“Bush has gotten so bad…that I’m actually starting to feel sorry for him” Thursday, Jul 31 2008 

"I, ah...I ah prefer the phone to the internets"

"I, ah...I ah prefer the phone to the internets"

(Bush is at a speaking event, when a protester calmly gets up and says something along the lines of, “Never have I been so disappointed in my president.  You have given up on the American people.  You have slashed the middle class so deeply.  You have sent our soldiers into an unnecessary war that can’t possibly  be won.  You have created an everlasting feast for the fat-cats at the expense of the rest of us.  You are shameful.  You are awful.  You should be ashamed of yourself. Are you ashamed of yourself deep down? - and it went on like this. 

Bushies’ response, “Okay, so I’m not your favourite guy.”)

This week, what do I hear as I watch the late-night shows (specifically David Letterman)?  I hear a Bush joke, a natural act in any late-night hosts repertoire.  No doubt Bushie provides the fuel that keeps the satirical steamer running – in fact, he probably didn’t have to do much – just opened his mouth.  Which is  problematic for him.  He’s not a media-darling, nope! Old Bushie stumbles, hems and haws, and one can literally see his face squirm (so he’s thinkin’ real hard) when a pretentious Wall Street journalist asks a pivotal ( but simple enough) question on, let’s say, the war.

For years, one could be forgiven for thinking that Bushie’s safety zone was three words, “Stay the course.”  Although, even Bushie (and his courtiers) decided to retire this phrase after it became less credible than a “Kiss me, I’m Irish” bumper sticker.  And so, Bushie was left without words.  Instead, he now looks like a frightened child (at times, a drunken teenager) at press conferences - and lets not forgot that weasel laugh (lord knows Jon Stewert doesn’t).

The thing is, Bushie has become so pathetic, such a national and international joke, that the media has started to ignore him altogether.  Sure, Letterman made a typical Bushie joke the other night, but that was squeezed in as time-filler between the infinite McCain jokes (Obama seems off the hook for now…and for reasons I’ll likely get into with a future piece).  When one is talked about, whether negative or positive, one is still relevant.  But poor old Bushie…we’re just not interested in listening to his political stances or ideas (really Cheney’s ideas). Instead, we’ve all moved on to everybody’s favourite “Odd couple”, half ’n’ half and Methusalah.  Cheney and Bush, well, they’re not so much an odd couple as they are the dark knight and the joker (as in a playing card deck, not the homicidal brilliance of Heath’s version, though some might argue Bushie is homicidal).

Richard Nixon used to take solace in the notion (somewhat Machiavellian) that one should hope to be respected rather than loved.  Certainly the left lost respect for Nixon (if they ever had it), but his base (the right) did not exactly abandon him, if only create a slight distance.  This does not seem to be the case for Bush.  So respected or loved?  In Bushies case, what happens when you’re neither?

Anne

La Petite Boullan Thursday, Jul 31 2008 

Continuing the noble quest my literary compatriot, Anne, and I have undertaken to discover all we can about the incomparable Anne Boleyn, I’ve turned my attention to representations of her in historic fiction.  Truthfully, this chosen research is rather self-serving as I’ve never really taken to the plotless reading of historical textbooks.  My chosen text for this assignment was Robin Maxwell’s Mademoiselle Boleyn, and I must say, I found it quite intriguing.  It has been my habit for years now that when browsing for books in the store, I flip open the cover and read the first few sentences – If I like what I see, I buy it, if not…well, I’m sure you can imagine.  Maxwell begins her novel with a preface:

“There they are.  The cliffs of Dover.  The seas are so rough that one moment the castle and the smudged white line neath the headlands are visible, and the next they’re obliterated by a moving mountain of dark green water under this ship.  I’m desperately queasy—sure my olive complexion matches the waves.  Mayhap that is why I’ve a vague feeling of unease returning home…”

To be completely honest, I wasn’t immediately drawn in by these words, yet neither was I repelled.  My fervor for the subject matter overruled any hesitations I had on the quality of content (as judged by a childhood method that I’ve never managed to shake mind you), and I am sure glad it did.  On completion of the prologue I did have to admit that I was curious.  We begin the novel at the end of the novel–as we so often do—yet, as little is known (or at least written of) Anne Boleyn prior to her marriage to Henry VIII and her execution, the notion that her passage to England to begin her life at the English court is the END of the novel, opens up a new world of possibilities for any Anne Boleyn enthusiast.  

Maxwell does an excellent job of developing the character of young Anne or Petite Boullan as she is affectionately known at the French court.  She treats her heroine with respect, though admittedly perhaps a little favourtism (but hey, what’s wrong with that?), and strives to allow her readers a better understanding of the experiences that shaped the woman who would be queen.  What I liked best about this novel was the way Maxwell strove to create a deeper character than that of simply an ambitious seducer—and yes I’m fully aware that this endorsement could possibly be a result of my stubborn resolve to see Anne this way no matter what.  However, I do feel that Maxwell builds a strong case for a sweeter, sometimes naive, more thoughtful rather than scheming Anne.  

My only criticism would be the overabundance of sexual episodes, which, in my reading, could be seen as bordering on gratuitous.  I understand that Maxwell might have been trying to set up an telling juxtaposition between a rather innocent Anne and the rest of the seemingly sexually depraved French court, however I found myself reading such scenes as the noblewomen/prostitute orgy presided over by a voyeuristic King François, and couldn’t help wondering just what purpose they served beyond sheer titillation.  

Beyond this I found her novel a light, enjoyable and highly detailed look at the life of Anne before her arrival at the English court.  For anyone looking for illumination of the motivations of such a notoriously-viewed figure, it’s a must!

 Kate

Everybody Loves Hitler!! Wednesday, Jul 30 2008 

“Look at you, you’re hungry!”

 

I turned on the television this week, as I often do, and found a plethora of documentaries and poorly made TV movies about…you guessed it …Hitler. Turns out that it is Third Reich week or something of that nature on the History channel. Third Reich week! Does anyone else remember the last time when it was Third Reich week back in, say, 1930’s Berlin? Well, I guess that was really more of a twelve year marathon. Better than a thousand years, I guess. So this Third Reich marathon got me thinking, “Why does everybody love Hitler?” I suppose when I say the word “love” I am using it loosely here. But alas, why does this man seemingly fascinate so many people? Is it his intuitive sense for a one of a kind mustache? Somehow, I don’t think so. Is it that twinkle he gets in his eye as he discusses the final solution? No, I don’t think that’s it either. Hitler fascinates people, even while also reviling them, because he’s that guy in the room that just says that offensive slur and doesn’t care. “I can’t believe he said that,” they respond. Well, I can’t believe he said it and then acted on it. How does a single man take an idea (albeit an awful one) and implement that idea within twenty years. And then on top of that get millions to go along with it. Like it or not, that is fascinating. And though one might say that it was the political and economic climate of that time that truly contributed to Hitler’s rise, his ability to take advantage of such a scenario is interesting (if frightening).

But in the end, I often wonder if Stalin feels left out? He simply does not get near as much screen time as Hitler. I don’t remember a Communist Russia week on the History channel. Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler! But nothing is made of this. Let’s face it, Stalin is the Robert to Hitler’s Raymond. And the public is Marie, who is aware of Stalin, but dotes on Hitler.

Anne

What the F*** Are You Looking At? Wednesday, Jul 30 2008 

“It’s not easy to remain ladylike when those around you are getting lazier by the minute. Many women have given up altogether. Their defection means that flashing too much flesh and sharing their bodily functions with the world had become so commonplace that exercising good manners now seems positively old-fashioned.”

–Sarah Tomczak, How To Live Like a Lady

 

When I read these words I couldn’t help but heartily agree. The world has definitely lost all sense of decorum. I’m not saying that I’m some prudish, uptight, bespectacled, schoolmarm but there is seriously something amiss with our generation’s “anything goes” attitude towards social interaction. It has become completely commonplace (worse, completely acceptable) to speak out of turn, curse out strangers, disrespect elders and generally make a loudmouth of yourself, all in the name of what I am now convinced can be referred to as the over abused concept of a “free country”. We’ve all heard these brats justify their incorrigible behaviour with a flippant, “Lay off, it’s a free country.” Yes, true though that may be, I’m sure our founding fathers didn’t quite have you and your sidewalk-spitting, sailor-cussing, gum-popping ‘tude in mind. How could we have gotten to the point where manners are old-fashioned? I suppose our society is simply above common decency and personal standards.

To give a few examples, I recently sat in class beside a girl who was apparently 80% unmannered. Not only did her hair appear to have never made contact with soap since the discovery of lye (which, by the way, IS actually a form of manners/etiquette as grooming also falls under the domain of things that could potentially be socially repugnant), she also felt the need to voice her opinion on unrelated issues for no other ostensible reason than some misguided sense of social acceptability. Do people not have any clue of how they appear to others? It appears not.

To offer further examples of the world of manners gone astray, I look no further than a co-worker of mine who didn’t believe a phrase complete without copious use of the word “fuck”. I believe it worth noting that I do not work at the docks as one might justifiably assume and that my fellow employee was not a gap-toothed deckhand. No, I work in a service occupation and my co-worker was a petite brunette girl who looked like she should be teaching kindergarten. Have you ever experienced those moments where someone makes a great first impression until they open their mouths? Such was the case with our wayward young lady. A sample of her scintillating conversational skills are as follows:

“Oh, I am so fuckin’ tired. I had to move, like, my whole fuckin’ house before work today. I can’t believe how fuckin’ long it took. My dad was just throwing my shit in the van and almost fuckin’ broke my wii. Can you fuckin’ imagine?”

No, I can’t. Almost as much as I can’t imagine that you lived in a house and not the streets of Compton. I just don’t understand why a person would feel the need to speak this way. I wonder if this girl understands the concept of an ugly personality? You may be good looking, but you open your mouth and you sound ugly. Some people may think this is a harsh criticism but I wonder why the grating harshness of the word “fuck” is never called into question? Is nothing considered inappropriate anymore? Oh wait, that’s right, there’s one thing: Manners. How enlightened.

Kate

Is Religion compatible with Reason? Wednesday, Jul 30 2008 

Lately, I’ve been having conversations with various friends and families (who shall remain nameless as a rule of this blog) concerning the questioned compatibility of religion and reason. I must admit that I have encouraged debates surrounding this subject ever since I came across the genius (or stupidity others might say) of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens remains one of the most out-spoken advocates of atheism. To Hitchens, not only is it problematic that religion requires a certain amount of suspended disbelief and cessation of critical-thinking, but religion, he contends, is inherently destructive. How is it that religion could be seen as innately destructive? Hitchens argues that religion, specifically, the dominant three (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are fundamentally exclusive. For example, for the Christian, there is the “Saved” and the “Un-Saved”. Many Muslims may distinguish non-Muslims from themselves as “Infidels,” divisive in it’s quest to categorize humanity in an isolating religious context.

Atheists feel strongly about their anti-theism and I do not believe it comes out of an unwavering (and misguided) loyalty towards rational thought. There are other motivations. Religion can literally kill; think inquisitions, Al Quaeda, Palestine and Israel, IRA, the Sunnis and the Shites, etc. Given these deadly scenarios, one cannot really say with any amount of credibility that religion is ultimately harmless.

So, let us come to the former question: Is religion compatible with reason? Well, is it reasonable to believe in, and dedicate one’s life, to a superior being whose existence remains empirically unprovable? True, I have never seen Alien life forms, but given the size of our galaxy, and the numerous other galaxies, I tend to believe something or someone could be out there. And I suppose many Atheists may hold this belief as well. So what is the difference between said belief and the belief in God?? Well for starters, I’d like to answer this question by first distinguishing between Deism and Theism. Deists believe in the possibility of a creator. Theists believe, as Hitchens suggests, that not only is there a superior being, but that they have a personal hot-line to this being. For Christians, not only do they talk to this superior being on a regular basis (think prayer) but they are also pretty tight with his son. That is quite something isn’t it?? Deists simply would not go that far. I mean, I may entertain the idea of Alternative Life Forms, but I don’t pretend to have a personal relationship with E.T. Nor do I claim that ALF has come to earth to save me, or even Willy.  Atheists are anti-theists, not anti-deists right?  Who knows?  Deism, to me, is another alternative route, one that I believe would be acceptable to a logic-conscious atheist.

Might Atheism be just as divisive as Christianity? Well, let’s examine that. One might argue that Communist Russia and China have killed millions over the years for their religious beliefs. However, can this really be equated with, say, the Spanish Inquisition? Their motivations, for one thing, are completely different. Communist regimes quelled religion because of it’s clash with the political ideology itself. Let me be clear, I’m in no way supporting the genocide spurred on by these regimes, I’m simply pointing out that the motivation did not spring from a competing religion, but a faulty political ideology. Had communism been implemented in it’s purest form (some would say this will always be impossible) religious divisions would have been wiped out. Communism’s dislike of religion ultimately stems from the inevitable divisiveness of religion.

Again – is religion reasonable? I have never seen a miracle. I have never seen an amputee pray for healing, and subsequently, been healed. I have never heard God talk. But can I say there is no God? No, I don’t think I can. Can I say that the Lord Jesus Christ is completely accessible to me, a twenty-first century undergrad? No, I can’t say that either.

I know it isn’t reasonable to say there is, undeniably, a God. But saying there is no God, or that he’s dead, just might be crazy!

Anne

A Night at the Opera!! Tuesday, Jul 29 2008 

So, about two weeks from now we shall be purchasing tickets for our second love, the Opera, namely Herr Mozart’s Don Giovanni. Quite a thrilling prospect when one considers how glorious Le Nozze di Figaro was! As soon as the famous overture sounded it’s first notes, it was like looking into the face of God and having him say, “You are my most wondrous creation!”. No, but really, it was very, very fab. Here, we shall leave a link for those of you who have the privilege of earning the moniker “cultured”. Click Here

Anne and Kate

Our Muse Tuesday, Jul 29 2008 

Our girl Anne!