"And So I Met The President, Again..."

No Friday in the office for me - I am shipping out to Saranac Lake, New York momentarily. A good friend is getting married. Stories to follow?

I hope so...

More Suck

Speaking of suck, great weather for a Labor Day wedding in upstate New York.

Welcome to the suck

Exciting News

Great things are happening in the blogosphere....

Goodbye old friend

R.I.P Wilson Bridge

12/28/61 - 8/29/06

L-I-V-I-N

Thank you, gentlemen, for brilliant posts. You've both demonstrated your deep understanding of the quintessential Frat Lord - after all, it takes one to know one - and I am sure that Maverick, Bodhi, and Wooderson would all be proud. We may never truly identify who frats the hardest, but we have undoubtedly established a new understanding of everything frat-tastic.

But before we start patting our backs, I should take a step back. At Kiwi's request, I would like to further explore the world of 1976 - an "insignificant" year seen as a "preamble to somethin' else." It was a time of indecision, youthful angst, and transition. To the kids in Dazed and Confused, the late seventies were a time of ambiguous disappointment, held worthwhile only by the promise of the next ten years.

Unless, of course, your name was David Wooderson.

A simple man with simple pleasures, Wooderson lived one day at a time. Nothing more, nothing less. To Wooderson, the summer of 1976 - just like the ten summers before and after - was sure to be a great one. He had everything he needed: an endless supply of beer, 390 horses under the hood, and smile that could melt butter. Wooderson had not a care in the world, and that is why, my fellow princes of the funnel, David Wooderson fratted oh so hard.

No, you say? Well, before you write me off, allow me to elaborate. Wooderson didn't have the karaoking charm of Maverick, nor the live-on-the-edge spirit of Bodhi, but he had the unwavering confidence of a seventh-year senior hitting on a freshmen. He lived by his own rules, on his own time, and by his own agenda - he was free from the fear of consequence or reprisal. Always taking the "quiet cool" approach, Wooderson was the grandest facilitator ever depicted in film.

Wooderson, always a man of principle, believed in only one thing - having a good time. Only a true Frat Lord would have such clear priorities. Classes, interviews, and any other considerations of the future were mere distractions, minor inconveniences in the grander pursuit of Life. Wooderson knew it all worked out in the end, and, although we have yet to be graced with a sequel, I would bet the family farm he was right.

And this invariably relaxed, yet confident persona is the highest embodiment of the Frat Lord. Whether sailing, playing croquet, crushing beers, or hitting on three girls at once, the true Fratty never blinks an eye - he is always on top of his game. Wooderson just kept on livin', man, L-I-V-I-N.

Score one for Tom Cruise

Today's front cover of the New York Daily News

Frat Lords

In response to Mr. Lee's request for blogging topics, I offer the following: Who frats harder, Tom Cruise in Top Gun, or Patrick Swayze in Point Break?

"That's right, Iceman, I am dangerous."

"Adios, amigo."

The Pharmacy

A few weeks ago, I was waiting for the Chinatown bus to take me back to New York after a brief return to the homeland and popped in to a nearby drugstore to gather supplies for the trip. Walking through the aisles looking for both aloe vera and the biggest bottle of Gatorade that money could buy, I found myself in the "Family Planning" section of the store. Severely dehydrated, exhausted, and staring down a five hour bus journey, this aisle was probably the last place that I needed to be. Still, something about that sign made me feel uncomfortable. It was more than the outright silliness of labeling a section as "Family Planning", since in the District of Columbia the only contraceptive available over-the-counter is the condom. Rather, my uncomfort stemmed from the fact that the sign highlighted a dangerous naivete on the part of the pharmacy in assuming - and therefore propogating the belief - that the only people who purchase contraceptives are married couples that do not wish to have children.

I call this naivete dangerous for two primary reasons. Firstly, not only is it wrong to assume that it is only married couples who take proactive steps to ward off pregnancy, but by making that assumption you are in a sense condemning anyone that chooses to have premarital sex. Having or not having sex is a personal decision, and no outside party, least of all a corporate store, should influence that decision through shame. Unmarried people have sex. Get over it. They have done so since the dawn of time and will continue to do so well into the future. With this in mind, they will have sex in one of two ways. Either with a condom or without one. Using a condom limits the chances of unwanted pregnancy, and therefore should be used by anyone that is not ready for parenthood, regardless of marital status. The store, least of all a pharmacy whose function is to provide healthcare products, is in no position to judge its products or whoever chooses to purchase them.

Secondly, to call the section "Family Planning", the store is ignoring one of the primary functions of the condom - the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. While not 100% effective, the condom greatly reduces the risk of contracting STDs. In fact, the primary reason that the spread of HIV/AIDS has tapered off in this country is that more people are wearing condoms. AIDS has spread like wildfire throughout sub-Saharan Africa because the male population there refuses to use them. Sex is no longer a matter of procreation, but also a matter of life or death. People who are purchasing condoms are making the safe and thoughtful decision, not only for themselves but also for their partners, and their actions should be applauded, not shamed by unnecessarily tacking family values onto them.

Better levels of health and welfare will only be raised by reasonable and rational thinking. Whether or not people have sex cannot be influenced, and, in my opinion, nor should it. But it is the job of the healthcare community (of which that store is a part) to educate people on the consequences of their actions, encourage smart decisions, but certainly not to shame people whose only crime is that of protecting themselves, their partners, their health, and their future.

Happy Belated Birthday, Fidel! (And Piss Off To The Other 90%)

Since I've been on this Fidel kick lately, I completely forgot to wish the ol' bat a happy birthday on August 13th. So, to you, comrade, a tip of the hat.

And speaking of Fidel and August 13th - also known as International Left-Handers Day - I forgot to tell all my lowly right-handed readers that they are worthless. Yep, worthless. To those of you who sat on Jesus' right during the Last Supper, I say pah! To those of you who can easily write in a ledger, I say good riddance. And to the 90% of America that can safely operate "drill presses, chain saws, surgical instruments, firearms and holsters," I say shove it. I dislike every last one of you for reasons you will never understand.

Southpaws the world over are a disenfranchised, marginalized group who suffer through false subordination to their right-handed inferiors. Although we constitute well over 98.475% of this nation's intellectual capital, we cannot claim our "leftful" - haha, get it? - share. We are smarter, faster, and undoubtedly better in every way. Unfortunately, we are a minority in a democracy, and for that we suffer.

This post will, most likely, frustrate 90% of my readers who simply cannot grasp the concepts I am discussing in the most pedestrians means available. The other 10%, by no coincidence, will raise their left, clenched fist in support of my message: "Left-handers unite! Join my solidarity movement!"

All we need is a leader and then things will change. No more Dubyas in the White House. No more political corruption and corporate financial scandals. No more poverty. No more war. No more pain. Humanity will reach a pinnacle in which we no longer suffer through the once inevitable human condition. Happiness will no longer be a pursuit, but a foregone conclusion. Tranquility, my friends, will reign supreme.

Reconnect with nature by destroying a small part of it!

photo: wendy galietta

Greasy Hands

Despite getting home late from work, I still had time today to crawl under Charlene and get my hands dirty. The work was fairly straightforward, but I spent a solid 2 hours "gettin' to it" before I ran out of daylight.

First, I cleaned out the gas tank that I dropped earlier in the week to ensure it was prepped for reinstallation tomorrow. I originally planned to discard it, but after a great deal of research, I learned that no one actually makes my gas tank anymore. Needless to say, the 25 year-old tank became a keeper, and I resigned myself to working with what I had. It cleaned up quite nicely - all it took was soap and water - but it was a pain flushing it with distilled water to get everything, water additives included, out of the tank.

Once I set the gas tank aside to dry, I cracked open the most recent shipment of Jeep parts: a fuel sending unit and a tune up kit. The sending unit was quickly set aside as tomorrow's primary task; the tune up kit came with me to visit Charlene. The kit included the following items:

• Fuel Filter
• Oil Filter
• Spark Plugs
• Spark Plug Wires
• Distributor Cap
• Distributor Cap Rotor
• Air Filter

The fuel filter was the easiest thing to install. It bridges two pieces of fuel line, similar to those Chinese finger traps toys you had when you were a kid. All I had to do was loosen the clamps, remove the old unit, insert the new unit, and retighten the clamps. Fifteen minutes in total.

Next, I removed the old spark plug wires, distributor cap, and rotor. I inspected all pieces for abnormal signs or wear and tear that might suggest other problems. Fortunately, all were in great shape given their age. Again, the process was simply loosening a couple of bolts, removing the old pieces, and installing the new ones.

Lastly, I installed new spark plugs. The old ones showed a great deal of carbon buildup, but, again, I wasn't terribly concerned - Charlene is an old gal. As a heads up, spark plugs can be tricky because you have to tighten them down to a specific torque measurement. If you screw it up, you run the risk of damaging the plug, thus sacrificing vehicle performance.

Finally, I drained the old engine oil. Black as Brutus' soul and flowing like molasses it was. I left the oil pan plug out so it can drain all night, and hopefully get as much of that worthless oil out of there. Tomorrow I will change the oil, reinstall the gas tank, and change all the fluids. We just might hear her roar to life this weekend after all...

Global Endeavors

In Of Paradise and Power, author Robert Kagan argues, in brief, that Western Europe’s longest continuous peace – the fifty-plus years following World War II – is largely a product of two things: the lessons learned from World Wars I and II, and the blanket of security the United States offered Western Europe in the face of the communist East. In Kagan’s view, the latter point is the most important: without a standing American military force, Europe would surely have suffered under the constant threat of unwanted Muscovite influence. To be sure, Kagan believed the United States was the sole guarantor of Pax Europa.

Today, however, the tides have shifted. The Soviet threat is the property of historians, and Europe’s future belongs to revitalized ideas of collective security, economic integration, and “soft” borders. To Americans, however, the Soviet threat – rather, our treatment of it – sparked an entirely new approach to foreign policy, where unilateralism and “preemptive warfare” have replaced more traditional notions of international consensus followed by collective action. Indeed, as Kagan notes, the time has to come “to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world…Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation,” while the United States “remains mired in history, exercising power in an archaic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable.”

Kagan’s observation, his placement of the United States and Europe on polarized political extremes, is quite provocative. The policy implications suggest an American break with Europe (or, perhaps, a European break with America), and a resulting shift in the international distribution of power. Once the self-inflicted, proud mission of the English Empire, the task of balancing the world’s power construct has since fallen on Europeans, who, whether they know it or not, have established a political order running counter to American foreign policy objectives.

But Kagan’s comments beg the question as to whether or not the political divergence of the United States and Europe can withstand the common threat of global terrorism. As Osama bin Laden has gladly attested to in the past, the West is the ultimate target of al Qaeda, but other targets, the United States included, exist along the way. Terrorism is a “war of ideas,” where Islamic fundamentalists are diametrically opposed to Western notions of secularism, pluralism, transparency, and social liberalism. To many scholars and policy-makers alike, Islam and Western Liberalism cannot coexist. Famed political theorist Samuel P. Huntington offered this conclusion in The Clash of Civilizations, where he argued Islam and the West were inevitably bound for conflict. But like Kagan, Huntington’s work offers no discussion of relationships. Is this “clash” one versus one? Could it be one versus two?

The present geo-political climate suggests the United States is generally doing its own thing. The so-called “Bush doctrine” is most obvious in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran – all fronts in the “global war on terror.” Europe, on the other hand, is addressing terrorism on a case-by-base basis. Spain and Portugal have insulated themselves, Germany and France are yet unfamiliar, and Britain, having suffered the most, has furthered its “special relationship” with the United States. In other words, there is no Western consensus on how to battle terrorism as a violent action, let alone an effective political exercise.

Consensus – not necessarily the multilateral use of force – is absolutely necessary among the United States, Europe, and other liberal democracies. In order to properly mitigate terrorist threats, the West needs to accept terrorism as a communal problem that requires collective action and a unified front. To achieve this end, however, action is required primarily on the right side of the pond. Europe must acknowledge the seriousness of global terrorism, reject it simply as a thorn in Bush’s side, and take a larger role in combating it on an international scale. The idea should be to internalize the threat before it hits close to home. Once Europe demonstrates its good faith in the United States, America can subordinate its immediate political objectives to a larger need for global integration.

Iraq demonstrated the shortcomings of “going at it alone.” We must learn from this lesson, and apply it to future ventures. Lebanon is a great place to start.

Castro Part II

In Tuesday's Post, Eugene Robinson offered the following on Cuba:

"Reform-minded Cuban officials used to whisper to me that soon there would be a private market in real estate, but Fidel would never allow it. I think he likes a system in which everyone has a roof, though it's leaky, and surgeons live next to bricklayers in crumbling tenements.

Most Cubans aren't allowed to buy new cars, even if they have the money. I used to think this was just a method of control, but I came to believe that Castro probably smiles when he sees the fortunate few who do have cars stopping to pick up the hitchhikers who gather at almost every intersection. The scene brings the communist ideal to life: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.'"

Robinson’s remarks suggest a markedly different mindset in Cuba, perhaps one that is, for the time being, irreconcilable with American notions of government (representative democracy), economics (capitalism), and, ultimately, statecraft. As I wrote before, Cuba is different – much different. They’ve spent the past fifty years living in a political and social vacuum, drafting domestic and foreign policy with a long-term, self-serving agenda constantly in mind. An example? Castro associated with the USSR for thirty years because Moscow delivered oil, grain, and iron ore – not because Castro believed in the righteousness of his pseudo-communist brethren. Cuba, unlike other communist states, was not a “puppet state” of the Second World. She stood alone, borrowing here and there, but always remaining loyal to an underlying idea.

Discussions have already begun in Washington about how – there never was a question of if – to best “participate” in the “redevelopment” of Cuba. Obviously, I am not privy to these conversations, but I seriously doubt they’re headed in the right direction. American perspectives on Cuba are misguided and, most importantly, subject to a painfully obsolete rejection of communism in all its forms. Point of emphasis: Cuba is not just another broken state led by a cookie cutter dictator.

Unless policy-makers revamp their idea of Cuba, we are in for yet another failed attempt at statecraft. Scholars warned that you cannot institute democracy in Islamic states (or any non-secular state for that matter), and now we have Hamas and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Scholars warned against installing capitalism in former communist states, and now we have Putin’s reforms and Romanian corruption. The “old way” didn’t work in Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, and Liberia, and it won’t work in Cuba.

It’s time for a different approach that is pulled, not pushed.

Pimp My Ride

Pimp My Ride

I'll have another cup

Addicted to coffee? It doesn't matter anymore!

Busy As A Bee

I've been tasked to draft a brief description of an information management sytem. In this 2,500 character-limited document, I've used the following consulting buzzwords:

• Integrate
• Collaborate
• Performance-Based
• Mission Critical
• Strategic Resourcing
• Duplicative Efforts
• Value-Added
• Knowledge Management

I am lying through my teeth, and now everything I ever believed in is wrong. I'll pour a sip on the concrete for my childhood dreams...

Meet Charlene

I would like you all to meet the new lady in my life, Charlene. She stands six feet tall, has a deep red complexion, and stole my heart the first time I saw her.

That said, let's talk what we want to accomplish this week:

• Replace Fluids. I'm talking engine oil, coolant, tranny and t-case lubricant, differential fluids, et cetera. Pulling all the plugs and replacing the fluids will be a good fifteen hours worth of work (at least).
• Tune Up. Fairly simple process, but also time-intensive. I need to replace the rotor, cap, wires, spark plugs, air filter, fuel filter, oil filter, and a few hoses.
• Drain Gas Tank. This is probably the most difficult task of the week. Considering her age - only twenty-four years young - there are probably a few nuts and bolts that are "frozen" and unwilling to come off peacefully. These will have to be, more than likely, broken off and replaced with fresh stainless steel.

Once these three tasks are complete, I want to start Charlene for the first time. With any luck, she will fire right up, but I am concerned that the carburetor went south for the winter. If so, there will be little to report this weekend. Otherwise, fun pictures to come!

It begins...

1983 Scrambler CJ-8 one of only 28,000 produced between 1981-1986

International All Lobbyists Are Bastards Day

Today is officially International All Lobbyists Are Bastards Day. Don't act like you don't know...

Light Reading

For those of you following along with Mr. Beerman's discussion of Oliver Stone's new film, World Trade Center, you might be interested in this piece.

So It Begins...

After nearly six years of dreaming, I finally purchased a Jeep CJ-8 Scrambler. Built from 1981-1986, the Scrambler represents Jeep's second of three attempts at a longbody CJ, which is today known as the Wrangler.

The Scrambler is an incredible piece of machinery. Here are a few specs of my new toy:

• Engine: AMC 4.2L I-6 (the cylinders are in a straight "I", as opposed to the common "V")
• Transmission: T-5 5 Speed
• Transfer Case: Model 300
• Rear Axle: Dana 20
• Front Axle: Dana 30

The Scrambler, in her present form, does not run. It's been sitting for nearly four years, during which time it was, according to the owner, turned over on a monthly basis to prevent the block from freezing. To offset these past years of neglect, I have decided to take on a full restoration project. Chances are the work will take me months to complete, if not well over a year. Considering my other commitments - family, friends, work - I won't be able to devote large blocks of time to wrenching. Needless to say, posts on my progress will be many but far between.

So here's the deal: I want to blog about my Scrambler so that folks can follow along, offer their insight, and, most importantly, keep me on track. Although I am in no way a quitter, projects as large as these tends to fall to the wayside, and rarely complete on schedule. Consider this my first progress report - it all begins today.

I will provide pictures of my progress as well, as one of my tangential goals is to create a comprehensive record of my work for those who care to repeat my work or at least learn from it. I'm not sure anyone will ultimately care, but it will give me something to look back on.

What have I done so far, you ask? Well, to be honest, not much. I bought a few parts from Quadratec and ordered a Jeep CJ handbook. I am supposed to pick up the Scrambler some time before Saturday. The real fun - tearing 'er down - starts this weekend. Stay tuned...

What Kiwi Said

Agreed.

Lake House 2006

A weekend well spent

The Culprits, minus a few

Kitchen utensil love

Cause

Effect

Fire!

Good times

Bones!

Just relax

Dr. Cook a man for the people

Look for more photos from The Recipe's new contributing photographer and his regular photo column.

A response to Mr Lee

Thank you, Mr Lee, for printing yet another stunning recommendation in your blog. But I must apologize. While on several occassions you have guided your own readers to the hallowed pages of The Recipe, I feel that I have neglected to return the favor. In light of this, I would ask that any readers of The Recipe that have not yet explored the tales of Mr. Lee's life and work in Washington, DC, to do so when they have a few moments to spare.

With that said, I feel the need to further explain my last entry, as well as to question your view of 9/11 profiteering, of which you spoke in a recent post. As stated, I have no problem with the depiction of emotional topics on film, or being incorporated into popular culture. I don't believe that within a society where free speech is held in high regard, any person or event is above critical debate or depiction. Indeed, it our responsibility to understand and challenge the past, and I recognize film's role in helping us with that. Rather, my issue with Mr Stone's latest film is that he does not attempt to break new ground within the framework of 9/11. He does not challenge the accepted American view of the events of that day, nor does he place September 11 within its appropriate historical context, which would include a discussion of what led to the attack on the World Trade Center, as well as the long-term consequences of it. That he has not attempted to do either of these aims is evidence that the American viewpoint of 9/11 has not shifted to a place where it can think critically of the events. Thus, because America cannot think critically of 9/11, it is premature to provide a fictionalized account of it, i.e., bring it further into popular culture.

Mr Stone settles for yet another minute-to-minute recount of the morning of 9/11, which frankly, in the past five years, I've had enough of. I know what happened that morning. I was in New York. For those of you that weren't, I'm sure you caught the footage of the twin towers falling about a billion times since then. Do we really need Hollywood to show us a regurgitation of the CNN reels? This film accomplishes nothing other than reinforcing the cult of 9/11, where all Arabs are terrorists, all policemen are heroes, and everyone that died did so in the name of America and freedom. I don't believe this is true, and to continue it on film will make a critical analysis of 9/11 in the future even more difficult.

And while I commend you, Mr Lee, on boycotting the film out of a disgust of the profiteering of 9/11, I have some news for you. The profiteering began on September 12. President Bush and the GOP have used the cult of 9/11 to push through every bit of their legislation regarding national security or foreign policy. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security? It was necessary to stop another 9/11. Telephone tapping? Again, we can't let 9/11 happen again. Invading Afghanistan? They harbor the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Invading Iraq? Well, we have no evidence to prove Saddam is connected to 9/11, but we sure would like to believe that he was. Allowing Israel to bomb the daylights out of Lebanon? Israel is under attack, just like we were on 9/11.

Without 9/11, George Bush wouldn't have been able to do any of this. Is it profiteering in the financial sense? No (although we could talk here about the plans to rebuild lower Manhattan, but I'll spare you of that). However, you must certainly see that your own political party have used the tragedy of September 11 to their advantage whenever and wherever they could.

Fidelismo

Although I am in no way an expert, I had the privilege of studying Fidelismo - the term generally associated with Fidel's brand of socialism - during my final semester at Maryland. I had an insightful professor, able peers, and a gentleman's share of provocative reading assignments. I learned a great deal, and came away with an entirely new perspective on Cuba.

Studying Cuban history is similar to looking through reflective glass: the whole picture is impossible to grasp, and what you can see is painfully distorted. History of Fidel’s Cuba involves a great many actors, four continents, and (at least) five decades. Like most histories, it's offered through countless interpretations, all of which draw markedly different conclusions. To simplify, therefore, I would describe Fidelismo best as "no one is poor if no one is rich," and only in the social sense of the word. Money has next to nothing to do with Fidelismo; it's about a proud, intelligent people who have the right to work and live comfortably. Socialism, as a political theory, then, is not necessarily part of Cuban history. It’s more of a tangential issue retrofitted to an early ideal.

And this complicates how one places Cuba in a modern socio-political context. I don’t think Castro is a dictator, so I don’t think the Cuban government is a dictatorship. Indeed, I fundamentally disagree with the “popular” American view of Cuba as a haven for backward socialist theories enforced by an autocratic regime. Rather, Cuba is a nation plagued by stagnation, limited commercial infrastructure, and, yes, an international embargo.

So how does one solve these problems? I have a few ideas, but I don’t really know. The best I can do is guess.

First and foremost, Castro should go, as should any discussion of an appointed executive. Castro, due to age and fatigue, is a dying figurehead of a bygone era. He was once a man of ideas – in his famous History Will Absolve Me speech he accused then-ruler Batista of being “devoid…of ideals and of principles, and utterly lacking the faith, confidence and support of the masses.” – but now he is a man presiding over a myth. The Cuba he dreamt of is gone, and will not return as long as the present government exists.

The next step is open elections. I fully recognize the limitations of a “young democracy” – I suggest reading on Nigeria – but Cubans are a diverse people who will undoubtedly spark more than enough competition in order to bring out their best and brightest. Cuba, as a nation, is self-aware and capable of acting in its own interests.

With transparent democratic elections, I would hope that the United States revisits its already obsolete policy towards Cuba. The embargo should go, as should a generation’s worth of propaganda. The next generation of Cubans deserves a fair, open, and productive dialogue with the international community. Without assistance from abroad, a modern Cuba cannot exist.

Finally, in line with elections, Cuba needs a strong national vision. Cuba, once dubbed “America’s playground,” was ravaged by one hundred years of foreign influence (money) and private interests. It’s why Castro came to power in the first place, and why his revolution was so effective in terms of mass response. As Castro leaves, the threat again exists for short-term policies that have the potential to corrupt and destroy. Intelligent, long-term decision-making is absolutely key. Political parties, or some form of pluralism, are an obvious answer.

These simple solutions should help raise the standard of living in Cuba, but only in the immediate, material sense, and for a small sector of the population. Long-term, universal improvement requires an older generation of Cubans (perhaps those who still Believe) who can effectively thwart attempts at unilateral socio-economic control through offers of seemingly fabulous wealth. I am deeply concerned that a new Cuba will be exploited by distant interests and entitled expatriates, and to that I must quote Castro: “We are Cubans and to be Cuban implies a duty; not to fulfill that duty is a crime, is treason.”

Box office

Only a few short months after the premier of Flight 93, the second film to depict the events of September 11 opens this week. World Trade Center tells the story of the entrapment and subsequent rescue of two New York firefighters inside the rubble of the twin towers.

While I support the filmmaker's right to depict controversial and emotional topics, I find something unsettling about filming stories based on 9/11. Partially, this comes from my views on how historical events in general should be analyzed. Several historians have written books and articles on the dangers of studying recent history. This school of thought arose in the aftermath of the Cold War, when scholars almost immediately began to research, amongst other topics, the collapse of the Soviet Union as well as the roles played by Gorbachev and Reagan. In the fifteen years since then, historians have come to realize that a significant amount of time must pass before society can truly reflect on an event. This length of time is defined by practical reasons, such as the declassification of relevant government documents (of which most have a twenty-five year wait period), but also by the need for a paradigm shift. Historians of the 1990s were born, raised and educated during the Cold War, and their views were shaped completely by it. They were unable to separate themselves from their own Cold War mindset and experiences, and their analysis of events reflects this. In other words, time must pass before a person (or society as a whole) can objectively analyze and debate the causes and consequences of history.

This paradigm shift has not yet started in America. No one in American society, be it academia, the press, or even popular culture, as of yet has made a real effort to understand why 19 young men decided to hijack four planes and use them to destroy symbols of American power. However, their motivations are an essential, if not the essential, part of the story of 9/11. What motivates a man to cause destruction and take life? What causes him to do this at the cost of his own life? Simply put, Oliver Stones's film does not even attempt to address these questions, though without them, we wouldn't have the countless tales of firefighter heroism, which the American public seems to enjoy so much.

Likewise, we are continuing to live the consequences of 9/11. The War on Terror, the cause of constant policy debate in this country, is a direct result of 9/11. It has effected how Western Europe acts and interacts with both America and the rest of the world. And lest we forget, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were done in its name. The conclusion of the story has not been written, and we cannot tell the beginning of the story when the end is not yet finished.

In light of this, Mr. Stone's film will be not only incomplete, but inaccurate. Only when we have come to terms with both the causes and effects of 9/11 should we begin to incorporate its tales into the fold of popular culture. To do this beforehand is to sell history short.

90 miles

Dr. Cook,

If my memory serves me correctly, back in college you did a fair amount of work looking at Fidel Castro and Cuba's economic policies of the last fifty years. With discussion of Castro's inevitable death and the succession of power beginning again, I was hoping that you might be able to take a few moments out of "spend government money season" to enlighten both myself and the readers of your views regarding the Cuban state as well as American policy towards it. What would be necessary to improve the standard of living on the island? Does the American embargo (and the policies that stem from it) really accomplish anything? I realize these are broad questions, please take your eventual post in whatever direction you choose.

Spires Goes West

A very good buddy of mine from college, Spires, is traveling west this fall, trekking from Alaska to Mexico. An extraordinarily insightful guy, I recommend checking out his blog - it's sure to be a delight. Spires was never cut out for the cubicle world, so we are all happy to see him go.

HLH, Spires, HLH.

The times we live in

Here is a link to an incisive op-ed in this morning's New York Times. In my opinion, it's the most sensible, rational writing to come out of the American press in the last month. I'm sure a discussion in The Recipe will follow...

What I Really Learned In College...

This + This > This

Countered

Doctor, I believe that you are muddling two issues that needn't be muddled. I don't believe that downloading music ruins the sanctity of the album as an art form. The mp3 (i.e., the download) is merely a vehicle from which music moves from the musician to the consumer. The mp3 as a vehicle has proven so popular because it is convenient, cheap, easily transferred, and reaches an ever widening audience.

In addition to all of these characteristics, it seems as if the mp3 is now the main method of releasing single songs. But singles, and EPs also, existed well before the current trend of downloading music. Record companies have always released a few songs by a given artist that they felt would appeal to the largest number of listeners. It was true with The Beatles and "I Want to Hold Your Hand", just like it was true with Nirvana and "Come As Your Are" (which, if my music history serves me correctly, was a B-side to "Smells Like Teen Spirit"). This is a way to spread music without going through the exhausting process of recording and releasing a 30 to 60 minute album (which would be done later). Thus, there has always been a strong incentive to release individual songs. The music industry didn't need mp3s for this to be true.

But the album survives. Yes, there will always be albums which come off as little more than two or three hit songs coupled with eight or nine filler tracks. But this is less a reflection on the impact of technology on music, or the state of the music industry, and more of a reflection on the value of the artist himself. Artists that are truely memorable will continue to release albums that have been thoughtfully written, recorded, and arranged, regardless of any technological innovations.

Counter Counterpoint

Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Beerman, but I believe your response went slightly beyond the scope of my original post. You seem to address more the frequency of "one-hit wonders" - a discussion I whole-heartedly agree with - rather than the fate of the album.

Perhaps I should clarify: I view the album as a single work, a piece of art - not a vehicle for a shoddy assortment of should-be-popular songs. Care for an example? An album is Nirvana's Nevermind. A vehicle for one or two hit songs is Blink 182's Enema of the State. Both groups are talented in their own right, but both groups seem to approach music composition in very different ways.

Readily downloadable music permits the casual listener to download only the songs they want, thus providing a strong market incentive for artists to release only songs they know will be popular - thus the album falls from grace. Let's say you are Kurt Cobain and you are still alive. iTunes asks for an exclusive deal where you release either an album that will sell for 9.99, or five singles that sell for .99 a piece. Personally, I would go for the singles - they're easier (and cheaper) to create, and appeal to a much wider fan base. Only Nirvana fans buy Nirvana albums; Come As You Are fans buy Come As You Are.

So what do we do to thwart this otherwise inevitable market trend? The answer is easy: education. Sit your younger siblings and/or children down, and share with them your CD, tape, or - dare I say - vinyl collection. My father spent a summer teaching me the value of 12 tracks listened straight through; it was one of the best lessons of my life.