I won't be finishing the Mao biography any time soon, but before I forget, here's a review of the last two books I read: No one belongs here more than you and Post Office.
No one belongs here more than you
Miranda July
You may recognize the name of the author for a different reason. A young rising face in the field of independent cinema, Miranda is the winner of the 2005 Camera d'Or prize from the Cannes Film Festival and was recently named the number one New Face of Indie Film by Filmmaker Magazine.
But I can attest, she's gifted in more than just cinema; this collection of short stories on the whole is one of the most riveting pieces I've read from a modern author. Admittedly, I don't read enough modern fiction, but I'm willing to stake my reputation on your enjoying this collection.
Most of the stories seem entirely implausible from an outside look, but July uses what I presume must be some sort of mysticism to draw you into the situation and accept conventions as if you were watching a stage performance. All of the characters a delightfully insecure and sometimes inarticulate, but always full of heart. There's an androgyny to the feeling of "belonging," and it shines through these pieces. It's rare that an author uses sex not to distract or arouse, but to involve the reader and distance the characters from their own situations; by the end of the collection, I felt like I was on the outside (along with all of the characters whose lives I had just invaded) looking in on everyone's place in the world.
The only real criticism is that the voice never really changes too drastically. Were you not given explicit descriptions off the bat, its hard to draw anything distinguishable from the overriding author's voice. It only bothered me when I came back to it after a reading break. It takes a story or two to get back into the switch of characters, but hell, I reread most of it anyway.
Post Office
Charles Bukowski
Charles Bukowski is without a doubt one of my three favorite writers in any genre, and Post Office was his first novel. Written in about a month, Chuck recalls his work for the United States Post Office, and the miseries of the life that accompanies it.
Bukowski's style is gritty and straightforward. He, to the discomfort of the reader at some points, refuses to beat around the bush. As his autobiographical counterpart spiraled down into the depths of depression and sexual debauchery and twin addictions to whiskey and gambling, I couldn't help running after him. The novel is not his best prose, and it drags through spells of aimlessness, but it gives a pretty good feeling of his voice.
If you're going to read Bukowski, the other books are much richer reads. If you're looking for a book you can finish in a long evening, Post Office should be on your list, if nothing more than for a couple of cheap laughs and a chance to feel like your life isn't so shitty after all.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
the islamic republic of iran
I'm writing on this particular nation because I feel they are the greatest threat to American tolerance in the broader world. Of all countries in the world, American people seem least informed about the government and history of Iran, and by the same token, a fair number (52% according to a late October 2007 Zogby poll) are in favor of resolving issues with Iran with violence.
I know there's a new administration in place and that sentiment changes over the course of a year or so, but the latent anti-Iranianism is something that I feel stems from one real point: ignorance of the culture (both political and historical) of Iran.
Let us first establish the situation of the region. I'll try to do this in as few brushstrokes as necessary. Iran is the second most populous country in the Near East with a total of about 70 million people (7 million shy of Egypt, 30 million more than number 3 Sudan and 40 million more than number 4 Iraq). As far as I can tell, they are the only Shiite country in the broader region, and this is the major reason the country seems so aggressive. More than ethnic or wealth gaps, their religious self-segregation seems to create a regional strain. Iran has made it clear, also, that they take a fairly radical (to an American audience) stance in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Now is the part where we take a quick step back and re-evaluate. We know Iran is a very large country exercising a fair amount of influence in the region. And we know that their religious composition isolates them to a certain extent from the other powers of the region. It stands to reason that their stances would be aggressive when in harmony with the region and moderate enough to avoid tribal wars when their opinions are at odds with neighbors.
Insofar as Iran being a nuclear threat, the most recent intelligence report I looked over suggests with moderate to high confidence that the country would like to be a nuclear power and gives a likely time table of 2010 to 2015 for when they could have the capability to construct such a weapon. I don't wish to downplay this fact in any way. It is not in very many peoples' interests to see Iran as a nuclear power, but we do need to understand the motivation. What may come as a surprise to those 52% who wanted to bomb Iran is that Iran has very little interest in attacking (with nuclear force) a country with a large enough arsenal to wipe their country off the face of the earth a thousand times over. Bear in mind, Iran has no real warheads right now. Their desire for them is of much bigger concern locally. Any attempts at gathering the material to construct a nuclear weapon is simply posturing. If you have a smaller neighbor (Israel) who you are completely incompatible with religiously, ethnically, and economically, and that neighbor may or may not have nuclear weapons, you'd be very interested in procuring weapons of your own. The whole program is a regional power play that we're all giving a world stage. All Iran is looking for is a tighter grip on the region, to be seen as the defining power of it. As South Africa is to the Sub-Sahara or the USA is to the Americas, Iran would like to be to the Near East. It's all a trade game.
That went a little longer than I expected it to, but I'd like to continue on to the figure who has come to embody the Iranian population, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Too many make one of two major major assumptions based on what they know of trends in the region: 1) He is an oppressive dictator, 2)He holds the power our president holds. Of course, these two are contradicting, but more than that, they are both incorrect. Ahmadinejad was freely elected and, though much of his popularity has started to dry up, he has at points in his career been held in very high regard by the people who elected him. Domestically, he cut interest rates and opened up wealth to a larger segment of the population. And on an aside, he is also the first non-cleric president in the history or Iran which may explain a little bit of the excitement around his election in 2005.
In regard to the second misconception, the title of president more accurately refers to only a domestic policy high official. He was elected by the people, but his election was subject to the approval of a higher authority, the Guardian Council. When regarding the name Islamic Republic of Iran, the operative word is Islamic. Atop all hierarchies is the Supreme Leader, a position held currently by Ali Khamenei. He is in turn put in place by an elite group of pre-screened elected officials known as the Assembly of Experts. Its a little convoluted. The people select from pre-screened candidates to determine the Assembly in charge of determining the competency of a Supreme Leader, so we have the first step. Just think indirect democracy. This Leader in turn appoints a Council in charge of overseeing the positions of government elected by the people (including the president) as well as the heads of major government agencies. Just think... well council is in the name. The real power in international affairs lies in the last two bodies (the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council) as they have the right to essentially veto anything.
[If only I had a chart to illustrate this...]
The religious authority, though subject to a revolt from the Assembly of Experts, really isn't responsible to any sort of secular authority, so it becomes a bit of a mess trying to untangle the leadership from their ideology in the interest of compromise. This is where sensitivity comes into play. It is very much important to approach the leadership of Iran respectfully and tactfully, mindful of the difference in their structure. The more we try to demonize the secular figures and distance ourselves from the out-of-touch religious authority, the less we will accomplish.
I know it doesn't count for much, but the more informed we are about the situation of this country and their equally legitimate governmental structure, the more likely we are to maturely and rationally sit down with a group of great people in a region whose deep history really tells the beginning of civilization.
I know there's a new administration in place and that sentiment changes over the course of a year or so, but the latent anti-Iranianism is something that I feel stems from one real point: ignorance of the culture (both political and historical) of Iran.
Let us first establish the situation of the region. I'll try to do this in as few brushstrokes as necessary. Iran is the second most populous country in the Near East with a total of about 70 million people (7 million shy of Egypt, 30 million more than number 3 Sudan and 40 million more than number 4 Iraq). As far as I can tell, they are the only Shiite country in the broader region, and this is the major reason the country seems so aggressive. More than ethnic or wealth gaps, their religious self-segregation seems to create a regional strain. Iran has made it clear, also, that they take a fairly radical (to an American audience) stance in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Now is the part where we take a quick step back and re-evaluate. We know Iran is a very large country exercising a fair amount of influence in the region. And we know that their religious composition isolates them to a certain extent from the other powers of the region. It stands to reason that their stances would be aggressive when in harmony with the region and moderate enough to avoid tribal wars when their opinions are at odds with neighbors.
Insofar as Iran being a nuclear threat, the most recent intelligence report I looked over suggests with moderate to high confidence that the country would like to be a nuclear power and gives a likely time table of 2010 to 2015 for when they could have the capability to construct such a weapon. I don't wish to downplay this fact in any way. It is not in very many peoples' interests to see Iran as a nuclear power, but we do need to understand the motivation. What may come as a surprise to those 52% who wanted to bomb Iran is that Iran has very little interest in attacking (with nuclear force) a country with a large enough arsenal to wipe their country off the face of the earth a thousand times over. Bear in mind, Iran has no real warheads right now. Their desire for them is of much bigger concern locally. Any attempts at gathering the material to construct a nuclear weapon is simply posturing. If you have a smaller neighbor (Israel) who you are completely incompatible with religiously, ethnically, and economically, and that neighbor may or may not have nuclear weapons, you'd be very interested in procuring weapons of your own. The whole program is a regional power play that we're all giving a world stage. All Iran is looking for is a tighter grip on the region, to be seen as the defining power of it. As South Africa is to the Sub-Sahara or the USA is to the Americas, Iran would like to be to the Near East. It's all a trade game.
That went a little longer than I expected it to, but I'd like to continue on to the figure who has come to embody the Iranian population, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Too many make one of two major major assumptions based on what they know of trends in the region: 1) He is an oppressive dictator, 2)He holds the power our president holds. Of course, these two are contradicting, but more than that, they are both incorrect. Ahmadinejad was freely elected and, though much of his popularity has started to dry up, he has at points in his career been held in very high regard by the people who elected him. Domestically, he cut interest rates and opened up wealth to a larger segment of the population. And on an aside, he is also the first non-cleric president in the history or Iran which may explain a little bit of the excitement around his election in 2005.
In regard to the second misconception, the title of president more accurately refers to only a domestic policy high official. He was elected by the people, but his election was subject to the approval of a higher authority, the Guardian Council. When regarding the name Islamic Republic of Iran, the operative word is Islamic. Atop all hierarchies is the Supreme Leader, a position held currently by Ali Khamenei. He is in turn put in place by an elite group of pre-screened elected officials known as the Assembly of Experts. Its a little convoluted. The people select from pre-screened candidates to determine the Assembly in charge of determining the competency of a Supreme Leader, so we have the first step. Just think indirect democracy. This Leader in turn appoints a Council in charge of overseeing the positions of government elected by the people (including the president) as well as the heads of major government agencies. Just think... well council is in the name. The real power in international affairs lies in the last two bodies (the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council) as they have the right to essentially veto anything.
[If only I had a chart to illustrate this...]
The religious authority, though subject to a revolt from the Assembly of Experts, really isn't responsible to any sort of secular authority, so it becomes a bit of a mess trying to untangle the leadership from their ideology in the interest of compromise. This is where sensitivity comes into play. It is very much important to approach the leadership of Iran respectfully and tactfully, mindful of the difference in their structure. The more we try to demonize the secular figures and distance ourselves from the out-of-touch religious authority, the less we will accomplish.
I know it doesn't count for much, but the more informed we are about the situation of this country and their equally legitimate governmental structure, the more likely we are to maturely and rationally sit down with a group of great people in a region whose deep history really tells the beginning of civilization.
Friday, March 20, 2009
a new beginning
im bringing this blog back to its roots and talking strictly politics and literature and history and all of that jazz. there is no point in boring people with little status updates every six months. if im going to keep this blog, im going to use it more consistently and for its original purpose.
you may have noticed a few renovations. there are more to come :)
heres what im trying to accomplish:
-at least 3 substantive posts a week
-no more pointless blogs about how im not blogging
-a few more viewers?
-actually tag my blogs
you may have noticed a few renovations. there are more to come :)
heres what im trying to accomplish:
-at least 3 substantive posts a week
-no more pointless blogs about how im not blogging
-a few more viewers?
-actually tag my blogs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
