Tim Russert

It's been a few days since Tim passed away, but since the funeral is today I thought it was fitting to say a few words. Not that I knew Tim, but like many Americans I admit to a feeling of kinship with him because of what he did and what he was trying to accomplish.

Though I have seen his commentary on news programs for more than a decade, I only became a regular Meet the Press viewer a couple years ago. It quickly became one of my few regular TV programs, even though I disagreed often with his method of interviewing. Reflecting on this paradox, I think I enjoyed the program because I got the impression that Tim was really, honestly, trying to get politicans to communicate a clear and coherent message, and nailing them when they did not. Although I'm sure he was as ambitious as the next guy, it seemed his desire to have politicians live up to a high standard was the real driving force behind his career and fascination with politics.

I am increasingly skeptical that the commentators, pundits, anchors, and even 'experts' on many news shows have my knowledge and the general welfare as their primary concern. I'm not naive; I don't expect it to be their only concern, but I would like to see a little more social consciousness and accountability exercised in television journalism.

I watched MTP because Tim, for whatever intangible reason, did not give me that impression. It seems he genuinely cared. In today's politics, and in today's television journalism, that's a quality we can ill afford to lose.

American Exceptionalism

A front page article in today's New York Times proclaims that that, when it comes to free speech, the U.S. is "exceptional" because we impose a higher bar than other countries, most notably Canada, when it comes to censoring individuals and/or the press. Now, the word "exceptional" by itself can have both positive and negative connotations, and I first thought it was a testament to the editorial staff of the Times that they used such a deliberately ambiguous word. However, such thoughts gradually disappeared from my mind as I read the article, which seems to have a bone to pick with the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence and the state of free speech in America today.

After spending some time discussing the heavier speech regulation in other nations, and tacitly agreeing with some quoted philosophers that such regulation might make sense to preserve tolerance and cohesion in a liberal democracy, the article spends a couple sentences surmising that this American "exceptionalism" probably has something to do with our history and focus on individual liberty.

You could say that.

In truth, this is a vast oversimplification of one of the bedrock principles of a uniquely American mode of governance. While it is undoubtedly true that words can be as dangerous as firearms, it does not follow that they should be equally regulated. This is due to a simple and obvious truth which the Times seems to have missed: speech is our most direct outward expression of thought. To regulate speech is, by direct implication, to attempt to regulate thought and belief. Indeed, most speech regulation in other nations is an attempt to suppress a particular belief and encourage another. And while it may be clear to us that some beliefs and thoughts are clearly wrong, dangerous, and ignorant, in the end that amounts to nothing more than a disagreement, vehement though it may be.

"...that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights..." These words are familiar to most Americans, and yet serious thought is, sadly, rarely given to its meaning and implications. For it has a very specific meaning, drafted by a man trained in the law and schooled in logic and rhetoric. An "unalienable right" is one that cannot be given away, even if one wishes to do so. It is inherent and non-transferable. Now, clearly such an absolute reading would cause serious administrative problems (witness Holmes's famous example of crying Fire in a crowded theater). Nevertheless, the sentiment expressed is one which sets itself firmly in the individual liberty of Americans to talk and believe as they will. Madison followed firmly in Jefferson's footsteps when he drafted the Bill of Rights - indeed, one could say that much of it was a collaborative effort.

Okay, I'll stop. I don't want to (nor do I have the time to) write an entire essay fleshing out these arguments. However, to me it is clear that our modern free speech jurisprudence is grounded not only in history, but also in sound political philosophy. While other countries might choose to promote tolerance over free thought, and superficial consensus over occasional discord, such a value system is distinctly un-American. It creates an atmosphere where certain thoughts are illegal, and certain beliefs are heresies against the state. If one is to preserve a liberal democracy, the only heresy I can think of is tyranny.

Calling All Bets

David Brooks implies in his column today that American society is imperiled as a result of a dramatic increase in debt and the loss of frugality and industry as virtues in American culture. No doubt he is right that debt has increased noticeably in the past few decades, but I would be surprised if its recent increase represents an increase in the rate of increase. In other words, debt has always been increasing --- a rather predictable outcome of our capitalistic society that runs on credit and speculation (a lesson I learned painfully a few years ago, when i was informed my credit score was horrible because i had no debt). In fact our country has always run on speculation. George Washington himself speculated on land.

He argues that the 'dramatic increase' in debt in our society (assuming for the moment that the rate has increased dramatically) is destructive because it "inhibits social mobility and ruins lives." Unfortunately he does not back this up with any evidence, leading us to speculate as to the bases for this assertion. Such a simple diagnosis seems a bit naive for such a complex problem, and I wonder if the increase individual, family, and governmental debt over the past few decades is the result of a lack of social mobility, instead of the cause. Or perhaps it's more of a chicken and the egg thing. Regardless, I'm fairly sure this is not quite as well thought through as David Brooks would like to think.

Despite the weakness of the argument presented (I won't go through the whole thing), there is something compelling about the call to action. The 'debt society' as some have called it is an issue of significant national concern, contributing as it does not only to the precariousness of the economy but also to the undermining of reasonable expectations and thus the general happiness and contentment of Americans. This is my main concern, and what draws me to the subject. The average American should not expect to leverage his finances and gain money --- the virtues of industry and frugality are ones that have stood the test of time, and should not be allowed to pass without serious consideration.

However, it should be noted that many of the founding fathers, that David Brooks refers to as establishing this Puritanical backbone for our country, did not walk the walk. Though they proclaimed the virtues of frugality and independence from creditors, many themselves lived well beyond their means on a regular basis, most notably Thomas Jefferson. Debt and speculation have been part of the history of this country since its founding. It's not really its presence that is the problem, but the rather its prevalence and standing in our society. Because you never know when the debts are going to be called in.

Horrible

I'm in the midst of final exams right now, but I want to take minute to vent my frustrations at the complete idiocy of cable and network news. Tens of thousands of people are dead in Burma, and tens of thousands more could die soon if proper aid does not reach them in time. Most news channels, instead of covering this disaster and putting pressure on Myanmar's government to open itself up to aid workers and supplies, are instead debating the content of a two-second Hillary Clinton soundbite. Honestly. It's unthinkable (and this coming from a politics junkie).

Newspapers report today that aid workers are being literally turned away at the airport in Myanmar, where they have come to provide relief to the homeless. This is not a hypothetical scenario. This is not reality TV. Real people will die. What the Burmese government is doing is criminal.

More John Adams

It's hard to say which project is more difficult: reducing a life to a book, or reducing a book to a movie. This is not to say that a movie is somehow less valuable than a book, but simply that the capacity of books to capture nuance, information, and complexity usually exceeds that of a movie, in part due to the formatting and time requirements. The same goes when comparing a non-fiction book to the events or lives it attempts to recount.

In a nutshell, this is the problem that the HBO miniseries John Adams encounters. As recounted by this piece in the Post, the miniseries I recommended on this blog about a month ago does not fully include a certain aspect of John Adams' temperament and attitude that might be valuable to the viewer, and would perhaps create a more sullied, or human, view of this founding father (full disclosure: i have a somewhat tenuous connection to the author through another related individual, and i regard both of them as meticulous and insightful historians). In particular, the article cites Mr. Adams' vanity and self-obsession. I continue to believe that Paul's depiction of John Adams has been inspired, and would contest the view that this depiction does not show the weaker and vainer aspects of John Adams. To the extent that it does not do this fully enough to faithfully establish the character of John Adams, I will defer to the experts (including the author of the article).

I think it's useful and valuable to point out that there's more to John Adams, and indeed to all of the founding fathers, than could be depicted in a 7 part miniseries. But for all that, I think it's a great series with some truly wonderful performances. For those without HBO, I've been hearing that it will be released on DVD rather quickly due to its popularity, so you should not have long to wait.

Thoughts

Finals season is here, and I'll be underground for the next few weeks studying for exams. Oddly enough, historically it seems that I post more during these times than I do when I have more free time. Anway, a lot has happened recently in the world, and so I'd thought I would start out my posting resurgence with some quick thoughts on.....

....the Democratic contenders for President. At this point I have not yet formed an opinion regarding who I'd support for the Democratic ticket, especially since the policy stances of the candidates have yet to be clearly defined. I must say at this point that I would choose Obama or Edwards over Hillary. I have a lot of respect for her policy acumen and her service to the country, but I don't think she is capable of uniting the country the way the other two candidates could, and the way the Democrats need to move.

....the death of Kurt Vonnegut. One of the greatest writers and moral commentators of the 20th century, Kurt Vonnegut combined piercing insights with a very dark humor, creating a prose that was impossible to put down. His books have resonance and impact on young and old readers alike, and his ability to cross boundaries and appeal to to everyone marks him as one of the best in his field. This might be a good time to revisit Slaughterhouse Five.

....on the discovery of the father of Anna Nicole's baby. Thank god this is over. Let's pray this man will be a good father, and was not just in it for the publicity.

....on Google buying DoubleClick. From what I know of this area of technology, this was a very good move for Google. The media and advertising industries are strongly relationship driven at the top, and DoubleClick has those relationships. Google has successfully gone after the long tail, but if it's going to get the head of the industry then it needed to get DoubleClick's customers one way or another. Was it worth 3.1 billion? Only time will tell.

....on taxes. Mine are done and mailed. Are yours?

Media Rant

I love the freedom of the press, but I expect more from our media. I really do. And it irkes me to realize that the large companies that run these media outlets are only promoting questionable stories, which I find offensive and juvenile in varying degrees, because they are popular. I realize that they generate lots of viewers, and living in a capitalist society I can't really blame the news channels from trying to maximize profits. But at some level, there must be an accounting of moral responsibility. And I think we are beginning to reach that level.

There are two stories in particular that exemplify this trend. The first is that of Anna Nicole Smith, and the various legal questions her death poses. Anna Nicole Smith was a good looking woman who made some news a while ago by marrying a very old billionare. I find the fact that news outlets dedicated so much time to that story mildly annoying, but it's not a big deal. There was nothing new there, and quite frankly if people are interested in that stuff that's fine with me. It's not like she or he really minded the attention.

This story is different because of one minor and one major factor. The minor factor: she's dead - show some respect. I realize that whatever gets people to the turn on the TV is good for the bottom line of these studios, but I also believe that there is a price we as a society pay when certain lines are crossed. To be specific I am referring to the fact that all news outlets are treating Anna's death like a circus. Even the trial judge is using this trial to get on his soapbox and enjoy his 15 minutes of fame. This is about her. And she's dead. Show some respect.

The major factor: she has a little baby. Why does nobody talk about the little baby except to laugh at how silly the paternal dispute is? Why is it that nobody seems concerned? I know this because I have watched several shows on NBC, CNN, and FOX about this issue in morbid fascination. Every commentator, without exception, has laughed about the horridness of the whole situation for 29 minutes, and then spent the last 60 seconds lamenting that nobody talks about the poor child. Not only is this behavior somewhat stupid, I find it morally questionable. Once again, I believe there is a price we pay as a society for this.

Sidenote: Yes, I am aware there is a certain hypocrisy in me railing against those who watch this type of news, and then acknowledge that I watched it too. I believe there is a key difference: I normally don't watch this stuff, and don't intend to continue doing so in the future.

My second example involves Britney Spears. I won't say too much about this, because I believe that it speaks for itself. I would not even know about it if the news outlets had not been flooded by this remarkable story. The girl is 25 (i think). She has 2 babies, and is divorced. She clearly has some sort of substance abuse problems, is suffering from depression, and has not had a moments peace for a decade. With this background, and signs of possible breakdown that could have serious ramifications for her health and that of her children, I believe it is morally irresponsible of the media and others to report on this as if it were a joke.

I hate to get on my high horse here - that's not normally what I do, and I usually tune out when others do it. At the same time however, this is starting to piss me off. I figured I have not posted in a while on here, so people might enjoy a good rant.

PS - i was recently made aware of this video of Craig Ferguson from the Late Late Show, which in some ways bears remarkable similarity to my rant above. I've seen his stuff and think he's quite talented and funny - now I have more respect for him.

The Man Who Would Be King

I recently saw "The Man Who Would Be King", a charming film starring the young and energetic actors Sean Connery and Michael Caine and based on the short story by Rudyard Kipling.

If you like Kipling's stories about India, if you like Sean Connery or Michael Caine, and if you're interested in adventure movies in the 70's style, then you'll love this movie. Chances are if you like any one or two of the above factors you'll like this move despite the unwanted third.

Sean and Michael play two former officers in the British army. No longer part of the army, they dismiss the idea of returning to Britain and instead concoct a fantastic scheme to travel to 'Kafiristan' (from what i could gather, somwhere around modern day Tajikistan) and become Kings by using their rifles to join with a warring tribe and take over the land.

The script is well written, with a lot of comedy that balances the adventure elements nicely to make for an entertaining movie. The scenery is great - not sure where they shot this movie, but the depiction of Kafiristan is beautiful. However, this movie is all about the acting. Sean Connery is wonderful as a rogue spirit with an impetuous nature and a talent for acting crazy, and Michael Caine is oddly endearing as someone with great military discipline but little moral value. The two characters weave their way through the story with ease and enjoyment, which makes the movie fun to watch.

As is probably obvious at this point, I had very few gripes with this flick. Perhaps some of the props were a little fake looking, and I did think the ending was overly dramatic. Somehow though, I found the cheeziness of this movie made it that much more enjoyable - much like the cheeziness of the Indiania Jones movies.

Good movies, good times.

English (and blogger) Migration

I'm back baby! And my blog has a whole new look! No, just kidding, it doesn't (clearly). But I have just migrated to the new Blogger, and I have to say that it's a big improvement over the past one. I like the interface better and it seems to be faster as well, which is impressive since new versions of things are usually slower. I'm also impressed that Google brought it out of beta so quickly (don't ask me why Gmail is still in beta. I don't think anybody knows.)

What motivates my return to the posting realm you ask? Other than blogger migration, and my guilty conscience for not posting in a long time, it was the news that Beckham has signed a deal with LA Galaxy for 5 years. Craziness!

David Beckham is an icon in the soccer world, and undoubtedly one of the biggest sports stars of the past 50 years. From his transition from the English leagues to Real Madrid (and that team's subsequent slump) to his relationship with one of the Spice Girls (i'm not sure which one...sugar....spice....something like that), his life has been great fodder for tabloids and newspapers alike for many years. And so it may not come as a surprise to people that Mr. Beckham is going where tabloid celebrities feel right at home: Los Angeles.

I'm actually quite excited about this. As a member of the small, but growing, contingent of people in this country who follows MLS I think this is going to do wonders for US Soccer. The US is starting to turn out some real soccer talent at the professional level, and the presence of Beckham playing soccer here will draw a lot of attention to this fact. He'll also force a lot of US players to raise their game to a new level, something which we desperately need to do before the next World Cup.

So welcome to the US, Mr. Beckham. The paparazzi will make you feel right at home.

Seriously? Leonardo?

The first memory I have of Leonardo Di Caprio is his role in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?", a great movie in which I think he did a fantastic job. I recall thinking that this was a kid with a lot of talent. But soon that image was supplanted by his role in 'Titanic', where he did not act quite as well and displayed a sort of egoistic arrogance that was not very appealing.

Ever since the Titanic, I've never really taken him too seriously as an actor, although he has been quite a prolific one. One would think that his long experience with acting, and the ups and downs of his career, would have given him a better grasp of the silver screen, but I have not found it so. Granted, I never saw The Aviator or Catch Me If You Can, both supposed to be good movies, but frankly the previews did not really capture my imagination. I loved Gangs of New York, but more for the directing and the topic than the acting. He was good, but not great, in that movie.

But recently I have seen two movies in which I believe Leonardo has come into his own. The first was 'The Departed', a well designed film that put him on screen with some great actors such as Nicholson and Damon. So it's no lowly compliment when I say that he was the best actor in that film by far. Not only was he believable, but he created a persona out of his lines that was engaging and interesting both in action and drama sequences.

Today I saw 'Blood Diamond', and once again I was impressed with Di Caprio's acting abilities. Working with a topic more engaging than in 'The Departed', but perhaps with a less veteran cast or director, he carried this movie and turned what could have been a cheezy political commentary into a somewhat compelling drama involving not only politics, but a human tragedy. That egoism that surfaced in the Titanic has disappeared, replaced with a sort of vulnerability that carries well on screen.

Bravo Leonardo. Keep it up. Next on my viewing list for this holiday break: The Good Shephard.

Nature Finds a Way

In the movie Jurassic Park, the scientists controlled the population by populating the island with only female dinosaurs so they could not reproduce. Then during the movie it was discovered that the females were reproducing asexually - much to the scoffs, guffaws, and general disbelief of many skeptical members of the audience. I remember protesting that this was possible, and being ridiculed for it. But vindication is here at last.

Just recently a Kimono dragon in a British zoo has done just that. Never having mixed with another male, genetic tests confirm this so-called virgin birth. The process is known as parthenogenesis, but has never been observed in such a large animal or reptile.

And just like that, another traumatic experience comes to a close.