" /> A Day In The Journey: November 2005 Archives

« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »

November 26, 2005

Kurt Vonnegut is a wacko.

I had to post this. I have to give credit for finding the story to someone else [ Babalu Blog].
Really, whatever your position on war in general or the War on Terror, Vonnegut's comments are just beyond the pale.

US author lauds suicide bombers
David Nason, New York correspondent
19 Nov 2005

ONE of the greatest living US writers has praised terrorists as "very brave people" and used drug culture slang to describe the "amazing high" suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up.

Kurt Vonnegut, author of the 1969 anti-war classic Slaughterhouse Five, made the provocative remarks during an interview in New York for his new book, Man Without a Country, a collection of writings critical of US President George W. Bush.

Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.

But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.

"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."

Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: "I regard them as very brave people, yes."

He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman's 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

On the Iraq war, he said: "What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back."

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

Vonnegut's comments are sharply at odds with his reputation as a peace activist and his distinguished war service. He served in the US 106th Division and was captured by German forces at the Battle of the Bulge.

Taken to Dresden and held with other POWs in a disused abattoir, Vonnegut witnessed the appalling events of February 13-14, 1945, when 800 RAF Lancaster bombers firebombed the city, killing an estimated 100,000 civilians.

The experience inspired his book Slaughterhouse Five - the title of the novel coming from the barracks he was assigned in the POW camp. The book became an international bestseller and made Vonnegut a luminary of the US literary left.

But since Mr Bush was elected, Vonnegut's criticisms of US policy have become more and more impassioned.

In 2002, he was widely criticised for saying there was too much talk about the 9/11 attacks and not enough about "the crooks on Wall Street and in big corporations", whose conduct had been more destructive.

The following year he wrote that the US was hated around the world "because our corporations have been the principal deliverers and imposers of new technologies and economic schemes that have wrecked the self-respect, the cultures of men, women and children in so many other societies".

But Vonnegut's latest comments are likely to make many people wonder if old age has finally caught up with a grand old man of American letters.

© The Australian

(H/T Mike Pancier)

November 19, 2005

Rosa Parks

Well, in keeping with my belated Veteran's Day entry, I thought I should have a very belated entry dedicated to Rosa Parks. Frankly, Ms. Parks has always been someone I greatly respected. She stood up for what was right even though it wasn't convenient. Her legacy is something that ought to be honored and upheld. Unfortunately, as Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson writes, the modern rap culture is steadily eroding what she fought for--oppurtunity for African-Americans to excell. He, of course, says it much more eloquently and pointedly than I can.

Mocking Parks's legacy
By Derrick Z. Jackson | October 26, 2005

ROSA PARKS did not defy a white bus driver in 1955 so teenagers in 2005 could attend school-night concerts by black performers filled with self-hate. As yesterday's newspapers mourned the death of the 92-year-old civil rights icon, thousands of youths in the Boston area counted down the hours to last night's Monster Jam at the TD Banknorth Garden.
In a 1992 interview on National Public Radio, Parks said: ''I would like to encourage young people especially to be aware of what our situation is and to be concerned about our past history and to know what we have suffered and to be willing and ready to prepare themselves through a better education and dedication to making conditions better for our people."
The lineup for Monster Jam makes a tragic mockery of Parks. There was Ludacris. His idea of education is a ''song" in which he and guest performers say the F-word 24 times, the N-word 17 times, the B-word 11 times, and do a whole lot of bragging about being ''a full-fledged killa, part-time MC, full-time drug dealer." In another cut, called ''Hoes In My Room," the explicit sexual lyrics are almost completely unprintable in a family newspaper, with 29 utterances of either the slang for whore or the B-word.
There was Tony Yayo, also toting guns on one cut that starts, ''Aww, N-, do you know what this is? One shot, one kill." In another cut, he brags, ''I got N-s in Queens that kill for Pamper money." There was Jermaine Dupri, whose respect for women can be summed up in one cut where the chorus shouts that rap stars have to ''keep these MF H-s on they knees," and, ''Hoes love me cause I keep it comin' strong and yo; I'm a pimp with mine every time, I don't give a F who she is. B- you can go. Get another cause they love us N-s in the fast life."
About the only artist who makes sense in the Monster Jam lineup does so in an ironic way. Damian Marley, one of the sons of the late reggae master Bob Marley, said in the piece ''Welcome to Jamrock":
''Come on let's face it, a ghetto education's basic, ''A most a the youths, them waste it; ''And when they waste it, that's when they take the guns and replace it, ''Then them don't stand a chance at all." It makes you wonder what chance black people stand when Parks and her supporters risked their lives, and 50 years later, the livelihoods of an ever-more vulgar generation of young entertainers is wrapped around blaxploitation, sexism, and homophobia. Just as appalling, these N-word and B-word entertainers are considered so normal in American culture that the Monster Jam was sponsored by Filene's department store, Dunkin' Donuts, X-Box video games, Nikon cameras, D'angelo's deli, Scion cars, and the National Guard and US Army.
Now, the National Guard and the US Army, we can understand. They are waiting for the young people in the audience who waste their education. They are waiting to give them the guns to replace it in places like Iraq.
Before age wore her down, Parks spent her latter years saying we need to ''motivate youth to reach their highest potential." With black children still suffering from horrible achievement gaps in school, with corresponding high dropout rates, we are nowhere near realizing that potential. A lot of it is due to the general disinvestment in urban public schools in the decades of white suburban flight. A lot of it is also due to too much television, too few parents in schools, and too much daydreaming about making it through sports and song.
In the rap and hip-hop world, many of the daydreams are a nightmare of stereotypes. Rosa Parks has died, and it is up to us how she will live on. She was the quiet woman who changed a nation. Her legacy is being undermined by voices much too empty and loud.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

November 16, 2005

which book?

I read this very interesting article on National Review Online that I thought I would share. I know there is a debate going about which Narnia book should be read first. Being older than the re-numbered additions, I read The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe first. In the several times that I have read the series since, I have read it both ways--I prefer still to read The Lion... first. Mr. Miller makes a strong, reasonable argument in favor of the original first novel. It's worth the read.


Narnian Order: Which C. S. Lewis book comes first?

Florida governor Jeb Bush has chosen The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as the centerpiece of his "Just Read, Florida!" program, and he's already coming under left-wing fire. "Some are concerned that the selection is an attempt to Christianize the students of Florida," complains blogger Michael Schaub.

And so it begins: The controversy over whether impressionable schoolchildren should be exposed to the nefarious influence of C.S. Lewis. It will only grow louder as we approach December, when the big-budget movie version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe reaches theaters.

But in the meantime, you may have a more basic question. Perhaps you've seen the super-cool trailer for the upcoming film, and you've decided to read the book beforehand. You go to the bookstore, look up C.S. Lewis titles, and locate the seven volumes in The Chronicles of Narnia. But the label on The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe says it's the second book in the series. The first one is called The Magician's Nephew. That's not how you remember it. Aslan moves in mysterious ways, but something doesn't seem quite right.

So which comes first: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe or The Magician's Nephew?

The short answer is this: Jeb is right.

The long answer is this: Lewis wrote The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe before any of the other Narnia books, and traditionally it has been considered the first in the series. For years, its publisher marketed it that way. Then, about a decade ago, Narnia became a piece of real estate in the HarperCollins empire. The renumbering took place "in compliance with the original wishes of the author," as a small-print statement on the copyright page of the new editions says.

The decision was based in large part upon a 1957 comment in which Lewis expressed a mild preference for the books to be read not in the order of their publication, but based upon their internal chronology. It also involved the input from Douglas Gresham, Lewis's son-in-law. "I don't think people should feel enslaved by the numbers on the books," he says. "But I recommend starting with The Magician's Nephew and going from there."

Unfortunately, this wasn't the best advice. The irony is that Lewis himself probably would agree that readers shouldn't look to him for much guidance on the subject. And I'm fairly certain that if Lewis were still around — he died on the day JFK was shot — I could buy him a drink at the pub and persuade him he was wrong.

Just for the record, here are the seven titles in The Chronicles of Narnia, listed in the order of their publication: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (1950); Prince Caspian (1951); The Voyage of the "Dawn Treader" (1952); The Silver Chair (1953); The Horse and His Boy (1954); The Magician's Nephew (1955); and The Last Battle (1956).

Here's the order HarperCollins now gives to the series (with their traditional numbering in parentheses): The Magician's Nephew (6); The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (1); The Horse and His Boy (5); Prince Caspian (2); The Voyage of the "Dawn Treader" (3); The Silver Chair (4); and The Last Battle (7).

Yet the case for reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe first rather than second is overwhelming. Most important is the fact that the book introduces the world of Narnia to its readers far better than The Magician's Nephew, or any of the other books in the Chronicles. Lucy's initial encounter with Aslan's domain is one of the great moments in whole series, as she passes through the wardrobe, hears the "crunch-crunch" of snow beneath her feet, and walks toward a light in the distance.

The device of the portal, which transports readers from our world to another, is crucial. For starters, it's a traditional feature of fantasy literature for children — see, for instance, the rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland or that railroad platform in Harry Potter. The portal described in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is more detailed and compelling than the ones found in subsequent books, which employ portals but don't dwell on their significance. (With the exception of The Horse and His Boy, each of the Narnia books has a portal.) The early chapters of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe focus on the important question of whether there can even be portals. "But do you really mean, Sir," asks Peter, "that there could be other worlds — all over the place, just around the corner — like that?" Replies the professor: "Nothing is more probable." This is a meaningful conversation on many levels, and not least because it confirms the reality of Narnia in the space of the story.

What's more, when Lewis began writing The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, he did not even conceive of writing the other books at all. As a result, he presents Narnia with a freshness that won't be found elsewhere in the series. You might compare it to the freshness of the crunching snow beneath Lucy's feet. Not only does Lewis lead his readers into a new world, but he's looking upon it for the first time himself, and it shows.

There's no such freshness in The Magician's Nephew, which begins this workmanlike way: "This is a story about something that happened long ago when your grandfather was a child. It is a very important story because it shows how all the comings and goings between our own world and the land of Narnia first began." These opening words assume readers will know there's a place called Narnia and that there are comings and goings between it and our world. In other words, the passage takes for granted a familiarity with tales Lewis already has told.

Leland Ryken and Marjorie Lamp Mead make the point well in their new book, A Reader's Guide Through the Wardrobe: "To read The Magician's Nephew first would be to undercut the very fabric by which Lewis so carefully constructed his previous tale. Once readers know 'all about' Narnia, they can no longer experience the full strangeness of Lucy's discovery of a mysterious world within the wardrobe," they write. "If the reader first experiences Narnia by reading The Magician's Nephew, all of this significant suspense is lost."

Then there's Aslan. He is of course as important to The Chronicles of Narnia as Jesus is to the gospels. And once again, Lewis brings him into the story with enormous care. His name first appears in chapter seven, when the Pevensie kids hear Mr. Beaver speak it: "They say Aslan is on the move — perhaps has already landed." Next Lewis writes:

And now a very curious thing happened. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do; but the moment the Beaver had spoken these words everyone felt quite different. Perhaps it has sometimes happened to you in a dream that someone says something which you don't understand but in the dream it feels as if it had enormous meaning — either a terrifying one which turns the whole dream into a nightmare or else a lovely meaning too lovely to put into words, which makes the dream so beautiful that you remember it all your life and are always wishing you could get into that dream again. It was like that now.

This passage certainly belongs in the first book of the Chronicles. That's especially true for the second sentence: "None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do." This line could not be spoken to people who already have read other Narnia books. Moreover, the very final words of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe sound like the appropriate final words for the first book in a series: "It was only the beginning of the adventures of Narnia."

There is nothing comparable to any of this in The Magician's Nephew. (Final words: "But she was a dem fine woman, sir, a dem fine woman.") No part of The Magician's Nephew demands that it be read before The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It is in fact a kind of prequel to the other six books in the series, but this is no more a problem in the overall narration of the Chronicles than a flashback scene is a problem on a television show.

The case for pushing The Magician's Nephew to the forefront rests almost wholly on the apparent fact that Lewis himself believed it should be read first. He doesn't seem to have held this opinion with great conviction. He expressed his view in a letter to a child in 1957, in a conversation with one of his biographers, and evidently nowhere else. He certainly didn't order his publisher to take any special action. By the time HarperCollins rearranged the titles, Lewis had been dead for more than thirty years.

But even if Lewis had been a fervent believer in the primacy of The Magician's Nephew — writing manifestos, screaming from rooftops, paying for TV ads during the Superbowl — his readers wouldn't owe him any special consideration. And Lewis definitely was a fervent believer in this principle.

In the 1930s, when Lewis was a relatively unknown scholar at Oxford, he debated E.M.W. Tillyard over how to interpret John Milton. Tillyard maintained that it was important to understand what was on Milton's mind as he wrote and that such an understanding would help reveal the true meaning of Paradise Lost. Lewis, by contrast, was frustrated to find many of his students more interested in authors' lives than their works. And he thought Tillyard's approach was pure balderdash. In an essay, he called it "The Personal Heresy." He believed that readers should try to share a poet's consciousness rather than study it. "I look with his eyes, not at him," wrote Lewis. "The poet is not a man who asks me to look at him; he is a man who says 'look at that' and points; the more I follow the pointing of his finger the less I can possibly see of him." Lewis put the matter more succinctly in a letter toward the end of his life: "An author doesn't necessarily understand the meaning of his own story better than anyone else."

Lewis of course understood the meaning of Narnia. But a wise expert is not the same thing as a final authority — and on the question of which Narnia book should come first, Lewis was utterly wrong. Thank goodness the people who are behind new movie version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe — as well as Jeb Bush — got it right. You should, too, if you decide to explore Narnia not just on the silver screen but also on the printed page.

John J. Miller is national political reporter for National Review and the co-author, most recently, of Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France He is author of the upcoming A Gift of Freedom: How the John M. Olin Foundation Changed America.

November 12, 2005

Vice President's Remarks at a Remembrance Ceremony for Veterans Day

Sorry this is a day late--Yesterday was frenetically crazy--but I wanted to post this. The speech is excellent, the sentiment unmatched. I hope everyone took the time yesterday--everyday--to thank God for our veterans. I hope you were able to thank one of them. What they have given in every war, this one included, is unmatched. They fight so we don't have to. They fight so that we can absorb the benefits of freedom--our own, our neighbours', our fellow humans'.

Tomb of the Unknowns
Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington, Virginia
11:41 A.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Members of the Cabinet, members of Congress, members of the Armed Forces, veterans, fellow Americans: thank you for the warm welcome. It's a high honor to join in this ceremony, and to be in the company of so many veterans of the United States military.

It is fitting that we gather at Arlington National Cemetery, for it is the final resting place of thousands of our veterans. Near us are President John F. Kennedy, General John J. Pershing and General Marshall, Major Audie Murphy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

All around us today are reminders of the men and women who stepped forward, in every generation, to serve the United States and the cause of freedom and who as veterans continue to make a contribution for the welfare of our nation.

Each year, on the 11th of November the American people pause to recognize the veterans who served across the years. And we offer special thanks to those who still walk among us. Approximately 25 million of our fellow citizens once carried the title of Marine, soldier, airman, sailor, Coast Guardsman, National Guardsman, Merchant Mariner, and now carry the title of veteran. We know them as our neighbors, friends, colleagues, and family members. They make us proud to be Americans.

Many of our veterans served in a great war in the middle of the last century. You are the ones who fought in Europe and the Pacific to throw back tyrants, to answer aggression, and to liberate millions. Others of you defended our interests in the mountains of Korea, or in the jungles of Vietnam, or during the long vigil of the Cold War, or in the caves of Afghanistan and the sands of the Middle East. Whenever and wherever your service took place, you earned this nation's respect on the day you first put on the uniform -- and you still have our respect today.

America is still home to a few who served in uniform during the First World War, which came to an end 87 years ago today. Their ranks have grown very thin, yet this nation will never forget all they did for us. One of these gentlemen, Emiliano Mercado del Toro, recently celebrated his 114th birthday. (Applause.) He is believed to be the oldest man in the world, and he is a proud veteran of the United States Army. (Applause.)

America's military veterans served our country in many different circumstances -- from intense battlegrounds, to the high seas, to far-away landing fields, to bases closer here to home. Yet all of them, throughout their service, shared the same fundamental commitments. They took an oath to serve a cause greater than self-interest. They lived by a code, and dedicated themselves to the highest standards of discipline and loyalty, diligence and faithfulness to duty. And they stood ready, if duty required it, to fight and to die for our country.

Because such men and women have always been willing to serve, our nation has been able to win freedom for others, to hold off the ambitions of the violent, and to keep the peace in troubled places. And above all, thanks to our veterans, the people of this great nation have lived in freedom for 229 years. We owe them our liberty.

Veterans understand profoundly the meaning of service and sacrifice -- so they are not the kind of people who take life for granted. And they, along with all Americans, hold a special place in memory for those who fell in the line of duty, many of whom also rest here in Arlington.

A few moments ago I presented a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns, as a symbol of this nation's respect for those who never lived to be called veterans. Marine Joe Foss, who earned the Medal of Honor in World War II, used to say, "Those of us who lived have to represent those who didn't make it." And this, also, is a sign of the character of our veterans. Across this country, in communities of every size, military veterans show the very ideal of good citizenship.

Veterans are comfortable with responsibility and gladly accept positions of leadership. They look out for each other, and move swiftly to the side of fellow citizens in need. They build and care for war memorials. They stand behind our men and women in uniform, and welcome home our returning soldiers. They give moral support and encouragement to those who have come home with injuries and who face a hard road ahead. And they provide a daily example of dependability, physical and moral strength, and unselfish courage.

Americans appreciate these qualities even more during a time of war. In this young century, our nation has seen what harm our enemies can inflict, and the kind of destruction they still intend for free nations. And we are deeply grateful to the men and women who rise every day in defense of America and our friends. Today's generation of American service members are performing their duties with skill, with effectiveness, and with honor. They are deployed on many fronts in the war on terror, tracking the enemies of freedom and holding them to account. They have taken down two dictatorships and liberated 50 million people from tyranny. And at this hour they continue their work -- striking hard against the forces of murder and chaos, conducting raids, countering attacks, seizing weapons, capturing killers. Members of the active duty armed forces, National Guard, and reserves have faced hard conditions -- tough duty, long deployments, and the loss of comrades. Our nation has said farewell to some of our finest, and we mourn their passing. We grieve with their families. We will honor their memory forever.

Many times since this war began, the people of the United States have learned of heroic actions taken by members of our military. There is simply no way to overstate the quality and the bravery of their performance. Difficult missions are still to come, and we cannot know every turn that lies ahead. Yet we can be certain that by the resolve of our country, by the rightness of our cause, and by the character of our fighting forces, we will prevail. (Applause.)

Well over two centuries have passed since George Washington first took command of the Continental Army. Yet we can see in today's military the same virtues that won this nation our independence, and which have safeguarded our country despite all the challenges of history. The men and women who wear the uniform in the year 2005 follow in a long, honorable, and unbroken tradition of service passed down to them by our veterans. To every veteran, this nation owes a debt we cannot possibly discharge but we will always acknowledge. And so on this day of reflection and appreciation, on behalf of the President, I offer the nation's esteem and gratitude to all the veterans of the United States Armed Forces.

Thank you very much.

END 11:50 A.M. EST

November 09, 2005

more pictures

Here are some more post-Katrina pictures of Slidell New Orleans. I was talking with my mom the other day, lamenting that it's impossible to share with people who haven't spent time there, what it's like to see these cities so eerily devestated. She said it's even harder/more bizarre when you've grown up there. She told me that one of the guys my dad works with drives down I-65 through Slidell and N.O. to work every week and said that as he drove by the city, it was dark. The city isn't supposed to be dark. I can't really imagine seeing that--like a great black hole where there ought to be life.

Inside the Kleem's house:

Yet, amidst it all, still humour.

November 07, 2005

pictures--thpt; dancing--yay

Right now, I'm busily trying to learn about changing pizel-size on my Katrina pics so that I can post them. I thought I had a solution figured out by using a paint program, but then I realized it leaves a big white space around the picture. Hmm. I'll get it figured out.

On a different note, Friday night was the BRCCS Victorian Ball. Sounds nerdy, I know, but it's really a killer good time. It requires dressing to the nines (either in Victorian wear or modern formal wear), and participating in dances that actually require steps and twirling. It's fantastic. I took my brother because I couldn't find a date in the short amount of time I had--we did have a basketball scrimmage that night, but it was cancelled on Monday. The problem I usually find is that my circle of high-school graduated guys is rather limited. Of those, there are only a few who are single, and even fewer who wouldn't be weirded out or overly-analytical about my asking them to a ball. And those were busy. But my brother is a sweetheart to go with me--he just doesn't dance. :p Oh well. I danced. At any rate, the ball was very much fun, so I thought I would share.

As soon as I teach myself how to resize my pictures, they will be up.