lisasong.com

Comical tragedies are sure tear jerkers. Encountered two recently:

A Spoild Man (short fiction, the New Yorker)
Reminded me of a few works I read before … but too tired to remember which ones. Or is it an metaphore of many things in life, including that of the American Dream? The dream was induced by an American, that is for sure.

Turtles Can Fly (an Iran-Iraq movie)
If there is any good artistic rendering of Leviathan’s famous opening: “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, this must be it.

The kid-king setting echos the Road Warrior movies. However, whereas the Gibson movies are meant to be absurdist fantasies, the Kurdish kids life portrayed in the movie are fiendishly real. The most moving moment came when the Blackhawk helicopters flying over a hill full of confused and scared refugees, spreading leaflets that promised a “paradise”.

There can’t be any stronger contrast between the powerful and the powerless, between the weightiness of the promise and the hopelessness of reality.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Another surprise find. I thought I watched all the Vietnam movies there are.
This one differs from others in that it tells the story of an anti-hero–in the sense that a “good” guy turning “bad” (from a pure liberal pov) Unlike Born on the 4th of July where a USMC soldier lived through war and turned into a peace activist, “Joker” lived through a battle and turned into a bona fide killer!The movie is full of shit–machoism, libido and adrenaline, but that is why I love it. In fact, I am writing this piece listening to the “micky mouse marching song” on YouTube and Joker’s final words:

 My thoughts drift back to erect nipple wet dreams about Mary Jane Rottencrotch and the Great Homecoming Fuck Fantasy. I am so happy that I am alive, in one piece and short. I’m in a world of shit… yes. But I am alive. And I am not afraid.

It is a story of survival. Also, every one performed so well and the script was just chrisp and juicy. Gunnery Sergeant Hartman was my favorite character until he was shot. I didn’t get Kubrick’s other movies, but I totally dig this one.

Idiocracy

Just a very dark but funny B movie. Goes well with my rant against popular democracy. Movies sometimes are scarily close to life. Wag the Dog was such a case. Had “Idiocracy” been released today, I am sure people will associate it with Sarah Palin. Particularly after she failed to answer what paper she reads–being a journalist major and all that.

Need to review:

Remnick’s profile (c) of Lang Lang in New Yorker.

Themes: Remnick’s style has been cryptic, abstract, dry and somewhat melancholy. This article is quite a change: light-hearted, fluid, witty and dynamic (full of montage)

Like the Olympian theme trying to make a point, although still a bit far fetched.

Collected the following during the paper-writing days, never had the chance to write them down. Here they are:

The New Yorker:

2007/11/12 James Surowiecki: why high compensation structure may undermine Principals’ interests:
1. Hedge fund managers reap large rewards on the upside without a correspondingly punitive downside
2. Stock option grant may “underplay risk is at work in … corporate America”
3. Higher portion of stock options in CEO pay lead to higher stock volatility (data available)

July 7-14, 2008: Adam Kirsch’s story about John Keats:
Very moving recount of a genius whose talent precedes his time. The article reminded me of a rather obscure essay written by Christian Andersen, “The Thorny Road of Honor“. I read the Chinese version (??????) translated by ??? when I was 15 years old. It made my blood boil and led me to a rather literary youth.

Keats’ life seems to be another moving case of redemption: in his death bed, he was bemoaning his lack of achievement,

‘I have left no immortal work behind me—nothing to make my friends proud of my memory—but I have lov’d the principle of beauty in all things, and if I had had time I would have made myself remember’d.’

He dictated his own epitaph, “Here lies one whose name was writ on water”.

His sense of mortality echoes particularly loud in me: “I have an habitual feeling of my real life having past, and that I am leading a posthumous existence.”

It wasn’t an easy read at all. But considering this book: Stanley Plumly “Posthumous Keats” (Norton; $27.95)

Oct 15, Jerome Groopman, Silent Minds:

How patients in vegetative state can still recognize faces, understand sentences and even imagine playing tennis. It is a very heavy read. But was impressed by the research methods.

Nov. Connie Bruck, Rough Rider:

“Liquidity equals value.” Very enlightening. Really solidified my view on the nature of Liquidity.

Foreign Affairs:

Richard Betts, “A Disciplined Defense“:  Many figures available on defense spending, historical comparison and mis-appropriation.

Michael Desch, “Bush and the Generals“: A very spirited critique of the current civilian-military relations. Insightful reading of Huntington’s “The Soldier and the State”. Also in the context: McMaster’s thesis, etc.

Yuliya Tymoshenko, “Containing Russia“: That was an awesome article. Realist arguments at its best. Reminded me of the time of ?????.

Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary, was dead. From what I know about him, I can only say, “Good Riddance!” The best 4th of July gift I’ve received so far was the passing of Jesse Helms.  But if Helms was a “bull dog” who still played by the rule, Snow–and others like him–are barking “chiwawas” who try to subvert the rules (see the NYKr article on Addington). Also on the list are Dick Cheney, David Addington and John Yu. I don’t wish them ill but only say this: there are many holidays to come and I can always use some gifts.

Like Joseph Goebbles and ???, they are called “henchmen” by historians or the “Mob” by Arendt. They are so despicable because they serve nothing but power. To them, there is no morality or ethics, no principle or faith. The only thing that consumes their talent and career is the job of defending, justifying, and cheering the powerful and the abusive.

In Chinese, there is a term for them, “????”, or bureaucrats with a knife and a pen. At first, I thought it was a term comparing the power of words. After some digging, it is not. But the meaning stays true.

Here is what I copied from somewhere: ???????????????????????????????????????????????

(??)???????????“?????”???????????“????”???????

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“???????”?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“??????????????????”

???????????“??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????”???????????????????????????????????

?highlighted???????“????”???????????????????????????????“????”????????????????????????????????????????????????“????”???????????????????????

Just got the news that Barak Obama didn’t like the cover in the upcoming New Yorker magazine.

When I first saw the cartoon, I didn’t get it either. For example, I didn’t understand why Michelle carries an AK-47 over her shoulder? I thought it was a reference to BO’s recent comment after the DC hand gun ruling.

Then I read it was supposed to be a satire. Oh, now I get it … Apparently, this is an instance of “acquired enlightenment”. Now think of it, this is also a good example of how a subject (me) is part of message construction.

By insider’s standard, this cover has all the NYKr trademark elements: cryptic, edgy and funny. But to call it a satire, it’s supposed to be ridiculously off-base. The fact that so many people are so upset–not least the Senator himself–about this cover suggests what it depicts is not that ridiculous to a sufficiently large audience after all.

I was equally confused until I read the accompanying text explaining (a la Elaine in Seinfeld) what it supposed to mean. The fact that I think it is funny and is a satire tells more about me than about the cartoon, however. In other words, it is funny only because I am ready to accept the message (i.e. it is a satire, depicting something irrelevantly funny).

Overall, I love the New Yorker’s covers. If there is a case of too many good thing, this is it. I like so many of them that it is hard to name just a few that is peerless. For example this Halloween lantern in Dick Cheney’s image. There is NO contraversy in this one at all.

Jon Lee Anderson: Fidel’s Heir

Just after I finished Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism, I came upon Anderson’s “extremely short” essay about Hugo Chávez. Convinced me more of my criticism of Arendt: in pursuit of an answer to the Holocaust, she stretched extreme instances of popular demagogy into “Totalitarianism”.

Chávez’s Venezuela is arguably at a midway point in the spectrum of demagogy: Chávez is not a total despot, for he does tolerate some opposition, submit himself to fair elections and accepts the results. Yet he is also very manipulative and inflamatory (e.g. how he humiliated Uribe in the Latin America summit meeting). In addition, he has two other traits Arendt would find interesting: appearing selfishless and has an international agenda.

Then there was Augusto Pinochet: who was not very popular (in a liberal sense) but very brutal. He is probably also somewhere on the spectrum. It is just very hard to demarcate what is true “Totalitarianism”. I don’t think Arendt found the right answer to Holocaust. If anything, she should have looked at the Continent during 1968 and find some solace in an emerging liberal civic culture.

To propose an alternative answer, I’d say that: for the Germans, there is always an element (however faint now) of collective romanticism and fanaticism in their cultural tradition. For the Russians, it is the Hobbesian distrust of each other and the longing for a powerful patriarch that led them to Stalin. Therefore, whether there is a countervailing force growing in each civic society is perhaps a much better indicator of how likely the past predicament will repeat itself.

A quick comment: very very painful to write again after school. But I am glad I tried.

Judith Thurman: First Impressions

Just a beautiful article. There is one paragraph talking about the short and possible interactions between the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens that is so very moving:

“They coexisted for some eight thousand years, until the Neanderthals withdrew or were forced, in dwindling numbers, toward the arid mountains of southern Spain, making Gibraltar a final redoubt. It isn’t known from whom or from what they were retreating (if “retreat” describes their migration), though along the way the arts of the newcomers must have impressed them. Later Neanderthal campsites have yielded some rings and awls carved from ivory, and painted or grooved bones and teeth (nothing of the like predates the arrival of Homo sapiens). The pathos of their workmanship-the attempt to copy something novel and marvellous by the dimming light of their existence-nearly makes you weep. And here, perhaps, the cruel notion that we call fashion, a coded expression of rivalry and desire, was born.”

??????????Baby?????????????????!

When one is physically ill what does that do to one’s mind? I had many hours of sleep but dreaded the dreams. It was the day time stress and anxiety repeated over and again. I was making arguments that at once seemed to make perfect sense and no sense at all. Just like my paper… Early in the morning, I didn’t want to go back to sleep just because I didn’t want to go back to the dreams. But when I was at 39c, it wasn’t always up to me.

While sick, I had time to watch some TV and to read from New Yorker:
1. Watched the Indy Race in St. Petersburg on TV, I think the cry “it is green flag racing!” is very sexy!

2. Watched Carman the opera: I always enjoyed listening to Carman. After all, the Toréador Song was what got me into classical music to begin with. And I watched the opera couple of times before. But this time it was different. Something clicked. Micaëla’s solo in the Gypse’s camp is the most moving: not only the music beautiful, but perfectly encapsulates the obsession of Jose and the power of Carmen. Although Don Jose’s possessiveness is pathological, Carman’s free-will almost justifies one’s total admiration: she is woman worth dying for.

3. Watched One Flew over Cuckcoo’s Nest: It is more Owellian but definitely not Foucaultian. The antagnistic nurse Ratched is NOT how mass society works today. Rather it is the elaborate weddings and ceremonies that David Brooks talked about in the Bobos in Paradise. However, the movie is superb at portraying the tension between the subjected and the privileged once the sensation of being free is discovered and the pursuit of liberation is on.

4. Read Eric Alterman’s “Out of Print” on NYKr. I am certainly in Lippmann’s camp. For a while, I thought that is what Alterman’s argument too. But that is just not progressive enough, uh? This article deserves another entry. But in summary, I do think politics and governance are becoming too complicated, too nuanced to be decided by the general public.

I remember a skit from SNL where a weekend party is going on in a loft apartment somewhere. That was right after 9.11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. Suddenly a guy rushes in and says, “the Northern Aliance just took Jalalabad!” and everybody raises their glasses and cheers.

The moral of the joke is that the world is just too complicated. Alterman seems to be finding hope in the newly burgening phenomenon of “participating” journalism, or a mixture of opinions and leaks and rumors. He is well aware of the ptifalls of such a development: the degradation of journalistic integrity. And more importantly, the polarization of public opinions. But strangely, he seems to say this is actually good for democracy: the reason that more Europeans voted than Americans is because they have so many tabloids.

Of course, his musing stops right there. No further reasoning offered why these two are even corelated! That is rather ridiculous for a serious article (or posting, should I say). But he has several good points, for example, that the “veneer of neutrality” is becoming increasingly unsustainable. And the very effort to stay “above the fray” may render print journalism cold and distant.

5. By the way, just saw my old boss Dan Hesse on TV in a Sprint commercial. I was such a fan of his while at Terabeam. I still think he is a heck of communicator and salesman.

I feel mentally twisted. I think I am on to something, but can’t say it or describe it as a body of knowledge. I think I am talking to Foucault and Nietzsche, but can’t understand what they are saying. I am just not good enough. I am not worthy.

Ever since I realized, after taking Migdal’s class, the knowledge (or truth) is related to power/dominance (of course, a narrow sense of K/T, mostly social/political or unquantifiable ones), I have been bothered by the relationship. I am fascinated by it, can’t figure it all out and–the worst–can’t just let it go. Very annoying addiction-like.

It all started yesterday after reading the article in the NYKr: “True Crime” The story is about a young Polish guy, who’s fascinated by Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, wrote a book as a way to manifest his brand of “truth/knowledge/illusion/perception”. The book described crimes committed by a seemingly reputable guy. Prior to the book, there was a murder–a perfect crime–that had some similarities with what’s in the book. Later an equally dogged police detective convinced a court that the author of the book was the murderer in real life.

The story is very engaging, but very dark. Some quotes:
Bala often referred to Wittgenstein as “my master.” He also seized on Friedrich Nietzsche’s notorious contention that “there are no facts, only interpretations” and that “truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.”

Bala wrote a thesis about Richard Rorty, the American philosopher, who famously declared, “The guise of convincing your peers is the very face of truth itself.”

When a former girlfriend testified that Bala once went out on her balcony drunk and acted as if he were on the verge of committing suicide, he asked her if her words might have multiple interpretations. “Could we just say that this is a matter of semantics-a misuse of the word ’suicide’?” he said.
—————–
Apparently, he is talented (e.g. “graduated with highest possible marks from school”). Yet he’s not good enough to be a philosopher to his own standard so he’s not really interested in an academic life just for the sake of having a job. He went into business instead.

It seems that his appreciation of the menacing nature of K/T, contrasted with his inability to translate such an appreciation into any secular advantage, really drew the worst out of him: he became sadistic and easily paranoid. He wrote his book partly to act out his fascination, partly, I think, to vent his frustration.

After reading his book and getting to know him better, the detective decided publishing a book wasn’t enough to satisfy either of his feelings. He had to live through the experience. With that conviction, he pursued him like Javert going after Jean Valjean, and succeeded.

Now Bala, the author/convicted murderer, is behind bars for 25 years and writing his next book.

Tonight’s SNL started with a skit that poked fun at media’s adoration of Obama. It was really fun.

The media’s adoration for Obama is almost naked. Yet everyone in the business carries on as if nothing is wrong. There has been so much talk about media giving the Bush administration a pass prior to the Iraqi War. But by my count, that wasn’t as bad as what I see today. This behavior not only tarnishes the profession, but also does disservice to the candidates and the public.

Therefore, it is great to watch the skit where the media was made fun of. This skit also reminded me of an article I read in New Yorker many years ago, “Standup Guys“.

Before, I thought political comedy as an inherently liberal expression. But that article really changed my mind. Political humor is not about liberalism versus conservatism. It is about the powerless versus the powerful. In other words, political humor lives to expose the poseur of the powerful, particularly the elaborate symbols and rituals created by those in power. To put it simply, it is the little boy that is destined to cry “but the Emporer has no cloth!”

In a liberal society as the U.S., the powerful doesn’t have to be the authorities. It could be the masses (a la de Tocqueville). Unfortunately, even as the message conveyed in a joke is actually true, it is only effective when packaged in humor.

Is this a case of tyranny of lie or impotence of truth?

The cartoonist J. B. Handelsman of New Yorker passed away in June. It is a shame that as much as I enjoyed his works, I never knew his name until now. The NYKr’s website has a slide show of some of his cartoons.

Flipping through them kind of reminded me of different stages of my life in the States. Some invoked such a strong reaction that I could almost relive the mental state I was in when I first saw them. Although looking at them again my choices of favorite have changed, my appreciation of Handelsman’s wit and humor remains fresh and strong.