So get this. She runs for governor of Alaska. The Republicans don't like her cuz she's been ratting on the corrupt ones. She wins the primaries anyway and defeats the Democrat who outspends her. So she starts ratting on corrupt Alaskan Republicans in Washington. She fixes the budget, kills the "bridge to nowhere," shelves 300 pork-barrel projects, and says Alaska needs to be self-sufficient instead of relying on federal money. She replaces a whole board committee that wasn't doing their job right.
Romney wouldn't have excited me. I read up on Pawlenty when he was getting buzz and thougt he was ok. But an initial read up on the no-nonsense integrity of Palin has me more excited about anything political I've been in awhile. She hasn't even been governor for two years, but it's more of an executive record than McCain, Obama, and Biden combined, and it's an impressive one two.
You want a Washington outsider, Democrats? It doesn't get any farther than Alaska.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Russia vs. Georgia: Round Two
As we resume the scene, Russia continues its full-scale launch, pouring columns of tanks into Georgia, staging air raids, and lining up ships on the Black Sea. They claim they're not after civilians, just retaliating for Georgia's advances in South Ossetia, but bombs destroy some apartments in the city of Gori (which is in regular Georgia - not the questionable province - or, as the journalists say, "Georgia proper").
The UN and other powerless busybodies keep crying different versions of "Stop that!" to the deaf ears of Russia. Cheney says their response can't go unanswered, but what that means is unclear.
Georgia pulls their 2,000 troops from Iraq to help out a more urgent front. For awhile both sides claim to control the South Ossetian capital, but overpowered and gunned down, Georgia withdraws from the province and calls for a cease-fire on the same deaf ears.
Now that South Ossetia is back in its own hands (or now is it Russia's?), the fight rages for another province called Abkhazia that also wants to fully break from Georgia. Russia continues to claim that they don't have plans to invade "Georgia proper," - they're just helping out these poor independent provinces that Georgia wants to take back.
But somebody lied. Forget the provinces - Russia is now delving deep into the heart of Georgia - bombing infrastructure, capturing government buildings, and cutting off a crucial highway. There was a claim that they're just punishing Georgia for its aggression, but Russia's current aggression doesn't look like the noble motives of a protector.
Russia's definitely serving its own interests here - "protecting" the breakaway provinces just happens to play into their hand. Just what those interests are is still unknown - I haven't found any reports of what Russia says will make them stop; all they're doing so far is shouting justifications for what they're doing.
Will the breakaway provinces be truly independent or will Russia conveniently take them back under the fold of the ol' USSR? Does it want to recapture all of Georgia? Or is it just invading the whole country to mete out the emerging strains of democracy - and pro-western ambitions - that threaten Russia's backyard? And how long will the US and UN be content to just scream "stop it, stop it"? And what does all this have to do with the oil pipeline that runs through Georgia.....
Stay tuned.
The UN and other powerless busybodies keep crying different versions of "Stop that!" to the deaf ears of Russia. Cheney says their response can't go unanswered, but what that means is unclear.
Georgia pulls their 2,000 troops from Iraq to help out a more urgent front. For awhile both sides claim to control the South Ossetian capital, but overpowered and gunned down, Georgia withdraws from the province and calls for a cease-fire on the same deaf ears.
Now that South Ossetia is back in its own hands (or now is it Russia's?), the fight rages for another province called Abkhazia that also wants to fully break from Georgia. Russia continues to claim that they don't have plans to invade "Georgia proper," - they're just helping out these poor independent provinces that Georgia wants to take back.
But somebody lied. Forget the provinces - Russia is now delving deep into the heart of Georgia - bombing infrastructure, capturing government buildings, and cutting off a crucial highway. There was a claim that they're just punishing Georgia for its aggression, but Russia's current aggression doesn't look like the noble motives of a protector.
Russia's definitely serving its own interests here - "protecting" the breakaway provinces just happens to play into their hand. Just what those interests are is still unknown - I haven't found any reports of what Russia says will make them stop; all they're doing so far is shouting justifications for what they're doing.
Will the breakaway provinces be truly independent or will Russia conveniently take them back under the fold of the ol' USSR? Does it want to recapture all of Georgia? Or is it just invading the whole country to mete out the emerging strains of democracy - and pro-western ambitions - that threaten Russia's backyard? And how long will the US and UN be content to just scream "stop it, stop it"? And what does all this have to do with the oil pipeline that runs through Georgia.....
Stay tuned.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Russia vs. Georgia: Round One
So Russia and Georgia are at war. No, not the Georgia that the devil went down to... the little country in the middle of the other hemisphere. Here's what I've gathered in reading articles, blogs, and editorials last night and today:
The Georgians broke away from the collapsing U.S.S.R in the 90's along with all those countries that end in -ekistan. But one of Georgia's provinces, South Ossetia, is made up mostly of Russians, so they broke away from Georgia in 1992, and have basically been independent since, although most of the world calls Georgia a country and doesn't pay much attention to South Ossetia.
Anyway, Russia and the U.S. get along better than they did during the Cold War, but things have been.. er.. heating up again. For instance, the U.S. wants to set up missile defense shields in Europe with its NATO allies, or even Turkey, and Russia's not too keen on more Western military technology so close to home (remember when they set up missiles on our side in Cuba?). And while Russia's not exactly communist anymore, it's not exactly a free country either; the government still wields plenty of totalitarian power.
Georgia, in conjunction with its dislike of Russia, likes the U.S. and wants to join NATO. I was surprised to learn that they actually rank third in number of troops in Iraq (2,000) behind U.S. and Britain - that gives you an idea of how much they want to be with us and our pals. This makes Russia dislike Georgia even more - you probably don't remember when Russia cut off gas lines to Georgia for a bit in 2006. But don't forget the immense Russian population in South Ossetia, which sort of but not really is a part of Georgia.
More tension's been building lately. Georgia's leader has been wanting to take South Ossetia back. Russia's been flying war planes over Georgia's territory. Both sides claim the other shot first, but one way or the other Georgians killed a dozen Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, probably along with some civilians.
While everyone was watching the Chinese unfurl a majestic Olympic opening ceremony, Russia responded full-scale with troops, tanks, and fighter planes, and the Georgian army fought back - there have been reports of destroyed tanks and planes. Russia appears to be mobilizing for a full-scale invasion of Georgia, and over a thousand people - Russians, South Ossetians, and Georgians, mostly civilians - are dead already.
The simplified coverage paints the Goliath Russia as invading poor little ol' Georgia - nevermind how much poking and provoking Georgia did to upset the bullying Bear. The U.S. presidential candidates are sticking with that populist picture. "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," says McCain. "“What is clear is that Russia has invaded Georgia’s sovereign — has encroached on Georgia’s sovereignty," says Obama.
No time to talk about Georgia invading South Ossetia's sovereignty. Because, after all, Russia really is a bully and Georgia is our friend.
It's hard to say how much worse things will get. It seems that another province is fighting Georgia now, too, and with the immense backing of Russia it would seem that Georgia would be knocked out pretty quickly. But apparently Russia has only one supply line into that area, and Georgia may be able to hold their own - especially if they get requested help from the West. They're certainly banking on it.
And just because the U.S. gets involved won't make it World War III, either - we've been involved in Eurasian skirmishes in the last few decades - Kosovo or Bosnia, anyone? In fact there is already a U.S. presence in Georgia, training and arming enemies of our enemies and hoping they don't become our enemies later (Remember Afghanistan against Russia?)
But U.S.-Russia tensions will be strained even more by this situation, There's no way Russia will forsake their own in South Ossetia - but will they continue a full onslaught of the rest of Georgia? It's doubtful that the U.S. and Co. will stop at paltry rhetoric.
Stay tuned.
The Georgians broke away from the collapsing U.S.S.R in the 90's along with all those countries that end in -ekistan. But one of Georgia's provinces, South Ossetia, is made up mostly of Russians, so they broke away from Georgia in 1992, and have basically been independent since, although most of the world calls Georgia a country and doesn't pay much attention to South Ossetia.
Anyway, Russia and the U.S. get along better than they did during the Cold War, but things have been.. er.. heating up again. For instance, the U.S. wants to set up missile defense shields in Europe with its NATO allies, or even Turkey, and Russia's not too keen on more Western military technology so close to home (remember when they set up missiles on our side in Cuba?). And while Russia's not exactly communist anymore, it's not exactly a free country either; the government still wields plenty of totalitarian power.
Georgia, in conjunction with its dislike of Russia, likes the U.S. and wants to join NATO. I was surprised to learn that they actually rank third in number of troops in Iraq (2,000) behind U.S. and Britain - that gives you an idea of how much they want to be with us and our pals. This makes Russia dislike Georgia even more - you probably don't remember when Russia cut off gas lines to Georgia for a bit in 2006. But don't forget the immense Russian population in South Ossetia, which sort of but not really is a part of Georgia.
More tension's been building lately. Georgia's leader has been wanting to take South Ossetia back. Russia's been flying war planes over Georgia's territory. Both sides claim the other shot first, but one way or the other Georgians killed a dozen Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, probably along with some civilians.
While everyone was watching the Chinese unfurl a majestic Olympic opening ceremony, Russia responded full-scale with troops, tanks, and fighter planes, and the Georgian army fought back - there have been reports of destroyed tanks and planes. Russia appears to be mobilizing for a full-scale invasion of Georgia, and over a thousand people - Russians, South Ossetians, and Georgians, mostly civilians - are dead already.
The simplified coverage paints the Goliath Russia as invading poor little ol' Georgia - nevermind how much poking and provoking Georgia did to upset the bullying Bear. The U.S. presidential candidates are sticking with that populist picture. "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," says McCain. "“What is clear is that Russia has invaded Georgia’s sovereign — has encroached on Georgia’s sovereignty," says Obama.
No time to talk about Georgia invading South Ossetia's sovereignty. Because, after all, Russia really is a bully and Georgia is our friend.
It's hard to say how much worse things will get. It seems that another province is fighting Georgia now, too, and with the immense backing of Russia it would seem that Georgia would be knocked out pretty quickly. But apparently Russia has only one supply line into that area, and Georgia may be able to hold their own - especially if they get requested help from the West. They're certainly banking on it.
And just because the U.S. gets involved won't make it World War III, either - we've been involved in Eurasian skirmishes in the last few decades - Kosovo or Bosnia, anyone? In fact there is already a U.S. presence in Georgia, training and arming enemies of our enemies and hoping they don't become our enemies later (Remember Afghanistan against Russia?)
But U.S.-Russia tensions will be strained even more by this situation, There's no way Russia will forsake their own in South Ossetia - but will they continue a full onslaught of the rest of Georgia? It's doubtful that the U.S. and Co. will stop at paltry rhetoric.
Stay tuned.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Wanna know how I got these scars?
Wednesday night I saw The Dark Knight again (mild spoiler alert), and it was ten times better the second time around. I'm not quite sure if it was the fact that I didn't have a headache and I wasn't so close that I had to look up for two and a half hours, or if it was because I already knew the overall plot so I had a chance to pay closer attention to how things unfolded and pick up a lot more about the details, plot intricacies, cinematography...
Mainly, though, I came away with a greater understanding of the philosophical themes presented in the movie (as an aside, the political themes are worth an essay in themselves) and was blown away by the unabashedly honest portrayal of human nature.
As I watched the film the second time, I was thinking about the Joker's character and why he's so simultaneously likable and hateable. The mannerisms and nuances of Ledger's acting makes every appearance by the Joker charmingly enjoyable, and he delivers several of the film's funniest lines (although Fox's "Blackmail?" taunt is my favorite), yet his diabolically cruel plans mixed with the casualness of their deployment makes you want to hate him for his evilness.
I also noticed - and I don't know how I missed this the first time - that the Joker's fight is not against Batman, but against the idea that people are inherently good. Batman has lent courage to the town of Gotham to flush out the mob and turn itself around, and that doesn't sit well with the Joker's paradigm that people are inherently cruel, selfish, and heartless, so he tries to use Batman to bring out the worst in people. He tells Batman that the laws and morals of the citizens is all just a bad joke. "I'll show you, that when the chips are down, these uh... civilized people, they'll eat each other."
Thus the Joker proceeds to concoct "social experiments" to strip away the moral fiber of Gotham's inhabitants. He tells everyone that if a certain character isn't dead in an hour, he'll blow up a hospital - instantly turning relatives of the sick and injured into would-be assassins of an innocent man. And his detonation scheme involving two ferries is downright ingenious.
I then realized the brilliance of making the Joker's character so likeable - he doesn't represent the typical magnificent but distant force of a Hitler or even a Sauron, such an extreme of stereotyped evil that no one can identify with or use to make philosophical comparisons. No, the Joker represents the simple potential impulse for evil inside of us - the bare, sinful nature of our own hearts, just as you can love yourself but hate what you find yourself doing.
The Joker corrupts the most honorable man in Gotham to prove his point, which Batman views as a defeat for the forces of good. With an epiphany, I viewed it as a vindication of the beginning of the most beautiful victory, because, in a sense, the Joker's paradigm is correct - but only as the opening frame of a much more complete and fulfilling paradigm. The Joker's corrupting of Gotham's "white knight" represents the fact that all of us are sinners, acting for our own selfish desires, fulfillment, and feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment. But that's not the end of the story!
I'm reminded of a song by Shane & Shane called "Embracing Accusations," where the duo sings about the devil accusing people of being horrible and selfish and tries to bring them down with dismay and despair. With a twist, the Shanes say the devil is actually telling the gospel story; he's just stuck on the first part and has "forgotten the refrain," where Jesus says, "Yes, you have sinned, you have done things only for yourself at the expense of others, but I have paid the price for that, and I'm offering you forgiveness. Follow me and I will teach you to love."
It is Love that covers the Joker's paradigm that people are cruel, and takes them and molds them into something better. It is this brilliant portrayal of the realities of human nature that thrusts The Dark Knight from greatness to a legendary film.
Mainly, though, I came away with a greater understanding of the philosophical themes presented in the movie (as an aside, the political themes are worth an essay in themselves) and was blown away by the unabashedly honest portrayal of human nature.
As I watched the film the second time, I was thinking about the Joker's character and why he's so simultaneously likable and hateable. The mannerisms and nuances of Ledger's acting makes every appearance by the Joker charmingly enjoyable, and he delivers several of the film's funniest lines (although Fox's "Blackmail?" taunt is my favorite), yet his diabolically cruel plans mixed with the casualness of their deployment makes you want to hate him for his evilness.
I also noticed - and I don't know how I missed this the first time - that the Joker's fight is not against Batman, but against the idea that people are inherently good. Batman has lent courage to the town of Gotham to flush out the mob and turn itself around, and that doesn't sit well with the Joker's paradigm that people are inherently cruel, selfish, and heartless, so he tries to use Batman to bring out the worst in people. He tells Batman that the laws and morals of the citizens is all just a bad joke. "I'll show you, that when the chips are down, these uh... civilized people, they'll eat each other."
Thus the Joker proceeds to concoct "social experiments" to strip away the moral fiber of Gotham's inhabitants. He tells everyone that if a certain character isn't dead in an hour, he'll blow up a hospital - instantly turning relatives of the sick and injured into would-be assassins of an innocent man. And his detonation scheme involving two ferries is downright ingenious.
I then realized the brilliance of making the Joker's character so likeable - he doesn't represent the typical magnificent but distant force of a Hitler or even a Sauron, such an extreme of stereotyped evil that no one can identify with or use to make philosophical comparisons. No, the Joker represents the simple potential impulse for evil inside of us - the bare, sinful nature of our own hearts, just as you can love yourself but hate what you find yourself doing.
The Joker corrupts the most honorable man in Gotham to prove his point, which Batman views as a defeat for the forces of good. With an epiphany, I viewed it as a vindication of the beginning of the most beautiful victory, because, in a sense, the Joker's paradigm is correct - but only as the opening frame of a much more complete and fulfilling paradigm. The Joker's corrupting of Gotham's "white knight" represents the fact that all of us are sinners, acting for our own selfish desires, fulfillment, and feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment. But that's not the end of the story!
I'm reminded of a song by Shane & Shane called "Embracing Accusations," where the duo sings about the devil accusing people of being horrible and selfish and tries to bring them down with dismay and despair. With a twist, the Shanes say the devil is actually telling the gospel story; he's just stuck on the first part and has "forgotten the refrain," where Jesus says, "Yes, you have sinned, you have done things only for yourself at the expense of others, but I have paid the price for that, and I'm offering you forgiveness. Follow me and I will teach you to love."
It is Love that covers the Joker's paradigm that people are cruel, and takes them and molds them into something better. It is this brilliant portrayal of the realities of human nature that thrusts The Dark Knight from greatness to a legendary film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
