Ideas To Remember On Memorial Day Weekend

Who remembers John Logan?

Gary Ecelbager, author of Black Jack Logan: An Extraordinary Life in Peace and War, accurately describes that Jack A. Logan "may be the most noteworthy nineteenth-century American to go unnoticed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries." How true that is! Amidst barbecues, family gatherings, and alcohol, we forget the reason we celebrate Memorial Day. Most people seem to know the basics of the story-- that it's a holiday meant to remember deceased veterans who fought for the country. Few, however, know that it is thanks to John Logan's eloquent influence and activities in veterans' affairs  that we celebrate one of the country's favorite holidays for debauchery-- third only to the holy-days (no sarcastic pun intended) of Christmas and Easter.

There is a lot of information on this topic online, and I don't like to spend too much time paraphrasing encyclopedic data. Therefore, instead of giving you a review of the history, I suggest you Google the topic if it interests you, and also check out this blog which I think is an excellent exposition of the history: "Memorial Day History" Also, if you happen to be in Jackson County, Illinois this weekend, be sure to stop by this amazing museum in Murphysboro dedicated entirely to John Logan: Logan Museum.


Joys of Memorial Day

I like Memorial Day because it is a day when Americans from all sides of the ideological spectrum drop their differences and join together as one human race to remember those who died in battle. It is a day of unity when we honor all who died while serving the Department of Defense (formerly and more accurately the Department of War, the new euphemism is so reminiscent of Orwellian newspeak!), and we honor their memory regardless of whether or not the cause they fought for was a popular one. That means that yes, even Confederate soldiers are entitled to this remembrance, as unpopular as their cause may be in the modern world. After all, these men and women are all children of America, just fighting over toys like kids in a sandbox. Like any parent, America smiles, urges them back indoors before their dinner gets cold, and then lulls them to sleep in her warm mother's arms. Mothers never take sides, and humans are always like children; only that when they're older, their toys are more expensive and their fights bloodier. Nature, beautiful as it is by daylight in spring, has a terrifying aspect hanging on the midnight sky of the wildest and most secluded forests of the land. And so it is in human affairs. Even the great, brave, and just grey-eyed goddess Athena has a dark side to her-- Pallas, the name she adopted from her beloved black sister, whom she killed by accident in game. That's her story, of course, and she's sticking to it.

With the public, certain causes are more popular than others because history is usually told from the victor's point of view. It is the victor's prerogative and privilege to get to write a story in which he is the protagonist and his opponent the most evil antagonist. As I always say, your antagonist is the protagonist in the novel in which you are the antagonist. You may think you know what is right and wrong a priori, but such values are taught by the culture-- and the culture was born out of a struggle against those who do not agree with those ideas. Even my cat's idea of right and wrong is defined by my feedback as the authority figure in his life. For example, he knows it's "wrong" to hang out in the washroom because I chastise him every time he exits the house to explore rooms in the property that I consider unsafe for him. It's not universal truth, and it is not objectively wrong for a cat to exit the house at will, but it is the rule I have enforced. Like any creature, his natural desire is always in conflict with the social contract, so sometimes he tries to sneak out when I am not looking-- but quickly runs in when I give him the eye. Some living creatures are better at following rules than others, and though it may seem like I'm going on a tangent, the idea is the same-- right and wrong is defined by the culture and authority. The culture gets to do that because they were more physically and intellectually effective at selling that truth, plus it helps if they hold power of the money supply. But humans are fickle creatures with short attention spans, and they get bored of their truths rather quickly. Hence, why the idea of truth changes every age, and what was true yesterday is falsehood today.These are things to keep in mind when we are tempted to judge those groups that are demonized by those who hold the mighty pen and scepter of historical authority.

As everyone fights greedily for their values-- whether on the bloody battlefield or the passive aggressive ballroom-- few see that their ideas are not universal truth, only what suits them. It is good to have a value system by which to stand in the journey of life, the same way it is good for travellers to carry a map with them. It is everyone's duty as a human being to live by and stand up for their right to their truth. However, it is good to retain perspective and understand that other causes were just as important to other people as ours are to us. There would be fewer wars if more of us understood this. We don't have to agree with the Confederate cause to sympathize with them. We don't have to be rock-warming philosophers to understand that if the Confederate side had won, we would have been raised on history books and stories that paint the Union States as the villain-- and we would've believed it and repeated it to our kids, because we humans believe anything that is repeated long enough, especially if repeated by the majority. We humans seem to be programmed to believe that the majority knows best. Just some food for thought before we condemn.

Memorial Day Celebration

There is some criticism floating out there regarding the way Americans celebrate Memorial Day. "This is a day to remember those who lost their lives in battle," they say, "not to gorge on food at a family barbecue." Could it be that the complementary aspect of remembering the dead is celebrating life? As we remember the deceased loved ones we took for granted and imagined would last us forever, we are reminded of our mortality and how frail life really is. It makes sense to use the holiday to celebrate life as we remember those we lost. After all, we are headed that way ourselves regardless of profession, and time's wing'd chariot waits for no one-- not even the grieving.

Taken by Jane Calderon at Rose Hills Memorial Park in Whittier, CA. Allegedly, the largest cemetery in the U.S.

Every Memorial Day, and on the anniversary of the death of a loved one, I always recall and recite this poem by Thomas Hardy.

"Now I am dead you sing to me 
The songs we used to know, 
But while I lived you had no wish 
Or care for doing so. 
 Now I am dead you come to me 
In the moonlight, comfortless; 
Ah, what would I have given alive 
To win such tenderness! 
 When you are dead, and stand to me 
Not differenced, as now, 
But like again, will you be cold 
As when we lived, or how?:

It's good to honor the dead, but even better to honor them alive when they can appreciate it. Since we know we are all going to die, whether in battle or warm in our beds, it makes sense to be kinder to each other before Atropos decides to cut the frail thread of life. One of the ways to do this is to celebrate life, and all the great things in it with one's loved ones. As Siduri tells Gilgamesh in The Epic of Gilgamesh:

"Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? 
You will never find the life for which you are looking. 
When the gods created man 
they alloted to him death, 
but life they retained in their own keeping. 
As for you, Gilgamesh,
fill your belly with good things;
 day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, 
feast and rejoice.
 Let your clothes be fresh, 
bathe yourself in water, 
cherish the little child that holds your hand, 
and make your wife happy in your embrace; 
for this too is the lot of man."


Sounds like a fantastic lot if you ask me. As we reflect on the brevity of life and remember deceased soldiers during a moment of silence, it makes more sense to rejoice with the family for the majority of the weekend. Does it not?

Happy Memorial Day Weekend, and enjoy your lot!!

A Rebuke Against Zuckerburg's Critics

On Saturday, May 19th, 2012, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerburg changed his relationship status to "Married" as he finally exchanged vows with his ten-year girlfriend Priscilla Chan. This was just one day after his company made its anticipated debut in the stock market at $42 a share. What a weekend it must have been for the lad who has revolutionized the way we communicate. Congratulations to him and his beautiful bride! It is the highs of life that make every other effort and journey worth every step of the way.

I am sad to report that people who have commented on the myriad articles that report this same news have nothing but negative things to say about Zuckerburg, his wedding, and his financial success. Most people condemn him for how much money his company has made. If you were him, would you not want to earn more money from your invention? Others chastise him and accuse him of being a "sucker" for having so much money and getting married, claiming that it won't be long before a divorce settlement takes place. If you were in love, would you not marry the girl who's been holding your hand since before you were worth anything to the world? And if you've never experienced any of the above, why shamelessly bare the green-eyed monster eating away at you? If you are hyperanalytical and have not had the courage to pursue the things that make life worth living out of fear that everything that can possibly go wrong will, you have no right to criticize those who do. Don't infect a happy moment by showing your bitterness against people you've never even met, just because they had the courage to seize the day, and the right moment of fortune to shine.

I'm just tired of the bitter and critical masses who, like the dog in the manger from the Aesop fable, don't eat and try to keep others from eating too. I just cannot help but marvel at how good people are at forecasting the worst when they see people are happily enjoying their milestones. When you turn twenty-one, naysayers warn the excitement will wear off. If you're considered attractive by many, many will provide the illuminating analysis that you will grow old. When you get engaged, by god, people will perform all types of tricks to dissuade the couple. At every joyful event, there is Discord ready to fling her poisonous apple, filling the room with warnings of impending doom.  A person who understands the fabric and components of life knows that there will be lows at some point, but doesn't allow that to ruin the high of a good stage of life's itinerary. Similarly, when they're low they understand that the grass will grow again and quietly wait out the storm in the warmth of their cottage, as that is the cycle of life. Discernment and wisdom are the best antidotes against the mob and their typical mechanisms which usually work to cure their envy at one's expense. However, the wise man and woman sees through such trifles.

Instead of being happy for him, many are looking forward to when things go wrong, tarnishing the moment with predictions of the worst possible outcomes. Such defense mechanisms point out to extreme jealousy. Life about ups and downs, and I'm pretty sure that an intelligent man like Zuckerburg, who is deep and well-read in the classics, understands this concept. I'm certain he doesn't go nuts like most people when things go wrong because like a good strategist, he always sees two or three steps ahead and already has plans for each possible scenario, and has allowed wiggle room for those outcomes that may be impossible to foresee. In life and strategy, it is good to expect the unexpected, but never let impending doom ruin any moment.

I'm sure Zuckerburg understands his choice, weighed advantages and consequences over a long period of time beforehand, and knows that life is about risk. One of his quotations on Facebook is from Virgil's The Aeneid, and it appropriately reads "Fortune favors the bold." I know this society favors the underdog and that the quickest way to lose favor with the masses is to invent a product that is so successfully embraced by most that the founder becomes a billionaire. If he's successful, good for him! If you think his product is overrated, the first step would be to leave Facebook. People always complain about Facebook, and yet, I've never seen someone actually follow through on their threat to quit facebook for more than three days. There must be something people like about it. For that reason, in the name of all of us who are on Facebook and use Facebook to complain about Facebook-- Zuckerburg deserves every billion he gets!!

I admire Zuckerburg because despite how rich and successful he's become, he's retained his simplicity. It took a wedding event to get him out of his comfortable hooded sweater and slip into a tuxedo. Priscilla Chan too, is very simple. Her About Me reads: "Loves cooking and soft things. I like the Food Network, warm places, sun-dried tomatoes,  and diet a&w. I am a simple creature." And a natural beauty too. With minimal makeup she flaunted her perfect skin and celebrated her nuptials in a simple, sleeveless dress which covered her arms with lace.  They had a small wedding consisting of fewer than one hundred guests. Zuckerburg's money never got to his head-- he has been romancing the same girl for over 3,500 nights and has now led her to a new beginning by saying "I do."  Their wedding was small and meaningful, not ostentatiously vulgar like the gaudy weddings staged by the tacky nouveau riche of Hollywood and surrounding ghettos; such people try to compensate in appearance what they lack in substance, but people of deeper wisdom like Zuckerburg and Chan have no need for such displays.

I wish Mark Zuckerburg and Priscilla Chan the best in their new journey together!

Anonymous-- Review and Poetic Pleasures

I know I am late to the royal ball, but I finally had a chance to see Roland Emerich's Anonymous this weekend. I had been looking forward to the film since before its release, but unfortunately none of the theatres nearby were playing it. I suppose that is because they rightly predict that such a film would be of low interest in my area, which I admit with much disappointment in my fellow East Angelenos. When we finally got a chance to drive out to the closest theatre showing it, Occupy L.A. decided to march down in a hateful procession whose only accomplishment was to block the major streets and stand between us and the anticipated production. When we had a chance to drive out again, the movie was no longer out in theatres. We occasionally take trips to Blockbuster, and this weekend was the day when we finally found it. You may ask, "Why not buy it?" Because I seldom, if ever, watch the same movie twice, so it wouldn't make sense to buy a film I only intend to watch once. This film fascinated me so much, though, that I may wish to see it a second time; but now with websites like YouTube, I can watch it ten times more for free or for a fee much lower than one would pay for the illusion of "owning" the product. I already own a copy of the movie in the crevices of my memory and my heart.


Summary

Edward De Vere and Queen Elizabeth I

The central premise of this historical drama revolves around the theory that Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Southampton is the real author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare. Edward De Vere is a tragic figure who finds himself constantly having to choose between following his heartfelt passion for writing, and being at peace with his surroundings. Elizabethan society is one in which those who hold the strings of power repeatedly and bitterly attack theatre is as the pestilential enemy of good conduct and productive activity. William Cecil, who unluckily happens to be Queen Elizabeth's counselor and De Vere's guardian, is one of the most sanctimonious opponents of the art. This is why he sent one of his servants to search through teen De Vere's bedroom to seize his writings, which he was unable to do; De Vere, like an merciless lion protecting his cubs from a rapacious hyena,  plunged his sword into Cecil's spy before the wretch had a chance to steal the eminent lad's most beloved progeny.

One moment of wrathful impulse can have such irreversible consequences in a person's life even when it is in self-defense, and so it was the case with the young De Vere. Cecil chastised him for the murder, but conveniently used this to blackmail him into giving up writing and cornering him into a loveless marriage with his daughter Anne Cecil. The alternative would have possibly been a death sentence, and even then the idealistic De Vere hesitated before agreeing to be part of this unpleasant design. Ultimately, De Vere opted to follow orders-- marry the young Anne and agree to never write again. As dreadful as such a promise may sound to the passionate poet, he must have reasoned that hollow-eyed Death wouldn't have been any more sympathetic to his literary affinities than the entire Cecil family combined. In the latter case, at least, he would have the advantage of Life-- and as long as there is life, there is hope.

But just as a river that is dammed swells with more rage, so is Edward De Vere more afflicted by his poetic impulses under oppression. Not only does he continue to write in secret, but he falls in love with the Queen herself, who reciprocates his feelings. He courts her in the manner of a courtier, showers her with attention and it is not long before they begin a physical affair that leaves the Virgin Queen pregnant. Her counselor (William Cecil, who is also De Vere's father-in-law) orders her to be sent away to have the child in secret and never to see De Vere again. One would think that a queen can do what she will; but as those of us who know better realize, royalty and parliament are mere puppets of the politics and bureuacracy of their station. Within the frame of this story, one can more easily comprehend one of Queen Elizabeth's most famous poems:

"I grieve and dare not show my discontent; 

 I love, and yet am forced to seem to hate;

 I do, yet dare not say I ever meant; 

 I seem stark mute, but inwardly do prate. 

 I am, and not; I freeze and yet am burned, 

 Since from myself another self I turned. 

 My care is like my shadow in the sun— 

 Follows me flying, flies when I pursue it,

 Stands, and lies by me, doth what I have done; 

 His too familiar care doth make me rue it. 

 No means I find to rid him from my breast, 

 Till by the end of things it be supprest. 

 Some gentler passion slide into my mind, 

 For I am soft, and made of melting snow;

 Or be more cruel, Love, and so be kind. 

 Let me or float or sink, be high or low; 

 Or let me live with some more sweet content, 

 Or die, and so forget what love e'er meant."

"On Monsieur's Departure,"  Queen Elizabeth I

Young Elizabeth I

Both De Vere and Queen Elizabeth wish nothing more than to be with one another, possibly even marry, but William Cecil's schemes do not allow it. The puritanical Cecils set everything up to make both Queen Elizabeth and the Earl believe that the other cruelly abandoned the relationship, and that the other was only playing them for fun, and possibly for political power. The truth is that they really loved each other and could have had a happy marriage if the politicking, gossip and power plays hadn't interfered. Yet, they were both so quick to believe the worst,

"For where love reigns, disturbing jealousy

Doth call himself affection's sentinel

 Gives false alarms, suggesteth mutiny

And in a peaceful hour doth cry, 'Kill, kill

 Distemp'ring gentle love in his desire 

As air and water do abate the fire.

 This sour informer, this bate-breeding spy,

 This canker that eats up love's tender spring,

This carry-tale, dissentious jealousy,

That sometimes true news, sometime false doth bring."

"Venus and Adonis," 649-58.  William Shakespeare

William Cecil advises De Vere to just be good to his daughter, make him lots of grandchildren, and try to behave from now on since Anne is so gracious to forgive him. Of course, he is now under stricter scrutiny, and being just another player in the court, the hapless Earl has no choice but to comply to his director's commands. 'Tis true and accurate, then, that

"All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players.

 They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts"

As You Like It, 2.7: 138-65. William Shakespeare

Young Edward De Vere

The film presents the story from various time frames, but the most pivotal action of the film's plot takes place in De Vere's middle age. After a lifetime of struggling against the taboo to write, middle-aged Edward De Vere comes up with a plan to allow his prodigious collection of plays to see the light of day on the stage. Since he couldn't simply disregard public opinion and follow his heart despite of it, he asks Ben Jonson to feign authorship. Jonson fears that the Earl's lack of talent will stain his good name, so he allows his knavish friend William Shakespeare to take his place in the assignment. The plays are a success, and so is the film Anonymous.  Like a good theatre production, it is a fantastic plot filled with intrigue, quotable speeches, politics, poetry, dramatic passions, star-crossed lovers, betrayal, lies and even hints of incest. By the end of the film, we are led to suspect that Elizabeth had many bastard children and that De Vere may be one of them. And just like Queen Elizabeth's unclaimed children, the progeny of the brilliant De Vere's mind will never bear the name of their creator. Rather, the brilliant works will be attributed to a country buffoon whose foolishness and greedy villainy grow worse in proportion with his undeserved fame. Indeed, the most mournful part of the movie is when an elderly Elizabeth tells Edward De Vere, that his works will never bear his name. Such is the image of the beloved William Shakespeare that this film presents to us.

Middle-aged Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Southampton

Conspiracy Theory 



Rather than allow my voice to mingle with the common clamor of the mob's complaints against the pejoratively labeled "conspiracy theory," I choose to open myself to the idea that there might be some truth to what is presented to us as fiction. Though conjectural, it may suggest a plausible answer to the question that has puzzled Shakespearean scholars for centuries. I am not so emotionally attached to the "official stories" in the pages of history that I need to become defensive by the mere suggestion that "truth" may be otherwise than how we were raised to believe. History, after all, is written by those who hold the scepter of power at the time, and that isn't quite a reliable measure of truth. There are many gems of information buried beneath the rubble of the years that we may never know of only because they belonged to the nameless, faceless, and powerless masses. Or in the case of the Earl Of Southampton, the circumstances were such that the power structure demanded that history be written in the way that does not mar the sanctity and reputation of the Commonwealth. Therefore, it is folly to be completely blinded by the "official" story, and not pay attention to the grains of truth in fiction.

I am not completely convinced either way since I did not live in those times, so I cannot tell you for sure whether Shakespeare really was a fraud. "So I have heard, and do in part believe it," says Hamlet's wise friend Horatio in 1.1.146, and I second that . There are ample grounds for speculation regarding the true authorship of the works. Given the scanty biographical data that have come down to us, it is impossible to know anything for certain.  In fact, I believe that even if we had lived in those times, few of us would have been able to see through the fraud if there had been one-- for most cannot even see through frauds in their own time. From the handful who can see through the artifice of their century, even fewer are willing to risk their reputation by openly going against the tyranny of the majority. The story of De Vere and his unwillingness to go public with his beloved works shows the great power that manipulative social forces can have on an individual and on the pages of history. History-- perhaps one of the best works of fiction yet; humans-- the players.

Elizabethan fun at the Renaissance Faire

Reaction To Obama's Support of Gay Marriage

Whether you love Obama for publicly supporting gay marriage, or hate him for it-- I tell you, do not waste your emotions on a politician. Their decisions are never personally-motivated, but rather are simply strategic moves on the chess game of public office. For all we know, the man Obama could've been in favor of homosexuality this whole time, or it could be that to this day he is secretly against it. It doesn't matter. It's all political, and this move ensures him a new voting base and a place in history. That's his true goal-- never be moved by silly speeches, for they are like the Sirens' entrancing yet deceptive call. I know if you're gay, all that matters to you us that he approved it, and that you might be one step closer to marrying your sweetheart. That's fine, but before you glorify the politician who unfetters your wings, make sure to see that you are not trapped in a large platinum cage where you must repay the favor by worshipping the golden calf.

Twilight Hates Poor People?

Some time ago I came across this great blog, Happily Cynic, in which I read this very interesting interpretation of Breaking Dawn: Part One:

"Thus my realization that the new Twilight movie hates women. But in watching (the rather visually stunning) Breaking Dawn: Part One, I realized that the movie also hates poor people. The friendly, sexy vampires are wealthy. Their outfits are Versace and Forever 21 chic. Don't even get me started on their glamorous-as-f**k house. Compare that to the werewolves, the mythical category to which Jacob (Edward's romantic rival) belongs. These people are lower-income, speak much more plainly, and are not objects of romantic desire" (Brit McGinnis).

While I do not agree entirely with the statement, it was refreshing to read an interpretation that differs from the exhaustingly repetitive feminist rants against the Twilight franchise. Though the blog I currently analyse has a tinge of the modern mainstream feminism that dreadfully pricks my timeless sensibilities, I appreciated reading something more than the prototypical "Twilight hates women" critique. I am more compelled by the economic approach because it is more rare in Twilight analysis and because it make more sense in theory. Amidst rebukes against the richest 1%  and the class conflicts that have incited Occupy movements across the nation, a film critic can make a good case by interpreting the plot in terms of classism. Nevertheless, I disagree with the assertion that the determining factor in  Bella's love choice was Edward's wealth because everything in the movie suggests otherwise.

Bella was entranced by Edward the moment she first set eyes on him in at Forks High School, which is before she even suspects that he is filthy rich. As far as Jacob is concerned, though she's known him her whole life, it isn't until after he cuts his hair and builds up his body that Bella notices him in a romantic way. In modern culture, short cropped hair and built bodies are considered desirable in men. Edward only had to gaze into her eyes to win her heart, whereas Jacob had to work out and work hard just to get a second's worth of attention from the lass.  On this basis, one can conclude that she is only in lust with Jacob and in love with Edward. Therefore, her final decision merely depicts the lofty ideal that few men attain but to which all aspire-- to wisely choose love over lust, and to be able to tell the difference.

"Call it not love, for love to heaven is fled

Since sweating lust on earth usurped his name,

Under whose simple semblance he hath fed

Upon fresh beauty, blotting it with blame

Which the hot tyrant stains, and soon bereaves

As caterpillars do the tender leaves.

Love comforteth, like sunshine after rain,

But lust's effect is tempest after sun.

Love's gentle spring doth always fresh remain;

Lust's winter comes ere summer half be done.

Love surfeits not; lust like a glutton dies.

Love is all truth, lust full of forged lies."

Adonis, in William Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, lines 793-804

Despite the movie's idealism, Bella is not nearly as adamant as our Adonis from Shakespeare's adaptation of this myth. However, I suspect that Bella would not have been as moved by aesthetic delights if Edward had still been in the picture when Jacob's physical improvement took place. When her true love Edward returns to her eager embrace, Bella simply cannot help but ignore all else-- for the splendour of true love eclipses even the most scintillating beauty of the mid-morning sun. One may feel for Jacob because it seems he really loves Bella, but so does Edward, so either way a heart will end up broken, if not three if a series of unpremeditated choices were to take place; a lady cannot possibly make two happy and live to tell the tale. Better for one heart to be broken than two, for "no one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other" (Matthew 6:24).  One cannot feel too bad for Jacob, though, because he knew fully the contents of Bella's heart, yet it was his choice to make the doleful attempt to persuade her otherwise. It did not work, of course, because as the hapless Christopher Marlowe once said, "It lies not in our power who to love or hate/ Will in us is overruled by fate."

It is clear that Edward is the one Bella really loves, and we cannot blame her. He is classy, protective, serious, devoted, well-read, poetic, deep, sensitive, and more eloquent than an entire chorus of angels from Elysian Fields. One doesn't have to be rich to display these qualities, but Edward happens to be wealthy too. He is also handsome, but in such a charming and modest way that it seems he's not even aware of it, which only triples the divinity of beauty in living things. Edward's aesthetic delightfulness is discreet and merely the final touch, and not advertised as a selling point.

His family does engage in ornamental displays of wealth which strikes us as excessive in a minimalist age, but we must recall that they are an ancient family who come from a time when such displays were fashionable. For that reason, appearances alone cannot lead us to conclude that Edward is indeed wealthier than Jacob. The wolf clan seem to  prefer the simplicity of nature reminiscent of Romanticism and current minimalism, and I suspect that even if they owned all the wealth of the Rothschild family, they would still choose the natural and simple environment of the woods. If such is the case, it is impossible to be able to distinguish whether or not the wolf clan is wealthy, and therefore the theory of classism is null and void.

Sergeant Gary Stein-- First Amendment Hero

Sergeant Gary Stein, a nine-year Marine veteran, has been "other than honorably discharged" for creating a Facebook page by the name of "Armed Forces Tea Party," which expresses anti-establishment views and shares anti-Obama images for comic relief. One of these image shows the president’s face superimposed onto a jackass, according to the reports by the Associated Press. Sergeant Stein, his lawyer, and the rest of us his supporters are currently challenging the discharge on grounds of the First Amendment. Stein said, “It hurts me to know that I could be punished for the one of the constitutional rights I have give the last nine years of my life to protect.” The discharge also makes him  ineligible for most veteran benefits. The last nine years do not matter -- the minute one hurts the frail ego and threatens the brittle pride of the master, one is "hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky," just as happened to Satan "whose guile stirred up Envy and Revenge" (line's 34-35 in Book 1 of Paradise Lost) in the creator's sensitive (and, uh-- insecure?) heart. Everyone knows art imitates life, but I love it even more when life imitates art because it gives me an excuse to quote from my favorite classics.

It is quite an irony, is it not? The military recruits young people to fight for the interests of old men in power; they achieve this by uniting troops around a cause founded on ideals that make their strongest impression in the very young or the very naive. In 33 Strategies of War, Robert Green explains that "the way to get soldiers to work together and maintain morale is to make them feel part of a group that is fighting for a worthy cause. That distracts them from their own interests and satisfies their human need to feel part of something bigger than they are. The more they think of the group, the less they think of themselves." One of the most cliched causes in the repertoire of the American crusade against Middle Eastern countries is to spread democracy. In an essay titled "Why The United States Should Spread Democracy," written in 1998 and published by the Center For Science and International Affairs (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html), its author Sean M. Lynn Jones argues, "Democratic political systems-- especially those of liberal democracies constrain the power of governments, reducing their ability to commit mass murders of their own populations. As Rummel concludes, 'Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely ... The more freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus, the more thoroughly it can repress and murder its subjects.' Democratic polities allow opposition to be expressed openly and have regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power..."  Interesting that when a Marine exercises the "Democratic polity" he has fought for, he is "other than honourably" dismissed from his Marine position for speaking 'disparagingly' against Obama.

When I brought this up on Facebook yesterday, a Facebook friend explained to me that the military world works very different from the civilian world: "Mocking the CEO of a company can get you fired, and the president of the United States is the leader of the military as Commander in Chief. My father was told in no uncertain terms that he could not write or speak against the president (JFK at the time) while he was in Okinawa, then Vietnam. Every military member knows this and you are asked not to join the military if you cannot respect authority. The military is about obeying orders so you don't die, and if you can't, out you go as you could cause the death of your fellow servicemen. I do not agree with everything government and military does, which is one of the many reasons I am not in the military. If you want to be the voice of opposition, you do not join in with 'The Man.' The military protects our rights from oppressors and they give up a lot for doing this, including freedom of speech in regards to their leader while they are serving under him."

Part of Gary Stein's offense was to exclaim that he would not follow unlawful orders from the President. That should be common sense, but in a world where common sense is the sense that is not common, perhaps not so. However, even orders that are cloaked by the deceitful veil of lawfulness should not be exempt from at least a dose of skepticism. After all, in World War II, the Nazis dutifully followed orders in order to maintain their honor as military men, but that caused them to face confrontation and punishment  in the Nuremburg trials after the defeat of Hitler's regime. This may seem like an extreme example, but if we really stop to think about it we would realize that for a while now, we haven't had a person in the White House that truly respects our Constitution. Obama, for example, feels he can do anything he wants without Congress or the Judicial branch saying anything. Troops take an oath to obey all orders from the President, so by disobeying it seems that Stein took his oath as seriously as Obama took his. Any leader worth a drop of respect leads from the front, and no teacher can penalize a student who only learned from example. A leader who uses idealistic rhetoric to recruit must do his best to stay as close to the same idealism as he leads. Even if the idealism is simply a tactic to camouflage greed, he should not get carried away in despotism if he wishes to keep his troops motivated.

I must admit that the person who explained the military rules to me is pragmatically correct in her admonishment against Sergeant Stein, for the reasons I shall explain. Criticizing leadership in either the military or the civilian world has such extreme consequences that most people prefer to perpetuate the code of silence, leading lives of quiet desperation behind a plastic smile of approval in their work teams composed of people they secretly cannot stand; they opt for Machiavellism which they soon find has more rewards than honesty and fairness, and it is thus how the system prevails in such a way.  Any good strategist knows that professional success depends more on how you make your superiors feel rather than how you actually perform as a worker. While performance is important, even the most talented can fall from grace if they say the wrong thing to hurt the frail ego of the master.

The hapless sergeant's blunder was to artlessly voice his opinions instead of doing what the duplicitous society encourages and rewards-- shameless Machiavelianism: giving the fake smile and secretly bad-mouthing those with whom they do not agree, stabbing opponents on the back with a velvet glove like everyone else. We have learned the lesson of how things ought to be done in the "real world" as is, rather than how things should be done in the more idealistic world that political leaders sell to us when they recruit youngsters for war. But who pays attention? Even Machiavelli said that only few can see through what really is, but most people only care about what seems to be.

In Robert Greene's 48 Laws Of Power, the first law is NEVER OUTSHINE THE MASTER: "Masters and superiors often want to be the center of all attention. They want to be seen as more brilliant, intelligent, creative and powerful than others. Obviously, they always want to have a great reputation. More often than not, they want to have control and supremacy over their followers. Moreover, they want to be glorified all the time. Of course, even masters have insecurities. People can’t help to be envious and resentful on the things don’t possess. As for these superiors, they always want to have a sense security in their position and qualities." This is so true, that as important as is the work of "soldiers who are fighting for our freedom", one comment against the master can cancel out a brilliant career of nine years of freedom-fighting. That is because they only think they're fighting for freedom, because how else would they be willing to give up everything if not for promises of glory and the illusion of ideals? In  33 Strategies of War, Greene reveals that "Now more than ever, people have a hunger to believe in something. They feel an emptiness, which, left alone, they might try to fill with drugs or spiritual fads, but you can take advantage of it by channeling it into a cause you can convince them is worth fighting for. Bring people together around a cause and you create a motivated force." It works wonders for the powers that be because most people do not see through it. I hope, however, that people are at least able to see through my sarcasm in the last three paragraphs.

Sergeant Stein may have been demoted in the ranks of the Marines, but he has been promoted in the hearts of the real Americans he thought he was fighting for. After giving up nine years of his youth fighting for the interests of old men and chasing empty prospects of glory for himself, he can now devote his time to fighting for what is more important-- his freedom of speech. Instead of fighting for sham causes abroad, he can turn his idealism into his own cause and live up to the demands of the First Amendment hero that he has become.

L.A. Times Festival of Books 2012

I had an amazing time this weekend of April 21st-22nd, 2012 at the 17th annual Los Angeles Times Festival of Books. Though I have enjoyed the event many times in the past since before it was moved permanently from UCLA to USC in 2011, this year was different because it was my first time participating in the event as a volunteer.

TROUTCO

My husband and I had been looking forward to the Festival for a few months now. As I browsed the event web page in eager anticipation one late afternoon on March 28th, I was fortunate enough to catch a glimpse of the "Volunteer" link on the upper right portion of the tabs row. I didn't think about it twice before filling out the application.  I received a confirmation almost instantly. A few days after my registration, I received a thank you letter via USPS, along with my assignment, a map, information about orientation, parking passes, and detailed information about the event.

Troutco is the name of the company that trains, coordinates, and manages volunteers not only for the Book Festival, but also for many other organizations that request its services. Larry Deckel is the volunteer coordinator, and he led an excellent orientation the Saturday prior to the event, as well as lead the 1000+ volunteers that participated this year.

Larry Deckel conducting a volunteer orientation of the USC campus on Saturday,  April 14, 2012.

Volunteers behind the scenes! To the far left is Naomi, and I am sitting to her left (wearing sunglasses). I didn't get the other girls' names.

Saturday, April 21st: DAY 1

I signed up to be a speaker escort for Saturday, April 21st and that is exactly what I was assigned. Since this is my first time participating, I wasn't sure which would be the job best compatible with my personality but I guessed it correctly. I rather enjoyed small meaningful literary conversations with the few other volunteers who shared my assignment as we waited to be called to escort our authors. It was also great to get to engage in small conversation with the authors on the way to and from their panel, as well as also get to be part of the audience and enjoy the amazing presentation.

I got to escort Janet Fitch, Julie Otsuka, and Christopher Tilghman.The name of the panel was "Fiction: Family Ties," and the authors discussed themes in their work that deal with home, family, love, and what these terms mean to the individual. For those bookworms who are like me, so immersed in classical literature that they we don't keep up with the modern living and breathing authors, here's a bit of information:

Janet Fitch, whose name I have seen many times copiously on bookshelves at Borders and Barnes and Noble but whose works don't ring a bell, she is the author of The White Oleander, which I hear was made famous by Oprah's Book Club and which was even turned into a movie in 2002.

Julie Otsuka is a prominent author of The Buddha In The Attic, a deep and touching account about Japanese brides who meet prospective husbands by mail just to have a chance to come to the United States. She is the winner of the 2012 PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction, Best Book Of The Year (Boston Globe), New York Times Notable Book, 2011 National Book Award Finalist, and Los Angeles Times Book Prize Finalist.

Christopher Tilghman is a professor and Director of the Creative Writing Program at the University of Virginia. Despite his incredibly busy schedule, he made time to take a trip to Los Angeles to talk about his latest best-seller Mason's Retreat. Despite his literary and professional accomplishments he is very humble and congenial. I got to chat with him on the way to the panel, and he shared stories about his life as a youth before his successes as a writer and professor. I found this talk very inspiring and encouraging.

Sunday, April 22nd: DAY 2

Me.

On Sunday the 22nd, I attended the event with my husband, and we had a blast. Our first stop was the amazing panel titled "Fiction and Fantasy: Otherworldly Adventures," with authors Greg Bear, Raymond E. Feist, Boyd Morrison, and moderated by Dr. Rob Latham, who is an English literature professor at the University of California Riverside and is also author of Consuming Youth: Vampires, Cyborgs, and the Culture of Consumption. As a lover of fantasy myself, it was truly a delight to listen to the authors discuss the imaginative processes they undergo as they develop the paracosms in which their plots take place, as well as describing the personalities of the characters that reside in these worlds.

My husband.

Two things that I remember the most from the panel: it's okay to be annoyed by the characters in a book because maybe they were meant to annoy, and also because you are not supposed to have to like every character. And two, when Raymond Feist said, "A character's actions do not have to make sense, they only have to make sense to the character because that is how people in real life are. Nobody sees themselves as the bad guy. Even Hitler would wake up every morning thinking he was doing his best, looking in the mirror and asking in distress 'Why doesn't anyone like me?!" This only reaffirmed my opinion that life is a novel and that everyone is a protagonist in their own book, but potentially an antagonist in the book of another. It all boils down to whose self-interest is threatened when making a judgment.

As we exited the panel, I happily followed my husband's suggestion: "Let's get lost." I put away my map and we simply walked through the fair and enjoyed the sights, exhibits, and music. We caught a glimpse of Florence Henderson being interviewed by Fritz Coleman.

We came across many interesting kiosks advertising different causes and companies. We discussed the masonic symbols in the architecture of USC, admired the flowers and took many photos. We came across a charming Egyptian store called "Luxor Bazaar," and we found an amazing bookstore where hardcover books cost $5 and soft cover books cost only $3.  My husband collects old books, so he took advantage to purchase more books for his collection. It definitely beats the International Antiquarian Book Fair where people are willing to sell and buy their books for over $1000s of dollars each as they discuss literature in French over fine wine. It's nice and all, but why pay that much when you can get your antiques at the $5 bookstore based in Simi Valley?

Me, admiring Bastet at Luxor Bazaar.

After that shopping spree, we headed to the L.A. Times booth to listen to a presentation by Chris Reynolds called "Titanic: 100 Years Later." We walked around some more, then we headed home with an assortment of pamphlets, a bag filled with books, and memories to cherish a lifetime.

L.A. Times Festival of Books 2012