He works here. A Neo-con foreign/defense policy think tank. Read it and weep.
however new challenge- first reader to get an internship interview who can make Kristol cry gets a cake.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Rachel Maddox, secret CNAS fellow?
Hey guess what I'm going to talk about? thats right counter insurgencies! More particularly Rachel Maddow being awsome about them.
So first off, Nagl the president of CNAS was on, talking primarily about the future of Afghanistan
Abu M (who now works with both Nagl and Kilcullen) points out what is so great about this clip:
then David Kilcullen is on tonight about halfway through this clip, basically talking about his new book... which one of the first things on my reading list, post-BA.
Also check out this piece in the Post that outlines his views on A-stan. Given what I know about the book, I think that it is actually of much broader relevance than this article seems to imply.
And her she is making cocktails.... while threatening to make move people talk about COIN (sadly she doesnt follow through on that one)
So first off, Nagl the president of CNAS was on, talking primarily about the future of Afghanistan
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Abu M (who now works with both Nagl and Kilcullen) points out what is so great about this clip:
And out of no where, Rachel Maddow -- Rachel bleeping Maddow! -- calls my boss to task and asks him if being a strategic thinker means more than tweaking our operational design. Damn! When pressed, to be fair, John gives his fellow Rhodes Scholar a pretty good answer about the costs of failure in Afghanistan. But who would have thought that lefty smart-ass on MSNBC would be the one asking the key questions? (Rumor has it that Afghanistan is actually one of Maddow's pet subjects. Good on her, I say.)This is the type of reporting that TNC points out (in a different context) is missing in so much of the current reporting, which often lacks both intelligence and creativity. What Maddow is doing here isn foaming at the mouth or arguing about the facts on the ground. Instead she has perfect respect for Nagl's knowledge on the topic, but she still pushes him on what the role of experts should be. I've seen a lot of interviews with Nagl and others like him, and very few reporters have asked this, seemingly obvious, question.
then David Kilcullen is on tonight about halfway through this clip, basically talking about his new book... which one of the first things on my reading list, post-BA.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
And her she is making cocktails.... while threatening to make move people talk about COIN (sadly she doesnt follow through on that one)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Monday, March 9, 2009
Why am I Watching the Watchman?
Yeah I wasn't a fan, for reasons ranging from a bad mood that in retrospect was the first sign of my body turning into a post-apocalyptic wasteland to alarm at some of the people I go to school with. Below, I rant about some of my more substantive complaints, cause my brain is too fired to actually work on my BA.
WARNING
*SPOILERS BELOW*
for both the comic book and the movie. You've been warned.
Problem number 1. the sound track. Aside from the opening credits (which deserve every bit of praise they've gotten) the music is frankly bizarre. Despite using tons of songs I love to death (including the singles cut of simon and garfunkles sound of silence that is SO much better then the more common album version) the timing of alot of it made no sense, and really detracted from the mood. Often, song that I think of as being INCREDIBLY tied to a particular period (Purple Haze anyone?) were used as the backdrop to scenes set in totally different time periods. Fine in a different film maybe, but for one that is working so hard to take place as historical time passes, and to work with the events of the specific times, I found the anachronistic music really distracting. Also, often either the lyrics, or the emotion of the song seemed out of place. We can argue back and forth about "Hallelujah" (which I hated), but Hendrix's "All allong the watchtower" isnt a go out and fight for humanity song (particularly not after you've heard a version that is exactly that).
Also, i'm a girl who likes ass-kicking in my action movies, and soundtracks are often what gets your gut into it. Its not a good sign when the far less violent previews for terminator and startrek seemed harder core then what was on the surface a very violent movie, cause my adrenaline just wasn't in play the way it should have been.
Problem number 2: Laurie Juniper. Right, so first of all, just weak casting to have to hold her own against Billy Crudup and the amazing blue penis (i read an entire review of the penis, which I wanted to include for EconMAN's benifit, and now cant for the life of me remember were it was, but now have a really awkward set of search strings in google's memory...). but my bigger problem?
She didnt smoke. (H/T Helen)
This isn't even a reflection of my own issues with my own vices. honestly, she could have been doing something other than smoking and I would have been fine. Chewing her nails, pulling her hair, eating, twitching, whatever. But part of Lauries deal is that she is a mess when shes not in costume (just as much as Dan and his Hallelujah issues), and her chain smoking is a huge part of how that is convaid to the reader. Without it, there little sense as to why she needs the mask, the way there is for the men, making whats already not the most funcional character even lamer.
Also it totally took the legs out from under my favorite joke with the lighter/flamethrower. Thanks, I could have used that laugh Zach.
Problem number 3: Adrian. The Intrepid Spenser has an interesting read of what the problems here were.
That bothers me because it comes hand in hand with Adrian becoming more simply evil. And its a bit troubling that those two trends seem somehow ties together, particularly because of the extent to which Watchman is a commentary on superheros as a cultural form.
Also, what happened to him being the smartest man alive? If i have just seen the movie, I would have thought he was cool cause he was fast, not cause he could out think everyone. Again this plays into Spences point about losing the detached, absents minded professor thing, which I've always liked (shhh peanut gallery).
Problem 4: deterrence dont work like that. but thats true in the novel too, so ill swallow it.
Problem 5: Perhaps my most bizarre complaint? seeing the movie made me realize I had misread a critical part of the book.
I admit to being a total Johnny-come-lately, and didnt read it until January, very late at night, while not feeling well. Apparently there was a very good reason I wasnt trying to do homework at that moment, because when I hit the final pages of the book, I somehow brain seized when I read the panel in which Sally Juniper kisses the old photo, and thought that instead being a confirmation of Laurie's father being the Comedian (one of the big ethical reveals of both the novel and movie), that there was a second switch, and she actually indicated Hollis (ie Nite Owl I) to be her long lost love. After a protracted whiny argument with the people I was with I got home, to discover to my chagrin that I was totally wrong, that I was blind, and it totally was the Comedian.
I was not amused.
Beyond being disgruntled at being wrong (oh horrors!), I was also pretty irate, because I realized that I liked my version of the story better than what Moore actually wrote. In my version the final moral is not that people make inexplicable choices about who they love with some thoughts about what part violence play in our relationships thrown in for good measure (which, frankly, I dont find terribly interesting or novel in a world of BSG and Tarrentino), but rather about the way in which humans perception is limited.
If Laurie and Jon are wrong in how they stitch together Laurie's half remembered hints from childhood, Sally's crime is not loving her rapist, but only an affair with a man who has been portrayed through the book as a decent guy. Hardly a sin at all in comparison to everyone else's moral elasticity. In fact, it ends up saying almost nothing interesting about any of the old Watchman. What it does do is radically challenge Dr. Manhattan's omnipotence, and how that impacts his view of humanity.
In this reading, Dr. Manhattan, despite being about to literally see everything, is still capable of putting the pieces together wrong. I think this is interesting both because it de-elevates him from his godlike position, and because it specifically shows that he shares in the very human trait of expecting the worst out of people. We like scandal, we like twisted sex, and we are perfectly happy to put the jigsaw puzzle of facts together wrong if it supports out ability to find that part of human nature. In a novel that deconstructs the tropes of cultural icons in order to create just such moral darkness, I like the implication that this process is more complex then we may think.
I also like the idea of Dr. Manhattan being in some way a reader of fractured events that his mistake suggests, because it creates a common bond not only with the detached scholar Adrian, but with the reader that I find really intriguing.
A friend pointed out halfway through my ranting explanation of this that I was actually confirming one of his favorite aspects of Scifi and its derivatives, which is that you can walk down the roads not taken by both reality and the author in philosophically interesting way in playing with the ends of these novels.
He's right.
But i still like my story better.
*SPOILERS BELOW*
for both the comic book and the movie. You've been warned.
Problem number 1. the sound track. Aside from the opening credits (which deserve every bit of praise they've gotten) the music is frankly bizarre. Despite using tons of songs I love to death (including the singles cut of simon and garfunkles sound of silence that is SO much better then the more common album version) the timing of alot of it made no sense, and really detracted from the mood. Often, song that I think of as being INCREDIBLY tied to a particular period (Purple Haze anyone?) were used as the backdrop to scenes set in totally different time periods. Fine in a different film maybe, but for one that is working so hard to take place as historical time passes, and to work with the events of the specific times, I found the anachronistic music really distracting. Also, often either the lyrics, or the emotion of the song seemed out of place. We can argue back and forth about "Hallelujah" (which I hated), but Hendrix's "All allong the watchtower" isnt a go out and fight for humanity song (particularly not after you've heard a version that is exactly that).
Also, i'm a girl who likes ass-kicking in my action movies, and soundtracks are often what gets your gut into it. Its not a good sign when the far less violent previews for terminator and startrek seemed harder core then what was on the surface a very violent movie, cause my adrenaline just wasn't in play the way it should have been.
Problem number 2: Laurie Juniper. Right, so first of all, just weak casting to have to hold her own against Billy Crudup and the amazing blue penis (i read an entire review of the penis, which I wanted to include for EconMAN's benifit, and now cant for the life of me remember were it was, but now have a really awkward set of search strings in google's memory...). but my bigger problem?
She didnt smoke. (H/T Helen)
This isn't even a reflection of my own issues with my own vices. honestly, she could have been doing something other than smoking and I would have been fine. Chewing her nails, pulling her hair, eating, twitching, whatever. But part of Lauries deal is that she is a mess when shes not in costume (just as much as Dan and his Hallelujah issues), and her chain smoking is a huge part of how that is convaid to the reader. Without it, there little sense as to why she needs the mask, the way there is for the men, making whats already not the most funcional character even lamer.
Also it totally took the legs out from under my favorite joke with the lighter/flamethrower. Thanks, I could have used that laugh Zach.
Problem number 3: Adrian. The Intrepid Spenser has an interesting read of what the problems here were.
"He's icy and menacing throughout the whole film, rather than detached and outwardly gentle, which diminishes the impact of the big reveal... Making him and not Captain Metropolis the leader of the Crimebusters/Watchmen team in the 60s makes him appear to be ruthless. It's not obvious that Adrian really does want to save the world -- and perhaps Zach Snyder decided he doesn't; he wants to rule it... That would make for a more coherent portrayal of Adrian. But also a far less interesting one."I agree that this was a problem (though frankly the symbolism has always bothered me, but the explanation for that would involve me geeking about ancient history too much to happen today), but I think the bigger problem in the film was the weird gay vibe he had going. Dont get me wrong its there a bit in the novel (all those purple turtle necks), but making him physically less impressive, putting him in front of Studio 54 and making the bit with the cat creeper than necessary definitely pushed Adrian from 'possible' to 'firmly implied in the world of Hollywood cliches'.
That bothers me because it comes hand in hand with Adrian becoming more simply evil. And its a bit troubling that those two trends seem somehow ties together, particularly because of the extent to which Watchman is a commentary on superheros as a cultural form.
Also, what happened to him being the smartest man alive? If i have just seen the movie, I would have thought he was cool cause he was fast, not cause he could out think everyone. Again this plays into Spences point about losing the detached, absents minded professor thing, which I've always liked (shhh peanut gallery).
Problem 4: deterrence dont work like that. but thats true in the novel too, so ill swallow it.
Problem 5: Perhaps my most bizarre complaint? seeing the movie made me realize I had misread a critical part of the book.
I admit to being a total Johnny-come-lately, and didnt read it until January, very late at night, while not feeling well. Apparently there was a very good reason I wasnt trying to do homework at that moment, because when I hit the final pages of the book, I somehow brain seized when I read the panel in which Sally Juniper kisses the old photo, and thought that instead being a confirmation of Laurie's father being the Comedian (one of the big ethical reveals of both the novel and movie), that there was a second switch, and she actually indicated Hollis (ie Nite Owl I) to be her long lost love. After a protracted whiny argument with the people I was with I got home, to discover to my chagrin that I was totally wrong, that I was blind, and it totally was the Comedian.
I was not amused.
Beyond being disgruntled at being wrong (oh horrors!), I was also pretty irate, because I realized that I liked my version of the story better than what Moore actually wrote. In my version the final moral is not that people make inexplicable choices about who they love with some thoughts about what part violence play in our relationships thrown in for good measure (which, frankly, I dont find terribly interesting or novel in a world of BSG and Tarrentino), but rather about the way in which humans perception is limited.
If Laurie and Jon are wrong in how they stitch together Laurie's half remembered hints from childhood, Sally's crime is not loving her rapist, but only an affair with a man who has been portrayed through the book as a decent guy. Hardly a sin at all in comparison to everyone else's moral elasticity. In fact, it ends up saying almost nothing interesting about any of the old Watchman. What it does do is radically challenge Dr. Manhattan's omnipotence, and how that impacts his view of humanity.
In this reading, Dr. Manhattan, despite being about to literally see everything, is still capable of putting the pieces together wrong. I think this is interesting both because it de-elevates him from his godlike position, and because it specifically shows that he shares in the very human trait of expecting the worst out of people. We like scandal, we like twisted sex, and we are perfectly happy to put the jigsaw puzzle of facts together wrong if it supports out ability to find that part of human nature. In a novel that deconstructs the tropes of cultural icons in order to create just such moral darkness, I like the implication that this process is more complex then we may think.
I also like the idea of Dr. Manhattan being in some way a reader of fractured events that his mistake suggests, because it creates a common bond not only with the detached scholar Adrian, but with the reader that I find really intriguing.
A friend pointed out halfway through my ranting explanation of this that I was actually confirming one of his favorite aspects of Scifi and its derivatives, which is that you can walk down the roads not taken by both reality and the author in philosophically interesting way in playing with the ends of these novels.
He's right.
But i still like my story better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
