We are a pathetic lot, humanity. WE argue, and indeed are willing to kill one another over differences contained in a cup full of water, while awash in a sea of commonality. We do all manner of cruelty to each other while hautily claiming to walk as an equal to God. Oh we bow low to the Deity, but in our harts we walk as kings, all knowing of the flaws of our enemies, while oblivious to the fallen nature of ourselves.
We reap hatred for that is all we bother to sow. Mercy, the mercy granted to us by the Divine, we covet for ourselves while dispensing war, murder, and vengance upon our brothrs.
And when, in due course we reap all that and more, what then? Do we, in vain, call out to God for mercy? The mercy we, with closed minds and harts, withold from our brothers? The mercy we shine upon ourselves alone?
Is God so closed that he cannot love a man unless some ritual be done? There is no God but God. As Chritians and Muslims and Jews we agree on this. There is no God but God. Yet we act the part of Gods when inflicting violence on our brothers and sisters in the name of a greater good that never seems to manifest itself.
To rot in hell is our reward. Killing and hating, and breading viciousness generation after generation. And still we call upon our merciful God. Oh that God is merciful for we all, Muslim and Christian, Jew and gentile, need that mercy for the unforgivable crimes we, in the name of God the merciful, have inflicted upon fellow believers.
God have mercy upon us. For if we wait for mercy to flow from our fellow believrs we will be waiting in vain. There is no God but God.
Peace be with you, Salam Al A'kum.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
To be fair to J.B. Hood and what to do about Bush
To be fair to the old boy I would have to say that John Bell Hood was an excellent brigade commander. When ordered to make a suicidal attack, such as the one ordered by Lee at Gettysburg, upon Little Round Top, Hood carried it out to the letter. He was a vicious warrior. These same qualities that made him a great brigadier made him a lousy army general. Great leaders in war tend to be tinkerers, thinkers, and methodical calculators.
For instanced Patton may, at first glance, appear to be like Hood. Though Patton possessed the audacity of Hood, he also possessed the military creativity of Stonewall Jackson and William Sherman. Pattons brilliance led to ARCENT. His ability, unlike Bush, Rumsfeld, or Hood, to take a desperate situation and creatively unify, tactical close air support, airial recon, mechanized infantry, and the average foot soldier, gave him complete control of the battlefield he was on.
Today we have other challenges in the world. We need leadership that is far more creative than what we currently have. World politics requires enormous care, tinkering, brain power and the desire to preserve mankind. Clearly we are lacking that at the current time. We are being led by people who consider themselve conservative Republicans instead of Americans. Their blind adherence to a failed policy, coupled with lies, misinformation, and the resultant deaths, is a direct threat to the national security of the United States.
Go to www.Downingstreetmemo.com and take action. Or go and get a latte and watch more people get killed.
For instanced Patton may, at first glance, appear to be like Hood. Though Patton possessed the audacity of Hood, he also possessed the military creativity of Stonewall Jackson and William Sherman. Pattons brilliance led to ARCENT. His ability, unlike Bush, Rumsfeld, or Hood, to take a desperate situation and creatively unify, tactical close air support, airial recon, mechanized infantry, and the average foot soldier, gave him complete control of the battlefield he was on.
Today we have other challenges in the world. We need leadership that is far more creative than what we currently have. World politics requires enormous care, tinkering, brain power and the desire to preserve mankind. Clearly we are lacking that at the current time. We are being led by people who consider themselve conservative Republicans instead of Americans. Their blind adherence to a failed policy, coupled with lies, misinformation, and the resultant deaths, is a direct threat to the national security of the United States.
Go to www.Downingstreetmemo.com and take action. Or go and get a latte and watch more people get killed.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
More Bushleague stuff
"He was essentially a man of emotion rather than of intellect. He was never a reasoning and analytical man who carefully weighed all possible factors in a given problem or situation. Rather he was much inclined to be impetuous in his decisions, trust in his intuition and his blind optimism to see him through."
This is the descriptioin of Major General John Bell Hood. His "Bushlike" qualities allowed him to attack Major General George H. Thomas. Thomas was known as "old slow trott". He was a quite man. Before the war he was a teacher at West Point. He litterally wrote the book on cavelry tactics.
Hood is the civilwar personafication of Bush. He was self confident, aggressive, hated to wait, and once he had made up his mind that was that. He also felt the best thing to do was attack. He used his rich friends to rise in power. Then at the appointed our he led his army forward.
Though known as "old slow trott" before the war. By the time Thomas met Hood in battle he was known alternately as "The Rock of Chicamauga" or "The sledge of Nashville" In a single battle that some historians rank as one of the most perfect in world history, up there with Napolean's Australitz, George Thomas completely destroyed the entire western confederate army commanded by Hood. By the time the battle of Franklin was over there was no confederate army left.
Again I say just because you put on a tunic, raise a sword, and charge into battle does not make you a good leader.
This is the descriptioin of Major General John Bell Hood. His "Bushlike" qualities allowed him to attack Major General George H. Thomas. Thomas was known as "old slow trott". He was a quite man. Before the war he was a teacher at West Point. He litterally wrote the book on cavelry tactics.
Hood is the civilwar personafication of Bush. He was self confident, aggressive, hated to wait, and once he had made up his mind that was that. He also felt the best thing to do was attack. He used his rich friends to rise in power. Then at the appointed our he led his army forward.
Though known as "old slow trott" before the war. By the time Thomas met Hood in battle he was known alternately as "The Rock of Chicamauga" or "The sledge of Nashville" In a single battle that some historians rank as one of the most perfect in world history, up there with Napolean's Australitz, George Thomas completely destroyed the entire western confederate army commanded by Hood. By the time the battle of Franklin was over there was no confederate army left.
Again I say just because you put on a tunic, raise a sword, and charge into battle does not make you a good leader.
Clarification of the Star Wars review
Upon reading the review I am not sure if I liked the movie or not. Well I definitely DO like the movie. I people want King Lear or Macbeth they should go to Ashland. Star Wars is not high drama but kid-fun. Episode III is not very kid friendly. But then again look what had to happen to poor Skywalker. Were their great characters you want to love? No not really. I liked it anyway. The emperor was what tied the early films to these films. In this episode he is the best character, in deed the centeral character around which all the others rotate like tiny inept planets. Anyhow I want to see the movie again. My criticism of the films flaws still stands but they do not get in the way of my liking the whol series.
Award for Stupid Journalists, acting stupid, and looking stupider
Today, while American toops are heavily engaged with insurgents in Iraq, the the hard hitting CNN.com staff is hard at work on these top stories:
Underwood the new "Idol"
Jail for driver who decapitated friend
Jackson defense rests
Runaway Bride indicted
Woman Jailed after calling 911 about pizza man
and
Intoxicated Dad had child drive
Meanwhile those slothful BBC reporters are talking about silly stuff like:
Fresh Darfur aid sought
US stops North Korea MIA work
Abbas set for White House Talks
FBI records detail Koran claim
Amnesty International accuses US of torture
It is really a bad sign when you have to get news out of Britain about the goings on in your own country.
Underwood the new "Idol"
Jail for driver who decapitated friend
Jackson defense rests
Runaway Bride indicted
Woman Jailed after calling 911 about pizza man
and
Intoxicated Dad had child drive
Meanwhile those slothful BBC reporters are talking about silly stuff like:
Fresh Darfur aid sought
US stops North Korea MIA work
Abbas set for White House Talks
FBI records detail Koran claim
Amnesty International accuses US of torture
It is really a bad sign when you have to get news out of Britain about the goings on in your own country.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
FM people
I was thinking last night about how different people react to the same situation. Some people are calm while others fly off the handle. Some people seem to simply move from one crisis to another. To listen to them it is almost mind numbing. Others seem to have crisis infrequently. I think it is because some people are high frequency people and others are low frequency. The amplitude of emotion may be the same, but the frequency is different. Today there seems to be a lot of people who are in the high frequency catagory.
Poll Crunch for May 25th, 2005
Gallop: 47% 1,006 responding
AP: 47% 1,000 responding
Time: 46% 1,011 responding
Pew: 43% 1,502 responding
NBC: 47% 1,005 responding
Scott Poll Crunch:
46% of America likes the job GWB is doing.
49% of America doesn't like the job GWB is doing
3% are in too loopy, or possibly too sane, to care.
That is down .6% from April.
Of course you Liberals out there should not take this to hart. You have no agenda to speak of nor do you have any real hutzpah to over turn this one legged prostitute. As maddening as it is to watch the Bush Administration hobble about braking stuff, it is more maddening to see the so called intelligent folks continuing to mutter and splutter about Ohio or Florida.
American politics suck. At least for now.
AP: 47% 1,000 responding
Time: 46% 1,011 responding
Pew: 43% 1,502 responding
NBC: 47% 1,005 responding
Scott Poll Crunch:
46% of America likes the job GWB is doing.
49% of America doesn't like the job GWB is doing
3% are in too loopy, or possibly too sane, to care.
That is down .6% from April.
Of course you Liberals out there should not take this to hart. You have no agenda to speak of nor do you have any real hutzpah to over turn this one legged prostitute. As maddening as it is to watch the Bush Administration hobble about braking stuff, it is more maddening to see the so called intelligent folks continuing to mutter and splutter about Ohio or Florida.
American politics suck. At least for now.
Star Wars at Livermore
Watching those big assed ships in Star Wars pummeling away at each other makes you wonder if such lasers will come to be. The answer is probably way sooner than you think. Lawerence Livermore labs is building a complex that will house the most powerful laser ever built. The heat generated by this laser will reach 180 million degrees Fahrenheit. The way it works is that if focuses the beams of 192 lasers at a single point. Into that spot they will put a tiny hydrogen fuel pellet. They hope to create a laser-triggered fusion reaction. For some reason the Death Star comes to mind.
Meanwhile people in Kansas are still arguing about evolution. What a big wide wonderful world it is.
Meanwhile people in Kansas are still arguing about evolution. What a big wide wonderful world it is.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Review of SW Revenge of the Sith
The final review is in:
It took several days to digest this monster. It is a behemoth of a film. It is the most action packed, and elephantine, of all the Star Wars movies. It is not a movie I would wish to see in IMAX. It was the best of the three prequels. The writing for this film was much better than the other two films and the acting was much better too.
I still think that Hayden Christiansen was not the right actor for the part. He is too boyish, his voice is too highschoolish, and he had no personality. At least not until #3. Finally he has been reanimated, or animated, or something like that. Natilie Portman got the raw end of the deal for this film. There was lots of sedintary scenes of ther waiting. And her death scene, like almost all Star Wars death scenes, is short and anticlimactic. However everyone was more lifelike in this film. Even Mace Windu was less monastically robotic. One huge problem that Lucas has had is that everyone knows how the story has to end. Finally they got it right. Finally they used that glaring problem as a strength and told the story in such a way that brought shivers to the spine. The fight seen between Dukoo, and Skywallker, infront of Palpatine, gave me the creeps. The Emperor steals the show, as well as the Republic.
The problems I had with this film, and the others, was that the background conflict is a nonsensical bunch of crap that nobody really cares about. This is a biiiiiiiiig problem for me. I think that you could still have Palpatine behind the conflict yet make it more understandable. It would only add to the drama. The war in these movies makes Vietnam look clear.
Without a clearly defined conflict for the Clone Wars the battle scenes lose their dramatic effect since you can't care about either side, other that caring for the side Kenobi is on at the time. The addition of a weezing droid general was confusing; how many bad guys do we need?
The problems of this film did not get in the way of it being a good film. I think they could have taken this film, expanded on certain areas, and made Episode II and III out of it. However I am not in a complaining mood. The visuals of this film are spectacular. They are so well done that they cease being visual effects and are simply the Star Wars universe. What a spectacular universe it is. It is a visual triumph. The film also adequately lights the fires of Episode 7 and if people do not think there will be an episode 7 they do not come from Earth, or understand entertainment capitalism.
Big sprawling epics have a couple of drawbacks. In trying to be big and sprawling and epic, personalities often get lost, and reality is often removed as an obsticle to story telling. There are many faults with these films and the main one, beyond casting, and dialogue, etc, is trying to tell too big of a story in too few films. This about The Lord of the Rings trilogy. As big and epic as they appeared, there was a very simple plot, and few characters.
Star Wars morphed from a simple story about "a boy a girl and a universe" into the decline, fall, and eventual rebirth of an entire galactic civilization done in two parts with the end set before the beginning. Holy shit that was a tall order to fill.
It gets a 10 as it crowns the totality of the Star Wars universe.
It took several days to digest this monster. It is a behemoth of a film. It is the most action packed, and elephantine, of all the Star Wars movies. It is not a movie I would wish to see in IMAX. It was the best of the three prequels. The writing for this film was much better than the other two films and the acting was much better too.
I still think that Hayden Christiansen was not the right actor for the part. He is too boyish, his voice is too highschoolish, and he had no personality. At least not until #3. Finally he has been reanimated, or animated, or something like that. Natilie Portman got the raw end of the deal for this film. There was lots of sedintary scenes of ther waiting. And her death scene, like almost all Star Wars death scenes, is short and anticlimactic. However everyone was more lifelike in this film. Even Mace Windu was less monastically robotic. One huge problem that Lucas has had is that everyone knows how the story has to end. Finally they got it right. Finally they used that glaring problem as a strength and told the story in such a way that brought shivers to the spine. The fight seen between Dukoo, and Skywallker, infront of Palpatine, gave me the creeps. The Emperor steals the show, as well as the Republic.
The problems I had with this film, and the others, was that the background conflict is a nonsensical bunch of crap that nobody really cares about. This is a biiiiiiiiig problem for me. I think that you could still have Palpatine behind the conflict yet make it more understandable. It would only add to the drama. The war in these movies makes Vietnam look clear.
Without a clearly defined conflict for the Clone Wars the battle scenes lose their dramatic effect since you can't care about either side, other that caring for the side Kenobi is on at the time. The addition of a weezing droid general was confusing; how many bad guys do we need?
The problems of this film did not get in the way of it being a good film. I think they could have taken this film, expanded on certain areas, and made Episode II and III out of it. However I am not in a complaining mood. The visuals of this film are spectacular. They are so well done that they cease being visual effects and are simply the Star Wars universe. What a spectacular universe it is. It is a visual triumph. The film also adequately lights the fires of Episode 7 and if people do not think there will be an episode 7 they do not come from Earth, or understand entertainment capitalism.
Big sprawling epics have a couple of drawbacks. In trying to be big and sprawling and epic, personalities often get lost, and reality is often removed as an obsticle to story telling. There are many faults with these films and the main one, beyond casting, and dialogue, etc, is trying to tell too big of a story in too few films. This about The Lord of the Rings trilogy. As big and epic as they appeared, there was a very simple plot, and few characters.
Star Wars morphed from a simple story about "a boy a girl and a universe" into the decline, fall, and eventual rebirth of an entire galactic civilization done in two parts with the end set before the beginning. Holy shit that was a tall order to fill.
It gets a 10 as it crowns the totality of the Star Wars universe.
People who think depression is a mark of the creative spirit can eat my shorts
I listened to a Dr. talk about recent research into depression and the effects of it on the body. Terry Gross, playing the devils advocate, asked him if the elimanation of depression would some how stifle the creative spirit. What a monsterous thing to say. I would not wish depression on the darkest demon in Hell. I have been lucky enough to have a creative career and I can attest to the fact that depression does not help the creative process. It is a hammer blow upon it. It destroys your energy, saps you desire, reduces your ability to concentrate, and removes joy from work. It is a horrible myth that depressions makes better writers or painters. And even if it did I would rather be uncreative than exist with a giant hole in my hart.
What we need to do
There is no script to life. I have seen no end credits roll after loved ones pass away. There is no seminal moment where all is tied together, explained, made clear. Thre is no first second and third acts. Good people can stumble and make a mess of their lives as surely as bad people can walk between the raindrops and attain glory. All is vanity and a chase after wind. Rising and resting, eating, and laughing, crying, and singing all is vanity and a chase after wind. For no mater your words, be they noble, or mere mumblings, can save you from the end that life meters out to you. So if all is vanity and a chase after wind, what is worth doing? Being a friend, being merciful, and celebrating love, any love. Everyitng else is a waste of time.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Along time ago in a galaxy far, far, away...
Back when Jimmy Carter was President, a gallon of gas cost 64 cents, a average house would sell for $25,000, and the average joe made less than $10,0000 a year, I went with my best friend John Pitman, my brother Mike, and our mutual friends Chris and John Cuevas, to see Star Wars. I had no idea, while riding in the backseat in Mr. Cuevas' car, what I was in for and what it would do to my life and the world.
28 years later I have my ticket in my wallet for the last (yeah right) of the Star Wars films. I only saw the original film in the theater 6 times. I think I saw Empire Strikes back 4 times and Return of the Jedi 4 times. Phantom Menace I saw once in the theater and that was the same for Attack of the Clowns, I mean clones.
As a guy who had his whole adolecense taken over by Star Wars I chuckle as I walk thrugh Toys'R US seeing all the little kids oggling the Star Wars toys. I see their parents and they look as if they too might not have been born when the original came out.
I get all picky about what I like and don't like about the films. The truth is that no Star Wars film will do to me what that first film did. It was the first, and I was twelve. No matter the wating in lines, the masks, the remember-whens, the speaking of Star Wars lines, I can't be twelve again. And no generation will ever see Star Wars the way mine did. The current film, for good or bad, comes into a world chock full of technology, special effects, shock and awe, and videogame cgi wizardry.
In no small way Star Wars helped design this technological terror we have constructed. Movies are products of culture. But when they are imaginative they can be the creators of culture. Now we have to decide whether we should follow Obi-wan or Darth.
May the Force be with us!
28 years later I have my ticket in my wallet for the last (yeah right) of the Star Wars films. I only saw the original film in the theater 6 times. I think I saw Empire Strikes back 4 times and Return of the Jedi 4 times. Phantom Menace I saw once in the theater and that was the same for Attack of the Clowns, I mean clones.
As a guy who had his whole adolecense taken over by Star Wars I chuckle as I walk thrugh Toys'R US seeing all the little kids oggling the Star Wars toys. I see their parents and they look as if they too might not have been born when the original came out.
I get all picky about what I like and don't like about the films. The truth is that no Star Wars film will do to me what that first film did. It was the first, and I was twelve. No matter the wating in lines, the masks, the remember-whens, the speaking of Star Wars lines, I can't be twelve again. And no generation will ever see Star Wars the way mine did. The current film, for good or bad, comes into a world chock full of technology, special effects, shock and awe, and videogame cgi wizardry.
In no small way Star Wars helped design this technological terror we have constructed. Movies are products of culture. But when they are imaginative they can be the creators of culture. Now we have to decide whether we should follow Obi-wan or Darth.
May the Force be with us!
Most Delicious Grilled Cheese Sandwich in the World
If you are peckish and wish to partake in the best grilled cheese sandwich in the known world, then go to The Lunch Box on 7th and Hawthorne and ask for the version with tomato and basil.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
A note to religious hypocrites
When you are praying the Lords Prayer you come to a part that says, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us..."
Most people think that they are simply asking God to forgive us our wrongs. While acknowledging that we try to forgive others. However what we are really asking God to do is to judge us the same way we judge others. If we go around looking down our noses at our fellow human beings, and saying that this person or that is not up to par, and then we go home and ask God to cast our own petty judgement upon us, we are litterally asking for trouble.
What does Christ say about judgement? "If you wish to avoid Gods judgment do not pass judgement on others. For the judgement you pass on others will be the judgement passed upon you, and how you measure others will be the measure taken of you."
If you are not inclined to be merciful toward others. Then do not be surprised if God is not merciful toward you. We all reap what we have sown. War brings more war, famine brings more famine, hatred breeds hatres. Peace breeds peace, understanding leads to enlightenment, and mercy leads to freindship and that leads to love.
Most people think that they are simply asking God to forgive us our wrongs. While acknowledging that we try to forgive others. However what we are really asking God to do is to judge us the same way we judge others. If we go around looking down our noses at our fellow human beings, and saying that this person or that is not up to par, and then we go home and ask God to cast our own petty judgement upon us, we are litterally asking for trouble.
What does Christ say about judgement? "If you wish to avoid Gods judgment do not pass judgement on others. For the judgement you pass on others will be the judgement passed upon you, and how you measure others will be the measure taken of you."
If you are not inclined to be merciful toward others. Then do not be surprised if God is not merciful toward you. We all reap what we have sown. War brings more war, famine brings more famine, hatred breeds hatres. Peace breeds peace, understanding leads to enlightenment, and mercy leads to freindship and that leads to love.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Review of Kingdom of Heaven
Don't read this unless you have seen the movie.
I liked the movie. It was an exiting story with good writing, excellent acting, and farily realistic. I give it an 8. What makes this movie good is it's adherence to a kind of reality that does not ask for much suspension of disbelief. Of course it is historical fiction.
The cast of characters:
Balian count of Ibelin: A great guy, altruistic
Guy D'Lusignan: A nasty guy
Sybilla: Sister of king Baldwin IV: Sexy and unpredictable engaged to La-scumbag d'Lusignan
King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem: Suffering from leperosy, a great guy, noble and wise
Saladin: A great guy, noble and wise
Hollywood has this medieval stereotype that it can't seem to shake. Instead of illustrating the subtle complexities of feudal obligations, tribal animosity, and the intense ritualism of all aspects of life, we are fed a predigested goop that resembles the middleages as about as much as a box of animal crakers resembles the serengeti. The medieval world, if ever portrayed for what it was, would make for a far more interesting movie. Religion was taken with deadly seriousness by most Christians and Muslims. Hollywood tends to make all religion either cartoonishly righteous or cartoonishly evil. It was an age where many Christian knights had more incommon with Osama Bin Laden than Christ. Hollywood has trouble handling that level of religious extremism; it makes Dr Dobbson seem aetheistic. In the middleages you could have a knight as good as Balian, who was worldly and wise, and also brandishing an intense religious extemism and capacity to back that extemism up with terrible violence. The will of God was not an abstraction in the 12th century. The only place you would be likely to find anything approaching modern religion would be in the Monastaries or Universities, with men like Aquinas, or Abelard, over even Bernard of Clairveux.
I am also kind of tired of the cliche' about paupers rising to lords. That kind of thing did not happen. And the truth behind Balian, that I will talk about in a moment, would not have made for a bad movie. Yet the cliche' hangs on; like dinning while wearing armor and brandishing weapons. That would have been a severe no-no and breach of courtly manners. Dispite all this I liked the movie very much and would see it again.
The real story:
Balian of Ibelin was not a blacksmith. Balian and his brother Baldwin ran Ibelin from 1177 until 1187. Baldwin gave Ibelin to Balian so he (Baldwin) could be lord of Ramala. Balian supported King Raymond of Tripoli as Regent of Jerusalem while Baldwin IV was still a child and unable to rule, so Balien was older than King Baldwin. He was a foe of Guy d'Lusignan. Balian did defend Jerusalem before Saladin took the city on the 4th of July 1187. He negotiated the surrender of the city. However he did not leave the Holy Land. He continued fighting Saladin until October of 1187. Then he left to Tripoli. He supported Guy d'Lusignan in Lusignan's bid to maintain his kingship of Cyprus. Balian then became an advisor to Henry II of Champagne, another king of Jerusalem (who sort of ruled in absentia). In 1192 Balian helped negotiate peace between Richard I and Saladin ending the 3rd Crusade. He died in 1193.
On the whole the movie had the right flavor. I wish there had been a little explanation as to why certain groups of crusaders were at odds with other groups of cursaders. For instance you have all these groups of knights with certain heraldic devices on their tunics. Balian is wearing a tunic with the Maltese cross. The templars were done up well with white tunics and red crosses. The warriors in black tunics were the Knights Hospitallers. And those in blue were the Knights of Jerusalem. Most Jerusalem bibles still use the Heraldic Jerusalem crusader cross on the cover. I wish that Guy d'Lusignan had not been such a cardboard cut out bad guy. He had reasons to want the crown and to subdue Saladin. They were not noble reasons, or even ethical ones. But it would have made him a more nasty villain. What he and others wanted was to capture Damascus, a wealthier city than Jerusalem. He was already Count of Lusignan in France, King of Cypruss, and head of the army of Jerusalem. He wanted more power. The Lusignans and the Angivens hated each other, there was no love lost between he and Richard I.
Now lets make a movie about Richards mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Sex, scandel, violence! yummy!
I liked the movie. It was an exiting story with good writing, excellent acting, and farily realistic. I give it an 8. What makes this movie good is it's adherence to a kind of reality that does not ask for much suspension of disbelief. Of course it is historical fiction.
The cast of characters:
Balian count of Ibelin: A great guy, altruistic
Guy D'Lusignan: A nasty guy
Sybilla: Sister of king Baldwin IV: Sexy and unpredictable engaged to La-scumbag d'Lusignan
King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem: Suffering from leperosy, a great guy, noble and wise
Saladin: A great guy, noble and wise
Hollywood has this medieval stereotype that it can't seem to shake. Instead of illustrating the subtle complexities of feudal obligations, tribal animosity, and the intense ritualism of all aspects of life, we are fed a predigested goop that resembles the middleages as about as much as a box of animal crakers resembles the serengeti. The medieval world, if ever portrayed for what it was, would make for a far more interesting movie. Religion was taken with deadly seriousness by most Christians and Muslims. Hollywood tends to make all religion either cartoonishly righteous or cartoonishly evil. It was an age where many Christian knights had more incommon with Osama Bin Laden than Christ. Hollywood has trouble handling that level of religious extremism; it makes Dr Dobbson seem aetheistic. In the middleages you could have a knight as good as Balian, who was worldly and wise, and also brandishing an intense religious extemism and capacity to back that extemism up with terrible violence. The will of God was not an abstraction in the 12th century. The only place you would be likely to find anything approaching modern religion would be in the Monastaries or Universities, with men like Aquinas, or Abelard, over even Bernard of Clairveux.
I am also kind of tired of the cliche' about paupers rising to lords. That kind of thing did not happen. And the truth behind Balian, that I will talk about in a moment, would not have made for a bad movie. Yet the cliche' hangs on; like dinning while wearing armor and brandishing weapons. That would have been a severe no-no and breach of courtly manners. Dispite all this I liked the movie very much and would see it again.
The real story:
Balian of Ibelin was not a blacksmith. Balian and his brother Baldwin ran Ibelin from 1177 until 1187. Baldwin gave Ibelin to Balian so he (Baldwin) could be lord of Ramala. Balian supported King Raymond of Tripoli as Regent of Jerusalem while Baldwin IV was still a child and unable to rule, so Balien was older than King Baldwin. He was a foe of Guy d'Lusignan. Balian did defend Jerusalem before Saladin took the city on the 4th of July 1187. He negotiated the surrender of the city. However he did not leave the Holy Land. He continued fighting Saladin until October of 1187. Then he left to Tripoli. He supported Guy d'Lusignan in Lusignan's bid to maintain his kingship of Cyprus. Balian then became an advisor to Henry II of Champagne, another king of Jerusalem (who sort of ruled in absentia). In 1192 Balian helped negotiate peace between Richard I and Saladin ending the 3rd Crusade. He died in 1193.
On the whole the movie had the right flavor. I wish there had been a little explanation as to why certain groups of crusaders were at odds with other groups of cursaders. For instance you have all these groups of knights with certain heraldic devices on their tunics. Balian is wearing a tunic with the Maltese cross. The templars were done up well with white tunics and red crosses. The warriors in black tunics were the Knights Hospitallers. And those in blue were the Knights of Jerusalem. Most Jerusalem bibles still use the Heraldic Jerusalem crusader cross on the cover. I wish that Guy d'Lusignan had not been such a cardboard cut out bad guy. He had reasons to want the crown and to subdue Saladin. They were not noble reasons, or even ethical ones. But it would have made him a more nasty villain. What he and others wanted was to capture Damascus, a wealthier city than Jerusalem. He was already Count of Lusignan in France, King of Cypruss, and head of the army of Jerusalem. He wanted more power. The Lusignans and the Angivens hated each other, there was no love lost between he and Richard I.
Now lets make a movie about Richards mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Sex, scandel, violence! yummy!
Friday, May 13, 2005
Bush the American Dauphin.
In 1415 the Dauphin, Prince and Heir to the throne of France, along with his courtiers, and business associates, completely ignored the warnings of Constable d'Albert. D'Albert was the medieval French equivalent of the Army Chief of Staff. He told the Dauphin to be very careful how he attacked the terrorist army that was then rampaging through the western French countryside.
The Prince, was confident of the honorable knights that were about him. He had canon. he had Genoese crossbowmen, rabble to him, but carriers of the most technologicaly advanced weapons of the age. And last but not least he had the largest army of men-at-arms in all of Europe.
The terrorists were a beaten foe. They had invaded and stormed but one small French port, Harfleur. This had taken them months. And in that time they had their ranks decimated by hunger, disease, and the wounds of war. Now all indications were that they simply wanted to escape destruction. The Dauphin thought little of his adversary, the young king Henry of England.
D'Albert had already been ammassing troops and provisions of war. Unlike the over lusty Prince, d'Albert was wary of the English. He respected them, particularly the English archers, mere commoners.
Finally in October the French, after much bikering, set out to squash the English. They had an army that numbered 25,000 containing 90% of the French nobililty loyal to the French King. Contstable d'Albert was in command but the Dauphin was there too, and he was Prince. In actuality the Dauphin ran the kingdom, since his father was ill with severe depression.
The English terrorists were tired and were indeed wanting to go home. The French had continuosly barred their way to Calais along the river Somme. Frocing them deep into hostile territory. After finally crossing the river the decrepit army reached the town of Agincourt.
To there horror a force of 25,000 French troops sat arrayed against them. Henry, not having time for honor, or another useless mumbo jumbo, was in a tight spot and used his head instead of his hart.
Showing consumate generalship he moved his small "band of brothers", 1500 knights and 3500 archers, into a narrow gap between two forrests. This move ruined the any possibility for the French to out flank the English. He moved his archers into two wings bordering the forrest, creating a killing zone infront of his knights. All were dismounted. He had the archers carve 8 foot long stakes to protect themselves from the French caverly. Then, in the face of certain destruction ordered his army to advance toward the French. He was determined to give the French no ability to use their strengths. He wanted his enemy to fight on his terms not theirs.
d'Albert had given orders for a dismounted advance with the corssbowmen behind. The dismounted knights were in batallions and the crossbowmen could easily fire over them or between them. Caverly was to be used, in the typical medieval way, as a massed shock force to punch a whole in the enmy line.
To d'Albert's consternation the Dauphin, the Duke of Orlean, and other nobility charged with their mounted men-at-arms through the crossbowmen, passed the dismounted knights, and straight into hell.
The first wave of attack was destroyed in short order by volley after volley of arrows. The french ignored the threatening archers since the archers were simple commoners and would provide no ransom. They wanted the english nobles as hostages. So the archers were free to kill the lot of the French chargers. Orlean was captured, the Dauphin was captured, and the sensible d'Albert was killed, along with 15,000 other nobles. The second charge was no better coordinated and resulted in disaster. There was not a third charge. However the French remained on the feild long enough for Henry to order the slaughter of 5,000 prisoners. He simply did not have the ability to hold them and fight off a third attack.
The English lost somewhere between 100 and 500 men.
Now Mr. Bush is our Dauphin. He has been consistently out generaled in Iraq by a bunch of poor fanatics that posess nothing but cunning, a will to fight, an ability to adapt, and complete ruthlessness. They have arrayed their forces in a way that makes our larger numbers, and technology, impotent. They have forced us onto the defensive, and forced us to fight on their terms. And instead of realising this and altering our overall tactics we simply order the next adavnce into hell.
It was very telling when Bush was talking in Russia about how we appeased Stalin. Roosevelt, like Henry V, was in a tight spot, and used what he had to perfection. His decision at Yalta saved millions of lives in eastern Europe, and hundres of thousands of American and Russian lives. Russia could not hold onto eastern Europe and within 50 years of Yalta not only was eastern Europe free, but the Soviet Union was no more.
Generalship is not simply putting on a tunic, raising a sword, and charging into battle. Many fools have done that.
The Prince, was confident of the honorable knights that were about him. He had canon. he had Genoese crossbowmen, rabble to him, but carriers of the most technologicaly advanced weapons of the age. And last but not least he had the largest army of men-at-arms in all of Europe.
The terrorists were a beaten foe. They had invaded and stormed but one small French port, Harfleur. This had taken them months. And in that time they had their ranks decimated by hunger, disease, and the wounds of war. Now all indications were that they simply wanted to escape destruction. The Dauphin thought little of his adversary, the young king Henry of England.
D'Albert had already been ammassing troops and provisions of war. Unlike the over lusty Prince, d'Albert was wary of the English. He respected them, particularly the English archers, mere commoners.
Finally in October the French, after much bikering, set out to squash the English. They had an army that numbered 25,000 containing 90% of the French nobililty loyal to the French King. Contstable d'Albert was in command but the Dauphin was there too, and he was Prince. In actuality the Dauphin ran the kingdom, since his father was ill with severe depression.
The English terrorists were tired and were indeed wanting to go home. The French had continuosly barred their way to Calais along the river Somme. Frocing them deep into hostile territory. After finally crossing the river the decrepit army reached the town of Agincourt.
To there horror a force of 25,000 French troops sat arrayed against them. Henry, not having time for honor, or another useless mumbo jumbo, was in a tight spot and used his head instead of his hart.
Showing consumate generalship he moved his small "band of brothers", 1500 knights and 3500 archers, into a narrow gap between two forrests. This move ruined the any possibility for the French to out flank the English. He moved his archers into two wings bordering the forrest, creating a killing zone infront of his knights. All were dismounted. He had the archers carve 8 foot long stakes to protect themselves from the French caverly. Then, in the face of certain destruction ordered his army to advance toward the French. He was determined to give the French no ability to use their strengths. He wanted his enemy to fight on his terms not theirs.
d'Albert had given orders for a dismounted advance with the corssbowmen behind. The dismounted knights were in batallions and the crossbowmen could easily fire over them or between them. Caverly was to be used, in the typical medieval way, as a massed shock force to punch a whole in the enmy line.
To d'Albert's consternation the Dauphin, the Duke of Orlean, and other nobility charged with their mounted men-at-arms through the crossbowmen, passed the dismounted knights, and straight into hell.
The first wave of attack was destroyed in short order by volley after volley of arrows. The french ignored the threatening archers since the archers were simple commoners and would provide no ransom. They wanted the english nobles as hostages. So the archers were free to kill the lot of the French chargers. Orlean was captured, the Dauphin was captured, and the sensible d'Albert was killed, along with 15,000 other nobles. The second charge was no better coordinated and resulted in disaster. There was not a third charge. However the French remained on the feild long enough for Henry to order the slaughter of 5,000 prisoners. He simply did not have the ability to hold them and fight off a third attack.
The English lost somewhere between 100 and 500 men.
Now Mr. Bush is our Dauphin. He has been consistently out generaled in Iraq by a bunch of poor fanatics that posess nothing but cunning, a will to fight, an ability to adapt, and complete ruthlessness. They have arrayed their forces in a way that makes our larger numbers, and technology, impotent. They have forced us onto the defensive, and forced us to fight on their terms. And instead of realising this and altering our overall tactics we simply order the next adavnce into hell.
It was very telling when Bush was talking in Russia about how we appeased Stalin. Roosevelt, like Henry V, was in a tight spot, and used what he had to perfection. His decision at Yalta saved millions of lives in eastern Europe, and hundres of thousands of American and Russian lives. Russia could not hold onto eastern Europe and within 50 years of Yalta not only was eastern Europe free, but the Soviet Union was no more.
Generalship is not simply putting on a tunic, raising a sword, and charging into battle. Many fools have done that.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Self revelation is a bitch
We all are at different phases of our lives. Some phases are full of happy times and laughs. Other phases suck. I am currently in one of the phases that have a suction equivalent to space. I find that my brain, that could handle all sorts of things while not in this nasty phase of life, falls down on the job repeatedly while in said phase.
Example 1: While on vacation, a very happy event, some signals get crossed and instead of shurgging and going forward, I flip out. I yell at my Brother, who has done nothing worthy of such wrath.
Example 2: While on same vacation, a very happy event, I end up swating my daughter at a resturante. For no other reason than she is being devilish with food items. Not that there is any reason to do such a pathetic thing.
On both occasions the event is followed almost imediately by a staggering sense of "what the F(#*$ing hell am I doing!"
What makes matters worse. As if they can get worse. Is that I am trying to track this nonsense. Writing it down, documenting what can lead to it.
And it isn't as though my brain says "okay the coast is clear, freak out!" Oh no. I get to do this infront of people I care about. Thus allowing them to share and enjoy the moment. I look like, and infact have acted, like a complete ass.
Situational depression sucks. I can see why people withdraw from the world while in depressive times. Its like the world is nothing but a huge china shop with really narrow isles and I am walking down one with a huge Mexican sombraro and a hoop skirt from Gone With The Wind. I can even understand why people go the extra mile and end their lives rather than continuing through the china shop. However that is not going to be my fate.
This phase will pass, in time, to be replaced by other phases, some good and some not so good. I hope that in the final analysis (pun intended) I can learn from this phase and apply it to the rest of my life to come.
Example 1: While on vacation, a very happy event, some signals get crossed and instead of shurgging and going forward, I flip out. I yell at my Brother, who has done nothing worthy of such wrath.
Example 2: While on same vacation, a very happy event, I end up swating my daughter at a resturante. For no other reason than she is being devilish with food items. Not that there is any reason to do such a pathetic thing.
On both occasions the event is followed almost imediately by a staggering sense of "what the F(#*$ing hell am I doing!"
What makes matters worse. As if they can get worse. Is that I am trying to track this nonsense. Writing it down, documenting what can lead to it.
And it isn't as though my brain says "okay the coast is clear, freak out!" Oh no. I get to do this infront of people I care about. Thus allowing them to share and enjoy the moment. I look like, and infact have acted, like a complete ass.
Situational depression sucks. I can see why people withdraw from the world while in depressive times. Its like the world is nothing but a huge china shop with really narrow isles and I am walking down one with a huge Mexican sombraro and a hoop skirt from Gone With The Wind. I can even understand why people go the extra mile and end their lives rather than continuing through the china shop. However that is not going to be my fate.
This phase will pass, in time, to be replaced by other phases, some good and some not so good. I hope that in the final analysis (pun intended) I can learn from this phase and apply it to the rest of my life to come.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Vancouver BC
All cities have problems. Big cities have big problems. Yet if an alien and was allowed to view , Portland Oregon, Seattle Washington, and Vancouver British Columbia, the alien would probably say that Vancouver BC was the wealthiest city. I don't want to sound like a "grass is always greener" person, but it does infact appear noticably greener north of the boarder. When entering Vancouver from the US I sort of felt like coming to the new world from the old. New America versus Old America, to steal a Bush administration phrase. Of course this is not an accurate assesment. Canada has a population of 32,000,000. The United States has a population of 295,000,000.
The USA has a GDP of $ 13,000,000,000,000 while Canada has a GDP of 1,023,000,000,000. So why the disparity? Why should a nation that is one tenth the size of the US in population and has less than a 10th the GDP, come out looking so well? The answer, to a certain extent, can be found in what Canada has to spend its money on versus what the USA has to spend its money on.
As a red blooded American I get to support 10 active, Aircraft Carrier battle groups. A 600 ship navy. An airforce with thousands of aircraft. An army with 1.5 million soldiers on active duty on hundreds of military bases all over the world. I need, for some reason I am not quite sure of, be able to fight two hemespheric wars at the same time. Never mind that such wars are highly unlikely in this world of interdependant economies. I send billions a year to Exxon and Arco to subsidize oil prices. I spend billions on defense contracts. I spend billions on all sorts of stuff that countries like Canada just don't worry about. So while nations like Canada can spend the vast majority of their tax income on people, the US has to split its tax income between arms and people.
Would I like to live in another country that did not spend sooooooo much money on arms and war fighting? No I would like to live in America that did not spend sooooo much money on arms and war fighting.
The USA has a GDP of $ 13,000,000,000,000 while Canada has a GDP of 1,023,000,000,000. So why the disparity? Why should a nation that is one tenth the size of the US in population and has less than a 10th the GDP, come out looking so well? The answer, to a certain extent, can be found in what Canada has to spend its money on versus what the USA has to spend its money on.
As a red blooded American I get to support 10 active, Aircraft Carrier battle groups. A 600 ship navy. An airforce with thousands of aircraft. An army with 1.5 million soldiers on active duty on hundreds of military bases all over the world. I need, for some reason I am not quite sure of, be able to fight two hemespheric wars at the same time. Never mind that such wars are highly unlikely in this world of interdependant economies. I send billions a year to Exxon and Arco to subsidize oil prices. I spend billions on defense contracts. I spend billions on all sorts of stuff that countries like Canada just don't worry about. So while nations like Canada can spend the vast majority of their tax income on people, the US has to split its tax income between arms and people.
Would I like to live in another country that did not spend sooooooo much money on arms and war fighting? No I would like to live in America that did not spend sooooo much money on arms and war fighting.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Review of The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy
Simon Jones, Mark Wing-Davey, and Jeffery McGiven were just too good.
The Hitchikers radio series had almost asmuch effect on me as the Star Wars series of movies. I have two sets of the show on tape. I have read all the books; that actually came after the radio series.
You create a perfect thing and then you want to try and recreate that perfect thing using a different medium and things can go wrong.
The stuff that bugged me the most was:
The movies live action sets looked like DR Who rejects. The visual effects were awsome. The art direction sucked in this film there was no cohessive structure and seperation from location to locatioin.
The sound engineering on this film was the worst. Take actors that are mumbling and rushing their lines and compile it with bad engineering and you get and whole lot of "watermelon cantelope" And in a movie where the dialogue makes the picture what it is, that isn't good.
I like to beat up on ol'Dubya just like the other 49.99999% of America and 99% of the world, but Zaphod was just too much Dubya and not enough Beebelbrox. Zaphod is not a moron. He has moronic tendancies but is also a shrewd character and the hippest being in the Universe.
Stuff I liked the most:
The narrator of "The Book" was done well. Slarty Bartfast was great!
All in all I was not amused by it since it seemed to me to be a rippoff of the original without it being a retelling. I was in a funk upon leaving the theater.
It gets a 5
The Hitchikers radio series had almost asmuch effect on me as the Star Wars series of movies. I have two sets of the show on tape. I have read all the books; that actually came after the radio series.
You create a perfect thing and then you want to try and recreate that perfect thing using a different medium and things can go wrong.
The stuff that bugged me the most was:
The movies live action sets looked like DR Who rejects. The visual effects were awsome. The art direction sucked in this film there was no cohessive structure and seperation from location to locatioin.
The sound engineering on this film was the worst. Take actors that are mumbling and rushing their lines and compile it with bad engineering and you get and whole lot of "watermelon cantelope" And in a movie where the dialogue makes the picture what it is, that isn't good.
I like to beat up on ol'Dubya just like the other 49.99999% of America and 99% of the world, but Zaphod was just too much Dubya and not enough Beebelbrox. Zaphod is not a moron. He has moronic tendancies but is also a shrewd character and the hippest being in the Universe.
Stuff I liked the most:
The narrator of "The Book" was done well. Slarty Bartfast was great!
All in all I was not amused by it since it seemed to me to be a rippoff of the original without it being a retelling. I was in a funk upon leaving the theater.
It gets a 5
Enough angryman crap.
Look not to Haberblab to spout off about the American Nazis. I know the whole "If I don't speak out now. who will speak for me later" bit but I am tired of it. So no more of that crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
