year I dressed up as Super Mario. I remember I couldn't get my hands on a pair of white gloves in time. Also, I was afraid people might think I was supposed to be a train engineer, but I guess I didn't need to worry since I look like Mario all the time anyway. Here's a photo...

I think it was my first Halloween after I settled in Northern Virgina that I went out with Des and her husband and posse. That year I wore a Father Guido Sarducci-style priest outfit (the kind that features a black sombrero). I probably get points off for creativity since I started with a store bought costume but then I tricked it out with some accessories such as a set of rosary beads and a holy water bottle whose incorporation here was undoubtedly sacriligeous. I remember some -- unobservant and probably none too bright -- school-aged kids on the Metro thought I was supposed to be "a jew" but that was clearly not the case because I had a giant cross hanging around my neck. But hey, who's to say I wont branch out and malign other religions on a future Halloween?

My last year in New Orleans, when I shared an apartment on Saint Charles Ave with Amanda, we had a Halloween party. I dressed as Pai Mei, the old kung fu master from Kill Bill. That costume consisted of a worn, off-white robe that i got from Nicole (she even sewed up a hole for me. thanks!) and this white haired granny wig that we had to like undo and restyle to approximate Pai Mei's impressive mein. I remember it got super frizzy and out of control looking fairly quickly. We (Amanda and Nicole were both very instrumental in helping to put this costume together) also took a bit of the hair and made it into bushy eyebrows and a long fu manchu style beard which we fixed to my face with spirit gum or something that I guess we also picked up from the costume shop. It was a pretty cheap, improvised costume but some people did actually recognize me as Pai Mei, which I think is kind of remarkable seeing as how he was a minor character in a movie that I feel a lot of people hadn't even seen. That was a pretty fun party; I think the best part is how after Amanda had partied herself out and gone to bed some people she worked with showed up and proceeded to carve the decorative pumpkins on our balcony. Good times. Sadly I have no photographic evidence that any of this ever happened.

Another memorable Halloween outing took place in my sophmore year of college. That year I tried to throw together a costume at the last minute, and I ended up going as "a shepherd" (although many a drunken reveler felt that I was supposed to be Jesus or possibly Moses). I THINK that costume consisted of a terry cloth robe (another borrowed item if I'm not mistaken), a pillowcase fixed to my head with a piece of string keffiyah style (I am sad to say that after that night I think this pillowcase was laundered and put back to its intended use -- dorm life, you know), and a big stick that Lee had at his parent's house for some reason. This was the infamous Halloween night where we all split up and had our own unfortunate misadventure in the French Quarter: maybe some people almost came to blows, someone else got kicked out of krystal burger for passing out at the counter, someone else fell backwards and hit their head but arose unharmed do to the magical effects of alcohol.... It was a bad night all round. I really thought there was a photo on facebook of us all smiling in our costumes before we headed out -- blissfully unaware of what the night held in store for us -- but I am mistaken. At any rate, here is a photo of us earlier that night. Apparently, the Tulane choir had a concert that night and we wore tuxedos. I am the little guy with the off-putting beard who looks like Fievel Mousekewitz.

This year I am actually getting together with the college crew to celebrate a spooky Halloween weekend in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Let's hope I didn't jinx our night by invoking the ghost of bad Halloweens past! I'm sure I'll have some photos of me in costume to share when I get back.

LINK OF THE DAY: Scientific American's Top 20 photos of the microscopic world.

BONUS LINK: Garden Gnomes with extremist political affiliations.

Minister of Pedarism

2009-10-12T15:11:00.004-04:00

A couple of weeks ago, when I shot off a post about Roman Polanski, I mentioned in passing the public statement made by France's Minister of Culture condemning the arrest. Now it turns out that Frédéric Mitterrand also has a past involving sex with youngsters.

Polanski Statement

After Polanski's arrest on September 26, the French Culture Minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, made a public statement in which he said it was "absolutely horrifying" that the director would be arrested like this in connection with an incident which was now ancient history. He is also quoted in the press as saying "in the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has shown its face."

As I said, if you think of Roman Polanski as one of the most esteemed directors of our time his arrest seems shocking, but it's pretty understandable when you recall the serious allegations against him (drugging and sodomizing a 13yo girl) and the fact that after pleading guilty in 1978 he fled the country and has been evading the long arm of American justice ever since.

The Bad Life

As reported by the BBC, Mitterrand's statements motivated France's opposition to dig up some "ancient history" on the minister himself. In 2005, when Mitterrand was a private citizen, he published an autobiographical novel called La mauvaise vie ("the bad life") in which he wrote about paying for sex with young boys in Thailand.

The book is a wishing well of juicy quotes. For instance, "the profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide." Far from being put off by the sordid details of the sex trade, or sympathising with underpriviliged, young Thai people pushed into prostitution, Mitterrand's narrator found it to be a turn on: "all these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously." Mitterand, who is openly bisexual, claims that he used the word "garcon" loosely and that none of the young men he paid for sex were underage.

Now the attacks are coming from the left and the right. Benoit Hamon, a spokesman for France's Socialist Party, said of Mitterrand in an interview with Reuters "as a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker accused of raping a child and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking." Meanwhile the second in command of the far right Front Nationale, Marine Le Pen, read excerpts from the book in a television interview and declared that this affair has left "an indelible stain" on the Sarkozy government. She called for Mitterrand to resign.

The French have a reputation for being very liberal and permissive when it comes to sexual mores: for many of them the case of Mary Kay Letourneau -- the California schoolteacher who was jailed for carrying on an affair with her underaged student -- was a tragic love story. I'm not about to make some "only in France..." comment; I mean does anyone remember the salacious IMs Mark Foley exchanged with that teenager who had served as a congressional page? Still, the French afford their politicians more privacy and they tend to give less weight to reports of sexual misconduct in their personal lives. But if nothing else the Mitterrand affair will definitely cause the Sarkozy government some embarassment: France engages in talks with nations like Thailand about how to help put a stop to sexual tourism and now there's a member of the government who is himself a confessed sexual tourist.

The Mitterrand political dynasty

If Frédéric Mitterrand's last name sounds familiar that's because his uncle François Mitterrand, who was known for comporting himself with the dignity of an Egyptian pharoah, served as France's President from 1981 to 1995. President Mitterrand was head of the Socialist Party, but Frédéric's political inclinations are apparently further to the right: he was a well-known French television personality before Sarkozy asked him to join his government in June of this year.

BBC News recently ran an article on the Mitterrand dynasty. The family is originally from the Cognac region in southwest France, where they made their fortune in the early 20th century producing vinegar. In 1993, President Mitterand's son Jean-Christophe was fined for tax fraud after he received millions of francs in connection with the illegal sale of weapons in Angola. François Mitterrand also had a daughter, Mazarine, by his mistress whose existance was hidden from the public for many years. Mazarine Pingeot is a best-selling author whose novels are laughed at by critics.

Images: brilliant photo of Frederic Mitterrand in 3D glasses taken from sky news blog; photo of la mauvaise vie by AP taken from BBC News

Oh, Terry Gilliam

2009-10-09T20:58:00.005-04:00

So there is a new Terry Gilliam movie slated to come out later this year (imdb says it's going to start showing in the US around Christmas) called the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. This movie is already getting some publicity (and it will probably get more closer to its release) due to the fact that the late Heath Ledger stars in it. Conveniently enough, his character like changes his appearance and was being played by a number of different actors anyway (Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrell), so his untimely death didn't present an insurmountable obstacle for the film's production.

Now the trailer looks pretty cool, but I have very mixed feelings about seeing this film. My first (pretty random) thought is that its title reminds me an awful lot of that Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium movie. That was like this bad children's movie about an enchanted toy shop with Dustin Hoffman and Natalie Portman and Jason Bateman. I haven't watched it but Nicole has: she assures me it's total crap, but she also urges everyone to check out the very end where Natalie Portman is like magically bringing the toy shop back to life or something and she does this really dorky, goofy, unintentionally-hilarious dance.

My second reservation has to do with Terry Gilliam himself who is the movie's writer/director. Now I am speaking as someone who actually has DVDs of two of his movies at home (and it's not like I have a ton of DVDs), so I feel like that makes me a bigger fan of the Monty Python-turned- filmmaker than most, but I think we all have to come to terms with the fact that most of his movies suck. Let us discuss.

BAD MOVIES BY TERRY GILLIAM

I will admit beforehand that I have not seen any of these movies all the way through, but I am not going to let that stop me from discussing them. My experience with most of them has gone like this: I'm bored one day and [bad Terry Gilliam movie] is on cable. I'm like, "oh this might be fun/cute/interesting to watch." About twenty minutes in I'm like "fuck this!" and change the channel. With most of these movies this has happened to me multiple times. I'd go so far as to say I really want to like these movies, but I just can't watch them. If this doesn't make a movie bad I don't know what does.

Time Bandits: this movie features little people and pirates and Michael Palin... going through time and robbing people in the past? I don't know. I want to say I vaguely remember this movie including some pretty juvenile humor and I am going to say this is a recurring element in Terry Gilliam's oeuvre.

Jabberwocky: I have even less of a clue about this one except to say that Micahel Palin is in it.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: I've half-heartedly watched a bit more of this one than most of the movies on the list. The titular aristocrat is an old man who spins outlandish tales about his adventures which feature such characters as like "the fastest man in the world" and Venus, the goddess of love (played by Uma Thurman!). I want to say that Baron Munchausen is actually very typical of Terry Gilliam's movies: it has this sort of romantic, storybook fantasy feel, and yet rather than inspiring the childlike wonder it's clearly aiming for the whole affair is just kind of dusty (as in the movie features lots of dirt and dust) and dull and ultimately depressing.

The Fisher King: This movie stars Robin Williams -- so that's strike one right there. I always forget what this movie is about and am like "oh yeah fisher king, search for the holy grail -- gotcha." But actually the movie takes place in the present day (or, you know, c. 1990) and Robin Williams is a bum who in the end stumbles on the holy grail or turns out to be the fisher king or something. I feel like it's supposed to be "heart warming" which is also not atypical for Terry Gilliam movies. I always get this confused with another dreary Robin Williams film I've never watched all the way through where he's a holocaust survivor, but that's Jakob the Lair (which is apparently a remake of a German film -- who knew).

The Brothers Grimm: Matt Damon and Heath Ledger play a fictitious pair of brothers who share nothing but their name with the dudes who compiled fairytales and wrote about consonant shift, and they find themselves lost in a haunted woods with werewolves and witches and stuff. I haven't seen this one yet, but everyone who has seems to be saying "bad, bad, bad!" I have a suspicion that this is another "magical crapfest" a la Munchausen.

GOOD TERRY GILLIAM MOVIES

Brazil: This movie takes place in a dystopian society (think 1984) where people's lives are bogged down by bureaucracy, pollution, terrorist bombs and lots of tubes. The main character is a civil servant who keeps his nose down and ekes out a pretty soulless existence until one day he catches a glimpse of the attractive young woman from his recurring daydreams. She drags him into the terrorists' plot and wakes him up to the horrors being committed all around him. Robert DeNiro cameos as a renegade plumber and Katherine Helmond (Mona from Who's the Boss?) plays the protagonist's mother, a lady of leisure who is obsessed with looking younger and has friends high up in the government.

The world of Brazil has a one of a kind look and feel: the action takes place in a sprawling city with a quirky tube-based infrastructure (tubes transporting mail, water, electricity...) and many elements which hearken back to the early twentieth century like black and white TV sets. The gloomy, depressing fantasy element is also present in Brazil, but it is alleviated to some extent by black humor. There's lots of satire and also a few truly frightening moments. On the whole, I'd call this movie brilliant but flawed: the first half shows a lot of promise and successfully juggles the disparate tonal elements, but the last 30 minutes or so are kind of an unwatchable mess. Nevertheless, Brazil does stand up to repeat viewing. We'll discuss the movie's turbulent production history in part three.

Twelve Monkeys: I think 12 Monkeys beats out the others for the #1 spot. This movie was inspired by a French film called La Jetée, but that was just a 30 minute short composed of black and white stills so I give Gilliam full credit for the story. Bruce Willis stars as a man from a grim (gloomy fantasy) future where the human population has been decimated by a virus and survivors must live underground. The powers that be send him back in time with the mission of discovering the virus' origins (which seems to be tied to "the twelve monkeys" which they only known of through graffiti tags) and to stop its spread at all costs. In the present everyone thinks he's crazy and thus during a short stay at a mental facility he meets Brad Pitt's character, a genuine fruitcake who may be involved in the whole virus mess somehow.

Despite the sci-fi premise, 12 Monkeys is more grounded in reality than most Gilliam films, and here the dark fantasy elements have a pleasant City of the Lost Children feel to them (maybe its the Gallic source material or the eerie accordion music). Add to this a suspenseful plot with an ambiguous twist ending and you've got yourself a winner.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: Another brilliant but flawed film that gets better on repeat viewing. Johnny Depp plays the main character, Hunter S Thompson's fictionalized alter-ego, and an unrecognizable Benicio del Toro is his buddy/attorney who may or may not be Samoan. The two travel to Las Vegas mid-drug binge to report on a motorcycle race and end up staying at the same hotel as an anti-drug law enforcement convention. They have a bunch of crazy misadventures which end up being vaguely telling about life as a druggie egotist and what American society was like in 1971 (most of which still holds true today).

The fact that the main characters are high out of their minds for a lot of the movie does allow Gilliam to engage in some of his trademark surrealism, but for the most part its more psychedelic than fantastical. Like Brazil (and arguably even more so), Fear & Loathing includes a few shocking scenes that are hard to watch (um, the waitress at the diner). This is why I think repeat viewings tend to be more enjoyable: you know that stuff is coming and can enjoy the comedy and insanity more. Don't miss the part with Christina Ricci and since Halloween is coming up think about how cool a Raoul Duke costume would be!

GILLIAM'S PROBLEMATIC PRODUCTIONS

If you've paid attention to Gilliam's career like I have, you've heard a lot about his problems getting his movies made. First, there's the Battle of Brazil, a whole book about Gilliam's struggle with Universal Pictures to get that movie released. Basically, the studio was so unhappy with the final movie that they didn't even want to distribute it, but then Gilliam managed to show it to some critics who were like this movie is great.

Now I gave Brazil a thumbs up, but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I kind of see where the producers were coming from. I know! There were problems all along, but as far as the final product goes the first complaint was that they didn't like the title. I agree that "Brazil" is a stupid title for a movie that has nothing to do with the country in South America and is more George Orwell than Copacabana. The only connection is that the jazz tune "Brazil" based on "Aquarela do Brasil" plays throughout the movie.

Problem #2 was that they didn't like the ending -- specifically they wanted a happy ending. I've already called the last act of the film an unwatchable mess, and I will add that the closing scene is immensely depressing (and sort of chilling). I can see how the studio would not be happy with this. I don't know what could have been done to "fix" the ending, or if that would even be possible, but I kind of feel like at this point Gilliam threw his hands up and was like "no!" Yeah, tacking on a Hollywood happy ending would probably have been stupid, but you have to admit that Brazil's finale's got major problems.

Having said all this, I did call the movie "brilliant but flawed" so I do think the decision to let it rot rather than release it was a bad one. But, come on, this movie was always destined to -- at best -- be a cult favorite that got some critical acclaim. This movie was never going to achieve serious commercial success.

Then there's this documentary called Lost in La Mancha which is the boohoo story about how Terry Gilliam wanted to film a movie based on Don Quixote, but the project was killed because of his disagreements with the French producers and other assorted production problems. At this point, you gotta think "gee, is the problem the producers or is it Gilliam?" I think he's probably just a difficult person to work with -- a temperamental artist perhaps -- and that he probably refuses to compromise his vision. This is often laudable, but you have to ask yourself if Gilliam's finished products are good enough to justify this obstinacy. I'm saying that out of all his movies 1 was awesome, 2 were great but flawed, and the rest were blech.

And while we are at it there is no doubt in my mind that Don Quixote was going to be another romantic crapfest with dreary fantasy elements in the vein of Baron Munchausen. I mean can't you just see it? Actually, we may not have to speculate about this forever because it appears that The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is back in "pre-production."

OUTLOOK FOR PARNASSUS

The same fears apply to the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Like I said, the trailer looks cool, but it seems that Gilliam has ventured into dangerous territory (for him) and that we might have another one of his dreary fantasies on our hands. I am sure I will see it eventually, but my hopes are far from high.

Images: photos from movie Brazil found on verdoux blog.

The Gracchi: Gaius

2009-10-08T21:45:00.006-04:00

I know that everyone is waiting with bated breath for the exciting conclusion of my series of posts on the Gracchi, so without further ado let's move on to the life of Gaius Gracchus...

Comparing Tiberius and Gaius

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (159-121 BC) was nine years younger than his brother Tiberius. Plutarch tells us that whereas Tiberius' speeches were eloquent, subdued, and persuasive -- vying for his audience's sympathies --, Gaius' rhetoric was more fiery, impassioned and sometimes coarse. Gaius was the first Roman orator to face the crowd rather than the Senate house when delivering speeches in the forum, as well as the first to tear off his toga mid-speech. All this makes sense when one considers that, in addition to his concerns about social justice and democracy, Gaius was also motivated by grief for his brother and a desire for revenge against those responsible for his assassination.

Paradoxically, Gaius was more cautious about the actions he took (no doubt because he remembered the fate which befell his brother), and a modern observer might declare that many of the reform measures he proposed were more practical than those introduced by Tiberius.

Early career

Gaius was only 26 in 133 BC, the year of Tiberius' tribuneship. You may remember that at the time he was serving in the military in Spain under Scipio Aemelianus and that he was appointed in absentia to the land reform commission established by his brother's lex sempronia. After Tiberius' assassination, Gaius seems to have stayed quiet and to have largely avoided public life for seven years or so.

It's worth noting that during this period, in 129 BC, Scipio Aemelianus died under mysterious circumstances. Despite his ties to the Gracchi by blood and marriage, Aemelianus had supported the optimates (the party representing the rich and powerful) and many people suspected some member of the populist party (like M. Fulvius Flaccus or G. Papirius Carbo, the tribune whose measures he had blocked) or even a member of the Gracchi clan (perhaps his wife Sempronia or mother-in-law Cornelia) had had a hand in the great general's death.

In 126 BC, then, Gaius was appointed as quaestor to serve under the consul in Sardinia. Plutarch also tells us that Gaius used his growing popularity with the masses -- no doubt due in part to his brother's legacy in addition to the reputation he was building for himself -- to help get fellow populist Marcus Fulvius Flaccus elected as consul for the next year.

As Tribune

Gaius was elected Tribune of the People for 123 BC. He was also voted into the same office for the next year even though Plutarch tells us that he did not actively campaign for reelection. As I said in my post on Tiberius, the Roman constitution originally required incumbent magistrates to wait a number of years before they could be reelected. G. Papirius Carbo had apparently tried and failed to get a law passed allowing incumbent tribunes to run for reelection in 131 BC (when he was tribune), so I'm unsure whether this term limit had been repealed by 122 BC or whether it just wasn't being enforced.

During his two years as tribune, Gaius undertook many reforms. First, he passed judicial reforms aimed at checking the power of the senatorial class and at punishing family enemies. One measure provided for 300 members of the equestrian class to sit as judges beside the senators who had previously controlled the court system. The equestrians were the second highest order of Roman citizens after the senators: they were wealthy and enjoyed certain privileges and rights, but many of their families probably had humble, provincial, or non-Roman Italian origins. A law was also enacted stating that courts trying senators for corruption should be presided over by equestrian judges.

Gaius also outlawed the execution or banishment of Roman citizens without a public trial, making magistrates who did so subject to prosecution. This law presumably had retroactive effect, and thus it could be used against members of the commissions set up to execute and banish Tiberius' supporters after his assassination (because that happened). Chief among these was Publius Popilius Laenas who had been consul in 132 BC; he fled Rome rather than stand trial and was declared banished in absentia. Gaius also proposed a bill which would bar those removed from office by the people from running for public office in the future. The clear target of this law would have been Tiberius' old enemy Marcus Ocatvius. However, Gaius voluntarily withdrew this proposal before it was voted upon.

Economic reforms

Gaius also resumed his brother's work towards economic and agrarian reform in favor of the poorest citizens. He continued dividing the public land among the poor and, to further this goal, he proposed the establishment of new Roman colonies in conquered lands. This would mean citizens would be granted parcels of land in areas where they'd be less likely to run afoul of the land-grabbing elite.

Another of Gaius' laws provided that grain from Rome's overseas territories should be stored and sold to the poor at a subsidized price. This was the beginning of what would become the grain dole.

Extending the franchise

Votes for Italian allies would become perhaps the single most important political issue in decades to come. So who were these people? When the city Rome was founded, Italy was home to a number of different ethnic groups. Alongside the Romans there were the Etruscans, the Sabines (as in the legendary "Rape of the Sabine Women"), and the Samnites to name just a few. By the 2nd century BC, however, the Romans dominated not only all of Italy south of the Alps, but also large chunks of Spain, Greece, Asia Minor and Tunisia. The Italian allies were members of tribes who fought alongside the Romans; although in theory they each had their own government, in practice Rome called all the shots at least when it came to foreign affairs and military decisions. Thus, the lives of these people were shaped by the government in Rome but as non-citizens they had no say. He may not have been the first man to address this inequity, but Gaius proposed a law extending citizenship and the vote to Italian allies .

Reaction by the optimates

The optimates had labelled Gaius Gracchus as their enemy even before he assumed the office of Tribune in 123 BC. Thus they arranged for him to be tried for misconduct in connection with his quaestorship in Sardinia, but he easily escaped conviction due to his popularity and oratory skills. Over time their fear and resentment of Gaius would only grow. For one thing, he personally undertook to execute many of the laws he proposed: appointing the new equestrian judges, handing out parcels of land, etc. Good Republicans distrusted any one man who personally wielded so much power and influence.

One way they hoped to counter Gaius' popularity was by having their own man Marcus Livius Drusus (died 108 BC) installed as tribune, and having him put forward his own rabble-rousing proposals. Thus, Plutarch tells us that whereas Gracchus suggested two new colonies, Drusus called for twelve colonies with 3,000 settlers each. Drusus also proposed that poor citizens granted public land be relieved of the burden of paying rent, and -- as a concession for opposing the franchise -- he moved that Italian allies serving in the army could not be subjected to corporal punishment by Roman generals. Because Drusus represented the Senate, the measures he proposed may have helped heal the rift between the common people and the ruling class (at least temporarily).

The tides turn

The work of fellow tribune M. Livius Drusus helped curtail Gaius' personal influence. Another reason why Gaius' popularity among the Roman people might have waned was because many of them resented his proposal that they share their power as voters with the Italian allies. And then there was the "Let's rebuild Carthage" debacle...

Plutarch tells us that Gaius travelled to Northern Africa in order to help lay the foundation for a new colony called "Junonia" which would be built on the ruins of Carthage. It's unclear whether the idea for this colony originated with Gaius himself or with his rival Drusus. When the Romans defeated the Carthaginians in the Third Punic War it was decided to totally wipe the city off the map in what I would like to call an act of "genocide lite." Cato the Censor (234-149 BC), a cantankerous old man, was especially famous for calling for Carthage's destruction. Thus it's no suprise that rebuilding the city engendered controversy.

While Gaius was abroad, his enemies spread rumors of ominous portents in Africa which showed that supernatural forces were fighting against the project. For example, it was said that wolves dug up the posts showing where the walls would be erected and dragged them off into the wilderness. Wolves! Like the she wolf who nursed Romulus and Remus! Don't you see, the Goddess Rome herself is telling us not to rebuild Carthage. Gaius' involvement with this ill-fated colony probably didn't do much to aid his reputation. Oh, and there are no wolves in Tunisia.

Gaius' demise

Gaius was again put up as a candidate as tribune for 121 BC, but this time he lost the election. Plutarch suggests that Gaius' popularity with the people had waned, but then he tells us that his enemies resorted to fraud in counting the ballots so as to remove him from office. The optimates also had elected as consul for 121 BC one Lucius Opimius. Once he took office, Opimius immediately announced that he would annul all the laws that Gaius had passed. When they learned of this, Gaius Gracchus, Marcus Fulvius and their supporters organized a mass protest centered on the Aventine Hill. Things turned ugly when Opimius' servant Antyllius (a real asshole, according to Plutarch) was attacked and killed by the mob.

Opimius had mourners carry Antyllius' body to the forum in order to incite the senators to action against the unruly mob. The people thought that this was bullshit: when Tiberius Gracchus, a tribune from a noble family, was killed his body was unceremoniously chucked into the Tiber, and here the senators were making such a big deal out of the death of a lowly servant (who kind of had it coming)?! But, anyway, the Senate was sufficiently moved by the display that they voted to declare marshal law and grant Opimius authority to quash the uprising.

In the ensuing fracas, M. Fulvius and his sons were killed and Gaius Gracchus took his own life. We're told that Opimius offered its weight in gold to whomever brought him Gaius' head and that the dishonest man filled Gaius' brain cavity with lead in order to fetch a higher price. When all was said and done, 3,000 supporters of the populists were put to death: their bodies were thrown in the river, their assets were seized by the state, and their wives were forbidden from mourning.

Epilogue

Lucius Opimius was convicted of taking bribes from the Numidians in 116 BC, and he died in disgrace. The Italian allies were eventually given the vote after some of them revolted in 91 BC. Carthage was rebuilt as a Roman city under Julius Caesar around 49-44 BC.

Meanwhile, the people of Rome would erect statues in the memory of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus and the spots where they fell to their enemies were declared hallowed ground. Cornelia would pass the remainder of her life in her villa on the Bay of Naples where she would proudly recount the story of her sons' lives and careers to her illustrious guests; Plutarch says she'd never let tears betray her emotions, but rather she would speak of them as if they were already figures out of the annals of Roman history.

Images: Cenotaph of the Gracchi by Eugene Guillaume on display in Paris' Musée d'Orsay (pic posted on flickr by user Carlos Pinto 73); lithograph of Gaius Gracchus found on life.com.

What do we think about the Roman Polanski case?

2009-10-01T17:20:00.004-04:00

I'm sure you've all heard by now about the shocker arrest of director Roman Polanski in Switzerland this last Saturday (September 26). While attempting to enter the country, where he was to receive a lifetime acheivement award, Polanski was arrested on an international warrant issued by US authorities. This all stems from the fact that, in 1978, after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and while awaiting sentencing Polanski fled the United States. A lot of public figures -- Hollywood directors and actors as well as European politicians -- have come out condemning the arrest and possible extradition of the esteemed, 76-year-old Franco-Polish director for something that happened a long time ago, but I say we look at the details of what Polanski actually did as well as the history of his case before we form our own opinions.

What did Polanski do?

The incident occured in 1977. Polanski asked to photograph a 13-year-old girl named Samantha Geimer for French Vogue and her mother agreed. On the first photo shoot, he took some topless pictures. The girl later testified that she had been uncomfortable with this. Nevertheless, she went back for a second session. This time they ended up at Jack Nicholson's house: Polanski plied her with champagne and gave her half a quaalude, he undressed her, they got into the hot tub together, and then they ended up in the bedroom. There Polanski had sex with her, performing cunnalingus, vaginal and anal intercouse.

Geimer claimed that she was raped: she testified that, before they got to the bedroom, she had asked Polanski to take her home but he demurred saying "I'll take you home soon" and persuading her lie down. She also says that when the sexual activity started she was on the verge of tears and she told Polanski "No. Come on. Stop it." She says she didn't do more to resist because she was frightened (not to mention drunk and drug-addled -- I might add).

Polanski never denied that he had intercourse with Geimer, but he claimed it was consensual. He also said that he was unaware that she was only thirteen. Angelica Huston, who was Nicholson's girlfriend at the time, was a witness who arrived on the scene around the time that the intercourse was over or at least winding down. She says that the girl was sullen but that she never got the impression that she had been raped or that she felt she was in danger.

The criminal case

After Geimer's family went to the police with their story, Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of crimes such as rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. The LA District Attorney offered Polanski a very favorable plea bargain: Polanski would plead guilty to the lesser crime of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (basically, statutory rape), and the DA would recommend the Judge let me him off with time served in light of the 42 days he'd spend in prison undergoing psychological evaluation. But, in light of public opinion, the Judge apparently decided that he was going to reject the DA's suggestion and sentence Polanski to additional jail time. When Polanski and his lawyer got wind of this on the eve of his sentencing hearing, Polanski decided to flee the country.

Why was the DA prepared to let Polanski off so lightly? I think that, in part, this is probably just another example of how celebrities get special treatment in Los Angeles County. It's also possible that Polanski gained sympathy owing to the fact that his pregnant wife had been murdered by the Manson family 8-9 years back (the Sharon Tate muders were surely still fresh in people's minds). But, according to the DA, the main reason is that the 13-year-old victim did not want to take the stand in a trial. We all know what a traumatic experience it can be for a rape victim to take the witness stand against her assaulter, and she just wanted to put this all behind her and move on with her life.

Life as a fugitive

Since 1978, as far as the United States is concerned, Polanski has been a fugitive from justice. He's spent most of his time living in France. Under the French/US extradition treaty, both countries have discretion in deciding whether or not to turn over nationals, and France decided against extraditing the director. Obviously, Polanski has never returned to the US, and he's also been careful to avoid countries like the UK where he was likely to be arrested. Other than these travel restrictions -- and the shadow hanging over him -- Polanski has lived a very comfortable life over the last thirty years.

That documentary

In 2008, a documentary was released called Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (I caught part of it on HBO). A lot of people have criticized the film as being one-sided because it devotes very little time to discussing the crime that Polanski committed. Rather, it focuses on the procedural history of the criminal case against him specifically highlighting the actions of LA County Superior Court Judge Laurence K. Rittenbach which were dishonest and shady and may have amounted to misconduct. Wanted and Desired was responsible for bringing a fresh wave of attention to the decades old Polanski case and it may have even contributed to LA prosecutors' recent push to bring Polanski to justice.

The main point seems to be that the judge had decided to reject the plea bargain agreement between Polanski's counsel and the DA and to sentence him to more jail time. It seems that the judge kept this fact from Polanski and his lawyer and that they only learned of it on the eve of the sentencing hearing. They probably felt deceived since they were given no previous notice that the judge might reject the plea deal, and I think the film leaves it unclear as to whether or not they could have withdrawn the guilty plea at this stage.

Outpouring of support

The governments of France and Poland have both protested Polanski's arrest and asked that he be returned home rather than extradited to the US. Both countries have supposedly appealed to US officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on behalf of the director. France's Culture Minister went so far as to say that Polanski's arrest shows America's dark side.

Meanwhile a number of Hollywood producers, directors and actors including Harvey Weinstein, Martin Scorsese and (crazily) Woody Allen have signed a petition protesting his arrest. This outpouring has to be mostly due to their relationship with Polanski as a colleague and friend, but other's have cited his advanced age (76) and the fact that no one views him as a criminal threat today as factors calling for leniency. Some also point to the fact that the victim has moved on with her life and has stated that she doesn't want to see Polanski serve more time in jail. They also question why the US would be devoting resources to this case which is "ancient history."

Backlash

More recently, there has been a backlash (at least in the US) against all these cries for Polanski's release. Some victims' rights groups say Polanski is no different than Catholic priests accused of molestation and that no one would suggest they should be granted clemency. If anything, society has come to view crimes like Polanski's even more harshly today than in the seventies, and it is very unlikely that anyone would suggest someone in his position should be let off as lightly as he would have under his plea bargain agreement with the DA.

My opinion

Drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl is a serious crime, and I don't think so many people would be speaking out on Polanski's behalf if the details of what he did were fresh in their minds. Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape: he always admitted that he had sex with the girl, and in order to be convicted of statutory rape the question of whether she "consented" or whether he knew her real age is irrelevant.

As for questions of judicial impropriety, this is something that can be decided by the court system. I think it's questionable whether anything the judge did was so serious as to warrant a reversal of his decision, and I would point out that -- although it rarely happens -- it's within the judge's discretion to reject a plea bargain agreement. If Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape there's no reason why the judge couldn't have sentenced him to the maximum sentence for that crime.

As far as the "but he's an old man" argument, I usually have no sympathy for this. I don't care if Bernie Madoff is a senior citizen, hundreds of people lost their life savings because of his fraud. And I don't care how old the Pol Pots and Pinochets of the world are when they're brought to justice, I advocate public dismemberment. In Polanski's case I'm actually a bit more sympathetic, but then again we must remember that the only reason 30 years have passed is because he fled the country. People shouldn't be rewarded for evading justice.

This case is definitely messy. In an ideal world, Polanski would have stayed put and served his 5 years in prison or whatever like a man. His lawyer could have vigorously fought his sentence on appeal. By now, he'd be a free man and this would all be old news.

Conclusion

Like I said, the fact that he did drug and sodomize a 13-year-old and that he fled the law and lived the high life for thirty years keeps me from sympathizing too much with Polanski's current predicament. I am curious however how this international law case will play out. Will Switzerland hand Polanski over to the US or to France or Poland? Either way, he is likely to spend a lot more time behind bars while the Swiss authorities decide. I would also be interested to see how his case will be handled if he is dragged back before the US court system.

Image: photo of Roman Polanski found on slashfilm.com

Chia Obama

2009-09-30T18:59:00.003-04:00

Man! OK, I realize I have to start mixing things up with some more light, fun posts, so how about this... have you all seen the commercial for Chia Obama?!

Can you believe that this is actually a real commercial for a real product that you can buy! I saw it for the first time last night on television. On television! I know... this is maybe the first time in months that I've watched any commercials (thanks, Tivo) and this is what I see.

So, OK: my first thought on this was "Whaaat?!" and then my next thought was "OMG, I want to buy one." But then I thought again and realized "wait; no, I don't." First of all, since when do I want a friggin chia pet? Chia pets are like half really weak clay artifact/half sad excuse for a house plant, and they're the epitome of tacky, useless junk people buy on a whim and then wonder where to cram it. Plus, the Chia Obama doesn't even look that much like the president.

A lot of people seem to feel that a Chia Obama with an alfafa-sprout afro is sort of racist (or at least "racialist"). I'm not TOTALLY convinced of that -- and I feel like I recognize racism when I see it. Don't get me started on the clear, racial overtones in that Ant and the Grasshopper mass email that Nicole brought to my attention! --, but I would have to say that the commercial's suggestion that you proudly display Chia Obama on your desk at work sounds like a good way to start trouble.

I think it's kind of wonderful and hilarious that the commercial decides to take us in the other direction by saying that buying your own Chia Obama is a great way to celebrate the inauguration of our 44th president and that it is a symbol of your hope, pride and patriotism. So basically, you should just think of it as another cheap, commerative Obama souvenir of questionable taste.

Hey, in Germany they have Obama chicken fingers mit Curry dip, and in Russia they're using the president's image to shill vanilla and chocolate ice cream bars. OK, I will admit that that ad puts a big smile on my face.

So what do you all think about Chia Obama and about Obama kitsch in general?

Image from shoppingblog.com

The Gracchi: Tiberius

2009-09-30T16:19:00.009-04:00

Early career

During his stint in the military, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (168-133 BC) fought under cousin Scipio Aemilianus in the Third Punic War (149-146 BC), where he was reportedly the first man over the wall during the siege of Carthage. Later he served as quaestor in Spain under G. Hostilius Mancinus. There, Tiberius was instrumental in negotiating the peace treaty with the Numantians (a Celtiberian tribe resisting Roman domination), which probably saved the routed Roman army from destruction. This treaty would eventually be rejected by the Senate, and Mancinus would be put on trial for his failures as a general and turned over to the enemy. The officers serving under him and involved with the treaty were only spared a similar fate because the people credited Tiberius with saving the lives of thousands of Roman soliders.

Agrarian reform

The political career of Tiberius Gracchus began in earnest in 133 BC when he was elected a Tribune of the People. As tribune, he decided to take on the issue of land reform as his personal mission. This was perhaps the biggest social problem of the day: Rome was home to an ever growing mob of poor, landless citizens. There were several reasons for this: sometimes wealthy Senators would hire goons to strong-arm small farmers off their land. Also, a Roman father would usually divide his landholdings among his sons so that over the generations his descendants might not have large enough parcels to support their families. Most of these displaced farmers would move to the capital city of Rome where shanty towns were built around the city center: they would survive on handouts (distributed by the wealthy on occasions such as triumphs and religious festivals), watch free games in the arena, and maybe sell their vote. Some of these masses no doubt turned to a life of crime whereas others mulled around just waiting for a good opportunity to erupt into some mob violence. In a lot of ways, life in Ancient Rome was comparable to the conditions existing today in overcrowded, third world cities like Mumbai.

Tiberius was particularly concerned about landless veterans who, ideally, should have been given a plot of land at the end of their tour of duty. The growing number of landless citizens also placed a burden on the army since at the time only members of landholding families could serve in the military.

In order to combat the problem, Gracchus wanted to redistribute public land. This was land the Roman state had conquered during its expansionist wars, and at the time large swaths of it were controlled by Senators and other members of the wealthy elite. Tiberius proposed a law (known as the lex sempronia agraria) which would enforce pre-existing limits on how much public land one man could control, with the excess being confiscated and parcelled out to landless veterans. Unsurprisingly, this measure met with a lot of resistance from the Senate and ruling class since these were the same people who were bogarting all the land! For example, Plutarch says of Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica (c.183-132 BC, Nasica = "pointed nose"), Gracchus' biggest opponent in the Senate, that he "surrendered completely to his hatred of Tiberius. For he was a very large holder of public land, and bitterly resented his being forced to give it up."

Acts as Tribune

Tiberius made further enemies through the unorthodox tactics he used to try to push his agenda through. He realized there was no use in trying to get the new law passed by the Senate, so he put it up before the assembly where citizens could vote on it themselves. To block this move, the optimates (the party representing the elite) got his fellow tribune Marcus Octavius to veto the proposed vote. As representatives of Rome's common citizens, tribunes of the people were sacrosanct and laying hands on one or interfering with his official actions was a capital offense. Thus, because no one could mess with him, a tribune could essentially block any government action in the city of Rome with his veto so long as he was physically present. Tiberius didn't appreciate this "tribune of the people" trying to stop the people from voting on his land reform law so he convened the assembly to vote on removing Octavius from office. When Octavius tried to veto this vote as well, Tiberius had him forceably removed from the meeting place and replaced him with one of his supporters named Mucius. In this incident, you can argue that Octavius was acting counter to the will of the people, but Tiberius' actions were pretty clearly unconstitutional.

Tiberius also started playing hardball to get his proposed law passed: he began using his own veto power to block all the Senate's daily business until they reluctantly agreed to enact the lex sempronia. Plutarch tells us that his obstructionist measures included sealing the Temple of Saturn so that magistrates could not access the state treasuries which were held inside. Tiberius set up a commission to carry out the law composed of himself, his father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher (who was also the "first man of the Senate"), and his younger brother Gaius who was away at the time serving under Scipio Aemilianus in Spain.

But this was not the end of the conflict. Although the Senate had passed the law, they underfunded the appointed commission so that it was essentially powerless. Then, at the end of the year 133 BC, the King of Pergamum died and named the people of Rome as his heir. Tiberius decided to again by-pass the Senate and to bring bills before the Assembly which would determine how the estate would be administrated: specifically, he proposed that the money be allocated to funding the land reform. His enemies characterised this as an abuse of power, and they spread rumors that Tiberius had monarchical aspirations.

Assassination

The optimates wanted to get rid of Gracchus, perhaps putting him on trial for daring to violate the person of M. Octavius, but they would have to wait until he was out of office to do this. This danger probably played an important part in motivating Gracchus to run for re-election for the next year. By doing so, he was once again acting illegally given that the Roman constitution specified that several years had to pass before an incumbent could run again for one of these annual offices (Term limits, baby!).

Violence broke out on election day (things had already gotten pretty hairy when M. Octavius was forced out of office). When Tiberius heard of a possible attempt on his life, his most loyal supporters armed themselves and gathered around him. Plutarch tells us that Tiberius put his hand to his head to indicate that he was in danger, but his opponents interpretted this as him asking for a crown. >Gasp!< When word reached the Senate, a group of Senators set off themselves to put down this coup. They made their way through the crowd as those people who were not die hard members of Gracchus' camp would have made way out of respect for the dignity of their office. We're told the Senators and their men then broke apart benches and used the chair legs to club Tiberius to death together with 300 of his supporters. Afterwards they chucked his body into the Tiber.

Aftermath

When things settled down, the Senate realized that things had gotten out of control and that Gracchus' assassination had stirred up much resentment among the common people. Therefore, as a concession, they took steps towards carrying out the lex sempronia and redistributing land. Meanwhile, Tiberius' most outspoken opponent, Nasica, was sent to Asia Minor on some pretext (even though he was the pontifex maximus) out of fear for his life. He died in Pergamum the next year under unknown circumstances.

Images: Roman denarius minted in 134 BC found on www258.pair.com; Glicee lithograph of T. Gracchus sealing the Temple of Saturn found on amazon.com.

The Gracchi: Cornelia

2009-09-29T18:10:00.002-04:00

That last post on the Battle of Teutoburg Forest started me thinking another favorite topic in Roman history. So let's take things back to the 2nd century BC and meet the Gracchi brothers, who were the Jack and Bobby Kennedy of the late Republic.

Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi

I think that any conversation about the Gracchi should start with the story of their mother, Cornelia (c.190 - 100 BC), who besides being one of the most influential women in Roman history can also tell us a lot about what life was like for Roman women in general. Cornelia was the daughter of Scipio Africanus (Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, 235-183 BC), the man who finally defeated Rome's worst enemy ever, Hannibal (248-183 BC). That's how he earned the name "Africanus," meaning "victor over the Africans."

When Cornelia was 18 (172 BC), she married a 45yo senator named Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (c.217 BC - 154 BC). Pretty much all marriages between upper-class Romans were arranged for political reasons, and given that Cornelia's father died years earlier I bet her mother Aemilia Tertia played an important role in making this match. The historian Plutarch (c. AD 46-120 ) tells us Gracchus was a devoted husband and generally gives the impression that they were happy together. During their roughly seventeen years of marriage, Cornelia bore her husband 12 children of whom only 3 made it to adulthood (the infant mortality rate in ancient Rome was no joke). When Gracchus died, their daughter Sempronia was around 16, Tiberius was 14 and their youngest Gaius was no older than 5.

Under Roman law, there must always be a man at the head of the household. Thus, when Gracchus died, Cornelia and her children technically passed under the authority of some male in-law. But, in practice, many upper-class Roman widows managed their own households and they were the ones making the day-to-day decisions. Assuming she survived her childbearing years, a Roman woman often found herself widowed at a young age -- either because she married an older man or because her husband died in one of those wars the Romans were always fighting. Also, whereas in Ancient Greece a fatherless young man would have become the head of the household and had authority over his widowed mother when he reached majority, in Rome adult children were expected to honor and respect their parents.

Plutarch tells us that Cornelia received several proposals after Gracchus' death, including one from Ptolemy Physcon (c.182-116 BC), the Pharoah of Egypt. But she turned down his fat, inbred ass and instead focused her attention on raising her three children. Historians also praise Cornelia for her modesty: one oft repeated anecdote tells how a Roman matron once visited Cornelia and, noticing her simple dress, asked where all her jewels were. Cornelia supposedly called her two sons to her and, putting her arms around them, replied "these are my jewels." Many conservative Roman writers condemned the decadent society of the late Republic. They believed conspicuous consumption to be out of step with traditional Roman values, and women who wore expensive dresses and jewelry were a favorite target. These writers looked back fondly to an idealized past, and they wrote that women should all do their own weaving and men should all serve in the army and till the fields.

Cornelia oversaw her sons' education and made sure they had the best Greek teachers available. These Greek masters instilled in Tiberius and Gaius a strong sense of civic responsiblity as well as uncompromising ideas on justice and democracy: you can definitely say that the character of their education, and hence their mother's choice in instructors, played a decisive role in molding the shape of their future political careers. Meanwhile, Sempronia was eventually wed to Cornelia's cousin Scipio Aemilianus (185-129 BC).

Images: Cornélie, mère des Gracques, 1861 statue by Jules Cavelier on display in Paris' Musée d'Orsay (image found on life in focus photography blog); 1779 painting "Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi" by Noël Hallé can be found at Musée Fabre in Montpellier, France (image found on wikipedia).

Teutoburg Forest

2009-09-22T19:59:00.003-04:00

The Battle of Teutoburg Forest

It happened this month, exactly two thousand years ago. The Battle of Teutoburg Forest was fought in the beginning of September in the year 9 AD, during the reign of Caesar Augustus (born 63 BC, ruled as princeps 27 BC - 19 AD), and it would go down in history as the greatest defeat suffered during the relatively peaceful, prosperous golden age of the early Roman Empire (the Pax Romana). The battle went on for three or four days and wikipedia gives September 9-11 as likely dates.

At the time, Roman troops stationed in Germany east of the Rhine were under the command of Publius Quintilius Varus (46 BC - 9 AD) who had previously served a term as consul and governor of Syria. They included 3 legions, 6 auxillary cohorts of non-Roman allies, and 3 wings of cavalry.

The Romans knew the man behind the ambush as Arminius (18/17 BC - 21 AD) but today he's also called "Hermann the German." He was a chieftain of the Cherusci, a Germanic tribe eventually absorbed into the Saxon nation, who had received a Roman military education and had been granted Roman citizenship and equestrian rank. Before the rebellion, Varus looked at Arminius as a trusted ally, and thus Arminius was able to lead the Roman army into his trap. He also managed to put together a coalition of five tribes to fight the Romans -- perhaps with an eye towards further unifying the Germanic peoples in the future and establishing a personal hegemony.

The army headed into Teutoburg Forest on the way to put down an uprising reported by Arminius. As the Romans spread themselves thin, trudging along a narrow, difficult forest trail, the Germans attacked -- first taking pot shots from a distance, but then advancing ever closer as it became clear that the Romans were in distress. The next day, Varus attempted to lead his troops to the refuge of the nearest Roman garrison, but they ended up caught in a disadvantageous spot between a fortified hill -- occupied by the Germans -- and a great swamp.

Roman historians recount how the army of around 20,000 was destroyed down almost to the last man. When it became clear there was no escape, Varus and his commanders fell on their swords. Only a scant handful of Roman soldiers managed to escape the bloodbath by fleeing into the forest -- all the rest were either killed or perhaps taken as slaves. After defeating Varus, Arminius' men pillaged the Roman garrisons and settlements east of the Rhine.

When news of this massive defeat reached Rome, it greatly affected the aged emperor's mental and emotional stability. According to trashy imperial biographer Suetonius (c.70 - c.130), Augustus banged his head against the walls of his palace and cried out "Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!" In the aftermath of this loss, the decision was made to abandon plans to subjugate the peoples east of the Rhine and the river was established as a part of the Empire's border.

Recovering the Eagles

When they wiped out Varus' army, the Germanic tribesmen also captured the three legions' eagle-bearing standards, which were religious objects held sacred under the Roman national cult. Thus, once memory of the defeat faded a bit, the Romans attached some importance and a great deal of national pride to their recovery.

After Augustus' death, his stepson Tiberius (born 42 BC, ruled 14-37 AD) suceeded him as emperor, and Tiberius' nephew Germanicus (16/15 BC - 19 AD) was made military commander in charge of Germany. Germanicus scored a number of victories east of the Rhine, weakening the coalition Arminius mounted against the Romans and retrieving two of the lost eagles. Tacitus (c.56-c.117), who made Germanicus the hero of his Annals, tells us that Germanicus also came across the site of Varus' defeat where he found blanched bones lying in the field and skulls nailed to trees. His troops set about burying the Roman dead. The final eagle wasn't recovered until 41 AD, during the reign of the Emperor Claudius (born 10 BC, ruled 41-54 AD).

Germanicus's honorific surname, which means "victor over the Germans," wasn't awarded to him because of his German campaign; he actually inherited the name from his father who was granted it posthumously in 9 BC. In 19 AD, only a few years after he was recalled from Germany, Germanicus suddenly died in Antioch under mysterious circumstances. The governor of Syria was to be tried for his murder (until he died suddenly, ostensibly by his own hand), but Tacitus suggests that Tiberius might have ordered his nephew assassinated due to concerns over his growing popularity with the army and the people of Rome. Meanwhile, in 21 AD Arminius was assassinated by his fellow tribesmen.

Another interesting fact is that the Emperor Caligula (born 12 AD, ruled 37-41 AD) had the month of September renamed "Germanicus" after his late father, the illustrious general. The new name didn't stick.

Teutoburg Today

Teutoburg forest lies in western Germany on the border between Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia. Here, outside the town of Detmold, an 80 ft. bronze statue in the likeness of Hermann was completed in 1875. At the time he was celebrated as a symbol of German nationalism. Last month, Der Spiegel noted that this would be the 2000th anniversary of Hermann's victory over the Romans, but also that no one was planning any big celebrations since the idea of German warrior culture is tainted by its association with the Third Reich. For some reason there is also a statue of Hermann in the small town of New Ulm, Minnesota.

Meanwhile, the actual site of Varus' last stand was uncovered in the late '80s/early '90s, at a spot called Kalkriese hill 70 km north of Detmold's Hermann monument. Archaeologists have found evidence that the Germans stripped the fallen soldiers of valuables (nobody was left to fight them, so they could take their time!) as well as evidence consistent with Tacitus' account of the burial carried out by Germanicus' troops years later.

Link: Smithsonian Magazine "The Ambush that Changed History"

Images: Photo of Teutoburg Forest taken from Hermannsdenkmal posted on wikipedia by user Arminia and under GNU license; map of Western Roman Empire at the time of Augustus found at rbedrosian.com; photo of Hermannsdenkmal taken by David Crossland and found on Der Spiegel; photo of Roman cavalary mask uncovered at Kalkriese found on wikipedia.

On the Colon

2009-09-21T17:26:00.002-04:00

I hesitate to lead you, gentle reader, down into the valley of the shadow of English grammar and punctuation, but lately I've noticed something that has irritated me so much that I have to write about it. When did people decide to start capitalizing the first letter after a colon?

I first noticed this development when I was reading this blog that is like a serialization of a novel this guy's working on. I don't feel right linking just to nitpick someone's grammar (unless it's in the NYTimes), but here is one of many examples, "...Bertie's outfit, which he produces from his neverending bottomless carpetbag seemingly wrinkle-free: A peach silk shirt, grey three-piece with jodhpurs, and a matching twill baseball cap." I thought that this was annoying and wrong, but I figured maybe it was just a personal quirk on the part of the author.

After that, however, I noticed other articles written by other authors who did the same thing. "The brusque nurse, the surfeit of drugs, the ordinary mishaps—this pen's out of ink!—that seemed to bode ill: All served to underscore Betty's terror and her feelings of powerlessness and abandonment." I'm not sure whether this is a new development, or whether this is just one of those thing like when you learn a new word that previously eluded your attention and then you hear/see it used in a bunch of different places over the course of the week (I want to call that synchronicity).

So I decided to look into this capitalization after the colon thing and see whether it was legitimate or not. Before I tell you what I found out, let me just say that I think any discussion of rules of grammar and punctuation treads a slippery slope. I feel like we've all had experiences with grade school teachers who insisted that some usage or another was obligatory or incorrect, and that this was a "rule" one must follow, only to find out later that that was bullshit and that things were not that simple.

On one extreme, there are pedants who insist people should conform to rules that have long ago fallen out of fashion or which were specious to begin with (Don't get me started on the lie that there is a distinction between "further" and "farther!" That might actually have to be the topic of another post). On the other extreme, I guess, you end up with linguistic anarchy and you eventually realize that the possibility of communicating our thoughts to one another via language is a tricky business and that some rules and common practices are actually necessary in order to protect the meaning we're trying to convey. I guess, the ideal falls somewhere in between a world with hard and fast rules and a world where chaos reigns.

When do you use a colon?

The wikipedia entry on the colon has a catalogue differentiating between the many functions a colon may play in English sentences, but -- basically -- what follows the colon expands on the idea set out before the colon. Sometimes this can be a list.

He emptied out the contents of his car: two improperly-folded road maps, an empty bottle of suntan lotion, five discarded Starbucks cups, three pairs of cheap sunglasses....

Other times, what follows the colon could stand on its own as a complete sentence but the writer has made the choice to connect these clauses using the colon as a conjunction.

After a decade of civil war, the country's economy was in ruins: unemployment was at an all-time high, and rampant inflation had made the nation's currency all but worthless.

Do you capitalize the first word after a colon?

There seems to be some disagreement on this point. I guess that I was taught that you don't capitalize the first word after a colon (unless, of course, it's a proper noun or something like that that you would capitalize anyway in the middle of a sentence). According to wikipedia, the Brits all follow this practice and never capitalize after a colon. On the other hand, some American writing handbooks say that it is not incorrect to capitalize after a colon if and only if the clause that follows could stand on its own as a complete sentence (as in our second example sentence above). Not only that, but some American style books actually DEMAND that you capitalize the first word after the colon in these situations. The Associate Press and MLA style books both seem to fall into this category. The Chicago Manual of Style tells you to capitalize only when what follows the colon is a quotation or where two or more sentences follow the colon.

What about semicolons?

People today probably use semicolons less often than colons. Some recent articles even claim that it's facing extinction. But, anyway, a semicolon can be used as a conjunction to connect two sentences which are in some way related to each other. It seems to be universally accepted that you do not normally capitalize the first word of the second clause when a semicolon is used like this. This usage of the semicolon to connect two related sentences is very similar to using a colon to connect two related sentences; the only difference being that the semicolon's application is even broader (i.e. to use a colon the second clause must expand of the idea of the first clause, but you can use a semicolon if the two clauses are related in any way at all). Given this similarity, and the fact that no one would capitalize the first word after a semicolon, I wonder why anyone would feel the need to capitalize after a colon.

Other uses of the colon

Besides preceding a long list or connecting two independent clauses, a colon can also be used in other ways where I WOULD capitalize the next word. For example, a colon can also be used to seperate a title from a subtitle (e.g. "Glass Slippers: Feminism and Gender Roles in the Cinderella Story") or in plays, transcripts, etc. to seperate the speaker's name from his dialogue (Viceroy Fizzlebottom: Kippers for breakfast, Aunt Helga? Is it St. Swithin's Day already?). It is correct to capitalize the next word after the colon in both these situations.

Moreover, if what follows the colon is a direct quote, set off in quotation marks, I would probably capitalize the first word of the quote. The consumer group's representative strongly denounced the new law: "Rather than protecting small investors as the government promised, the final bill would shelter brokers from liability for past violations." I don't know though; to be honest, I could kind of go either way on this one.

Conclusion

Is your head spinning yet? Like I said, any in-depth discussion of grammar and punctuation usually ends up highlighting the absurdity of attempting to communicate through language at all. Not only that, but it can sometimes make you more self-conscious and unsure about your writing. I definitely don't believe that in writing a blog, an informal article or even a novel that one needs to take care to follow all the commonly agreed upon conventions of formal English grammar -- and I sure as heck don't claim to do this myself. But, nevertheless, my initial reaction to those sentences above remains. For me they stood out, and my gut instinct told me that they were "wrong."

And so, for what it's worth, I would say that unless you are constrained to follow the MLA or AP rules of style you shouldn't capitalize the first word after a colon. I'm curious to know what other people think: when would you capitalize after a colon?

Cool Music: Midlake

2009-09-17T19:51:00.003-04:00

Another good band that I think I originally discovered through Aquarium Drunkard and which I've been listening to more lately is Midlake. Midlake originally hale from Texas (Denton, TX which is just north of Dallas and Fort Worth) and they play kind of indie/ alternative/folk rock (i.e. what I like to call "White People Music"). I feel like if you're into the National, Kings of Leon, Blitzen Trapper or any other groups like that (also the Decembrists who I hesitated to mention because I personally think a lot of their stuff can be boring and whiney) then you might also enjoy Midlake.

My favorite Midlake song is still the first song I've ever heard by them: "Roscoe" off their 2006 album The Trials of Van Occupanther. The whole song is pretty great (I want to say that it's almost universally recognized as their best track), but I think the best lines is "Been born in 1891, waiting with my Aunt Roseline." I think it's just so evocative of the era they're -- somewhat earnestly, somewhat winkingly -- singing about. Plus, I had an Aunt Roslyn.

Here's the video:

You can find some more of their music on myspace, assuming you haven't turned your back on that corner of the internet forever. There's also more midlake videos available on youtube.

Mysteries of the I Ching, Part II

2009-09-17T19:18:00.004-04:00

Example of I Ching Divination

In order to better explain the I Ching and what it's all about, I decided to do a sample casting for the purposes of this post. The question I asked was "What is the I Ching?" and the symbol I got from counting out the yarrow stalks was this:

Symbol #62 (Xiao Guo) with the third line changing from yang to yin.

Meaning of Symbol

The Wilhelm translation of I Ching renders Xiao Guo as "Preponderance of the Small." For comparision, one of the copies I have at home (edited by Alfred Huang) calls this symbol "Little Exceeding" and the other (by Wu Wei) labels it "Attention to Detail/Small Tasks/Avoid Excess".

Huang translates the text for this symbol as follows:

King Wen's Judgment:

Little Exceeding.
Prosperous and smooth.
Favorable to be steadfast and upright.
Little affairs can be done,
Not great affairs.
A flying bird leaves a message:
Not appropriate to ascend,
Appropriate to descend.
Great good fortune.

Commentary on Judgment:

Little Exceeding.
The little ones exceed and proceed.
Favorable to be steadfast and upright
And to act in accord with the time.

The yielding attain the central places.
There is good fortune in dealing with small affairs.
The solids are neither central nor correct.
Great affairs should not be dealt with.

There is an image of a flying bird.
The flying bird leaves a message:
Not appropriate to ascend,
Appropriate to descend.
Great good fortune!
To ascend is contrary to the situation;
To descend is in accord with the time.

Commentary on Symbol:

Thunder above Mountain
An image of Little Exceeding.
In correspondence with this,
The superior person weighs the pros and cons of his conduct:
Excessive humility is better than excessive arrogance in behavior.
Excessive sorrow is better than excessive expense in a funeral.
Excessive frugality is better than excessive luxury in spending.

Right, so what does all this mean? Wu Wei actually seems to sum up the symbol pretty well: the central themes are (a) paying attention to small details, (b) aiming to accomplish small, acheivable goals (little accomplishments will eventually add up to something big), and (c) avoiding excess (its better to make due with a little less than the ideal than to have too much).

And what's all that business about the flying bird leaving behind a message? Huang explains that, from watching the mother bird leave the nest, the baby birds learn that it is better to fly low than to fly high. Flying closer to the ground is safer, in part because you're more likely to be within reach of a suitable place to land when the time comes. For me this brings to mind the myth of Icarus, and I feel like the I Ching is recounting the same allegorical lesson about the dangers of soaring too high.

So that's step one. Step two is to look at the line-text for our changing line (the third line in the symbol). Here's Huang's translation of the line-text along with the associated commentary:

Yao Text

Third Nine
Go not too far.
Guard against this.
Otherwise one might be injured: misfortune.

Commentary

Otherwise one might be injured
What a serious misfortune it is.

So yeah that doesn't really seem to add much to our understanding in this case. The line-text just further emphasizes the warning against going too far or overdoing it. Also, watch your back!.

Our final step is to check out what symbol is formed when that third line completes its change from yang to yin. This turns out to be symbol #16 (Yu) which is variously translated as Enthusiasm, Delight, Happiness, Peace. Some of the explanations I read for Yu include "inspire enthusiasm/ great success/remain humble" and "humility and sincerity bring harmony." Also: after you acheive success you must try to remain humble and avoid selfish thoughts.

My interpretation

I think that this is actually a pretty interesting and appropriate answer to our question ("What is the I Ching?"). The I Ching is "preponderance of the small." This makes sense given that in order to use the I Ching you have to take some time and sort through sticks. The I Ching is attention to detail, success through small achievements/realizable goals and avoiding excess. And, finally, the I Ching leads to happiness and harmony and success but remember to stay humble.

Putting all the answer stuff aside, I think that this casting also tells you a lot about what the I Ching is like. As you can see, in addition to being a fortune telling instrument, the I Ching is actually pretty didactic. It's text is full of advice about being steadfast, moral, honest, upright, etc. I want to say that this sets it apart from other fortune telling techniques like tarot cards or tea leaves or whatever. With the I Ching, any pronouncement about the future always comes hand in hand with a lot of preachy/sage wisdom.

Consulting the I Ching is more usually a solitary, introspective experience. With tarot cards, the meaning of the cards is really wide open to different interpretation which you leave up to a fortune teller. But with the I Ching it's all written down in a big book. The answer you get is definitely open to some interpretation, but if you're literate and intelligent you can decide for yourself how the words apply to your question/situation. Interestingly enough, I read an article where the author said that when she spoke to people about the I Ching she found that no one ever claimed its answers were incorrect -- in the worse cases the answer was just obscure. What's more, you'll really never go astray following its advice since the I Ching's philosophy is very much about being the most moral, disciplined person you can be.

Image: illustration of Xiao Guo from compassionatedragon.com.

Mysteries of the I Ching, Part I

2009-09-07T16:31:00.007-04:00

What is the I Ching?

The I Ching is one of the most ancient Chinese texts. It was included among the Five Classics preserved and taught by followers of Confucius, which all predate the establishment of the Qin dynasty by the book-burning First Emperor in 221 BC. "I Ching" is usually translated as "The Book of Changes" which reflects the tome's underlying philosophy: that our world is made up of forces (opposing forces, balanced forces) which are always changing, that history is cyclical, and that there is continuity between the past, present and future. I also have a copy which calls itself "The Book of Answers," reflecting the fact that the I Ching is primarily used for divination.

How did I discover the I Ching?

I think I was wholly ignorant of this classic until three years ago when I read the novel The Man in the High Castle by scifi writer Philip K Dick (the guy who wrote the book on which Blade Runner was based). The novel, which deserves a recommendation in and of itself, takes places in an alternative world where the Japanese and the Germans won WWII. The US has been carved up, with the Nazis taking the East Coast and the Japanese the West, while a Free America in the Heartland acts as a buffer between the two world powers.

Most of the action takes place in the western half of the country where the I Ching figures among the many aspects of Asian culture disseminated under Japanese occupation. Several of the characters consult the oracle for advice, and Dick claims that he turned to it for guidance when he was writing the novel.

After finishing The Man in the High Castle my curiosity was piqued and I was eager to check it out for myself, but (although I gave it to a couple of people as a gift) I didn't get a copy of my own until earlier this year.

History of the I Ching

The I Ching's origins are prehistorical. Traditionally, much of the classic's present, written form is attributed to the work of three authors. King Wen ("Zhou Wen Wang" 周文王, , 1099-1050 BC), the progenitor of China's Zhou dynasty (1045 - 256 BC), is credited with putting the 64 symbols in their present order and with writing the Judgments for each of the symbols. While Wen's son King Wu would go on to defeat their enemies the Shang and put the family in power, Wu's younger brother -- known as the Duke of Zhou ("Zhou Gong" 周公) -- is said to have continued their father's literary work and written the explanations for each of the six horizontal lines that comprise each symbol. Finally, the commentary further expanding on the meaning of the symbols, King Wen's judgments, and the Duke of Zhou's line-texts is traditionally attributed to Confucius (孔夫子, 551 - 479 BC).

Contemporary historians now believe that the traditional account of the I Ching's authorship is legendary, much the same way that the Torah is thought to be the work not of the prophet Moses but of a number of different authors. Nevertheless, scholars believe that the core of I Ching (the symbols, judgments and line-texts) were written down and canonized during the span of Zhou dynasty with the commentary being added by later generations of Confucianists, perhaps incorporating elements of an oral tradition that began with the philosopher himself.

How to consult the I Ching

The way that I Ching divination works, basically, is you ask a question and then you are directed to one of the book's symbols and whatever is written there is your answer. You can either ask a question seeking knowledge (what will the new year hold?) or advice (what should I do about...?). One of the books I have at home suggests that the wise man asks "what should I do?" rather than "what will happen?"

In order to find out what your symbol is, you need some way to generate random numbers. Perhaps the most ancient method involved banging turtle shells and reading the cracks that formed, but the knowledge of how to do this has been lost (plus, poor turtles!). Another one of the oldest methods employs dried yarrow stalks, and this technique (or at least a modern reconstruction) is still used today. There's really no reason why you couldn't use a bundle of any old kind of sticks (you need 50), but -- you know -- the yarrow stalks are traditional.

A more recently invented method (which became popular in the 12th/13th century AD) uses three coins. A lot of people like this method because it makes it quicker and easier to get the six lines of your hexagram, but at least one of my I Ching books disparages the coin method as "inauthentic." Also, the probability of getting each of the four types of lines is different depending on whether you're tossing coins or counting sticks. I've only used the yarrow stalks; I guess I feel like it gives you the full I Ching experience.

The process of manipulating the sticks is somewhat complicated (here is a good set of instructions). You need to do this six times in order to get the six lines that make up your symbol. Each line is either yin (broken) or yang (solid) and either constant or changing. When you are finished, you look up your symbol in the I Ching and read the corresponding judgment and commentary (your translation of the I Ching may also include a further explanation provided by the translator/editor).

But this is not the end: if your symbol includes any changing lines you should also read the line-texts for these lines (and the associated commentary) which usually give you a more specific answer applying to the situation you are asking about. I Ching users are sometimes uncertain how to interpret an answer with more than one changing line, but I follow the general rule that a lower changing line speaks of a situation closer to the immediate present whereas higher changing lines speak about a later, future situation. Finally, when the changes have occurred (i.e. changing yin lines have turned into yang lines and vice versa) the six lines will form a new symbol. Look up this new symbol and read the Judgment and commentary to find out what the situation will be like once the current changes have been resolved.

Stay tuned for Part II and an example of I Ching divination

Images: cover of I Ching edition published by St. Martin's Griffin found at wildatheart.blogspot.com; portrait of King Wen found at orbat.com; photo of statue outside of Confucius temple in Beijing found on wikipedia.

Cool Music: Possibly Maybe

2009-08-28T17:14:00.003-04:00

What song am I listening to right now? "Possibly Maybe" by Björk.

She is from Iceland. I want to say that she looks like she could be part like-native Greenlander or something. But I think I heard her whole family is just Icelandic going way back. Here is a pic I took when I was in Iceland last May.

Does any else remember how they played a clip from this song on that music video show on VH1 called Insomiac before it went to commercial? Insomniac was really such an evil name. I remember seeing it and thinking "I'm watching insomniac music theater? Damn, what time is it!" Kind of a buzzkill.

Apparently, this show is still on the air only now they call it "Nocturnal State". Hmm, good to know.

Qu'est-ce que c'est Art Nouveau?

2009-08-26T10:50:00.007-04:00

I've been an admirer of Art Deco for a long time, and for years now I've been saying that Gaudí is probably my all-time favorite architect, but earlier this year I realized that I am a huge fan of the Art Nouveau style. I guess I didn't really know what Art Nouveau was until I picked up The Children's Book, A.S. Byatt's latest novel, which takes place around the turn of the 20th century and discusses at length some of the era's movements in decorative arts (including Art Nouveau and the Arts & Crafts style popular in Britain at that time). A couple of the main characters were potters.

Anyway, once I read a little about it, I was like "Oh, so that's what Art Nouveau is! I love that shite." Allow me to elaborate.

What is Art Nouveau?

The Art Nouveau movement gained prominence around the turn of the 20th century (wikipedia lists the movement's heyday as 1890-1905). Most of the movement's artists were active in Continental Europe, but its resonance can be seen worldwide. In German, Art Nouveau is often called Jugendstil after a German magazine (Jugend) which promoted the movement.

The central tenant of the movement's philosophy is that artists' designs should be incorporated into everything: not only the fine arts (painting, sculpture) but also architecture and the decorative arts (including pottery, furniture, jewelry...). The movement represents a departure from the academic schools that reigned during the Victorian era. Those tended to be formalistic and backward-looking, but Art Nouveau freed artists' creativity from the constraints of the past.

Characteristics of the Art Nouveau Style

Art Nouveau as an international movement embraces a lot of local variations and idiosyncratic artists, but there are some stylistic elements we can point to as being characteristic. The first and most important of these is definitely the use of curved lines (early on, one critic likened these to the crack of a whip). Another common element is the incorporation of nature designs like flowers, leaves, vines and even insects. Fairies and other mythological figures -- from the folklore native to Northern Europe (e.g. the Arthurian cycle, Norse sagas) as opposed to Classical myths -- also appear in Art Nouveau artwork. I would say that the combination of these three elements lend the style a "fairytale" feel.

Wrought iron and glass, including stained glass, can be seen in a lot of Art Nouveau works. Some of the movements' artists also drew inspiration from non-European artwork, such as Japanese woodblock prints.

Examples of Art Nouveau

In Paris, the Metro entrances designed by Hector Guimard have become emblematic examples of the Art Nouveau style. Paris was also the site of the Exposition Universelle in 1900 which introduced the movement to people from across the world. Some of the structures built for the occasion and still standing today also represent the new style (in particular, I would point your attention to the gallery of the Grand Palais). Some people even consider the Eiffel Tower (finished in 1889) to be an Art Nouveau structure.

In neighboring Belgium Victor Horta was an important Art Nouveau architect and his maison and atelier in Brussels is now a museum, while in Austria the movement was represented by the Vienna Secessionists whose first president was the artist Gustav Klimt.

The Catalan architect Antonio Gaudí's structures are Spain's most famous examples of the Art Nouveau. Some critics might consider his style to be too personal and unique to fit comfortably under the movement's aegis, but I would say that his curvilinear, organic forms and flights of fancy are definitely characteristic of the style. The majority of Gaudi's works are concentrated in Barcelona, and they represent Art Nouveau at its most surreal.

Another European city worth mentioning is the Latvian capital of Riga, where the wealth of Art Nouveau architecture earned the city center recognition as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Many of these works were designed by architect Mikhail Osipovich Eisenstein, father of Soviet filmmaker Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein.

The United States was geographically removed from the epicenter of Art Nouveau. Moreover, here the movement faced competition from the rival Arts & Crafts school. Nevertheless, two American artists worth mentioning in this context are Louis Comfort Tiffany, famous for his work in stained glass, and Chicago architect Louis Sullivan, whose buildings include Art Nouveau elements.

Art Nouveau vs. Arts & Crafts

I've already mentioned the Arts & Crafts movement twice. This school was popular in the English-speaking world around the same time that Art Nouveau predominated in Europe (in the US, it is often called the American craftsman style). Arts & Crafts and Art Nouveau can be considered sister movements: they share many similarities but also harbor some key differences which make it difficult to reduce Arts & Crafts to the British branch of the larger Art Nouveau movement.

Ideologically, Arts & Crafts proponents romanticized the role of the (working class) craftsman, and thus the movement had a progressivist, Luddite inclination. This political element was largely absent from Continental Art Nouveau, making it a more bourgeois/intellectual/elite movement. Stylistically, I would say that a lot of Arts & Crafts work tends to have an earthy, cottagey feel, whereas Art Nouveau tends more towards the sophisticated and elegant.

The British artist and writer William Morris is usually considered the spiritual father of the Arts & Crafts movement, which was also inspired by the writings of John Ruskin. I also strongly associate the pottery of the Martin Brothers with the Arts & Crafts style.

Art Nouveau's Place in Art History

Although the golden age of Art Nouveau has come and gone, the movement holds an important place in the history of Western Art. Through Art Nouveau, one can see the progression from the traditionalist schools that preceded it to the modernist styles that replaced it, particularly Art Deco. In Art Deco, the wrought iron and stained glass remain, but the curves and natural designs are replaced by the straight lines and geometric shapes of the machine age.

More recently, Art Nouveau also served as a major source of inspiration for a lot of the psychadelic artwork of the '60s and '70s such as the posters of Wes Wilson, Alton Kelley and Stanley "Mouse" Miller.

Links:
National Gallery of Art page for 2000 Art Nouveau exhibit;
Flickr feed of Louis H. Sullivan's work by user Atelier Tee;
Images of Art Nouveau Architecture in Latin America by photographer Peter Langer.

Images: Jugend cover from Oscar Wilde - Standing Ovations; Paris Metropolitan entrance from FashionMista; Horta museum, Brussels interior uploaded on wikipedia by user Rafaelij and used under GNU license; detail of facade of 10b Elisabetes Iela, Riga designed by Eisteinstein found on riga-life.com; Wisteria panel by Louis C. Tiffany on display at Morse Museum in Winter Park, FL (image from metmuseum website); 1966 poster by Wes Wilson found on lysator.liu.se.

Truth About Fiji Water

2009-08-24T18:13:00.007-04:00

Do you know Fiji, that brand of fancy, pricey bottled water that you sometimes see in convenience stores? I've drunk a bottle or two in my day, but I never really spent much time thinking about Fiji Water. When I did, I guess I associated the brand with a tropical paradise and beaches with clear blue water. Fiji's popularity among celebrities has made it the US's #1 imported bottled water, and apparently the brand has to some extent insulated itself from the green backlash against bottled water by tauting itself as an eco-friendly business. But last week I read a damning expose in Mother Jones which has forever changed my opinion of the brand.

Is Fiji Water Green?

No. According to the article, Fiji Water imports the plastic for its bottles from China, and its bottling plant runs on diesel generators. A lot of the green initiatives that the company credits itself with have yet to be implemented. The article also points out that -- you know -- having your water shipped to you from halfway across the world is not such a green choice.

Is Fiji Water Socially Conscious?

Fiji Water also likes to publicize its charitable donations, especially its contributions to bettering the lives of Fijians. Mother Jones points out that the company does not release the exact figures of how much it gives to charity, but forget about that... I was more struck by the fact that, whereas Fiji Water comes from a pristine aquifer that was discovered in the early '90s, many Fijians do not have access to clean drinking water and as a result outbreaks of diseases like typhoid are common. The company purchased a 99-year lease to the land over the aquifer and almost no one else has tapped into this source.

And did you know that Fiji is ruled by a military dictatorship that has suspended freedom of the press and committed human rights violations? Fiji Water has a very close relationship with the island chain's government: the foreign-owned company represents 3% of the nation's GDP, and it enjoys favorable tax treatment. In return, the company of course keeps its mouth shut about any government oppression. The article notes that when Fiji's government attempted to levy an additional tax on the bottling company, Fiji Water condemned the measure as "draconian" and temporarily closed down its plant in protest, but they haven't reacted similarly to measures infringing on the human rights of the people of Fiji.

Fiji's government actually loves Fiji Water and it loves being associated with the company given that some of the world famous brand's goodwill and coolness rubs off on the island nation. When Anne Lenzer, the journalist who wrote the article for Mother Jones, travelled to Fiji to investigate the company, she was arrested and questioned by police. In addition to complaining about her seditious activity (reporting abroad on the junta's crackdown via email), the police also accused her of being sent by a rival water company (Kentwood? Poland Springs?) to tarnish Fiji Water's image.

Conclusion

When I think of Fiji Water the first person who comes to mind is my friend Nicole. She has been drinking Fiji for like ten years (trendsetter!). We used to joke about how she was broke and her car was busted, but she'd have on designer sunglasses and be sipping $4 bottles of water. When I forwarded her the link to this article her reaction was "OMG, I had no idea! I am never buying Fiji Water again!" Neither will I.

Image: photo taken from piecesofflair blog.

Vampire in Venice

2009-08-24T15:04:00.007-04:00

During last month's vampire research kick, I happened upon an article from this March about the corpse of a neutralized vampire which was recently uncovered by archaeologists in Venice, in a mass grave of 16th-century plague victims. Let's discuss!

Vampires and disease

If you ask me, there seems to be a strong connection between vampire legends and diseases. I guess I first noticed this a year or so ago when I read "The Shunned House," a short story by H. P. Lovecraft. As a former New Orleanian, I remember thinking that the vampire explanation for the health problems plaguing the house's inhabitants could have easily be replaced by toxic mold.

We also saw a connection to diseases in the 18th-century vampire cases examined in a previous blog post: villagers suspected the recently deceased of being a vampire when family members and neighbors began to fall ill soon after his death. In one of the cases a contagious disease expert was even sent to the village in question to investigate whether this wasn't the start of an epidemic.

The association between vampires and disease is even present in the novel Dracula, where the vampire's first victim in England, Lucy Westerna, lies bed ridden for weeks -- wasting away -- before she finally expires. When Lucy's friend Mina is later "infected" by Dracula she cries out that she is "Unclean! Unclean!" echoing the passage in Leviticus (13:45) dealing with lepers.

The link between vampires and plague/infectious disease is even clearer in the variation on the traditional vampire myth known as the nachzehrer.

Shroud Eaters

The nachzehrer, also known as a "shroud eater" in English, is a type of vampire which doesn't rise from its resting place, but rather lies in its tomb -- chewing through its burial garments. As the nachzehrer eats its way through the shroud, the deceased's family members, neighbors and friends fall ill and die. According to some accounts, one can sometimes hear the nachzehrer noisily chewing like a pig, and after it has finished with the shroud it may move on to chewing on its own flesh or that of other corpses in its vicinity. Some also claim that when the ghoul has gained sufficient sustenance in this manner it can then rise from the grave as a true vampire.

According to Matteo Borrini, the archaeologist/forensic anthropologist who discovered the corpse in Venice, shroud eater myths seem to have originated in Poland in the 1300s (the century in which the Black Death first spread through Europe). These folktales also became popular in parts of Germany such a Bavaria and Silesia which may explain the international use of the German name "nachzehrer." Over the centuries, several treatises were written on the subject of the nachzehrer including Dissertatio Historico-Philosophio de Masticatione Mortuorum ("Historical/Philosophical Dissertation on the Chewing Dead"), published in Leipzig in 1679 by Philuppus Rohr, and De Masticatione Mortuorum in Tumulis ("Of the Chewing Dead in the Tomb"), published in 1728, also in Leipzig, by Michaël Ranft.

It's no surprise that this latest specimen was found in a mass grave for plague victims. On the contrary, the nachzehrer myth seems to have become closely associated in people's minds with plague. Many examples of recently interred cadavers who seemed to have chewed a hole through their burial shrouds were found during bouts of plague, and the actions of the shroud eater were blamed for spreading the plague among those who knew him.

In order to stop the malevolent shroud eaters from further oppressing surviving friends and family members, something hard and inedible like a stone or brick could be shoved into the corpse's mouth. This would sometimes break the corpse's teeth or even the jaw bone.

Vampire in Venice

The skeleton uncovered in Venice belonged to a woman who died during a 1579 outbreak of bubonic plague in the city. A brick was driven into her mouth so as to put an end to any postmortem chewing once and for all. She was one of over 1,500 people laid to rest in a mass grave on Lazzaretto Nuovo, an island in the Venetian lagoon which served at the time as a quarantine and decontamination site for people and goods suspected of carrying plague. The name "lazzaretto" or "lazaretto," applied to quarantine stations such as this, derives from the gospel figure Lazarus.

What really happened to the shrouds of corpses like this? Scientists believe that moist gases produced during decomposition would escape from the cadaver's mouth. This would make the shroud damp and heavy and cause it to eventually sink into the corpse's mouth where it might then be consumed by bacteria.

Regarding shroud eaters and other vampires, Borrini notes that these myths derived in part from popular ignorance and misinterpretation of thanatological data. Most people would only be familiar with the characteristics of bodies soon after death (when they grow cold and stiff with rigor mortis) and then perhaps with bodies in advanced stages of decomposition when little but the skeleton remains, such as might be glimpsed when crypts were opened years after burial. They were, however, unfamiliar with intermediary stages like the "emphysemateous" phase, which lasts for 3-4 months, during which the cadaver is under pressure caused by a build up of putrefying gases. As noted in the above-mentioned 18th-centry vampire post, during this stage the body may grow bloated with gases, which people misinterpreted as lively plumpness. Likewise, liquid blood might be pushed out of the corpse's orifices.

It makes sense that more vampire-corpses would be encountered during plague time given that the resting place of the recently buried would often be disturbed so that the bodies of new victims could be thrown in. Borrini also notes that during the Middle Ages, many Europeans attributed the Black Death to the devil, and thus it would make sense to see his agents on earth -- like the nachzehrer -- spreading the plague.

One final note: I previously read that vampire stories first became popular knowledge in the Anglo Saxon world during the 18th century when sensationalist reports of cases from the Austrian Empire and elsewhere in Eastern Europe were disseminated in Western Europe. If we assume that vampire myths are of Slavic origin, should we then be surprised to see a nachzehrer in 16th-century Venice and earlier stories of these creatures in parts of Germany? Not really. Silesia, Bavaria and Leipzig are all in Eastern Germany and thus fairly close to the parts of Poland (specifically, Pomerania) where we're told the shroud eater myths began. Moreover, Venice in the 1500s was a cosmopolitan port city. Located in northeastern Italy, Venice isn't far at all from Yugoslavia, and at this time the Venetian Empire included Slavic territory, such as part of the Istrian peninsula and Dalmatian coast. Thus I wouldn't be surprised if vampire myths spread here before they reached other parts of Western Europe.

Link: shroudeater.com, a site dedicated to shroud eaters and other old school vampire mythology.

Images: Skull image by Matteo Borrini found on newscientist.com; drawing of Lazzaretto Nuovo taken from lazzarettonuovo.com.

More on Healthcare

2009-08-19T14:53:00.003-04:00

I realize this isn't the most interesting topic and it's easy to get sick of hearing about it (no pun intended), but I think Healthcare Reform is probably the most important issue facing this Congress and the President and the one which will likely have the greatest and most lasting impact on all our lives.

Who knows if it helps at all, but at lunch today I emailed my Congressmen and two Senators asking them to support including a strong public option in the final bill. I thought it was important to let my representatives know that this issue was important to me given all the media coverage focusing on those who oppose healthcare reform.

Here's a copy of the cheesy letter I sent. Feel free to copy and edit it and send a message to YOUR representatives (you can find their contact info at usa.gov).

My name is [Meeg] and I live in Arlington County, VA. I am one of your constituents as well as a supporter of the Democratic Party (who voted for you in 2006 and 2008, moreover).

I am writing to you now to urge you to SUPPORT A STRONG PUBLIC OPTION in the healthcare reform bill currently being debated. I still remember what it was like being uninsured for several years after I finished college, and my heart goes out to the millions of American families who do not have health insurance or the means to pay for necessary medical treatment. This is one of our great nation’s worst and most embarrassing problems.

Today, I am lucky enough to have health insurance, but I still run into hurdles with the insurance company dictating what medical treatment it will pay for. Worse still, I know that if I were to develop a major medical problem my current health insurance would only cover a fraction of the cost of treatment.

The health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are using all their considerable wealth and influence to block any reform which would reduce their profit margins. Right now they are basically the decision makers running our nation’s healthcare system, but we all know that they do not have Americans’ best interests in mind. It’s time for the government to step up and put a check on their power. Health insurance companies won’t start offering Americans better, more affordable coverage unless they have to compete with a strong public healthcare option.

I wholeheartedly believe that this is the most important issue this Congress faces and that it is the one which will have the greatest, most lasting impact on Americans’ lives.

I urge you to do the right thing, make the tough choice, and fight to include a strong public healthcare option in this bill. The media may be giving a lot of coverage to those who oppose healthcare reform, but YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT VIRGINIA VOTERS LIKE ME CARE STRONGLY ABOUT THIS ISSUE and our eyes are on Congress, on our Senators and Representatives, and on their voting records.

Thanks for your time,

SOME RECENT ARTICLES ON HEALTHCARE

I also read a few interesting articles on this issue today. First, there is the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece written by the CEO and Founder of Whole Foods. It turns out, I guess, that he is a libertarian who doesn't believe in a "government takeover" of the country's healthcare system. I was pretty surprised by this. I know that Whole Foods offers its employees good healthcare and other benefits (better than most big corporations employing a large "unskilled" workforce, I dare say).

Here's my take on his editorial: first of all, a lot of the reforms he calls for seem to do more to help out health insurance companies than anything (eliminating legislation which requires them to offer certain types of coverage, allowing people to chose health insurers who operate in other states). I guess this is all part of his less government, trust in the market, give people a choice philosophy. I would say that allowing insurance companies to opt-out of offering coverage currently required by law (I have no idea what sort of coverage he is talking about) would probably result in less comprehensive coverage. Allowing people to chose from health insurers in different states, however, might actually result in healthier competition and better, more affordable coverage for people -- who knows. Then he goes into the typical BS about tort reform....

Where this guy really lost me, however, is in the second half of the article where he denies that people have an intrinsic right to healthcare(!). Basically, if you're poor or unemployed or whatever and you can't afford to pay for the medical treatment you and your family needs, tough luck! I would expect more from the CEO of a company normally associated with organic food and fair trade and all that other crap.

Article #2 is from theroot.com and it suggests that the president has to stop "punking out" -- not pushing too hard on the healthcare issue and being so ready to compromise. I agree with the author that this is the sort of change that voters like me elected him to enact, and maybe he needs to start thinking about his supporters a little more and about the dissenting minority on the right a little less. Also, what ever happened to whipping your party members into shape? I understand that HMO and drug companies have a strong lobby, but the president still has a lot of political capital. Why isn't he putting more pressure on Congressmen from HIS OWN PARTY to step in line and back this key initiative for his administration??

Photo of Obama at Aug 15, 2009 town hall meeting by Ed Andrieski/AP.

It's a Good Thing I'm Not the President

2009-08-12T19:05:00.009-04:00

Lately, it seems like there is this group of crazies out there whose strategy is to just jump up and down and scream and shout nonsense ("Let's see your birth certificate!" "Death panels!") so that nothing will get done. And for some reason the media has decided to devote like 80% of its airtime to these nutters and their irrational concerns. Also, I am now 100% convinced that all these healthcare protests are being funded by pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, etc.

If I was the president I would totally be like "Fuck it! I give up. I don't want to hear what's going on, and I'm over trying to make any changes for the better or get anything accomplished." (You may remember that this was Bush's mindset from at least 2007 onwards.)

It is really a good thing that Obama is so good at keeping his cool and keeping his eye on the prize because people (protesters, pundits, Congress) are just infuriating.

UNRELATED: for some reason it really grinds my gears whenever I read POTUS or SCOTUS; can we all agree to stop using these godawful, secret service acronyms or whatever the hell they are?

Image: photo of shouter at town hall meeting with Arlen Specter by AP Photos/Carolyn Kaster

Ninja Warrior

2009-08-11T16:20:00.008-04:00

My friend Des first brought this show to my attention like two years ago: she told me how she stumbled upon it channel surfing one night and after watching for a bit she woke up her husband and told him "I just found the best show ever." Despite this endorsement, I didn't actually get a chance to really sit down and watch Ninja Warrior until earlier this summer when I found myself in the middle of a weekend marathon on G4 (that channel that's sort of like Spike TV, but maybe it's aimed at teenage boys who play video games). Anyway, all it took was a few episodes for me to get hooked.

So what is Ninja Warrior (or "Nin JAH Warrior" as G4 invites you to pronounce it)? It's basically a televised athletics competition where participants race through this obstacle course-on-steroids. Each season (I think every year there's a competition in the spring and fall), 100 competitors tackle the Ninja Warrior course -- out of whom perhaps as many as 15 advance past stage one. Besides the Ninja Warrior All Stars, who are returning veterans, some of the most successful competitors are gymnasts, firefighters, rock climbers, track athletes, Olympians and former Olympians. Moreover, there's always an assortment of joke competitors, including Japanese TV clowns, the model (like model airplane) enthusiast who races in a crash helmet, and my personal favorite Mr. Octopus, who no one expects to make it very far. I think it was last season when there was this one TV comedian who raced the course dressed as Obama while the crowd of spectators all shouted "Yes we can!" -- that was nuts.

Despite this injection of levity early on in the competition, Ninja Warrior is no joke. The obstacle course requires speed, balance, agility and strength, and -- like I said -- on a good day maybe 15 out of 100 competitors make it on to stage 2 (sometimes the number is much less). The next two stages are even more difficult, and the select few who make their way through them get a chance to try and "climb to the top of Mount Midoriyama" and achieve "Total Victory." Thus far, in the 22 Ninja Warrior competitions, only two guys have ever gone all the way. The 1st (way back in Season 4) was this crab diver from Hokkaido named Kazuhiko Akiyama who has freaky-looking eyebrows and who has since declined as a contestant apparently due to failing eyesight. More recently, in Season 17, a fishing boat captain named Makoto Nagano made it.

It's unclear whether you get some sort of cash prize for achieving Total Victory, in addition to bragging rights and title of "Nin JAH Warrior," but since only two people have ever done it it's basically a moot point. At the very least those who go far are often recruited to join the Ninja Warrior All Stars which seems to be a paying gig. Anyway, despite the questionable monetary rewards, there are people who take the competition very seriously -- even quitting their jobs to focus on training and constructing facsimiles of the course's obstacles to practice on.

The Course

There's basically two ways for competitors to get eliminated on Ninja Warrior: you either slip up and fall into the muddy water below (actually, if any part of you touches the water you're out of the competition), or you can run out of time (all of the stages except Stage 3 are timed).

The people who design the course are pretty much evil, and they are always changing things around to make it even harder. After Nagano's win in Season 17 they completely overhauled the course and since then a lot of the veterans who advanced pretty far in the past have been unable to match those performances. It seems that no one ever questions whether they might have made things too difficult. In Season 19, for example, only two competitors cleared Stage 1 and both of them fell early in Stage 2. You might think this would lead the producers to make the early parts of the course a tiny bit easier (if only to keep things interesting for the audience), but, on the contrary, they didn't change much of anything for Season 20. I guess if no one gets half way through the course that's fine, and they'll just need to step it up next time.

Favorite Stage 1 obstacles include the Log Grip (grab onto the log and hold on for dear life as it makes its ways down a shaky track), the Great Wall (get a running start, jump for the top of the curved wall, and then try and pull yourself up), and the Jumping Spider (bounce as high as you can off a trampoline and then IN MID AIR brace yourself between two walls "spiderman style"). Stage 2 features the incredibly difficult Salmon Ladder (it's like the pull-up bar from hell), and then Stage 3 is all about hanging from your arms for a really long time (not to mention the next to impossible leap you have to make on the Cliff Hanger). The rarely glimpsed Stage 4 seems to be all about beating the clock as you rope climb up this like 30 foot tower.

Favorite Competitors

Besides Nagano, some of the other front running competitors are village hall worker and former track star Bunpei Shiratori (I want to say he's really tall and skinny but apparently he's only 5'9"), fire rescue worker Toshiro Takeda, and gas station manager Shingo Yamamoto (I think it's cute how he wears his uniform and ball cap when he's competing). Then there's Levi Meeuwenberg this young American free runner who won G4's American Ninja warrior contest and came out of nowhere to get further than anyone in Season 20. There are other international competitors as well like Taiwanese rock climber Lee Enchi who got to Stage 3 in the last competition (#22). Women also compete in Sasuke, the main competition, in addition to the all-ladies Kunoichi, but I think only one or two female competitors have ever completed Stage 1.

The Allure of Ninja Warrior

So not only is Ninja Warrior fun to watch, but the obstacle course also looks like a lot of fun (although I'm sure in reality it would be more like scary and difficult). At the height of my obsession I was all "someday I will be a competitor on ninja warrior!" If that somehow happened, my aim would basically just be to finish Stage 1 (you've got to be joking with that salmon ladder shit). Logistics aside, I'd obviously have to get in super good shape to have a chance -- I somehow don't see myself building my own obstacles to practice on though. I hoped that maybe I could use my dream (or passing interest, whatever) to be on ninja warrior in order to get my lazy arse to the gym more regularly, but so far results have been mixed.

I imagine the hardest parts for me would be the jumping spider and the wall climb (maybe I would be at a height disadvantage?). Plus, did I somehow learn how to climb a rope since high school gym class? Even if you're a true ninja warrior you can still slip up and fall at any point in the course, and then you don't get another chance for six months. Also, at some point, I wised up to the fact that although it all looks like fun and games on TV I'm sure some of the obstacles that involve heights are daunting and overcoming the fear probably plays a big factor. Maybe jumping off that tree thing in Jamaica was a good start.

Alright, chances are I will never get the opportunity to compete on "Mount Midoriyama" (i.e. the Ninja Warrior course), but at the very least I think I'll have to have some kind of viewing party when Season 23 airs.

Images: Mr Octopus, Log Grip, Spider Jump and Salmon Ladder screen captures all found on funnystrange.com. Videos showing Levi Meeuwenberg and Lee Enchi competing in Sasuke 22 posted on youtube by BLM.

The Real Dracula

2009-08-09T17:33:00.005-04:00

So I realize that I may be giving people the impression that I'm big into vampires. This blog already has three vaguely vampire related posts, and there's probably more to come since I've been reading even more on the subject in the last month or so (I want to call it "research" for this book idea that came to me recently which actually has nothing to do with vampires). Before I begin post #4 (on the historical Dracula) maybe I should stop and take a second to clear up any misconceptions people might be formulating. I can assure you all that I have not, since the last time you may have seen me, become a Twilight fanboy (although I totally watch that HBO, chick-dating-a-vampire series True Blood), nor have I started to dress like the Marquis de Sade and paint my fingernails black. That said, here we go...

Vlad Dracula

Vlad III of Wallachia (1431-1476), also known as Vlad Tepes ("Vlad the Impaler") or Vlad Dracula, reigned off-and-on as the Voivode of Wallachia during a time when the region was caught in the middle of a bloody, ongoing struggle between the Ottoman Turks and the Christian army led by the Hungarians. His father Vlad II Dracul ("Vlad the Dragon," c. 1390-1447) had also been a Voivode of Wallachia and his mother Cneajna was the daughter of Alexander the Good of Moldavia. Vlad II was given his curious surname because he was a member of the Order of the Dragon, a group whose member's swore an oath to defend the Christian faith, and Vlad III's surname, Dracula, means "son of the dragon."

Despite his oath to the Christian cause, when Vlad II regained the Wallachian throne in 1443 he agreed to pay tribute to the Sultan and also to send Vlad Dracula and his younger brother Radu the Handsome to the Ottoman capital as hostages to ensure his good behavior. The two probably received a good education during these years spent at the Sultan's court, and they certainly learned much about Turkish ways.

That next year, 1444, the Kingdom of Hungary launched a large-scale offensive against the Turks under its regent John Hunyadi (the "White Knight"). Vlad II was stuck between a rock and a hard place and his loyalty was divided so, rather than joining the Magyar offensive himself, he sent his eldest son Mircea to fight in his stead. Hunyadi's crusade ended in a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Varna, and when the dust settled the Magyars were probably disillusioned with Dracul and his son. Thus, in 1447, they were assassinated (Mircea was reportedly blinded with a red hot poker before being buried alive), and the Kingdom of Hungary put Vladislav II, a member of the rival Danesti clan, on the Wallachian throne.

At this point, the Turks decided to advance Dracula as their candidate to the throne. With Ottoman support, he briefly seized control of Wallachia in 1448, but he was deposed by the Hungarians in less than two months and forced to flee to his cousins' Principality of Moldavia. During this period, Dracula -- who never really liked the Sultan anyway -- effected a rapprochement with the Hungarians (in the meantime, Vladislav II, who was once again in control of Wallachia, had apparently drifted closer to the Turkish camp). The Hungarians put Dracula in charge of Transylvania (a region in the northwest of present-day Romania) and planned on helping him win back his father's principality. But before that happened, the city of Constantinople fell to the Sultan Mehmet II in 1453. The Hungarian counter-offensive came in 1456, when Dracula regained control of Wallachia (killing Vladislav in hand-to-hand combat that same year) while Hunyadi died of plague in the aftermath of the Siege of Belgrade.

Thus began Dracula's six-year reign as ruler of Wallachia and Transylvania. In 1459, Dracula ceased payments of tribute to the Sultan, and in 1461-1462 he mounted a vicious attack on the Ottoman-controlled lands to the south. The Turks struck back in 1462, sending a large army to depose Dracula and put his younger brother -- Radu the Handsome, who had remained loyal to the sultan and converted to Islam -- on the throne. The numerically-superior Ottoman troops quickly took the Wallachian capital, but Dracula kept up his resistance using guerrilla tactics. These attacks were supposedly so troubling that they convinced the Turkish officers to scram, leaving Radu to duke it out alone. But Radu cut some sort of deal with the King of Hungary (Matthias Corvinus, Hunyadi's son) and Dracula had alienated his nobles, so he was ultimately defeated by the end of 1462. There is a story that, while the couple was under siege in Poenari Castle, Dracula's first wife leapt to her death so as not to allow the enemy to take her prisoner.

Dracula, on the other hand, was imprisoned in Hungary. It's uncertain how long he remained locked up, however, by 1467 he had not only been released but he had also married a member of the Hungarian royal family. It's thought that this reversal of fortune may have been due to public opinion (Dracula had heroically battled against the Turks), as well as the Magyars' displeasure with the pro-Ottoman Radu. The fact that Dracula had also converted to Catholicism (I think he had been a nominal Orthodox Christian up until then) probably didn't hurt either. Anyway, in 1467 he managed to regain control of Wallachia one last time before being killed in combat against the Turks later that year. His head was reportedly carried to Constantinople to prove to the Sultan that this nasty thorn in his side had been removed once and for all.

His Bloody Reign

During his six-year reign (1456-1462) as Voivode of Wallachia, Vlad III Dracula sought to consolidate his power and bring law and order to the war-torn principality, in addition to punishing his enemies. By all accounts he is responsible for executing ten of thousands of men, women and children: not only Ottoman prisoners of war, but also supporters of his rivals the Danesti clan (who were his cousins), boyars (the principality's nobles whom he suspected of supporting the Danestis and of being responsible for the murder of his father and brother), and Saxon Transylvanians (ethnic Germans, and a privileged class with ties to the boyars). As you may have guessed, his preferred method of execution was impalement: this would usually result in a slow and torturous death, with the victim being lowered on to a long spike which would enter through the anus and rip through his insides, eventually exiting through the mouth.

Of all the stories surrounding Dracula, the German-language accounts are the most damning, portraying him as an insane, bloodthirsty fiend. These no doubt originated with the Saxon Transylvanians who were among the chief victims of his mass executions. The stories recorded in Russian under the early tsars tended to paint Dracula in a better light, as a strong ruler. Granted, the Russians didn't deny that he committed these atrocities, they were just more forgiving of them. Meanwhile, to the Romanians, Vlad Dracula would become a symbol of national pride -- a hero who fought fiercely against the enemies and oppressors of the Romanian people. Dracula lived during brutal times (remember how his older brother was blinded with a red hot poker and buried alive?), but it is also clear that he was among the most savage princes of the day. If his name inspired fear in the Turks, this was due not only to his reputation as a formidable warrior but also to the barbarous way he dispatched with his enemies en masse.

Connection to Vampires Legends

Dracula may have been a tyrannous, homicidal bastard, but his name was not connected to vampire legends prior to the publication of Bram Stoker's novel in 1897. Accounts of the book's genesis indicate that Stoker found the name "Dracula" in a history book listing Romanian rulers and decided to adopt it for his vampire count. Besides the name, Stoker seems to have known almost nothing about Vlad III of Wallachia. Indeed, in the novel Dracula identifies himself as a Székely -- an ethnic group represented in Transylvania and closely related to the Magyars -- whereas Vlad was an ethnic Romanian. Later in the book, Van Helsing describes Dracula as having been a fearless warrior who fought his way into the heart of "Turkeyland." Vlad did indeed devastate Ottoman-held territory in the Balkans during his 1461-1462 campaign, but this seems to suggest that the vampire crossed over into Anatolia -- something which the historic Dracula never did. In short, it seems that Stoker named his villain after this bloodthirsty figure quiet accidentally, and if he had known of Vlad's butchery he would have surely mentioned it in the book.

Link: The Historical Dracula

Images: 1453 map from Heritage History; portrait of Vlad from about.com; photo of Poenari castle taken by flickr user retro traveler and used under Creative Commons license.

Someone Explain This To Me...

2009-07-31T17:06:00.007-04:00

So the president has apparently been travelling around the country these last few days in order to drum up support for his big health care reform initiative. Yesterday I saw this piece on the Awl about how in some towns (they specifically reference Tuesday's visit to Raleigh, NC and Wednesday's visit to Bristol, VA -- a town on the Tennessee border) he's been met with protesters. Now, it doesn't really look like a shit-ton of people, but still there are clearly working-class Americans out there protesting health care reform. I mean unless the health insurance companies got together and paid a bunch of unemployed people $50 bucks to stand out there with signs and boo.

What I really want to ask these health care opponents is

(a) when it comes to health insurance are you (i) uninsured, (ii) underinsured, or (iii) stuck with an insurance company you HATE?

and

(b) do you make under, say, $200,000 a year? (Earlier this month the Health and Human Services Secretary actually said that the House bill was contemplating a surtax on Americans earning over $350,000 in order to pay for the new plan.)

because if you answered "yes" to both those questions you would stand to benefit from the proposed health care reform without having to pay anything more in taxes.

Whatever happened to supporting your own self interests?! Isn't that what Ayn Rand preached in that Atlas Shrugged book that conservatives all supposedly love? (I don't know, I didn't read that shit.)

OK, the details of how the new plan is going to work and how it will be paid for are far from simple, and -- yes -- government programs have a history of fucking things up. But, come on now, could the government really do a worse job with health care than the fucking insurance companies that are basically in charge now?? There are some legitimate concerns such as the burden on businesses and the danger of inflating the deficit, but I am certain that Congress is keeping an eye on these issues (and I don't give Congress a lot of credit).

I can understand being against healthcare reform if you are an insurance company executive or maybe if you're some rich bastard who already has all the health insurance you could ask for (maybe a private jet to fly you to South America for impromptu elective surgery... sorry, where was I?). But if you're the average American who is getting screwed under the current system (and aren't we all getting screwed?) why would you be opposed to reform?

I say shut up, stop protesting, and quietly hope a public healthcare option will be part of the final bill that gets signed into law. It will be a major accomplishment if Obama can pull it off, and if it doesn't happen I will be very angry at the Democrats in Congress.

Photo of protesters in AUSTIN, TEXAS found on statesman.com.

Summer Jams

2009-07-31T13:25:00.003-04:00

The "Song of the Summer" is a concept as ethereal as it is ephemeral. In theory, it is the one tune that different stripes of people all over are jamming out to that summer, which somehow encapsulates the zeitgeist of the time and, in the future, will conjure up memories of whatever it was you were doing during those steamy months. There are disbelievers out there who will deny that the Song of the Summer actually exists or who will perhaps argue that, in the past there may have been such a thing, but the Song of the Summer as an institution is now dead due to the fragmentation of musical tastes, the general crappiness of the music being churned out these days, etc.

My personal experience with the Song of the Summer has been fairly limited I guess. But I can remember a few occasions when, probably in August, I've been in a club somewhere (I go to clubs?! Sure....) and a song came on. Maybe the song had become ubiquitous to the point where it bordered on annoying. Or maybe I had somehow managed to only hear it a couple of times up until then, and on those occasions although it had barely registered for me I was at the same time slightly intrigued. So anyway, now it's August and I'm in that hypothetical club and I'm like "it's that song again" and even if I'd thought I was bored with it I suddenly realize that I am in the presence of the Song of the Summer and so I get swept up in the moment and really enjoy it.

Of course, I can't actually name any of these songs now. I want to say that "Paper Planes" by MIA was the song of a couple of summers ago (or was that last summer? I think it depends on who you're talking to), and I also want to say that "SOS" by Rihanna or maybe "Shut up and Drive" – one of those – was once the Song of the Summer. Or is it just that I really like Rihanna? Whatever, mine is a personal relationship to the Song of the Summer.

So what is all this a lead up to me announcing what the Song of this particular Summer is? Hell no; I'm so out of the popular music loop it's not even funny. But, there are a couple of songs that came to my attention lately which I've been enjoying and which I wanted to share. Before I do so however I should probably repeat that I am NOT claiming that either of these are serious contenders for SotS.

First up is this song "Make Her Say" by Kid Cudi (whose producer is Kanye West) and featuring Kanye and Common. The hook is very catchy and the video has lots of pretty colors. Word is maybe still out for me on whether this kid can really rap (Kanye and Common's parts are way better), but I still like the song. Watch the video but BE WARNED that (a) its subject matter is somewhat vulgar and (b) Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" is heavily sampled. Somehow though Lady Gaga comes off sounding all angelic on this track -- kind of like a Regina Spektor type.

If you didn't like that, song #2 is totally different. It's called "Prepare Your Coffin" and its an instrumental track by a "post rock" band called Tortoise (off their new album Beacons of Ancestorship). I can't stop listening to it, and it's video is just as artistic and stylish. BE WARNED that this definitely falls into the category of "white people music," also the first 15 seconds might sound a little hard and dark but don't let that (or the song title) scare you off. It's really good, I swear.

One final thought on the Song of the Summer: how come none of the other seasons get their own song?

Bam Bam

2009-07-29T18:07:00.007-04:00

I'm sad to say that the summer is already more than half over. Yuck! So, anyway, what have I been up to thus far?

Well, the highlight of my summer thus far would have to be the week long trip to Jamaica I took along with my "sister-from-another-mother" (i.e. Ada) and some other members of her Houston crew at the end of June/beginning of July. We stayed in Negril, which is a resort town on the island's more relaxed, less developed west end. We found a good deal for staying at the Grand Pineapple, an all-inclusive resort located right on the beach and within walking distance of nightlife spots.

Adjusting to Island Time was not a problem: most of our days were spent on the beach (fun fact: I am apparently incapable of lying out in the sun now without peeling), drinking (Red Stripe and assorted fruity rum drinks), and venturing out to live music venues at night (quote Ada "Don't be surprised if it's reggae!"). Our big innovation, which someone dubbed the Blue Bar, was to combine our top two activities by wading into the ocean with our drinks and sipping them while congregating around a beach float. We didn't get our arses in gear to go scuba diving until like 4 PM on our last day there, but on the plus side the diving was good and I think a couple of scuba sceptics might have been converted.

Other than that, our biggest excursion was the day trip we made to Mayfield Falls. The ride there through the lush, green mountains of the island's interior was an experience in itself (especially after our driver stopped off at a rasta shack on the side of the road – painted red, gold and green with a lion of zion). I remember we passed a lot of cute little girls and boys in school uniforms. I also noticed that the village mentality pervaded in the Jamaican countryside: when people pass someone they always acknowledge each other (some of the greetings I heard included "Respek" and "Rasta!"). Drivers even give a friendly honk when they pass people on the roadside.

So anyway, hiking up the falls was very cool. I was surprised how the water was crystal clear. At one point, our guide up the falls got us to swim below these rapids and through this little passage under the rocks. We were dubious at first when he told us that once you get to the bottom you'll be able to see the tunnel and the light at the other end you're supposed to be swimming towards, but sure enough...

I guess after this the guide got the impression that I was fearless or something because shortly after that he was all "follow me" and said something vague about "natural jumping." I followed him to this tree overlooking the water. There were rungs and notches to climb up, but it was still a little tricky especially as your footwear is by this point all wet and muddy. Then we got to this precariously narrow wooden platform maybe 15' up the tree and he was like "Ok, now turn around and jump." I was like "Whaa?" (In retrospect, I think I was expecting a rope jump or something).

So I was like "no way" and had to climb back down, which was 10x harder than climbing up or jumping. Plus I was shaken (and I had made the bad choice that day of wearing these swimming trunks that constantly slip down my arse). So I wussed out, but then after I saw the guide and Zach jump, I was like "Oh, I think I can do that." You see, all I needed was to see how it was done! So I climbed back up and after hestitating for awhile (it's mostly scary because you start off on the platform with your arms wrapped around the tree – afraid you are going to slip and fall and crack your head open – and then you have to make a quick 180-degree turn and jump into the water). But, on the plus side, it was one of those easy jumps where there's no wrong way to leap into the water (i.e. there's water directly below you, and you don't need to worry about clearing any rocks or anything).

And thus begun my love affair with jumping into water from a height. Later in the trip, Zach rented a bungalow at this hotel in the cliffs for Ada's birthday (Note: if you want a bit more luxury than an all-inclusive resort, perhaps a romantic couple's vacation in Negril, there are some nice places to stay in the cliffs overlooking the ocean. The place we were at was called Catcha Falling Star and it had a very chill, friendly staff plus a nice restaurant and a bar where you could open a tab for the day with your credit card). We had a great time: drinking Red Stripe, snorkeling in the slightly choppy waters below, dancing around in a sunshower outside the bungalow.

Plus there was cliff diving! I jumped off of what seemed to be the most imposing and dangerous looking ledge in our general vicinity (for some reason deciding to do this when almost no one was there to witness it). This was definitely higher than the tree platform and also there were rocks below that you could potentially kill yourself on so you needed to like take a big step off the cliff.

Here's the photographic evidence: a shot snapped by new friend Beth. It was taken from kind of far away but you can tell it is me by how my arms are all spazzy midair. Also, those are the friggin' swimtrunks that won't stay up! That other guy in the photo had jumped off the ledge a few minutes earlier, and he gave me some pointers before my leap. Oh, and I landed arse first which smarted somewhat.

I think the reasons I felt obliged to do these jumps were threefold: (a) I was on vacation and in Jamaica and when was I going to get another opportunity to do this?, (b) I may have felt like I had something to prove to Ada and Zach after my TOTALLY JUSTIFIED motorbike-related freakout on a muddy mountain trail on Koh Phangan (let me know if you would like to see a future blog post on this), and (c) I think I felt like I needed to conquer this type of fear if I ever want to be a serious competitor on Ninja Warrior (this will definitely be the subject of a future post).

So yeah, in conclusion, Jamaica rocked. Sorry about the blogging hiatus, but look I'm back now.

When elephants won't budge

2009-06-12T17:59:00.002-04:00

Let's get partisan for a moment here. So I read an article last month on Slate.com which attempts to answer a question I was wondering myself: why are the Republicans more nasty and difficult than Democrats when they're out of power?

At first, I wondered if it might just seem like this to me because of my own political affiliations, but the article points out that Democratic Congressmen were fairly willing to cooperate and compromise with Republicans during the Bush Administration (e.g. with regards to the One Child Left Behind Act which might be W's biggest domestic policy initiative, not to mention the whole War in Iraq/war on terrorism thingie).

On the other hand, Republicans have not been cooperating with the Obama administration at all.

First off, the President's stimulus bill (now the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) received a whopping 0 "yea" votes from Republicans in the House of Representatives and only 3 Republicans voted for it in the Senate (Pennsylvania Senator Arlon Specter who has since crossed the aisle to the Democratic party and the two ladies from Maine -- Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe). My thought on this is that, yeah, I'm sure there were a lot of imperfections and problems with the bill: the growing deficit is a major concern (check out this nytimes article which breaks down how our Clinton era surplus has become a multi-trillion dollar deficit –- so far Bush era initiatives and reduced tax revenue from economic downturns account for 97% of this), also allocating more money to infrastructure projects would probably have been a good idea. But was the bill so bad that you would reject it and risk the chance that nothing will be done to help us out of this hole? Did these congressmen really think that the bill would do more harm than good? I'm sure the thought process of a lot of these Republicans went something like this: "I'll go on record voting 'no.' That way if it doesn't work out or if it ends up being a disaster I can say 'don't look at me, I didn't vote for it.'" In other words, much like Rush Limbaugh when he said that he hoped Obama fails, rather than looking out for the interests of our country, they're holding out in the hopes that they can score some quick partisan points if Obama's plan ends up being less than a roaring success.

Then there's Obama's nomination of J. Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Here's my take on this one: you just know a lot of conservative pundits and some Republican congressmen were going to attack Obama's candidate no matter whom he chose. Sotomayor was appointed to the Federal judiciary by Bush's father and she was put on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals by Clinton. She graduated at the top of her class in Princeton and, by all accounts, she's an accomplished and experienced jurist who works well with her fellow judges. There's no evidence that she is a "judicial activist" or that her opinions lean heavily to the left or the right, but still the attacks have come. These are either based entirely on the fact that she is a woman and Hispanic, or they focus on this one convoluted racial discrimination case (Ricci v. DiStefano) in which the 2nd Circuit did nothing more than affirm the trial court's judgment without adding their own written opinion. Talk about grasping at straws; I really don't understand what the hell that is supposed to tell us about Sotomayor's views on equal protection/affirmative action. Anyway, whateva, Sotomayor is totally going to get confirmed because the Democrats have the votes and she withstood a tough grilling when she was up for the seat on the 2nd Circuit so she's not going to implode.

And who can forget Cheney's anti-Obama, pro-torture goodwill tour? Plus, as the article points out, this is nothing new. During Bill Clinton's tenure, the Republican Congress wouldn't quit pursuing the Clintons' (admittedly kind of suspicious) Whitewater real estate investments, and, when they couldn't find any sufficiently damning evidence on that front, they launched an investigation into whether the president lied about an affair he had with a White House intern (despite the fact that no one gave a fuck -- although bj's...)

So why is the Republican opposition so much more nasty and obstructionist?

The article's author has a couple of theories. First of all, they have less practice being losers: before Obama came along the Republicans had won 5 of the last 7 presidential elections (since 1980 when Reagan trounced Carter). He also suggests that for Republicans winning elections may be more of an end in itself (e.g. Republicans are interested in being in power whereas Democrats have an agenda they're looking to get put in place). I think this characterisation might be a bit unfair. It makes me think of the old definition of "conservative" meaning resisting change and wanting to maintain the status quo as opposed to post-Reagan conservatism which -- in theory, at least -- has goals such as fiscal responsibility, reducing the size of government, federalism, balancing the budget, lowering taxes, decreasing government regulation of business. And what about the 1994 Contract of America which Newt Gingrich's Congress attempted to enact which included all kinds of reforms such as term limits and the line item veto? Then again, if you look at George W Bush, before September 11 came along what was he really hoping to accomplish during his presidency? Lower taxes for the wealthy, pro-oil company initiatives, deregulation... not exactly a very ambitious agenda.

But I have my own rabble-rousing theory about why the Republicans are being such assholes: THEY THINK THIS IS THEIR COUNTRY.

Seriously, if you listen to those windbags Rush Limbaugh (when did he become relevant again?), Glenn Beck (nut case), and Bill O'Reilly, when they are attacking President Obama for his "socialist!" policies or for talking to the Muslim world or whatever (taking his wife out to dinner maybe?), they give the impression that they are speaking for the majority of Americans. Glenn Beck seemed to say this fairly explicitly during his ridiculous crocodile tears telethon or whatever the hell that freakshow was when he said "we surround them" (at least that's what I think he was getting at). But, of course, these angry conservatives you keep seeing on TV teabagging and whatnot do not represent the majority of Americans. In fact 52.9% of voters pulled the lever for Obama last November, a real majority and percentage-wise a greater coup than either Bill Clinton or W ever managed. And let's not forget (because I never tire of bringing this up) that Obama didn't just pull swing states like Ohio and Florida but he won in Virginia and NORTH CAROLINA -- states where no Democractic presidential candidate had won for over 30 years.

Getting back to Sotomayor (and as a bit of an aside), I heard some conservative pundit attacking her awhile back saying that the ONLY reason she was being put forward as a candidate for the Supreme Court is because she is latina. He went on to say that this is just one more case of Obama era affirmative action, the biggest example of which is -- of course -- the election of President Obama himself! To this I feel I must respond that, no, Obama did not become the president as a result of affirmative action. There is no quota reserving the seat in the oval office for a black American. They didn't award Obama an extra 20 electoral votes because he was black. There was a FUCKING ELECTION and the majority of Americans voted for Obama!

I just checked on Gallup.com and according to them, as of today (Friday, June 12, 2009), the president's job approval rating is 61%. So, no, the conservative talking heads are not speaking up for the silent majority but rather for a vocal and visible minority. This all reminds me of Sarah Palin's infamous speech where she called small towns "the Real America" implying that, you know, parts of America like California and New York where people disagreed with a lot of her worldview didn't really count.

I actually think that a lot of Democrats really ascribe to this view as well. Especially after 8 years of fucking W, it's been drilled into us that the majority of Americans think less like us and more like those bitter rednecks who cling to their guns and their bibles (or Marguerite Perrin, Trading Spouses' "god warrior," who you can watch the whole episode on youtube and yes she is from Louisiana so feel free to judge the whole state based on her batshit performance). They might be spread out and occupy more land, but these people do not outnumber us. We won the election; we are in power. Maybe it's about time we left-leaning Americans stop apologising for being "elitists" and deferring to the views of the rural, conservative constituency and fucking own it! If not now then when?

Photo of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh from fox news

Game Show Host

2009-05-27T17:02:00.005-04:00

Last night I had a dream that I was going to be a contestant on a game show (something like Jeopardy! or Who Wants to be a Millionaire?). I was very excited... and Tina Fey also figured into the dream somehow? Anyhow, I was slightly disappointed when I woke up and realized I was not really going to be on any quiz show and thus I had no chance of winning cash prizes anytime soon. But then I thought "whatever! Even if I got on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? chances are I wouldn't make it into the 'hot seat' which is the only way you can win anything."

This got me thinking about my aunt and uncle (Aunt Ro and Uncle Pete, if you will) with whom I have fond childhood memories of watching many a game show. If you've viewed any of these shows semi-regularly you can't help but develop your own theories about how the show works and your own strategies for what you would do if you were ever a contestant. I figured it might be fun to share my aunt and uncle's pet theories (and my impression of some of these classics) so here it goes...

The Price is Right

Ah, the granddaddy of all game shows (in my mind at least). Can you believe it's still on the air? The Price is Right kind of hearkens back to the fifties (when it originated) what with how it asks contestants to speculate on the price of washer/dryers and shit. It also kind of makes me think of like Sabado Gigante or something what with how it throws together and mixes up all kinds of different games (e.g. plinko, that alpine mountain climber dealie, the big wheel).

My aunt was convinced that the audience members who were chosen to "come on down" to contestants' row were totally not selected at random (for the record, I don't think that the show ever made this claim). First off, she was convinced that there was some kind of affirmative action policy in place as maybe the audience often seemed to be mostly white people but the producers liked to show a higher degree of diversity among contestants. Maybe. She also pointed out that audience members who were in the armed services (preferably in uniform) or who were like college students in a big group all wearing matching Ohio State sweatshirts seemed to have a greatly increased chance of getting called.

Aunt Ro was also a big advocate (in the hypothetical situation where one found oneself in the position of a contestant on the Price is Right) of listening to the audience when you don't know what to bid. It seemed like the hive consciousness in that studio usually had a pretty good idea about how much crap cost.

Oh and do you remember the Price is Right girls (or "Barker's beauties" I guess they used to be called)? I remember my aunt and I agreed that Kathleen, who at the time was the "foxy" black model, was the most beautiful. Also, there was that blonde Dian who accused Bob Barker of sexual harassment! Shockingly, I feel like I remember hearing that Barker's "defense" to the allegations wasn't even that none of it happened but that whatever flirting or grabbing or whatever went on was consensual! (I really don't think I made that up.)

Like I said, I can't believe this show is still around (and why are we not watching it?)

The $25,000 Pyramid

This was that show that played kind of like the board game Taboo, where someone had to get her teammate to guess a word without saying it. And then in the final round a member of the winning team had to get her teammate to guess categories like "things you find in a bathroom." They would always have these C-list celebrities teamed up with ordinary people (Betty White was a mainstay).

I just wanted to mention how this was perhaps the only game show that was basically impossible to play along with at home since they would flash the answers across the screen the whole time. You have to think that was a big con when they were pitching this show back in 1973 or whenever. It's kind of like how Columbo was a detective show with no suspense given that you saw the murder (and the murderer) at the beginning of the episode. No, I never got into watching Columbo.

Wheel of Fortune

I always thought this was the most boring game show. Do you remember way back in the day when the winner would pick crap to spend their prize money on, and you'd see him in an oval at the corner of the screen (like someone signing the news for the deaf) as the camera spun around some lame looking showroom? I guess the producers wised up to how boring and tacky that part was as it was edited out at some point. And then there was the bonus round where the winner could win some big prize if he could solve the final puzzle: he was asked to pick five consonants and a vowel, and everybody always picked "R,S,T,L,N and E" since they're the most popular letters in the English language (and I guess everybody who appeared on the show knew that).

So anyway, my Uncle Pete would shout at the screen anytime someone would "buy a vowel" perhaps employing an amusing phrase such as "you stupid broad." His point (and it was a very good point) was that if you know that the missing letter in "TH_" or whatever is an "E" why bother spending your money to uncover all the "E"s. More recently, I remember discussing Wheel of Fortune -- for some reason -- with my friends in college. The consensus seemed to be that maybe they don't pick the brightest bulbs in the set to compete on that show.

Jeopardy!

Ah yes. The thinking man's trivia show that requires contestants to answer in the form of a question and which drilled phrases such as "daily double," "potent potables," and "final jeopardy" into our heads. Uncle Pete would always decry Jeopardy! as the "cheapest game show on television" due to the fact that only the winner got to keep the prize money racked up during the show. If he ever made it to final jeopardy, Uncle Pete would just bet it all because, if you get the question wrong and come in 2nd place, it doesn't matter whether you have $80,000 or $10 you still go home with the same thing. This was another good point, although I think my aunt would point out how the runner up seemed to win something like a trip to Acapulco whereas the third place contestant got nothing but a hot-curling iron or whatever junk the sponsors' were pawning off (V05 maybe). So keep that in mind as well I guess. A lot of the contestants are wusses about betting though.

I always fancied that I could probably make a decent Jeopardy! contestant what with my wealth of useless information and my usually pretty good showing at Trivial Pursuit. My biggest problem with the show is, of course, the host, Alex Trebek. He always comes off as such an asshole what with the condescending way he reads the answer to the questions no one gets right. "And, of course, that man was Cecil Rhodes." He really does use the word "of course" like that sometimes as if this were common knowledge. This begs the question of whether he really knew these things himself or whether it's just something he's reading off a cue card (I actually don't doubt that he's a smart guy, but still). His tendency to pronounce foreign words with a bit too much gusto can also grate on one's nerves. I don't know if the Jeopardy! jerkfest is brought on by old age or the high brow air of the show, or if it's like written into his contract that he must act like a pompous asshole, but if you ever watched him host an episode of Classic Concentration (that matching/rebus show) back in the day he came off as much more affable and funny.

I feel like one time I heard that Trebek was being obnoxious to a flight attendant and maybe even said something along the lines of "do you know who I am?" but I couldn't find any reference to this incident on the internet so maybe I just want that to be the case. We do, however, have video footage of him cursing and sort of losing his temper. Also, when Who Wants to be a Millionaire? was the next big thing, Trebek said that its questions were too easy and that host Regis Philbin was not that smart. OK, Alex, maybe you are smarter than Regis but that was still a bitchy thing to say.

Moving on from Trebek, I also think that sometimes the unseen judges can be very nitpicky about what answers they will accept -- like with song titles ("I'm sorry but you answered 'Somewhere Beyond the Sea,' the title we were looking for is 'Beyond the Sea'"). And how about the part of the show where we learn a little bit about the contestants? That's always a snoozefest, like "so Mary you've been a librarian for 20 years? I hear you have a story about the wildest book you ever checked out for someone?"

Heheh, the sad thing is that I could go on with this topic (Press Your Luck, anyone?) but I'll stop right here for today.

Images: screen capture from Season 37 of CBS's the Price is Right found on wikipedia; image from NBC/Merv Griffin Production's Jeopardy!; image from $25,000 Pyramid with Dick Clark found on tylersmagicalblog.

Meeg at the Movies: Grindhouse

2009-05-22T13:56:00.004-04:00

Around a month ago I finally got around to watching Grindhouse (some channel on cable actually showed the whole thing all together) and I feel like I should talk about it.

The idea behind Grindhouse was to recreate the B-movie double feature: Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino each directed a feature-length movie and in between they added some fake coming attractions for other bad-looking movies (filmed by other directors such as Eli Roth and Rob Zombie) along with the kind of announcements and stuff that you might see at the movie theater back in the seventies. To further enhance the atmosphere they were going for, Tarantino and Rodriguez treated the film so that it would look aged and lo-res and busted and in each feature they included a "missing reel" where the story suddenly skips ahead fifteen minutes or so without warning.

When I first heard about Grindhouse, I was pretty psyched: the concept sounded fun (after all, Kill Bill was heavily styled on the exploitation flicks of yesteryear and that kicked ass), Tarantino is one of my favorite directors and Rodriguez was riding high, in my estimation, after Sin City. Thus, I was a little surprised when it totally bombed at the box office. Some of this no doubt had to do with the fact that people today have a hard time sitting still for 4 hours (I watched it on DVR and took at least one long break in the middle of viewing), but I somehow got the impression that it went deeper than that: that most people maybe just didn't like the movies.

Could they really be that bad? I was dubious, especially in regards to Tarantino's half: maybe I liked some more than others (Jackie Brown wasn't my favorite I don't think, but it's been a long time maybe I just need to go back and see it again), but I don't think I've ever seen anything by him that I would give a thumbs down. Thus, I decided to see for myself. My final conclusion: the detractors were maybe half right.

Planet Terror

Based on the trailers, I thought that this was the story that was going to be more fun to watch. I mean, come on, Rose McGowan with a machine gun for a leg?! But in reality I was super bored about halfway through this flick and just waiting for it to end already.

The issue here is that Rodriguez did an excellent job of parodying bad horror movies: the plot was convoluted and nonsensical, there were way too many characters to keep track of, the special effects were cheap looking and gross. Also, as is the case with these movies, pretty much all the highlights (the machine gun prosthetic, the cameo by Bruce Willis) were crammed into the trailer (this was a good touch I feel, adding all kinds of gimmicks that sound awesome in the promos but end up making the movie a mess). I'm sure some people loved it, but for me this made the movie tedious to sit through. I bet the cast and crew had a blast making it, but watching it I kind of felt like "if I wanted to watch a bad old horror movie I could rent Critters or something. Why would you purposely set out to make another movie like this?" I found Planet Terror to be neither a fun send off of the monster movie genre, nor a movie that transcended its cheesy inspiration to actually tell an engaging story.

Death Proof

My expectations for Death Proof were kind of all over the place: on one hand there's my love for Tarantino, and on the other hand the movie seemed to be about fast cars and crap like that that doesn't necessarily interest me all that much. What I wasn't expecting, for some reason, were great characters and intelligent dialogue reminiscent of Resevoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction.

The first half of the movie fulfills the obligatory genre quotient (dated feel, crappy film quality, the "missing reel," also the credits make it seem like the title was changed at the last minute from "Thunderbolt" to "Death Proof"), but it also builds suspense and kind of makes you care about the characters. This part takes place in Austin and follows around a group of girls (I didn't really love the main girl "Jungle Julia," but they were all fairly sympathetic) who run into a creepy loner played by Kurt Russell who calls himself "Stuntman Mike." I don't want to give it away, so let's just say that Stuntman Mike is a perv and what gets him off involves girls and fast cars.

The second half of the film is even better than the first, and it focuses on another group of girls who are involved in the production of some movie (one is a make-up girl, another is a stuntwoman). They're stranded somewhere in the rural South with nothing to do for a few days, until the stuntwoman (an awesome character, played by a real life stuntwoman) suggests they check out a vintage muscle car (a white 1969 Dodge Charger as featured in the film Vanishing Point) that's on sale nearby and try to convince the owner to let them take it for a test drive. And, hmm..., I wonder if Stuntman Mike is going to make another appearance in the film?

Half way through the movie, all the B-movie conceits like the aged film have been abandoned (it took me a while to pick up on this as by then I had become absorbed in the story) and I think this is a good symbol of what makes Death Proof superior to Planet Terror: at some point it sets aside the homage/parody business and becomes a good, entertaining movie in its own right.

Final verdict: fuck Planet Terror, Death Proof rocks, can't wait to watch Inglourious Basterds!

Images: posters for Grindhouse, Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror, Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof from the Weinstein company

David Foster Wallace and the Unfinished Novel

2009-05-20T22:24:00.003-04:00

My first post of the year was about David Foster Wallace and his hefty novel Infinite Jest. Back then (Jan 4) I was nearing the end of book, after having first been introduced to Wallace by news of his September 2008 suicide, and I mentioned the post mortem article on Wallace in October 2008's Rolling Stone. I've since finished the novel, and months later I'm still slightly haunted by the impression it made on me. I thought I'd revisit the topic of Wallace if only to recommend the March 9 New Yorker article entitled "the Unfinished." The biggest news item contained in this very lengthy but informative article is that, when he succumbed to depression and took his life, Wallace left behind an unfinished manuscript for another big novel which is going to be published by Little, Brown sometime next year.

I'm going to use this post discuss (a) what we know about this unfinished novel, (b) the unfinished novel as a genre, and (c) some other random Wallace crap I want to talk about (you'll have to indulge me -- or, you know, skip that part and if you run into me sometime and I ask you about it just nod and be like "oh, yeah...").

The Pale King

Several months after Wallace's death, in the garage where he did his writing and in his files, his wife and agent found several thousand words which comprised the manuscript for the "Long Thing" he had working on intermittently since 1997. Of these, several hundred pages represent a continous narrative.

This unfinished novel, called the Pale King, in terms of its scope and its themes is basically a follow up to Infinite Jest. The story centers around a group of IRS agents who work in a field office in suburban Illinois. Whereas a key theme in Infinite Jest was America as the land of addiction (to drugs, entertainment, etc.), in the Pale King Wallace explores the idea of learning to live with boredom as an antidote to our dependence on diversion. Thus, the IRS employees, whose work mostly consists of the mind-numbing task of reviewing tax forms all day, embody the virtues of mindfulness and sustained concentration and thus they stand for (as Wallace once put it) "adult sanity... the only unalloyed form of heroism available today."

The New Yorker article contains a few more Wallace quotes which further elaborate on this idea: first, at a commencement speech in 2005, Wallace stated that freedom meant "being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to." Secondly, it references a character in the Pale King who suggests that boredom is associated with pain because it doesn't distract us from our lives' deep-seated, ambient-noise-level pain. Not to go too off the wall, but this reminds of the Italian poet Giacomo Leopardi and his "universal pessimism": he came to believe that the myths of the ancients and imagination in general brought pleasure because they obscured the true nature of the universe which was filled only with pain and boredom (only, as per Wallace, I guess we've replaced myths and imagination with entertainment and drugs).

In terms of style, Wallace wanted to move away from the gimmicks and the "self-consciously maximalist style" of Infinite Jest which he had come to find too coy for his purposes: he feared that they were a distraction, or worse that they were incompatible with the moral he was trying to get across. Thus, the story in the Pale King is purportedly told in a more straight-forward manner. Wallace had already rejected sarcasm and snark and now it appears he was trying hard to also abandon the more showy elements of his personal style in order to write (as he once said about Dostoevsky) in an emotionally engaged and morally sound way. When one adds to this the fact that he was writing at length about the subject of boredom, it's not so surprising that he struggled with this work for so long. D.T. Max, the author of the New Yorker article, even goes so far as to suggest that Wallace's decision to go off the antidepressant he had been taking for decades may have been motivated in part by a fear that it was preventing him from engaging with his work the way he wanted to.

If you're interested in the Pale King there are three passages that have been published in magazines: "Wiggle Room" which accompanies the article in the New Yorker, "Good People" which first appeared in the same magazine in 2007, and "The Compliance Branch" which ran in Harper's in Feb 2008.

The Unfinished Novel as a Genre

There are actually a lot of great works of literature which were never completed by their authors. In English literature, perhaps the earliest is The Canterbury Tales (our #2 classic that nobody reads ): I think it's universally acknowledged that the work as a whole and even some of the individual tales remain unfinished even if scholars are not sure how much more Chaucer intended to write or whether he had a clear plan at all (there's some doubt whether he ever intended to follow up on the innkeeper's suggestion that each pilgrim tell a story on the road to Canterbury and another on the way back).

In European literature, all three of Kafka's novels (Amerika, the Trial, the Castle) sat unfinished when they were discovered by Max Brod after the author's death. Likewise, Gogol's masterpiece, Dead Souls, is an incomplete work. It is well known how Gogol intended this to be a work in three parts with the first outlining the problems of contemporary Russia and the next two going on to suggest the solution. Today we are left with part one complete and fragments of part two, although there is a legend that Gogol once had a complete (or near complete) manuscript for part two which he was unsatisfied with and threw into the fire. It's also said that Dostoevsky's masterpiece (and final novel) the Brothers Karamazov was meant to be the first volume of a larger work which would go on to recount the life of his hero Alyosha.

More recently, we have Nabokov's incomplete final work, the Original of Laura, which I blogged about and which is finally going to be published after all these years. Out of all of these unfinished novels it's interesting to speculate about which ones were left unfinished as a result of the author's interceding death (a grim warning to all us aspiring writers) and which were destined to remain incomplete no matter what (I mean, is it any wonder Gogol was unsatisfied with his attempts to pen a solution to the ills plaguing Russian society?). Likewise, I wonder which category we should put the Pale King in.

A Little David Foster Wallace/Infinite Jest Lagniappe

In addition to the mammoth New Yorker article (which is summarized by the Washington Post here), I also came across an interview with Glenn Kenny about what it was like to edit Wallace's essays for Empire magazine.

And then there's the Slate Audio Book Club podcast which tackles Infinite Jest. I have to say I was a little shocked at how dismissive the book clubbers were about the novel (although I guess having to read the book again might make one a little bitter). I've been thinking about it, and I guess I can see how some people might not be able to roll with all the encyclopedic tangents. Likewise, some readers might be less tolerant of the sillier parts of the story (which I'd liken to A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) or the more juvenile elements (which make sense in the context of the book, seeing as how a large part of it takes place at a tennis academy full of adolescent boys). One of the book clubbers went so far as to suggest that the novel is universally recognized as a mess, which is quite the assertion given its many fans and critical kudos. I mean, if I were teaching a class on how to write a novel I wouldn't use Infinite Jest as an example, but I thought it kind of worked. I guess I would have rather heard them spend more time discussing the book's many themes, etc (which they do get around to somewhat), and less time whining about how long it was and how it was all over the place.

One thing I have to thank the podcast for, however, is drawing my attention to the "Yorick" scene (which I half picked up on when I read the book). In the first and the last scene of the novel, the two main characters (who never quite meet) both have a vision of the two of them digging up a grave together. Whether this actually happens or not (in the gap between the novel's final scene and the epilogue, which comes at the beginning) is just one more of the novel's unanswered questions.

Images: Photo of David Foster Wallace from Getty Images found on nymag.com; 1906 photo of Franz Kafka with bowler hat and dog found on themodernworld.com

In the Age of Vampires

2009-05-15T12:27:00.013-04:00

Since we already have a blog post on vampire bats and on Hungary's "vampire countess," Elizabeth Bathory, I thought I would go for the hat trick (wow, my first sports analogy ever! for the record, I almost wrote "complete the trilogy") and tackle the subject of the 18th-century vampire controversy.

18th-century Vampire Epidemic

It seems that in the 1700s, a wave of vampire hysteria swept across Eastern Europe. Many incidents of alleged vampire attacks and of the exhumation and desecration of corpses by angry villagers occured among the, mainly Slavic, subjects of East Prussia and the Austrian Empire. In some cases there were even reports written by government officials or doctors attesting to the unnatural appearance of the disinterred bodies of suspected vampires. These events received wide attention, introducing Western Europe to vampire legends (in fact the word "vampire" first entered the English lexicon during this period, probably coming via German from a Serbian root) and leading a lot of educated people to entertain the notion that these monsters might actually exist.

From what I've read the average vampire incident basically went like this:

(1) someone dies (we'll call him or her "patient zero")

(2) not long afterwards, some other people in the same village die, maybe after only a short illness. Invariably, one of these victims reports being tormented by visions of patient zero or one of the other previously deceased.

(3) the villagers dig up the body of the suspected vampire (probably patient zero), maybe after getting permission from some local authority. Sometimes they note how the body doesn't look decomposed at all but is rather fat and healthy looking. They may also notice liquid blood coming out of the suspected vampire's mouth/nose/eyes/ears. Some of the other people who died may also have become vampires in which case their bodies can be dug up too.

(4) the villagers finish off the suspected vampire(s) by doing one or more of the following: driving a stake through the corpse's heart, decapitating it, burning it.

Peter Plogojowitz and Arnold Paole: background information

Two of the oldest, most famous, and best documented cases of the 18th-century vampire epidemic are those surrounding "Peter Plogojowitz" and "Arnold Paule" (as their names have been recorded): both of these episodes took place in Serbia in the 1720-30s (during the reign of Emperor Karl VI), and both involved the participation of Imperial authorities.

It's interesting to note that Serbia, along with Lesser Wallachia and a tiny bit of northern Bosnia, had been under Turkish rule up until 1718 when it changed hands under the Treaty of Passarowitz. Austria would later return these lands to the Ottoman Empire under the 1739 Treaty of Belgrade. So at the time Serbia was ravaged by war: its population was poor and partly nomadic, and agricultural activities were mostly limited to raising cattle. This newly conquered territory was also under direct military control. The Austrians tried to encourage German-speaking subjects to move to the region, and many Serbs migrated here from territories that were still under Turkish rule. Those who served in the Austrian army as hajduks (freemen and infantry soldiers) were rewarded with certain legal rights and small parcels of land.

The Case of Peter Plogojowitz

Plogojowitz was a Serbian peasant who died in 1725. Within 8 days of his death, 9 others in his village died after a 24-hour illness. Before their demise, some of these victims supposedly claimed that they were throttled by the late Plogojowitz at night. Other phoney sounding stories told how after his death Plogojowitz came to his wife asking for his shoes and/or that he came to his son begging for food (and then he killed him!).

At this point the remaining villagers decided to dig up Plogowitz's corpse, and they called on the local priest and one Imperial Provisor Frombald (I'm not sure whether the "kameralprovisor" was an ecclesiastical, administrative or military official) to bear witness as representatives of the State. According to his report, Frombald told the villagers that they should first request permission from the Imperial authorities in Belgrade, but they refused to wait saying that otherwise the whole community might be wiped out (this sort of thing had happened before in Turkish times) and threatening to quit the village.

So they disinterred the body, and Frombald was surprised to discover that it had not decomposed (it sounds like it'd been less than 2 weeks). He wrote that its hair and beard had grown and that its skin and fingernails had fallen away revealing new skin and nails underneath. Also there was blood in its mouth. Satisfied that he was a vampire, the angry mob of villagers drove a stake through Plogojowitz's heart which caused a load of fresh blood to gush out of his ears and mouth. After that they burned the body. Problem solved!

The Case of Arnold Paule

Paule (his last name in Serbian was probably "Pavle") was a hajduk who had moved to Austrian Serbia from Turkish-controlled territory. Villagers later claimed that, when he was alive, Paule would talk about how he had been plagued by a vampire back in Kosovo and that he had eaten dirt from the vampire's grave and smeared the vampire's blood on himself in order to ward it off.

Around 1726, Paule broke his neck falling off a haywagon. Within 20-30 days of Paule's burial, 4 other villagers fell ill, claiming that the late Paule was tormenting them, and died. After 10 more days had passed, the people of the village dug up his grave. Once again the corpse wasn't decomposed; his fingernails had fallen off and new nails had grown in their place. Liquid blood flowed from his eyes, nose, mouth and ears and his coffin and clothes were also bloody. When they drove a stake through Paule's heart, he bled and groaned audibly. They then burned his body and dispatched of the other 4 deceased in the same way.

For five years after that everything was quiet, but then in 1731 there was a second outbreak in the village. 17 people died over the course of 3 months, many of them previously healthy and after only suffering a short illness. The vampires were back! The villagers attributed this new outbreak to the fact that some people (specifically one of the deceased, a 69yo woman named Miliza) had eaten the flesh of sheep that had been killed by the first round of vampires. Another victim (a 20yo woman named Stana) had admitted to smearing herself with vampire blood for protection. Another classic way to catch vampire! Way to go, ladies! For those who need further convincing that vampires were behind these deaths, one of the victims (Stanoika a 20yo hajduk's wife) had complained before her death of being tormented by the ghost of Milloe (a 25yo hajduk and yet another victim).

The people of the beleaguered village complained to one Lt. Col. Schnezzer, a military commander in charge of the area, who in turn called on an Imperial Infectious Disease Specialist ("Contagions-Medicus") by the name of Glaser to investigate. Glaser found no evidence of an epidemic and he attributed the string of deaths to malnutrition. Nevertheless, when the people threatened to abandon the village, he agreed to have the bodies disinterred. Some of the bodies were found -- surprise, surprise -- to be undecomposed and plump with blood in their mouths.

Glaser recommended that authorities allow the villagers to "kill" the vampires if only to pacify them. The vice commandant in Belgrade then sent a second commission to check things out, led by a military surgeon named Johann Fluckinger. It is through Fluckinger's report (which you can read in its entirety, translated into English here) that we learn of this incident.

Fluckinger's report is really an interestingly window into not only the incident but also the time and place in general. First off, he notes that 10 or so of the bodies (some or all of which had presumably been exhumed some time ago) showed the classic vampire characteristics (fresh new skin, healthy-looking coloring or plumpness, intact organs that look like those of the living, blood in the chest cavity or mouth) while the rest had decomposed normally. Specifically, the old woman Miliza had achieved a pleasing plumpness in death that she had never achieved in life. Another interesting fact (neither here nor there really in terms of the vampire discussion), is that he noted that Stana, who had died soon after giving birth, had an inflamed uterus and that the corpse of her baby, who had died soon after birth and before being baptized, had been half eaten by dogs due to its careless burial.

At the end of the report, Fluckinger notes how the vampires' bodies were decapitated by the gypsies who had been called on for this purpose (interesting that the gypsies are the people who know how to deal with vampires) before being burned and having their ashes thrown in the river.

The Scientific Explanation

It turns out that most of the unnatural traits that were noted in the vampires' bodies are actually consistent with documented characteristics of cadavers in various stages of decomposition. First off, the timing and nature of a dead body's decomposition is affected by many factors such as how the person died, how he was buried, and the temperature of the soil.

As a body rots in the ground, it is normal for the skin to peel away revealing the pinkish layer of skin underneath. The corpse's hair and nails do not keep on growing post mortem but it is possible for people to get the impression of longer hair because of how the dermis rots away around the follicles and I guess people might misinterpret the bed of the corpse's fingernails as new nail. As for the healthy plumpness, this is actually swelling caused by the bodies decomposition (it's being consumed by bacteria). This swelling of gases in the cadaver's abdomen is also responsible for creating pressure which may push blood out through the orifices of the body. Likewise, the ruddy or healthly-looking coloring may be discoloration which is another result of decomposition (cf. livor mortis).

Depending on conditions, the blood in a dead body can indeed coagulate and then liquify again, and we shouldn't be surprised if this liquid blood comes gushing out when a stake is driven into the body's heart. And believe it or not it is also not unheard of for a corpse to emit a sound like a groan when air is pushed over the vocal cords and out through the mouth -- say, by the force of a stake being driven into the body's heart.

The End of the Controversy

During her reign, the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria sought to modernize the Empire and put an end to superstition. Thus, in 1755, when people suspected the recently deceased Rosalina Polakin of being a vampire she sent her court physician, Dr. Gerhard van Swieten, to Silesia to investigate.

The Dutch-born van Sweiten wrote a treatise called "Discourse on the Existence of Ghosts" in which he noted that factors such as lack of oxygen can inhibit a corpse's decomposition and that it wasn't unheard of for a body to still be largely intact even after being buried for 50 years. As for those uneducated villagers who claimed to be haunted by the recently deceased they were probably just trippin', and their deaths were undoubtedly due to some natural cause. Moreover, van Sweiten fiercely denounced the barbaric way people would deal with "vampires," desecrating the deceased's body and maligning the reputation of him and his family. Armed with his report, Maria Theresa banned these practices throughout the Austrian Empire.

Images: map depicting Southeastern Europe and the lands gained to Austria under the Treaty of Passarowitz found on emersonkent.com; 1864 "Le Vampire" lithograph by R de Moraine found on wikipedia; title page and frontispiece from Gerhard van Sweiten's Abhandlung des Daseyns der Gespenster found on magiaposthuma blog.

Hot Peppa

2009-05-11T23:49:00.005-04:00

Have you ever wondered why chili peppers are spicy? I was asking myself that question several months back and here's what I uncovered.

What makes chilies spicy?

The chemical compound in chili peppers that make them spicy is called capsaicin. It is an irritant for mammals and causes a burning sensation (it actually triggers the same nervous system response as fire or other intense heat) whenever it comes into contact with our mucous membranes (e.g. tongue, lips, nostrils, eyes, genitals...). Interestingly, other animals such as birds are not affected by capsaicin in this way.

Why are chilies spicy?

This is a slightly different and more complicated question. What sort of evolutionary advantage might capsaicin represent for the chili plant?

In general, a lot of plants bear fruit in order to attract animals who, ideally, eat the fruit while the seeds pass through their digestive system intact. When they later excrete the remnants of the meal they will probably have transported the seeds some distance from the mother plant and left them in a pile of fertilizer to boot.

Leaving aside the issue of humans with indoor plumbing, not all of the animals who may be attracted to the fruit are desirable from the plant's perspective. One example are small mammals, such as rodents, who chew up the seeds. Joshua Tewksbury, the University of Washington biologist who seems to be at the forefront of studying chili peppers, originally hypothesized that chili plants evolved this way in order to deter small mammals from eating their fruit. Birds, on the other hand, which would be better for transporting seeds, are unfazed by the capsaicin.

This hypothesis fell short for a couple of reasons. The biggest reason is the timeline: chilies evolved well before birds. Also, in other plants which have developed similar defenses, making them toxic or unpleasant tasting, these effects are found in other parts of the plant as well (e.g. leaves) whereas with chilies only the fruit contains capsaicin.

Tewksbury then came to suspect that capsaicin's purpose might be to protect chilies from another type of predator. Fungal rot is a big problem for wild chilies growing in the tropical forests of South America and capsaicin has strong antimicrobial qualities (protecting against fungus as well as other microbes such as bacteria). In the wild, the amount of capsaicin found in the fruit of different chili plants varies greatly even between members of the same species. Tewksbury observed that fungus was present in the majority of chilies he found in the wild (it seems to be aided by the holes left behind by insects); there also seemed to be a correlation between how spicy the chilies were and how much fungus was present (with the spiciest chilies seeming to be the most resistant to fungus).

Tewksbury is continuing his research to determine whether, in the wild, chilies growing in moister areas where fungal rot is a bigger problem might tend to be spicier on average than those in drier area, and to gather more evidence which might show that chilies with more capsaicin are heartier.

Another interesting fact is that fungus can sometimes be found on even the spiciest chilies, suggesting that different strains of fungus have evolved so that they are able to withstand more capsaicin. Tewksbury says that this shows that there is an evolutionary "arms race" going on, where chilies get spicier so as to ward off fungus, and fungus grows tougher so that it can feed on spicier chilies.

Why do people eat chilies?

Humans are pretty much the only mammals who voluntarily eat spicy chili peppers. Archaeologists have found evidence of people in the New World using wild chilies in their cooking over 8,000 years ago, and they began cultivating the plant around 6,000 years ago.

After Columbus (who called chilies "peppers," forever confusing them with a different group of spice plants that are native to India), the Spanish and Portuguese brought chilies back to the Old World where they would soon become an important ingredient in African, Indian, and Southeast Asian cuisines.

Some scientists believe that one of the reasons chilies became such a popular ingredient, particularly in tropical cuisine, is because of capsaicin's antimicrobial qualities. Because of this chili pepper (along with other spices such as cinnamon, clove, mustard) helped preserve food's freshness longer in the days before refrigeration.

Other reasons people like to eat chili peppers include taste, obviously, as well as the exhilarating effects capsaicin can have on the body like making you sweat, making your heart beat faster, getting your adrenalin pumping, and triggering the release of endorphins. In antiquity, chili peppers may have also been prized for their medicinal benefits as capsaicin can be used as a local anesthetic or to reduce/inhibit infection.

For more information on chili peppers and Tewksbury's research check out his interview on NPR and this article from April's Smithsonian magazine (also check out the Q&A with the guy who wrote the article about what it was like tagging along on one of his expeditions in the jungles of Bolivia, fueled by caffeine, coca leaves and chilies).

Images: Photo of woman in Rajasthan chili field by Giacomo Rossi found on timesonline, photo of chilies in French market by Per Karlsson found on allposters.com

Tribune of the People

2009-05-08T16:56:00.008-04:00

Hey, hey. So a couple of weeks ago I told you about all the depressing articles I've been reading (or half reading) about how our technocrat friends in the Treasury are botching the bailout and how basically everyone in Washington is in the tank for the banks because bankers have deep pockets and give generously to election campaigns and "what's good for Wall Street is good for America" (also, the business of America is... finance?). This article gives a really great, concise explanation of the crisis...

What was I saying? Oh right; so there's a wide choice of villains to point to in connection with the financial meltdown, but there's one character in this story who in my opinion seems to stand out as a hero.

Allow me to introduce you to Neil Barofsky who is the Special Inspector General that oversees the Troubled Assets Relief Plan or, as he likes to style himself, the "TARP cop." He was appointed to his post by President Bush last November (and I like him?! I know; the world's gone mad). Barofsky's job is basically to keep tabs on all the bailout money the Treasury is shelling out under the program: reporting his findings to Congress, making recommendations to Treasury Secretary Geithner, and investigating possible cases of fraud or corruption.

Investigations

As Barofsky explains it, whenever the government launches a big program like this where it starts writing out checks (and the scale of TARP is basically unprecedented) there will always be opportunities for fraud. Shoot, at the end of 2007, the government estimated that around $500 million in fraud had been committed in connection with Hurricane Katrina relief.

Criminal activites and misdeeds that might crop up in relation to TARP could run the gambit from cases of misrepresentations/fraud in the accounting of companies who've come looking for a handout, to instances of insider trading by executives with foreknowledge about companies that will receive TARP funds, to failure to adhere to the caps on executive pay specified by Congress in the enacting legislation. As of two weeks ago, when he presented his report to Congress, Barofsky said that he had 20 investigations and 6 audits underway. These are said to include verifications into the propriety of the bonuses paid out to Merrill Lynch executives on the eve of the brokerage firm's sale to Bank of America as well as those infamous AIG bonuses.

Recommendations

One of the big recommendations Barofksy made in his report is that the Treasury should put in place a better system for determining the value of the shares and other securites it is receiving from companies in exchange for TARP money. This will become even more important if and when the Treasury starts trading in its preferred shares for common shares in order to magically give companies more equity capital without having to ask Congress for more money.

The inspector general is also concerned that the planned mortgage rescue effort be safeguarded against potential real estate scammers and that TARPs public-private investment program be adequately protected against conflicts of interest.

But probably the biggest point of contention between Barofsky and Geithner is that Barofsky wants to require TARP recipients to submit documentation specifically accounting for how all the funds they receive are used. Geithner argues that this is impractical/silly given that money is fungible (i.e. a company has $10 million in cash to begin with and it receives $10 million from TARP, if it allocated $5 mill to a specific program who's to say whether that came out of the TARP money or the previously existing liquidity?) and that the Treasury can adequately see what the companies are doing by consulting their financial statements. But Barofsky says that he recently sent out letters requesting some such specific information from recipient companies and he received a 100% response, thus proving that gathering this information was neither impossible nor impractical. When it was suggested in his interview with NPR that these disclosure requirements might discourage some banks from participating in TARP, Barofsky answered "Good. If they're afraid to tell the American people how they're using the money we don't want them."

I'm curious to see what else Barofsky will do, what will come out of these investigations, and how Congress and the Treasury will respond to his recommendations. But, in the meantime, knowing this guy is watching out for our collective interest makes me feel slightly better about things.

Photo of Neil Barofsky by Susan Walsh found on NPR website.

Hobbit hunters

2009-05-05T19:06:00.008-04:00

Even before I watched the Nova episode entitled "Alien from Earth," I had been thinking about writing a post about the discovery of prehistoric "hobbit" bones in Indonesia. Who were these hobbits? Are they really members of new species? Nova presented a good case for new species status, as well as making some intriguing suggestions about what this may tell us about human evolution. Here's the story as I now see it...

Homo floresiensis

In 2003, paleoanthropologists were looking for evidence on early man's migration from East Asia to Australia when they made a surprising discovery. In the Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores, they uncovered the remains of several hominids including one near complete skeleton with a complete skull. At first, they assumed these bones belonged to a child as it would have only stood about 3' tall, but they soon realized this was an adult woman around 30 years old. She was about the size of the average three-year-old, but her skull was even smaller: like the size of a grapefruit. Because of its uniquely small stature, the discoverers hypothesized that this was a new species which they dubbed Homo floresiensis and which has been widely nicknamed "the hobbit" in the scientific community and the press.

Near these hobbit bones, scientists also found the remnants of what looked to be fairly advanced stone tools as well as charred bones belonging to the pygmy elephants which once roamed the island. Not only that, but the youngest set of bones was dated to around 18,000 years ago – at least 5,000 years younger than the latest Neanderthal remains; this means that hobbits would have existed well into the age of modern man.

A New Species?

Since the bones were unearthed, many scientists have disputed the discoverers' new species claim and advanced less radical explanations for the hobbits' unusual size. It's been suggested that these could just be modern human pygmies. But no modern pygmies are even close to this tiny, and what about the hobbit's small brain which is closer in size to that of a chimpanzee or australopithecene (very early hominid, like Lucy) than that of a modern human?

Another theory is that the main hobbit skeleton belonged to a modern human suffering from some sort of disease. Specifically, a lot of scientists have suggested that she was microcephalic. Microcephaly is a disorder in which the brain and cranium do not grow to normal size: microcephalics are usually mentally retarded, and the disorder is also associated with dwarfism. Could our hobbit have been a microcephalic pygmy?

This theory had been espoused by many anthropologists who rejected the new species claim, but in 2007 a new study was published which seems to definitively rule out this possibility. American scientists compared a 3D computer generated model of the hobbit's brain with that of 9 contemporary microcephalics. They found that, although the hobbit's brain was similar in size, its features were wholly dissimilar to that of microcephalic humans.

Other anatomical studies of the hobbit bones have added further weight to the theory that these were not modern humans. An examination of the bones in the hobbit's wrist show that they are more akin to those of chimpanzees and australopithecene than to those of Homo sapiens. Another study looked at the hobbits' teeth (in addition to the female skull there was also another jaw bone found). The study found that these sets of teeth were similar to one another and yet very different from those of modern humans. Thus, either the two specimens (which were dated over a thousand years apart) are Homo sapiens that both shared the same rare condition, or perhaps they are not human and their teeth are typical of their species.

All this evidence seems to point in the direction of the hobbit being a new species of primitive hominid, but seeing as how we only have one fairly complete skeleton and some other assorted bones (although, hey, the fossil record for a lot of other hominid species is even more fragmentary) we'll have to wait for more physical specimens before we can say for sure. One of the priorities of scientists as they continue excavation work on Flores is to try to recover fossils which preserve Homo floresiensis DNA so that it can be compared to that of other species.

What were the hobbits like?

The discovery of the hobbits presents a bit of a paradox: the hominids' small cranial capacity and other anatomical characteristics seem to indicate it was a sort of throwback to the earliest human ancestors and to apes, but at the same time their remains were found near stone tools. Some scientists say that these tools don't look all that different from those developed by australopithecene in East Africa (Developed Oldowan tools). But there's also evidence that these might be the type of more advanced tools usually associated with modern man (there's some evidence suggesting wood working and use of bamboo).

And what about the scorched stegodon bones? Not only do they suggest that the hobbits knew how to build fires, but in order for these toddler-sized hominids to take down a pygmy elephant (around the size of a large cow and weighing as much as a Mini Cooper) they would have had to hunt in groups. This would imply sophisticated social skills and communication, maybe even (most controversially) some sort of language.

Thus, some scientists theorize that the hobbits were more intelligent than their diminutive brains suggest. And this may well be because, although the hobbit brain is smaller than that of Homo sapiens or Homo erectus, some of its features are associated with higher thought processes.

Where did the hobbits come from?

This is perhaps the biggest question. If Homo floresiensis is indeed a new species, distinct from Homo sapiens, then what species did it evolve from? When did its evolutionary path diverge from that of modern man? The neatest explanation would be that it evolved from Homo erectus, a species that is closely related to Homo sapiens if not a direct ancestor and which is usually identified as the first hominid to migrate out of Africa. If this were the case then perhaps the hobbits' smaller size can be attributed to island dwarfism: populations of mammals isolated on islands often evolve to be unusually small in size (like those pygmy elephants) or unusally large in size (like the komodo dragon, which is a giant monitor lizard).

On the Nova documentary, a scientist from the Flores excavation team rejects this hypothesis stating that there is no evidence of island dwarfism ever resulting in diminished cranial capacity in humans. Homo floresiensis' small stature and brain size and primitive proportions all seem to point further back in the evolutionary chain, so maybe the hobbits' unique evolutionary path started even earlier.

The suggestion that Homo erectus was not the first hominid to leave Africa is controversial, but the Nova documentary mentioned the discovery of Homo georgicus, to date the earliest fossil found outside Africa, in Dmanisi, Georgia which is thought to represent an intermediate step between Homo habilus and Homo erectus. Moreover, on the Nova website, Michael Morwood, one of the leaders of the team that discovered the hobbit, mentions recent evidence of remains found on the isle of Java which may be more primitive than Homo erectus (Meganthropus).

At another interesting site on the isle of Flores, called Mata Menge, scientists have found stone tools similar to those found in Liang Bua which date back 880,000 years. It's hypothesized that whoever created these tools (Homo erectus? They're too old to be the work of modern man) may be the ancestors of our hobbits.

Conclusions

It's amazing to think that the diminutive hominids found on the isle of Flores might belong to a new, fairly intelligent race whose evolution diverged from our own over a million years ago. Likewise, they may have developed there in relative isolation over the course of over 800,000 years. We'll need to find a lot more evidence before we can have any certainty about the origins of the hobbit, but one thing is certain: coupled with other recent findings such as Homo georgicus and Meganthropus, Homo floresiensis suggests that the human evolutionary family tree may have more branches and be much richer and more complex than we assumed up until now.

And when did the hobbits die out? Some scientists think they may have been killed off around 13,000 years ago by the same volcanic eruption that finished off their prey, the island's pygmy elephants.

For the answers to more questions regarding the hobbit I would direct you to the Q&A with Dr. Michael Morwood on Nova's website.

Images: cast of Homo floresiensis skull found in New York's American Museum of Natural History; photo Homo floresiensis fossil jaws by Djune Ivereigh/ARKUNAS found on Turkana Basin Institute's webpage on the hobbit.

Poem in Your Pocket

2009-04-30T19:36:00.002-04:00

So my mom, who is a teacher/school librarian, emailed AND texted me to inform me that today was Poem In Your Pocket Day. It's also Queen's Day and some crazy guy who got laid off drove his car into a crowd of spectators in the Netherlands. But, anyway, in honor of Poem in Your Pocket Day (and also because -- let's face it -- I wasn't about to post something original today anyway) I thought I would share a few of my favorite bite-sized poems (all by American authors, coincidentally).

This one I first read in the anthology from the creative writing class I took in college

We Real Cool
by Gwendolyn Brooks

THE POOL PLAYERS.
SEVEN AT THE GOLDEN SHOVEL.

We real cool. We
Left school. We

Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We

Sing sin. We
Thin gin. We

Jazz June. We
Die soon.

And then there's the famous non-apology by William Carlos Williams.

This Is Just To Say
by William Carlos Williams

I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold

And this one's a little longer, but why not include a little Emily Dickinson?

I heard a Fly buzz – when I died –
The Stillness in the Room
Was like the Stillness in the Air –
Between the Heaves of Storm –

The Eyes around – had wrung them dry –
And Breaths were gathering firm
For that last Onset – when the King
Be witnessed – in the Room –

I willed my Keepsakes – Signed away
What portions of me be
Assignable – and then it was
There interposed a Fly –

With Blue – uncertain stumbling Buzz –
Between the light – and me –
And then the Windows failed – and then
I could not see to see –

I found all these poems (and more) at poets.org. Now if only I could remember/find this cool poem I remember reading about how black men landed on the moon first (on the dark side of the moon) and about being subjected to scientific examination. Grrr, it's going to kill me...

Why I Hate the Tudors

2009-04-28T23:34:00.008-04:00

I don't know why I haven't written about this before seeing as how I've been brewing on the topic for so long, but I really cannot stand the Showtime series The Tudors. I was really excited when I first heard how they were coming out with this Sopranos-style drama about the reign of Henry VIII and England's Tudor dynasty because (a) I'm a big history buff and this is a fun era to learn about and (b) at the time I liked Jonathan Rhys Meyers, the actor who was playing Henry. But, for me at least, the series has been a big disappointment: I stopped watching about halfway through Season 1 because I just couldn't stand it anymore. More recently, I tuned in to the first few episodes of Season 3, tempted by promos that showed Henry's marriage to Jane Seymour and the Dissolution of the Monasteries/Pilgrimage of Grace uprising. I found out that, although the Anne Boleyn story arc may be over, all the same problems that irritated me remain. Let's countdown my issues with the show...

Problem #3: Historical Inaccuracies

The Tudors has a lot of these – some small and some big. Let me give you just a few examples of major rewriting of history in the show's first season. First, there's Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, who was Henry's bastard son and the only illegitimate child he officially recognized as his offspring. On the show Richmond is a young boy when he dies, but in real life he survived until the age of 17. At one point, Henry may have even been considering the idea of grooming the young man to be his heir seeing as how he was having so much trouble producing a legitimate son.

Then there's King Henry's sister. On the Tudors there is a character called Princess Margaret who is first married to an elderly King of Portugal whom she murders! (smothering him with a pillow) before going on to marry Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk (Henry's main bro, see problem #2). Margaret later dies, and there's no mention of her having any children with Suffolk. In real life, Henry's sister PRINCESS MARY was married to the elderly King Louis XII of France (on the TV show they had already introduced Louis' successor Francois I as King of France so I guess they decided to move the story to Portugal). There's no evidence that the old king was murdered, but many historians suggest he over-strained his heart trying to produce an heir with his young wife. Mary then did go on to marry Suffolk whom she bore three children: this is kind of important given that their granddaughter Lady Jane Grey would be put on the throne as Queen of England for like a minute after the death of Henry's son Edward VI. Not only that, but the real Princess Margaret, another sister of Henry's who is excised from the story in the Tudors, married King James IV of Scotland. She was the mother of James V and grandmother of Mary, Queen of Scots, rival to Queen Elizabeth.

These historical revisions really irked me and were a major reason I stopped watching the show. I understand how – you know – this is a work of fiction (kind of a trashy one at that), and I could overlook some use of dramatic license – maybe playing around with the chronology of events in order to speed up the pace. But these are some major points. The producers of the Tudors have to understand that there are lots of Tudor-era enthusiasts out there who are familiar with all the minor details of the period down to Anne Boleyn's eye color and who don't appreciate these liberties they're taking with history. Plus, why do they have to make shit up: isn't the true story dramatic enough?? Henry VIII was a tyrant and a womanizer who broke his country away from the Catholic Church, started his own religion, married six times, had numerous extra-martial affairs, and put hundreds of people to death (including two of the aforementioned wives).

Problem #2: Henry VIII was not Vincent Chase

Another thing that bugged me in the 1st season (I suspect this might not apply as much to the subsequent seasons) is this whole Entourage vibe that pervaded the show. Henry VIII and his posse of bros always seemed to be carrying on like sixteenth-century frat boys what with all their carousing, attending/participating in jousts, hunting, and most of all chasing after women at court. Sure, as a young man Henry was athletic (incidentally, Henry was already in his thirties by the time he started his affair with Anne Boleyn) and we all know he was a playah, but I think as King of England he did a bit more then just chase skirt and hang with the boys. Plus the guys on the show just all seemed like such douches it became painful to watch.

Problem #1: Jonathan Rhys Meyers makes a TERRIBLE Henry VIII

This right here is over 50% of why I hate this show. Before the Tudors came along I liked JRM, I would have even called myself a fan (ugh, what was wrong with me?). But his Henry VIII sucks. Let's put aside the fact that he looks nothing like the real Henry who was fair-haired and super tall for his time (6'3"). Maybe Henry didn't start packing on the pounds until later in his life, but I think he was broad shouldered and athletic rather than model thin and androgenous like JRM.

Worse then that JRM plays Henry as a spoiled child. He also doesn't seem very smart: watching the show it seemed like Henry's treatise in defense of the Catholic faith (Assertio Septum Sacramentorum) was a joke and any praise it got was just an attempt to flatter a vain prince. In reality Henry VIII was purportedly very learned (he was actually studying to be a priest before his brother Arthur died), and his Defense was well regarded at the time.

JRM's Henry basically has two emotions, sexy/seductive and angry/petulant, and the way he expresses the two they're surprisingly similar. In recent episodes, I noticed that his disappointment at the fact that his new bride was not yet with child was basically indistinguishable from his reaction to news that peasants in the North were rising up against his Protestant reforms and had ceased control of York.

I don't think this is just a conscious decision JRM made about how he would play the role. No, I think it boils down to the undeniable fact that he is just not a very good actor. I guess I didn't notice this so much in the movies I had seen him in prior to the Tudors. His roles in Bend It Like Beckham and Julie Taymor's movie Titus weren't that large or demanding, and I guess Velvet Goldmine and that BBC miniseries of Gormenghast (I loved those books by the way, one of the best endings ever) were stylized/weird enough for him to get away with it. But he just can't pull off the complex character of Henry VIII (portrayed by the likes of Richard Burton) and in the Tudors his is the starring role. It's the kind of performance (like Natalie Portman's crap turn as Anne Boleyn in the Other Boleyn Girl -- that's a subject for another post) that makes you reassess what you've seen of his previous work ("gee, come to think of it, I guess he's never acted any other way but sexy/pouty/angry in EVERYTHING I'VE EVER SEEN HIM IN!)

Since I formulated this opinion, I've also watched Woody Allen's Match Point: JRM wasn't awful in that but it's a less challenging role (also he stars opposite Scarjo who just had to look sexy throughout 60% of the movie). Now I'm wondering about his performance in that Elvis miniseries as I remember hearing at the time that it was really convincing. Could this go against my JRM can't act theory, or is his Elvis impersonation just all about him being pouty and sexy (maybe with a curled lip? oh, I can totally see it)....

This reminds me of when Nicole pointed out to me that Milla Jovovich (another model/actor) really has like one facial expression (if you've ever seen one of her movies you know what I'm talking about, wide eyes mouth open) which she manages to get a lot of mileage out of. In different contexts it can connote religious ecstasy, surprise, fear, wonder...

Images: Jonathan Rhys Meyers from Showtime's the Tudors, as Steerpike in the BBC's Gormenghast,. Milla Jovovich in the Fifth Element, the Messenger, and Resident Evil all taken from her official website.

Bailout Blues: Part II

2009-04-27T19:47:00.005-04:00

Continuing our discussion of the big bank bailout...

What is the government doing?

It's all pretty confusing, but there seem to be two prongs to the Obama administration's rescue plan for the financial sector: buying up "toxic assets" and lending money to bail out banks.

The logic behind the government buying some of these risky, devalued assets from financial institutions is that getting this junk off their books will restore the market's confidence in the institutions and that it will allow the banks to keep/resume providing businesses and private citizens with the credit they need to function. This is also supposed to help create a market for these assets which, at present, no one wants to touch with a 10-foot-pole. The big question is what price is the government paying for these assets? The treasury assures us that by including private businesses in the buying process, it is insuring that the government is paying a "fair market price," but a lot of people disagree (and it is a fact that the government overpaid for some of the assets it has already purchased). I think the government's willingness to buy these assets ("creating a market") is necessarily going to drive up their market price. Whereas this initiative basically presumes that these assets are worth something and that they've been devalued in part because of investors' excessive panic and fear, some experts would argue that – no – a lot of these assets are actually going to further decrease in value. Thus, there's a fear that (a) the government is helping to once again artificially inflate the value of this junk and (b) we are essentially nationalizing losses, while keeping profits private – the banks get the worthless assets off their books and the US taxpayer is left holding the bag. Incidentally, these toxic assets are being managed for the Treasury by the BlackRock investment firm under three no-bid contracts whose price is being kept secret.

Together with buying up toxic assets, the government is also injecting capital into "healthy" institutions (i.e. institutions that can survive). In return for these loans, the treasury is mostly taking preference shares which are kind of like debt instruments in that they lack voting-rights but have certain guarantees for a return on the investment in the form of dividends. A lot of people think the treasury is not exercising enough control and oversight over what is actually being done with this money it's handing out. The government wants the recipients to use the money in order to keep lending rather than horde it, pass it on to shareholders, or use it to reward executives. Now, the issue of executive compensation is bit of a distraction since the amount of money involved is relatively small, but at the same time the public outrage over recipient companies handing out employee bonuses and spending funds on things like expensive corporate retreats is TOTALLY justified. How dare these companies keep compensating their employees the same way they did during the boom when they are only staying afloat thanks to government assistance!

Some people argue that the administration needs to grow a pair and start taking more control of these institutions, but assuming direct control would probably raise its own thorny issues. First, there's the conflict of interest I mentioned in Part I (protecting our investment v. doing whats best for the economy as a whole). Also, I could just imagine "zombie banks" controlled by government officials being made to keep lending out money to keep the economy running while they're intrinsically bankrupt.

More recently, given that Congress has made it clear that what with popular sentiment hardening against Wall Street they're unlikely to be approving a lot more funds for the rescue program, the administration has talked about converting a lot of these preference shares into common shares so as to provide banks with much needed equity. If the government is going to become the majority shareholder of some of these institutions is it going to start acting like one and exercising more control?

What's the problem?

Banks

Now a lot of the big banks are announcing that they're showing better than expect profits for the 1st Quarter of 2009. But these results are mostly bullshit: they're based on all the money they've gotten from the government and on using new accounting principles that allow them to abandon the market price standard for valuing distressed securities in an illiquid market (This is the opposite of what I said we need to do!). If the banks are going to be all like "yey, we're getting better!" but it's all bullshit, we're setting ourselves up for another fall further down the road.

Obama administration

People who disapprove of the job the Obama administration's been doing can point to the fact that his "experts" all of course come from the broken system which caused this crisis. Treasury Secretary Geithner was President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank where, according to an article in Sunday's NYTimes, he had close relationships with Wall Street executives and "often aligned himself with the industry's interests and desires." Many of the top aides Geithner invited to join him in the Treasury department worked for companies like Citibank and Goldman Sachs. Paul Volckner – another top Obama economic advisor and head of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board – used to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernake is of course a less-skilled disciple of Greenspan. Is it surprising then that critics accuse this bunch of being overeager to save Wall Street institutions from the results of their own mistakes through generous use of taxpayer funds?

Do we trust these people to wield all that power and to make the right decisions on how to overhaul the sector? Are they all too close to the problem to see the solution? Are they of the mindset that what's good for Wall Street is good for America on the whole? Are they perhaps more likely to design a recovery program that leaves THEIR system intact as much as possible and leaves their buddies' institutions with the fewest scratches possible when tougher action might be better in the long run?

Congress

Let's not overlook the clowns and corporate flunkies in Congress. Remember when everyone was up in arms about AIG paying out retention bonuses to employees after just getting a multi-billion dollar loan from Uncle Sam? Well, Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn, former longshot presidential candidate) introduced an amendment to the stimulus bill which purportedly restricted executive pay for bailout recipients, but at some point a clause was inserted specifically exempting bonuses agreed to under contracts signed before a certain date. Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee so you can be sure he has lots of ties to Wall Street. Moreover, since the furor exploded over the AIG bonuses, it's come to light that Dodd received big political contributions from a couple of AIG employees.

But again that's all small potatoes. Congress' greatest crime in helping enable this financial crisis happened in 1999 when they overwhelmingly voted to repeal provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act which regulated banking activities and placed limits on speculation. I have no doubt many legislators were motivated in part by the influence of the banking lobby which wanted these "outdated" regulations lifted. Some were also motivated by an ideological belief in deregulation and in trusting in the market to ultimately do what's best when it's left alone. This viewpoint has of course now been exposed as foolhardy.

What is to be done?

I have to say that I am not entirely comfortable with all the power being concentrated in the hands of the Treasury department without much in the way of checks and balances, oversight, or disclosure. Some (like moderate conservative NYTimes columnist David Brooks who was on Charlie Rose the other night) might say that it's actually a good thing that more decision-making power is going into the hands of these knowledgeable technocrats (and out of the hands of those incompetents and idiots in Congress). On the other hand, let's not forget that they are also unelected officials with strong ties to the financial system and to friends on Wall Street.

I guess the bailout question was bound to be a thorny one, and it's almost inevitable that the solution would be messy and involve expending government funds – some of which will inevitably be lost forever and should just be written off now. But I think the next step is even more important. Namely, after the flames die down a little, what sort of new rules and regulations is the federal government going to step up and introduce? Will they start regulating hedge funds and the derivatives market? What sort of accounting principles will ultimately be embraced for assessing the value of what we are now calling toxic assets? I really hope this is where the real Change (with that big "c") will come.

Photo by David Mills/NYTimes

Bailout Blues

2009-04-24T13:34:00.003-04:00

Wow, I haven’t posted anything in over two months. Maybe I should try and get those blogging juices flowing again with one of my ever popular political rants. The topic I want to address today is the financial crisis and the bailout.

Lately I’ve been following a lot of links to articles about how the economic recovery is coming along and the general consensus seems to be “not so good.” I’m not talking about the politicians and pundits on the right whose attacks on the Obama administration’s actions are mostly motivated by blatant partisanship – Obama bailing out the banks is SOCIALISM!, never mind that Bush was gearing up to do the exact same thing back when he was president – I’m talking about economists who know what they’re talking about. Here’s my synthesis on what I’ve gleamed the problem is…

The Problem

Over the last sixth months our financial sector has fallen apart due to systemic problems. The crisis goes deeper than just the fallout from the real estate bubble bursting and housing prices going down: it’s about letting banks, brokers, hedge funds and other operators in the financial market engage in shady activities, it’s about not enough oversight from the government institutions that are supposed to be safeguarding the market (like the SEC); and it’s about rules and accounting principles that allowed for the overvaluation of what turned out to be very risky assets.

For decades, profits had been soaring for financial institutions and everyone wanted to believe that they could go on like that forever. When crises like Enron popped up (which today seem like historical footnotes, nothing more than portents foreshadowing the much bigger meltdown that was to come) the system managed and contained the fallout and this created the illusion that the system was strong and could handle any problems that might arise in the future. This was the legacy of Alan Greenspan. And as for all those derivative financial assets that people had invented in order to raise money in creative new ways, and which most people never really understood (or understand), nobody wanted to listen to the few naysayers and Cassandras who suggested that they might carry more risk than everyone was assuming and that they were thus overvalued.

What do we do?

So now the house of cards has come crashing down. A systemic failure like this seems to demand big change. I don’t know a whole lot about the world of finance, but I know enough that I can say there need to be stricter rules regarding what different types of institutions can and cannot do, more and better monitoring by oversight authorities, and there need to be tougher accounting principles telling companies what value to assign to these mysterious derivative assets.

The other side of this big change is that we must accept that when the storm clouds clear the financial sector should look very different. First, there needs to be a shift in attitude: financial operators should be chastened after this, and they should get used to taking less risks and, in turn, accepting lower (some would say "more reasonable") profits. That's the easy part. The hard part is deciding what to do with these big name institutions that are failing. One option is maybe put them into receivership (the company goes bankrupt, shareholders are wiped out, a new entity is formed with all the creditors as shareholders, the new entity tries to pick up the pieces and become profitable again). Another option: if the government is going to bail out institutions that can’t fail, it can assume more control over the recipient institutions. The obvious (and extreme) move would be for the government to call the bailout money an equity investment and for it to get shares of common stock in return. In a lot of cases this would result in the US government becoming the majority shareholder (or at least the largest plurality shareholder) in which case it could (and probably should?) use its voting rights to tell the institution exactly what it should do. Of course, this would create an interesting conflict of interest for the government (protecting the taxpayers’ equity investment in the bank vs. the interests of the financial industry as a whole) as well as putting taxpayers’ investment at risk (if the value of the stock goes down, the government will lose money on its investment). In Europe, some banks were nationalized in the '70s and '80s and feelings are mixed about how that turned out.

So, yeah, the question of what we should actually do with the floundering big name institutions is problematic. But a wishy-washy solution such as the government simply loaning money to the banks or the government insuring or buying those toxic assets may not be enough to fix the problem. Loans don’t give the banks the capital they need, and the government isn’t doing much to control how the money is used (which might be a bad thing). Temporarily inflating the value of these crappy assets by insuring them (hoping, I guess, that the real value will someday go back up) is just putting a band aid over the crack in the dam and it basically assures there will be more problems down the line. And as far as buying the toxic assets from the banks, would this amount to “nationalizing loss” while leaving the banks to enjoy future "private gains"?

I guess that's enough to chew on for one post. Stay tuned for Part II where I'll discuss what the government is actually doing and whether it's good or bad.

Wall Street photo taken from http://meltaylor.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/how-can-radio-win-online/

Answers to 45 random questions

2009-02-17T13:31:00.006-05:00

Here's another one of those facebook questionnaires that I filled out. I'll try to post something more substantive soon.

1. Do you like blue cheese? No dairy for me.

2. Have you ever smoked heroin? No.

3. Do you own a gun? No.

4. What flavor do you add to your drink at Starbucks? At Starbucks I usually order either iced tea, a soy (iced) chai, or maybe a soy (iced) latte

5. Do you get nervous before doctor appointments? I’m usually more busy being annoyed about how long I have to wait around.

6. What do you think of hot dogs? They can be pretty tasty but I can’t get the images of the ligaments, hairy snouts, and blood clots I saw on that episode of You Are What You Eat out of my mind.

7. Favorite Christmas movie? Hmm… oh Pee Wee Herman’s Christmas Special is awesome (seriously)

8. What do you prefer to drink in the morning? OJ

9. Can you do push ups? Yes.

10. What's your favorite piece of jewelry? I like the watch I lost about a month ago

11. Favorite hobby? Uh... let's say "reading."

12. Do you have A.D.D? Maybe.

13. What's one trait you hate about yourself? Chronic laziness

14. Middle name? Carl

15. Name 3 thoughts at this exact moment? I’m bored with most of the music that plays on my ipod, this computer is making a lot of noise, I have a meeting later this afternoon.

16. Name 3 things you bought yesterday? Salmon sandwich, metro card, cab ride.

17. Name 3 things you drink daily: Water, diet coke, juice.

18. Current worry? What’s been up with my digestive system recently? Could I have some sort of parasite or something?

19. Current Dislike? When I burn my tongue or the roof of my mouth.

20. How did you bring in the New Year? In Playa del Carmen with friends: we had a nice dinner, some too sweet champagne, and then went out.

21. Where would you like to go? Lot’s of places: Israel, Africa, Norway, Singapore…

22. Name three people who will complete this. I think only Nicole will.

23. Do you own slippers? Yeah, but I don’t wear them that often. I usually hang around the apartment in my socks.

24. What shirt are you wearing? Banana Republic shirt with like pastel green stripes

25. [Missing apparently]

26. Favorite color? Azure

27. Could you be a pirate? Arr, if I was I would be drunk on grog all the time.

28. What songs do you sing in the shower? I don’t really sing in the shower usually.

29. Favorite food? Sushi

30. What's in your pocket right now? Wallet, cellphone, dumb receipt, like 3 cents in change.

31. Last thing that made you laugh? My conversation with Nicole on the phone last night

32. Favorite sheets? I don’t know, modal maybe.

33. Worst injury you have ever had? Cutting my arm open on broken glass while fighting with my brother

34. Do you love where you live? I like it.

35. How many TVs do you have in your house? One.

36. Who is your loudest friend? Ashlye

37. How many dogs do you have? None.

38. Does someone have a crush on you? I think a few people probably do.

39. What are your favorite book(s): Hmm… Let's go with Nabokov's Ada.

40. What is your favorite candy? Lindor truffles or ferrero rocher

41. Favorite Sports Water: just regular water for me

42. What songs do you want sung at your funeral? The Van den Budenmayer Funeral Music

43. What were you doing 12 AM last night? Chatting with people on the computer about how I needed to go to bed/watching TV (Big Love, I think)

44. What was the first thing you thought of when you woke this morning? Blech.

45. Favorite place to be? In the water.

Funny Line of the Day

2009-02-14T13:00:00.002-05:00

Person B: You're drinking beer at 8:30 in the morning?

Person A: What? It's only a Hefeweizen.